The situation of the lecture
Existentialism is humanism
discussion

Translator's glossary of existentialist terms to help you read this book.
After moving

The Structure of "Existentialism is Humanism"
In the first part, Sartre briefly introduces the main criticisms of existentialism at the time to focus the audience's attention at the beginning of the lecture (pp. 23-28), and then gives an introductory lecture on his philosophy aimed at the general public until about the middle of the lecture.
That is, he explains that there are two types of existentialism: Christian existentialism and atheistic existentialism (pp. 28-37), and then gives an overview of atheistic existentialism to the public by briefly explaining the concepts he specially selected for this introductory lecture to the public: anxiety, being left alone, and despair (pp. 37-56).


In the second part, Sartre, relying on the introductory explanation given above, refutes the major criticisms leveled against existentialism at the time (pp. 56-83).
That is, by pointing out and emphasizing the necessity of engagement, which can be said to be the moral aspect of existentialism, he refutes that existentialism has nothing to do with quietism (pp. 56-63), and also refutes various criticisms that existentialism receives from people because it is based on subjectivism (pp. 63-83).
In particular, the rebuttal to the criticisms received because of subjectivism is more specifically divided into a rebuttal to the criticism that existentialist choices are dogmatic (pp. 70-76), a rebuttal to the criticism that self-deceiving choices should be viewed (pp. 76-82), and a rebuttal to the criticism that it is impossible to assign value to human actions in existentialism (pp. 82-83).
Finally, in the concluding part of the lecture, Sartre reaffirms to the audience the title of the lecture, “Existentialism is Humanism” (pp. 83-88).
That is, he clearly presents the reason why he defines his existentialism as humanism.


Existential humanist, Sartre
Sartre has strongly expressed his anti-humanist stance in his previous works.
For example, in Being and Nothingness, Sartre defines human beings as the desire to become being-in-itself.
But according to him, this desire is nothing more than an illusion that can never be achieved.
This is why Sartre describes humans as useless passions, suffering, lack, and holes in existence.
Therefore, as many people pointed out at the time, Sartre's view of humanity seemed to be far removed from humanism as a doctrine that gives value to humans, and this judgment was certainly reasonable.
But then, contrary to everyone's expectations, Sartre calls himself a humanist.
Sartre emerged as a very powerful existential humanist when he successfully concluded his lecture titled "Existentialism is Humanism" with great social repercussions.
So we naturally ask:
What happened to Sartre?

What exactly drove Sartre to shift from an anti-humanist stance to openly proclaiming himself a humanist? Of course, Sartre clearly had a desire to directly engage with the contemporary debate on humanism.
Because, as I have already said, at that time there was little room to intervene in intellectual and political discussions without mentioning humanism.
However, no matter how much intention there is to discuss humanism, it cannot be done simply with intention.
Especially for someone like Sartre, who previously held an anti-humanist stance, to be able to advocate humanism, there must be sufficient reasons to do so.
The reasons can be summarized into two main points:


Two Links Connecting Sartre and Humanism
First, Sartre's own experiences in a prisoner-of-war camp (Stalag) during the war had a significant impact on this change in position.
In particular, this experience became the background for Sartre to later partially abandon the individualistic stance, which can be seen in some ways as Nietzschean, from Roquentin, the protagonist of Nausea.
Sartre experienced human community in Stalag.
Contrary to Roquentin in Nausea, the individual is not a being that opposes the community, but rather a being that lives with others and with the community.
This experience of human community clearly showed Sartre the possibility of some common human being across a multitude of individuals, and therefore of some humanism.


Second, in this lecture, Sartre distinguishes between two meanings of humanism, and it is this distinction between the two that logically supports how Sartre's change in position on humanism was possible.
We can see this point clearly at the end of this book (pp. 83-88).
According to Sartre, there is first classical humanism.
However, this classical humanism, in that it starts from human nature and takes human beings (human essence or nature) as the highest purpose, is inevitably incompatible with existentialism, which asserts from the beginning that “existence precedes essence.”
Sartre's antihumanism in "Nausea" was aimed precisely at this classical humanism.
But on the other hand, there is another sense of humanism that is compatible with existentialism, or more precisely, that is derived from existentialism.


It is a humanism that sees humans not as beings inscribed in immovable values, but as beings to be created, a humanism that sees humans as a ceaseless prayer for value creation, and therefore, unlike classical humanism, it is a humanism that can never take human essence or nature as its purpose.
This is the existential humanism or new definition of humanism that Sartre advocates.
According to Sartre, humans are prayers that constantly create value, and they are beings through whom value is generated.
And for this reason, human beings are now endowed with a special dignity that is completely different from what they were before.
In other words, a new sense of humanism, existential humanism, is born.