Freedom is undeniably one of the major thoughts that have driven humankind to great pursuits and continues to be a crucial tenet in human life. To what extent are we equally free? How does our relationship with others restrict or enhance our freedom? These are questions that need to be addressed.
Furthermore, what does de Beauvoir add to Sartre’s account of freedom? Both philosophers have contributed significantly to the discourse on this topic. However, it is essential to determine which argument is more convincing.
Individuality is synonymous with freedom. It is an undeniable fact that without the ability to express oneself freely, life loses its meaning. Any threat or impediment to individual liberty provokes mass revolutions and has been fundamental in why countries meddle in each other’s affairs.
Many philosophers have attempted to delve deep into the psychology of freedom and the act of being free, but the two most prominent figures in this field are Simone De Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. They worked together extensively and had a lifelong relationship. According to Jean-Paul Sartre, all humans are necessarily free. In his book Being and Nothingness, he challenges the conventional view of freedom by stating that it is impossible for a human not to be free. He believes that not being free is equivalent to ‘ceasing to be’.
Sartre’s views on existentialism are focused on the duality of Being-for-itself and Being-in-itself. According to him, consciousness is always consciousness of something and cannot exist as consciousness itself. In Sartre’s view, consciousness is simply nothing. Simone de Beauvoir shares similar views on freedom and adopts Sartre’s ideas on existentialism. She also claims that freedom is just human existence. However, De Beauvoir adds that not every situation is the same in regards to freedom, such as women in a harem.
Women in a harem are often compared to the mindset of children because they are kept in a state of servitude and ignorance. Children, like women in a harem, are excluded from holding responsibility and are seen to escape the anguish of freedom through their innocence. Slaves also exhibit this mindset as they do not raise their consciousness to their slavery and instead believe that they are not free due to conditioning or acclimatization. This ignorance is reinforced by the dogma of their entrapment, leaving them with no opportunity to contemplate the possibility of freedom.
Sartre claims that to exist is to be free, and he attributes this quality directly to being human. As we can never stop self-definition, we are free to choose whatever conscious projection we want to see in the world. However, de Beauvoir argues that this is limiting because freedom can never be achieved as we are always pursuing our own growth and existential projects.” She explains how there is only engaged freedom – the act of interacting directly with the world through one’s intention of freedom.
In her work, De Beauvoir explains that true expression of being human embodies hope. When someone is placed in a situation of restriction or control, such as a harem or slavery, there emerges a chance for liberation or freedom. She defines freedom as the joyful expression of life and asserts that to be committed to this is to be committed to freedom. De Beauvoir comes to the realization that one can never be a fully completed self and that all humans will have a desire for growth. In aiming for a goal and constantly having a sense of needing to gain more, this is what constitutes freedom.
Sartre argues that the relationship between what limits our freedom and what doesn’t is simply our mindset, which itself is propelled by freedom. We have the freedom to see a cliff face as limiting us or to use it to allow us freedom. The argument here is that the subjective view each individual has of the world constitutes their freedom. Freedom is not something we are born with or entrusted with but rather a shift in perspective or realization that, by viewing the world subjectively, we always have a choice to be equally free.
With the introduction of the other, the being-for-itself status is threatened as one realizes that the other also has a being-for-itself. Others have the ability to limit your freedom and act as a threat to it. Sartre explains this by arguing that since the other is as free as he is, this will undoubtedly place limitations on his own freedoms because we all have different wills. According to Sartre, other people enforce the realization of one being a presence in the world rather than an unreflective consciousness that floats almost effortlessly in the world.
The status of others defines the status of an individual and how they exist in the world. This undoubtedly places a limit on the freedom that an individual has. De Beauvoir states that it is universally human to want men to be free in relation to others. She says that all situations are inter-subjective, and even though someone else can cause your lack of freedom, the other still allows an opportunity where one can liberate themselves and find freedom. She also comments on how realizing freedom, contemplating whether one is free, is directly linked to the other.
How can one truly understand the concept of freedom without experiencing oppression and control? Sartre agrees that our awareness of freedom only arises when it is taken away from us during interactions with others. According to Sartre, unless we are oppressed by others, we will never fully realize our own self-consciousness. This paradox suggests that in order to recognize our inherent freedom, it must first be stripped away from us. Sartre views being-for-others as a source of conflict, believing that at the core of all human relationships lies tension and conflict regarding freedom.
He rationalizes this by showing how, in order to interact with others, one will always be in a joust between ‘my’ freedom and ‘your’ freedom. Every action limits or enforces one’s freedom. In order for one to assert their freedom with the aim of being-for-itself and reducing others to just things in my” world, Sartre also explains that the tension within oneself is outwardly reflected as a desire for both freedom and self-consciousness. However, both can only exist in paradox.
When others objectify you, it leads to self-conscious reflection and an understanding of one’s existence in a world with others. However, being objectified negates the ability to have freedom. De Beauvoir adds her own view that freedom can only exist in a state of cooperation rather than conflict. She acknowledges that awareness of others and their oppression is necessary for realizing one’s freedom. This realization presents an opportunity to gain freedom. De Beauvoir confirms that others are not always a threat to your freedom but can serve as catalysts for realizing it in positive ways.
De Beauvoir differs from Sartre in her belief that absolute freedom can only be achieved when there is a possibility of freedom for both oneself and others. In a state of oppression, no one is truly free. The oppressed are in a state of surrender and captivity, such as slavery, while the oppressors must always be vigilant to prevent rebellion or escape. De Beauvoir’s arguments are more convincing because they suggest that true freedom requires allowing others to have their own freedom.
In order to be an oppressor, there must be an inner feeling of being oppressed or a sense of a lack of control. According to Sartre, even in a state of love, there exists a lack of freedom because you are attached to the person. De Beauvoir suggests that cooperation can lead to both love and freedom, and that refraining from controlling others will empower your physical and mental freedom. Additionally, De Beauvoir views freedom as an act of breakthrough or revolt against conditioned oppression by taking action.
As opposed to Sartre’s view of bad faith in relation to all acts of freedom, De Beauvoir suggests that freedom through an act of self-definition is not in bad faith but rather an empowering realization of future possibilities. She also highlights the distinction between men who are apathetic to their own freedom and a man who realizes his potential for growth and has a passion for always striving towards a goal. A man who has the drive to achieve a goal truly realizes his own humanity and ability for change.
The feeling of being overwhelmed by the insignificance of existence, which Sartre describes as ‘nausea’, is clarified by De Beauvoir as a choice not to act on one’s freedom. Both Sartre and De Beauvoir share similar views on freedom but have some differences. Sartre’s view can be seen as more negative, focusing on how freedom is never truly attainable when others are involved and there must always be a state of conflict.
There is always an oppressor and an oppressed. De Beauvoir suggests that true freedom is achieved when both parties are allowed to be free. She also notes that freedom can be seen as breaking out of an apathetic state, which Sartre describes as the realization of the insignificance of existence. In my view, De Beauvoir has a more convincing explanation of freedom because it allows each individual’s humanity to be reflected through their existence and freedom.
