First, let's look at Sartre's theory of consciousness. Sartre learned from Husserl that consciousness always points to something, that is, it always goes beyond itself and points to an object. "Non-reflective consciousness" is the consciousness before reflection or rational thinking. When I read a novel, the object of "non-reflective consciousness" is the protagonist in the novel; When I ran to take the tram, the object of non-reflective consciousness was "catching the tram". In non-reflective consciousness, there was no self at all, and I could not be found at all. Only the object of "I", such as Don Quixote or the tram, exists. Reflective consciousness is the consciousness of self-reflection. Sartre thought (contrary to Descartes) that ego, or "I", can only be found in "reflective consciousness". Self, or "I", is not only found in reflective consciousness, but also partially created in reflective consciousness.
Once we study consciousness from the perspective of phenomenology (put it aside and make it the object of reflection on consciousness), we will find that consciousness is "a terrible ... impersonal spontaneous activity, and various thoughts come and go according to their wishes, not ours." Sartre believes that this spontaneous activity is dizzying freedom, and meditation on it will lead to extreme pain. We actively try our best to impose order on this free and spontaneous activity. When we fail to do this, neurosis and insanity will occur.
Sartre once mentioned an example. A woman was afraid that her husband would leave home to work, because she was afraid that as soon as her husband left, she would sit at the window naked like a prostitute. Because she knew that she was free to do that, she was afraid that she would do that. The theme was inspired by Kierkegaard's explanation of fear. When God told Adam not to eat apples, Adam knew that he could eat apples-he was free to eat apples-and he knew that if he could eat apples, he might eat them. In other words, he regards freedom as fear.
Sometimes, as in the case of that woman, the order we imposed on consciousness breaks down and consciousness shows us that it was originally a terrible spontaneous activity. As a philosophical way of thinking, Husserl once shelved all his beliefs and "common sense", but Sartre found that shelving can break into us when we were completely unexpected. It is not as a philosophical way of thinking, but as a crisis of consciousness, just like when we look into the abyss, we suddenly have an impulse to jump in.
This crisis of consciousness happened to Luo Kangdan, the "hero" in Sartre's novel Nausea. At that time, he was sitting on a park bench, staring at the twisted roots of a chestnut tree, and then he experienced a spontaneous pause, which showed that Husserl was wrong. He believes that the pause can only be artificially caused for philosophical purposes.
All of a sudden, all the original presets collapsed. The tree he saw was no longer a tree, but a "black, knobby, bare, dough-like, melted, soft, terrible, naked, disgusting and frightening existence". Suddenly, the existence of the tree appeared before his eyes. Luo Kangdan found that the existence revealed in the crisis of consciousness is a pure residue and a pure addition.
The rationalists Spinoza and Leibniz were all wet. Existence is not only inevitable, but also absurd. The existence of existence is far from a "sufficient reason", and there is no reason for existence at all. Therefore, Sartre's existentialist finds that his or her own existence is a remnant in an absurd world. But humans do exist. Without their own permission, they were thrown into a meaningless world. What is the relationship between human beings and the world?
The most important form of this relationship is the "questioning" relationship. By asking questions to the world, I revealed the nothingness of existence. When I looked for Pierre in the coffee shop and found him absent, I revealed the nothingness in reality. Pierre's absence is true. )
Similarly, I found another nothingness that separated me from myself. There is a void between me and my past (I am not who I used to be) and between me and my future (whether my future is who I am now).
This understanding once again made me realize that "I am waiting for my future self, and the pain is the fear that I can't find myself there, even the fear that I don't want to be there". This pain stems from my discovery that the self is not a stable and reliable existence that can exist in time; On the contrary, this is a work that I have to create and recreate all the time.
I will not only create myself, but also create my world. I do this to bring value to the world. Sartre's previous view of freedom believed that before my freedom, all kinds of values existed. I am placed between these values, and my freedom lies in my ability to choose between these pre-existing values. According to Sartre, in Freedom, I give value to some aspects of the world by choosing them. Freedom exists before all kinds of values. Life has no meaning or value except what I have given it. In the end, my choice of value cannot be defended, because there is no eternal (Platonic) value, no law (Moses) and no Bible to prove my choice. In the final analysis, no set of values is objectively a little more valuable than any other set of values. This discovery led to more pain (of course! )。
My freedom is by no means absolute. Consciousness collides with "facts" (that is, unchangeable things) in life. If a boulder falls in my path, it's there and I can't pass. I can't change the fact. But I am free to explain what it means to me there. It may mean an obstacle that needs to be conquered, or it may mean that my goal of climbing the top of the mountain has been frustrated, or I can interpret it as an aesthetic object or a scientific specimen.
Sartre called the explanation of facts "situation". To explain the facts is to create a living world for me. I am always in a "situation", and I am always free to create the world. In fact, in this respect, the extreme pain of my freedom is that it is the basis of value, but I have no foundation.
Most people create the world according to "bad beliefs". In other words, people do not directly face their own responsibilities and freedoms, but deny them, or attribute them to others, fate, or "those in power", thus avoiding them.
But honestly, no complaints. We can't blame our upbringing, our parents, our poverty (or wealth), or "hard times", because only we decide what these things mean to us.
We are always free, because there is always a choice-the final choice is death. If I don't shoot myself, then I choose another option besides death.
There is a major trouble in our experience of freedom, that is, we must meet other freedoms. When others stare at me and turn me into the object of his gaze, the unity I imposed on my consciousness is shattered in an instant. Only by staring at him and turning him into my object can I restore myself. (This is similar to Hegel's master-slave relationship, but there is no possible combination here. Sartre said, "Others are hell."
Sartre's philosophy ended in this way. Many philosophers think it is a kind of pessimism, which reflects the plight of human beings in the modern world. Sartre denied that he was a pessimist. On the contrary, he made each of us a hero. A real human being, in the face of the absurdity of death and existence, knows that all her actions are ultimately insignificant, but she still chooses to persist. In a way similar to God, she created one world after another. Just like Sisyphus, she pushes her boulder up the steep slope every day without excuses or complaints. After all, that's her boulder. She created it.