Sartre's Bad Faith: The Philosophy of Self-Deception and Authenticity (60 chars)

Jean-Paul Sartre argued that humans are not born with predetermined essences. His famous phrase 'existence precedes essence' means we first exist and then define ourselves through actions and choices. Humans are 'condemned to be free'—born without predetermined natures and must create their own identities through choices. This freedom comes with absolute responsibility: since nothing defines us except our own actions, we are solely responsible for who we become. 'Anguish' is the psychological experience of recognizing this absolute freedom and responsibility.

Existential anxiety (angst) arises when we recognize that our actions depend entirely on us and that we bear full responsibility for our choices. This anxiety is not about external threats but about the terrifying realization that we are the sole authors of our lives. Sartre explains that when we choose one path, we simultaneously deprive ourselves of all other potential paths, and we must bear responsibility for this loss. This creates a fundamental tension in human freedom - we are condemned to choose and bear responsibility for what we might have missed.

Human freedom entails absolute responsibility for one's choices. Since humans have no predetermined essence, they must create their own nature through their actions. This means that every choice is a responsibility, and individuals cannot blame external circumstances or predetermined natures for their actions. Sartre famously described freedom as a 'condemnation' (condamnation), meaning that humans are condemned to be free because there are no external authorities or predetermined natures to guide their choices. When individuals confront the reality of their freedom and responsibility, they experience existential anxiety (angst), which arises from the realization that there are no external authorities to guide their choices.

Sartre's radical definition of freedom rejects both positive liberty (resources to fulfill potential) and negative liberty (absence of external restraints). We are 'doomed to be free'—we are freedom itself, our own possibilities and projects. We are completely responsible for the world because we are the ones who give meaning to things. As Dostoevsky wrote, 'We are responsible for everything toward everybody.' This freedom cannot be escaped; even in prison, we remain free to interpret our situation. Anxiety is the mode of being-for-itself as consciousness of being an outsider. In anxiety, all barriers collapse—we emerge alone confronting our unique project. We discover ourselves as the one who gives meaning to alarm clocks, signboards, and policemen. We decide what counts as value and what does not. Nothing protects us against ourselves, cut off from the world by nothingness, we must realize meaning without justification.

