Stephen asked:

I'm interested in existentialism and am presently rereading Sartre Existentialism and Humanism.
Whenever I study secondary material on the text, there always seems to be references to the
numerous errors and weaknesses of Sartre's work but no one ever seems to spell out what these are.
Could you possibly inform me of these difficulties, or tell me where I could find this information
myself?

============

Let me state first that there were many good ideas in existentialism. Among students in my youth (I'm
49) this view on life was still debated heavily. Books of for instance Sartre were bestsellers. There
were points in this view that were attractive, like free will. Much later came the first critical sounds, but
to be fair by people who were looking back.

However there were a few serious flaws in the theory. It took digesting World War II to make these
obvious. But these few negative points had been removable, they are in my view not essential.

Existentialism was at the same time highly theoretical and very strict. Existentialists preferred
situations that allowed the greatest amount of personal choice, but recognized some compromises
were necessary. When it came to ethics existentialists generally referred to a system, a formalized
method of determining better and worse in any situation. Morals in existentialist view were events in
some conforming community. In other words, in existential ethics 'moral' could be totally different from
'ethical' (using these words in a descriptive way, so connected to a society). A good point was that
existentialism was an active philosophy. It was the pursuit of authenticity that mattered most. This
was formed in talking and debate. If one had an opinion or thought, it had to be expressed. If a
thought required action, then action should be taken. Faith offers an excellent example of existential
action. If you held a belief, the existentialist view was that you should act accordingly.Was there an a
common basis for the various values expressed by existentialists, so that you can pinpoint the flaws?
Yes, I think so. Although existentialism was interpreted in different ways there were some general
'rules'.

Existentialism rested on the following simple set of truths: — Every existentialist is always looking for
individual essence — All humans have free will; this has to be strongly protected. — All actions are
the result of decision making — Decision making is individual and brings personal responsibility —
Everything has a positive and negative side — Good decisions don't exist, only better or worse (no
right or wrong) — The 'better' decision produces reduced freedom for lesser individuals (that's why
some existentialists supported Hitler) — Importance is scope (using that rule Hitler made a lot of
important decisions, influencing many others).

Obviously the last 2 points could be interpreted easily in dubious ways. The confusing thing was the
protection of free will and the readiness to die for it, and at the same time accepting obviously wrong
decisions because they fitted better in some grand scheme at that moment.

Henk Tuten