This post expands on the last discussion on The Ambiguity of Human Existence. See it here. I objected to De Beauvoir’s claims that human beings not only have to accept their ambiguity, but they have to deal with it. It seems that De Beauvoir exaggerates the ambiguous situation that humans are in.
The merit to De Beauvoir’s work on the ambiguity of human condition, however, is the resulting ethics. De Beauvoir tells us how to exist genuinely. The first step to genuine existence is to will yourself free. Being free is what can allow humans to justify their existence. The human existence is ambiguous because humans do not know why they exist. Humans simply find that they exist. They therefore have the responsibility of justifying their existence, according to De Beauvoir. In order to justify their existence, however, they need freedom in order to allow them to embark and conclude projects. This is how value is created in the world. When writers and musicians create art they enrich the world with value. Freedom is therefore an imperative.
In order to exist genuinely, humans must do two things: first, humans must make themselves free. Thereafter, they must make others free.
The second requirement, making others free, is necessary because no man can save himself alone. When as humans we try to justify our existence through the various projects that we embark on, we need the help of other people to achieve those ends. But if other members in society are oppressed, there is no way they can help each other to achieve their ends in justifying their existence.
Freedom then, is a thing of absolute value. We must all strive to have freedom, and after having it, we must protect it such that whatever ends we set up do not in any way make us un-free.
This is all well and good. But the moment I decide to adhere to De Beauvoir’s ethics, a couple of questions immediately plague me: How do I define freedom? Can this freedom be quantified? Is total freedom attainable? Is genuine existence attainable?
These questions need to be considered. What use is an ethics that cannot help those who adhere to it deal with the difficulties that the ethics produces?
I will do that in the next post.
