Sartre's Atheistic Existentialism Refuted
А. Ч. Бхактиведанта Свами Прабхупада
Главы
Sartre and the philosophy of existentialism
And this is a very short section on Jean-Paul Sartre. He's a contemporary French philosopher, probably the most famous of the French philosophers, perhaps the most well-known philosopher in this century.
He calls himself an existentialist; he calls himself an atheistic existentialist in that he believes that existence precedes essence, that the essence of man—
according to creation by design, God has the essence of man in His mind, and He creates man just as a paper cutter creates some kind of a figure. Sartre doesn't believe this.
He says, "Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent; it states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence.
A being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man or human reality." So that for Sartre, a human reality is all in all. So from the human reality comes... There are other realities also.
So while he's stressing human realities, there again he would emphasize accident. He uses the word that man is "thrown into the world" or "cast into the world." Thrown by whom? Thrown
into the world—as soon as it's said like that, the next question is: "Thrown by whom?" They don't like that question. They do not like that question.
Well, he says existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view.
If you exist as others exist, then what is the fault there? God also exists, we exist, others also exist. Say if there is God, what is the fault? If He exists, why is he denying the existence of God? Let them all exist.
First of all, he feels that God does not exist. Why? If you exist, if others exist, why God will not exist? That is his position as an atheist. If you speak something nonsense, that "I exist."
Why does he bring the word "God"? God does not exist. God is there. But he denies the existence. That is a thing. Otherwise, why bringing the word "God"? If God does not exist, why is he bringing the word "God"?
He's trying to... That means God is there. He wants his existence. He does not want God to exist. That is his proposal. Emphasis is on man. Yes. That is nuisance.
If you believe in your existence, you should believe in others' existence also. Actually, there is.
Vedic perspective on supreme intelligence
Human being is not only existing, but there are so many—eight million four hundred thousand different forms of living beings that are existing.
So, God is also one of them. According to Vedic understanding of God, God is also one of the living beings. But he is the chief, supreme living. That is the difference.
So in the ordinary understanding, a man is better than the animal, and another intelligent man is better than the non-intelligent man. Similarly, we go on this comparative study one after another.
When we come to the final living being, he is the supreme, as it is said in the Bhagavad-gītā: «mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat», there is no one superior living being, as that is one. That we have by practical experience.
You may be more intelligent than me. He may be more intelligent than you. Go on, go on, such. So when you find somebody that he is the final intelligent, that is God. So where is it difficult to understand?
Why God shall not exist? If one person better intelligent than me, he can exist. So why a person who exceeds all other such intelligence, he cannot exist? So there is no meaning of atheism. That is ignorance.
By setting aside or denying the existence of God, he's able to write this. Thus there is no human... that kind of understanding, denying the existence, that is foolishness.
How you can? We have given the definition: in the practical field we find one man is more intelligent than the other, or one animal is better in intelligence than the other. That is positive, comparative, superlative, uh, division. So naturally,
we can think of at least that we approach this way to a certain personality who is the final intelligence. No more existing intelligence than him. And no more equal intelligence. That is God.
There is a possibility of such person's existence; how you can deny it? But if God exists, then God must exist. Then he must be the center. Then he must be the center.
And if he has to accept that God exists, we cannot deny it.
Because practically we see you may be intelligent, more intelligent than me, and he may be more intelligent than you, and find out if you have got power, that we come to a person where there is no more and more intelligence than he, as God defines: "Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya." I am Krishna.
Beyond me, there is no more intelligence. There is no... So you cannot deny this existence: a super-powerful, super- intelligent person.
Because we practically see, not that everyone is on the equal level; that is not the case. He is a philosopher, another philosopher more intelligent than he.
So God's status is anywhere like that: in richness, or in intelligence, or in power, strength, beauty, there is, uh, comparative, superlative degrees. God means the superlative degree in everything.
How we can deny this existence? That is not possible. According to him, he says the first principle of existentialism is that man is nothing else but what he is. Why?
If he can see that man exists in his own idea, so why not a superman, uh, who exists in his own idea or in his own capacity, completely independent of anyone? Well, how you can deny it? That is not possible.
Consequences of denying divine authority
He feels that he puts a great deal of emphasis on man's responsibility of his existence on himself. But since he's not responsible to God, he's responsible for himself. Yeah. Or to himself. What does he mean, "responsible"?
Responsible. If somebody gives you some duties and if you feel responsible to discharge that duty, then you are responsible. If there is no duty and nobody is to see above you, then where is your responsibility?
Well, he feels that all values—if there is no God— all values disappear. There are no values, there's no criterion. So from this he concludes that without God everything is possible.
He says, "Indeed everything is permissible if God does not exist." If God did not exist, everything would be possible. That is the very starting point of existentialism. But he does not know what is the meaning of God.
Uh, we have this several times repeated this. God is the supreme, supreme being. So we have defined in so many ways. Another thing that God is the supreme. Supreme means His supreme father.
The Supreme, everything means His supreme father also. The conception of Father is there. So, uh, yesterday we were talking with a gentleman priest that Mother Nature, nature is producing so many uh, living entities.
She is supposed to be the mother, and as soon as we accept mother, there must be father. Mother alone cannot give birth to any offspring. So that must be the conception of father.
And that is practical; you are saying that Mother Nature—we say Mother Nature—because she gives birth to so many forms of life. But if you accept mother, then you must accept father. And that God is Supreme Father.
Ah, he can deny it. Father's duty is to maintain the children, so all living beings are being maintained. There must be power. How you can deny that?
How well he does, he says his very words, he says, "Since we have discarded God the Father, there has to be someone to invent values." Before you become alive, life is nothing.
It's up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing else but the meaning that you choose. I love to give meaning of my life. Now what is that idea?