In 1939, when Germany invaded Poland and France entered the war, Sartre was conscripted. He was not a frontline soldier but was assigned to meteorological observation duties. A philosopher who had spoken of freedom was now a soldier moving according to orders. However, for Sartre, freedom did not merely mean the ability to move as one wished. Even in places where the range of action was extremely narrowed, like prisons or armies, humans cannot completely surrender how they accept their situation and what they attempt. One of the important concepts Sartre developed was bad faith, a form of self-deception where we know we are free but act as if our movements are determined by our professional roles. A teacher can say 'I am a teacher, so I can only act this way.' A parent can believe they must sacrifice their desires. A writer can think they are naturally creative so daily responsibilities are unimportant. However, a role cannot replace all possibilities of a human being. In 1943, Sartre's most extensive philosophical work 'Being and Nothingness' was published. A desk does not worry about becoming a desk. However, humans know what they are now and imagine the possibility of becoming different. We are not completely identical to our current selves. Even a conscientious person can lie, and a cowardly person can take risks at some point. Within human consciousness, there are gaps beyond the current self. Sartre connected this gap to 'nothingness' (le néant). This does not mean simple emptiness or death. A person who does not exist can actually fill the entire space. Humans can think about this nothingness, which allows them to negate the present and choose other possibilities. They can quit their current job, end long-term relationships, admit mistakes, and change their behavior. However, this same ability means we constantly look at what we are not yet. We cannot rest in a completed self. Anxiety is not an emotion that appears only before dangerous choices. It is the sensation that arises when we realize we are the ultimate basis for our own actions. When no one gives us the correct answer, human nature does not pre-determine our direction, and God's command does not speak clearly, we must judge ourselves. After judging, we cannot completely deny that the result was our own choice. We want to believe in ourselves. We think 'I am not the kind of person who would do that.' However, Sartre argued that past conscientiousness or usual character does not guarantee future behavior. The fact that I keep promises does not become reality until I choose to keep this promise again. Yesterday's virtue is not a shield against today's cowardice. Humans are anxious because they are free. However, this freedom does not merely mean individual preferences like what clothes to wear or where to eat. It is a much heavier problem. When a person chooses their actions, they simultaneously show what actions are possible and acceptable for humans. Choosing to lie is not merely one lie but approving that lying is a possible action under their conditions. In October 1945, Sartre gave a lecture titled 'Existentialism is a Humanism.' He repeated his claim that humans have no predetermined essence. A knife is made after the creator thinks of its use and form. The knife's essence is conceived before it exists. However, if we do not accept the belief that God created humans for a specific purpose, there is no such design for humans. Humans appear in the world first, then decide what they are through their actions. The phrase 'existence precedes essence' is not a permission to live as one wishes. It is a declaration that there is no nature to explain oneself. When someone says 'I am a cowardly person so I fled,' Sartre doubts this order. He asks whether repeated fleeing behavior has not created the cowardly self. Albert Camus was a writer who viewed war and absurdity in different languages. They discovered each other in each other's works. Sartre highly valued Camus's works, and Camus came close to the intellectual space Sartre created. They were writers of the same generation who had passed through war and occupation, asking how humans should live in a world where God is silent. However, someone who places revolution behind freedom and someone who protects human limits even before revolution cannot walk the same path for long. Camus participated in editing the newspaper Combat, creating language of resistance. Sartre believed that changing social structures was necessary to end oppression. Individual goodwill alone could not stop poverty, exploitation, and colonial domination. Power was organized, and opposing forces needed to be organized. In 1956, when Soviet troops crushed the Hungarian uprising with tanks, Sartre criticized Soviet intervention and distanced himself from the French Communist Party. Instead, he became more actively involved in the issue of colonialism. France was a republic that spoke of freedom and human rights but maintained a vast colonial empire abroad. Algeria was not merely a simple colony but was incorporated as part of French territory, yet the rights and living conditions applied to European residents and the majority Muslim Algerian residents were greatly different. Political representation, land, education, and economic opportunities were distributed unequally. When the Algerian War of Independence began in 1954, French society was deeply divided. Attacks by independence movement forces caused civilian casualties, and the French army used torture and collective repression. Violence did not come from only one direction, but placing both sides' violence at the same level while ignoring the basic structure of colonial domination also obscured reality. Sartre supported Algerian independence. His magazine office was attacked and he was called a traitor. At this time, freedom for Sartre was no longer merely the possibility felt within an individual's mind. One cannot speak of one's own freedom while dominating other peoples. The oppressor's choice reduces the choices of the oppressed. In his 1960 work 'Critique of Dialectical Reason,' Sartre attempted to resolve the tension between individual freedom and social structure. He argued that humans make history but make it within conditions they did not choose. Individuals are free subjects but do not exist alone. Material scarcity, institutions, class, and organizations, and accumulated past actions limit current possibilities. A bus with insufficient seats means not everyone can be on it. Sartre tried to explain this state of being together yet separated. However, when common threats or goals appear, scattered people can act together. Groups opposing oppression, workers occupying factories, and citizens resisting occupation experience each other as subjects of the same action rather than competitors. At that moment, each person's freedom combines with others' freedom. The problem arose after successful collective action. Revolutionary groups create rules and organizations to maintain themselves. Sartre knew that declaring individual freedom would not stop this cycle. However, completely returning freedom to the result of structure would eliminate the place of responsibility. He sought a path between these extremes. Long-t

Sartre distinguishes between 'being-in-itself' (ada dalam dirinya) and 'being-for-itself' (ada untuk dirinya). Being-in-itself refers to objects that simply exist with fixed characteristics - they are passive, affirmative, and have no self-awareness. Being-for-itself refers to humans who exist as empty potential that must be filled through their own choices and actions. Unlike objects (being-in-itself) which have fixed natures, humans (being-for-itself) are fundamentally empty and must create their own essence through action. This means humans are not determined by any fixed nature but are free to become whatever they choose.

Sartre's distinction between two modes of existence. Being-in-itself refers to objects that simply exist as they are, with fixed essences—they cannot change themselves or reflect on their existence (like a fork or train). Being-for-itself is uniquely human: it is not fixed, constantly in flux, and defines itself through actions. Humans possess 'facticity' (biological traits, birth circumstances we cannot control), but our essence is created through our conscious choices and actions, not determined by our facts.

