"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does"
The words of Jean-Paul Sartre, an existentialist which did not believe there were an “essence” to our individual persona. He seemed to believe that a preconceived definition of an “essence” to human beings was incompatible with individual rights and humanism, as every individual not only had the right to pursue their own purpose in life, but a responsibility to do so. He also believed that this was unavoidable.
Sartre fought against Nazi Germany during its occupation of France during the Second World War. National Socialism, as other brands of Fascism, defines an “essence” and imposes it to its citizens by force: It demands an absolute obedience to the State, and was contrary of any way of expression or way of thought. Being entirely philistine in its nature, Nazism had every single reason to be contrary to Existentialism, and thus, being loathed by Sartre.
The idea of a “Big Brother” government spying to its citizens without its consent would have bothered Sartre, to say the least. It is in my belief that Sartre would have supported the actions of the whistleblowers in order to create a backlash against it; all of this, for the purpose of preventing a slippery slope towards a totalitarian State. Sartre, as an Existentialist, would also have blamed the American Society for this, since this situation would have been prevented if the American people would have been less indifferent to politics, and do more than “lip service” when stating their cultural distrust towards the Government (Sartre was involved in the uprisings of May 1968 in France, on which he mentioned that the State is the biggest threat to individual freedom).
That said, I have to say that Sartre hardly questioned his own ideas of freedom. He stated that Man is free, and it is up to him to give his life its own meaning, and this is an idea that I totally support. However, there is barely any remark of temperance from him, to say none, to balance this freedom. I am afraid that Sartre would have rather encouraged a massive leaking of documents from an oppressive superpower without foreseeing consequences. Do not get me wrong: Sartre was a brilliant mind, but it seemed that he lost perspective in his latter days, on which he tried to conciliate individual freedoms of existentialism with the collective freedom of Marxism. The former based upon a bloated sense of self-interest, and the latter based on compulsory altruism. (Do not interpret this as an Ad Hominem against Sartre, but rather as a critique of the collective ideals of Marxism and its opposition to Liberal Capitalism and Imperialism).
As Sartre believed, it is up to us to give life meaning, but we also have to keep in mind that our actions have consequences. The State is indeed the biggest threat to individual freedom, but it is also a necessity for national security. Nobody benefits from a weak State. Do the actions of whistleblowers make this world better? Not all the time. Leaks have the magnitude of disrupting the lives of millions in already volatile areas such as the Middle East. It is suspected that the Arab Spring was inspired by leaks of the diplomatic cables of Wikileaks, and it is important to note that only one country (Tunisia) was successful in this outcome (not without a lot of bloodshed).
References and useful links:
No comments:
Post a Comment