Jean Paul Sartre has said a lot. So much so that I do not know if I will ever be able to read him enough. However, in bits and
piees every now and then, his words have enough power to attract you, defying gravity. Under those laws of attraction, there are two sentenes of his whih have stuck to me and I have had a tough time figuring out their meaning for myself. This post is an attempt to share those two of his most qouted statements and my perception of them.
The first one is “Man is condemned to be free“. Reading without context, these words are open to a thousand interpretations. I have never read it in the exat ontext as Sartre used it. However, in light of Sartre’s philosophy in general, I have come to understand it as this - It is human nature that man desires transcendence. Transendence, even if not rejected as a fiction, is not an achievable goal in this form of human existene. That’s why he is condemned to immanence. However, within immanent reality (meaning to remain within the boundaries of possible experience), man has endless possibilities, unlimited choices - complete freedom. Combining the two - Man is condemned to be free.
The second one is “Man is a useless passion“. This is a phrase that Sartre uses in a very difficult passage in Being and Nothingness (which I have not yet been able to read completely). This also emanates from man’s passion with transcendental goals and the impossibility of the fulfillment of that passion. To conclude, in Sartre’s own words:
“It is as if the world, man, and man-in-the-world express an abortive attempt to become God. It is as if the in-itself and the for-itself reveal themselves in a state of disintegration with respect to an ideal synthesis. Not that the integration has ever taken place, but precisely on the contrary because it is permanently suggested and permanently impossible. … the idea of God is contradictory and we lose ourselves in vain: man is a useless passion.“
Posts 
Concerning “Man is condemned to be free”.
I recently read Nausea, The Words, No Exit, Existentialism and Human Emotions and an excerpt from Transcendence of the Ego. He addresses the idea that Man is Condemned to be Free in all of his works and it is specifically addressed in Existentialism and Human Emotions - which is part lecture (Existentialism is a Humanism) and part excerpts from Being and Nothingness. I think your assessment is correct and why I think he, like Camus, is in bad faith.
If we are radically free Beings as Sartre says, then it does not require a leap of faith to recognize that we likewise have the potential, as human beings, not to be enslaved by the ego especially since there are increasing numbers of people out there to claim to have experienced this freedom!
Augustine started the idea that there is no exit in this world except through salvation. Camus and Sartre fall into the exact same trap but withou the God part. It is bad faith (according to Sartre’s definition) to say you are both radically free and destined to be enslaved forever by the ego. That’s yet another egoic self-deception which is what characterizes bad faith.
Just a quick clarification: It is accurate to say the ego is condemned to freedom. But the only way to conclude that humanity is likewise condemned to freedom is if humanity is condemned to the ego. Is it not a leap of faith to conclude that we are our ego?
Sorry, me again. I just looked it up in my notes: Sartre says we can transcend the ego (but not in the Kierkegaardian sense). Transcendence, according to Sartre, is the ability to reach beyond any factual situation in which we find ourselves (our facticity - the family we are born into, our health, etc.) There are facts that are true about us (our facticity), and there is our ability to chose - to transcend “ourselves”. Bad faith is the denial of either one’s facticity or one’s transcendence.
Why did I know that you will interpret Sartre’s own definition of bad faith to enclose him as well? Anyways, your comments are so thoughtful, I really require a lot of contemplation before replying.
First, let me talk about ‘ego’. ‘Ego’ in hindu philosophy is ‘ahankar’. The English connotation is a little different from the exact meaning of the term, though ‘ego’ may as well define it. But, in the Hindu philosophy ‘ego’ denotes the arrogance of the ’subject of existence’. That part of us which is the source of inertia against ‘the supreme’, our realisation of the spiritual self etc. is the ego. However, I do not understand. Using these terms and drawing conclusions out of their pre-defined meaning is all I see in most spiritual texts. If I say there is no transcendence beyond the limits of existence within the existing human condition, I do not think ego becomes a problem. And if ‘ego’ is defined the other way round as ‘that thing which prevents me from transcending’, then it is a part of human condition for me. The attempt to overcome it would be what Sartre says “a useless passion”
Couldn’t transcendence be compared to suicide?
Jenavie,
That’s a very interesting question. Transcendence in itself, at worst should be limited, I guess to an impossibility. However, I think an unrelenting dogmatic attempt to achieve transcendence may compare to suicide at some levels.
I think you must visit this post by Arulba: Camus Koan Solved and the discussion below that. It should be interesting to you.
What makes vanity so insufferable to us, is that it hurts our own.
when we learn “everything,” we loose our minds
we ignore the ones who adore us,
we adore the ones who hurt us
the fury rages all for vanity