You must give meaning to your own life; since there is no God to give life meaning, man must invent his own meaning. If everyone will invent his meaning, then where will there be symmetry? Similitude. No symmetry. Symmetry.
Yes. How the people will live peacefully in the society? I'll give my own idea, you will give your own idea, he'll give his own idea. Then where is collaboration? No, there's no cooperation. Then it is chaotic.
Social order and the need for leadership
Then why do you want government? You live without government. You don't require government. Lately he's turned into a Marxist. What if there is government? In the Marxist communist country there is government.
So how we can avoid the government and leadership? He believes that each man is responsible for other men, but he also believes that each man has the freedom to work out his own destiny, so to speak. Mm.
Suppose if I want to do you something good and you are free. So if you don't accept me, that I don't accept, that is miscalculated.
How you are responsible for me? If I don't obey, then how you can become responsible for me? So he says that a man should be responsible for others. But if he does not obey you, where is he responsible? Crazy fellow there.
It appears to be contradictory. Everything is contradictory. That must be contradictory. Unless there's a standard idea, standard thing, there must be contradiction. This is the last point.
He says to be man, we say, first of all, God. The supreme person, and we should be all obedient servants to him. Then the society will be nice. That is responsibility.
God gives us some duty and if we carry that, that is our responsibility, and that makes the whole society perfect. But as in the beginning, if we reject God, then it is chaotic.
So religion means to avoid this chaotic condition and in order fulfilling the responsibility given by God, we make progress and finally we live with God personally. That is our eternal life.
Human nature and the material creation
His final point is to be man means to reach toward being God. Or if you prefer, man fundamentally is the desire to be God. Well, see, at last he accepts God. What is the meaning of us going to God?
Yes, he is trying to deny God when there is God. Unless there is God, what is the question of accepting or denying? He's denying in the other way. That means there is God.
As soon as he mentions God, he's proved there is God. He says that he prefers to set the question aside. But at the same time, that is the main question. God has created everything. He has created you.
He has created your mind, intelligence, your body, your existence, and circumstances; everything He has created. Who can deny God? In the beginning, the Bible says, "In the beginning there was God." Is it not?
And the Vedas also: "om eva asam agre." God says that "I exist in the beginning." Creation is temporary and annihilation is also temporary. This is material nature.
We can understand it very easily that this body, your body, my body, it is created at a certain date, it will continue to a certain date, and it will finish. This is material understanding.
Anything you take, it has a beginning, it has a duration of period to exist, then finish.
So take a broader way: the whole cosmic manifestation, it has a beginning and it has an end, and it has a duration of period to exist. But before this creation, who was there? There is God.
Otherwise, how is the creation possible if God is not there? We follow the creator. Well, real philosophy means to resolve this question. And you can't possibly resolve it by setting it aside if it's the major question.
It's been the major question of all philosophers we studied. So how can you say, "Let us just set it aside"? No.
Well, the philosopher... not all philosophers are denying the existence, but from a practical study we can see that that personal existence... that before I got this body, there was my father and mother.
So how can you deny this fact? This whole cosmic manifestation is exactly like the manifestation of my body. Everything you take, there is practical experience.
You take this spectacle, it is created by some spectacle manufacturer and it will exist for some time. Then it will rot.
Universal origins and global unity
Similarly, the whole creation and annihilation... there is another crude example, just like an earthen pot is made from the clay, earth. It gets a shape and it continues to exist for a certain time and then it is broken.
Then when it is broken, again it is clay. So in the beginning the clay was there, in the middle there is a form, and at the end again clay. So clay is real. Similarly, God is everything original.
And that is explained by God in the Bhagavad-gītā. And Vedānta says, "janmādy asya yataḥ" — this is clear understanding where your existence comes from. You cannot say all of a sudden you dropped from the sky.
You had your father, mother, and from them you have appeared. How you can say that there was nobody else before my creation and there will be nobody else after my annihilation? That is foolishness.
How we can... you have to accept that before your manifestation, there was your father and mother. So this is right philosophy. The mother is the material nature and father is God.
So father gives the seed and mother begets so many children. So it is a big family. Father is God and material nature is the mother. And then we as children are taken care of by the father and mother.
So our duty is to remain peacefully at the cost of the father and mother and become obedient to the father and mother. This is natural. Beyond this, all speculation. That will not give us real peace and prosperity.
It must have... God is there. The nature is there and we are also there. A big family, let us live peacefully, according to the order of the father. That is true.
He's describing responsibility to... the family is also one of the members of the family. Who created the family? How can you desert it? The father. Well, he says first of all man exists, turns up, appears on the scene.
He just says he appears on the scene. He's not concerned. He is not concerned. That is his foolishness. He does not know that he appears on account of father and mother. How he can deny this? That is his foolishness.
How can this man say, "I appeared all of a sudden"? I dropped from the sky. And he's a crazy fellow. How can we give time to hear it? That's not possible. You appear on account of your father and mother. How can you deny it?
That's not possible. Is it possible to deny it? Not intelligently. That I appeared without father. It's not possible.
So we say that everyone appears, not only human beings, all animals, all plants, trees, everywhere that eight million four hundred thousand species of life, they have appeared from these material elements, either from the water—the fishes are appearing in the water—and the plants and trees that are appearing on the land, and then insects, birds and everything, everything is appearing.
So material nature is the mother, that is accepted. So as soon as you accept mother, then there must be father. When you give this conception that we are appearing without father and mother, how it is possible?
He just wants to put the question aside. Why? This is the primary question. When from me appeared. Christians also and the Jew, the Western religions, they say there is a God, but he has put us here in this world.
So he is in his heaven and we are here on earth. And our business now is to become happy. They also put the question aside.