Sartre distinguishes between 'being-in-itself' (être-en-soi) and 'being-for-itself' (être-pour-soi). Being-in-itself refers to things and objects that simply exist, are self-identical without consciousness, characterized by pure facticity, completeness, and fullness. They are static, fixed, and without questioning—like stones, chairs, and trees. Being-for-itself refers to human beings as conscious beings characterized by self-awareness, incompleteness, and nothingness. Humans are free, can make choices, and carry the heavy responsibilities of freedom. Human existence combines both modes: facticity (body, past, social circumstances) and transcendence (freedom to choose and project toward the future). This creates permanent tension, making human existence characterized by anguish.

'Being and Nothingness' (1943) establishes an ontological framework distinguishing between being-in-itself (en-soi) and being-for-itself (pour-soi). Being-in-itself refers to things that simply exist without consciousness, while being-for-itself refers to consciousness. Consciousness is characterized by negation—it is what it is not. Humans cannot be reduced to objects or fixed identities; when people try to squeeze themselves into fixed identities, they engage in objectification, which Sartre considers impossible. While consciousness is characterized by freedom, humans simultaneously have a tendency to become being-in-itself, to objectify themselves. This tendency is described as wanting to become God.

Sartre's ontology distinguishes between two fundamental types of being. The 'being-in-itself' (être-en-soi) is a solid, seamless substance without fissures, representing inert, mechanical existence that has not been penetrated by reflection. The 'being-for-itself' (être-pour-soi) is where consciousness operates, functioning by annihilating contents and projecting light that says 'this is not me.' Consciousness is not a thing but pure spontaneity, temporality, and freedom. The being-in-itself is absolutely contingent, gratuitous, unpredictable, and absurd. Consciousness is distanciation from being, and therefore is 'non-being.' This rejection of substantialization of consciousness is fundamental to understanding Sartre's view of human existence.

Authenticity consists in having a truthful consciousness of one's situation—not being oneself in the sense of a fixed essence, but assuming one's freedom fully. It means refusing bad faith, refusing to hide behind excuses, roles, and determinisms. It means recognizing one is radically free and that this freedom condemns one to choose. Even when options are limited, there remains freedom of attitude, of response. Authentic existence accepts this freedom with all its consequences: anguish, crushing responsibility, absence of guarantee. This concept resonates with Kierkegaard's call to become oneself, Nietzsche's call to create one's own values, and Camus's emphasis on lucid confrontation with the absurd.

The concept of authenticity as a value to be pursued emerged from Romanticism, suggesting that individuals should live according to their true characteristics. Existential philosophy, including thinkers like Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Heidegger, centers on this idea, arguing that people should transform into what they truly are. However, this pursuit faces criticism as potentially illusory, since complete authenticity may be impossible. Additionally, the notion that everyone has a special vocation is viewed as a psychological invention from the 1960s-70s. While Epicturus warned against living solely to satisfy others' expectations, social contracts necessitate compromise, meaning full authenticity is impossible in group life.

Martin Buber, the existentialist philosopher, wrote about the authenticity of life. He strived to be authentic in all that he said and did. In a dream, he heard God say 'Buber, you are condemned.' Buber realized that to be authentic means to be what God wants us to be. There is a true freedom and a false freedom, and we often confuse between the two. False freedom is what people think: the absence of restraints, license to do whatever one pleases, going by feelings, and being what one wants to be. This is actually captivity and slavery. True freedom is the ability to live according to one's purpose of life. Every one of us is sent into the world with a purpose with a mission. Freedom is to be able to respond to that purpose that God has for us.

Existentialism is a philosophical movement that emerged in the mid-20th century, centered in France, which emphasizes that human existence is fundamentally characterized by radical freedom, responsibility, and the necessity of authentic self-creation. Unlike deterministic philosophies, existentialism holds that humans are not born with predetermined essences but must actively construct their identities through choices. Key concepts include anxiety (the awareness of freedom and mortality), authenticity (living according to one's own values rather than external expectations), and the burden of choice. The movement, represented by thinkers like Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Sartre, challenges individuals to confront the absurdity of existence and take full responsibility for their lives, rejecting both external authority and passive acceptance of fate.

Jean-Paul Sartre believed that embracing freedom and living authentically was the fundamental meaning of life. He argued that one must take full responsibility for their life choices and actions because existence comes before essence. This means that humans define their own nature through their choices and actions, rather than having a predetermined essence or purpose.