Barnett, Justin

Sartre and Camus

Prof. Mirvish

The Transforming Conversion to Authenticity

Through much of Sartre’s writing, much is said about bad faith

and authenticity. The two are distinctly different as the former is

consciousness as inauthentic and the latter being authentic. In reading

what Sartre says about the two there seems to be a gap separating the

inauthentic and the authentic; thus the question arises as to how to

bridge this gap. Though Sartre does not write a great amount on how

to bridge this gap, he does include it in the Notebooks For an Ethics.

The following will attempt to outline what Sartre calls “conversion”

from inauthenticity to authenticity including the three ways in which

conversion can be brought about and what authenticity will entail.

Bad Faith

In Sartre’s earlier works, the concept of bad faith is written in

great detail. It can be described as, “…one specific attitude which is

essential to human reality and which is such that consciousness

instead of directing its negation outward turns it toward itself”(1943,

pp. 87). What Sartre is describing here is a behavior in which denies

itself through this type of behavior. In essence, it is an action that one

does, but in the process of doing it one denies that one is doing this

behavior.
 In Being and Nothingness, Sartre describes a scene at a café in

which we observe a waiter. Sartre describes the waiter as being in bad

faith by saying:

His movement is quick and studied, a little too precise, a

little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a

little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his

voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for

the order of the customer. (1943, 101)

Here we can see how bad faith is described phenomenologically. The

example of the waiter shows us that the waiter is trying to be a waiter,

the way a table is a table. To do this is to turn one’s self into an object

and to deny one’s freedom. This is precisely what bad faith entails, the

denial of one’s freedom to make other possibilities for one’s self. The

waiter is not fully aware of himself as having this freedom and in this

freedom, the alienation that arises from it.

Conversion

This brings us to the recognition of the Self. Sartre describes the

conversion to authenticity in one way as receiving the objectification of

the other to bring out awareness of one’s actions. In Notebooks for an

Ethics Sartre states, “…in the moment in which he grasps himself as

Other starting from the Other…(he) grasps himself as the foundation of

every system of alienation”. Through the objectification of the Other,

we come to realize a mode of behavior that we previously lacked

awareness of. This moment seems to resemble the moment in which

we say to ourselves “Oh my, what have I been doing all this time?",

after someone brings to light the objectified view of what one is doing.

This form of conversion is much like a “wake-up call”.

The second form of conversion manifests itself in the concept of

failure. Sartre creates a dichotomy between the two different sides to

Being. What he calls the For-Itself is the Self we create through our

actions, our doing. The For-Itself is a process. If this process didn't

exist, we would collapse into the In-Itself, which is the other side and

essentially Nothingness. One becomes wholly an object in itself. In

order to have the For-Itself, one must work at something. To use

Sartrean terms, it is a Being who has a project, or intention. In

Notebooks for an Ethics Sartre states, "Authenticity reveals that the

only meaningful project is that of doing..." (1983, pp. 475). However

here is where failure plays a role in conversion as Sartre concludes,

"...conversion may arise from the perpetual failure of everyone of the

For-Itself's attempt to be" (1983, pp. 472). This failure that brings

about authenticity through conversion is common during a battle.

When the front of one side of the battle continues to lose men to the

point in which there are only two men left, the conversion is close to

being brought about. One experiences the death of his last comrade

and every attempt for them to accomplish their project of defeating

the oncoming troops is experienced as failed. Sartre describes this as,

"...that region of existence where existing means using every trick in

order to be, and to fail at all these tricks, and to be conscious of this

failure" (1983, pp. 472). The last one standing is conscious of that

failure and gives his all in an awareness completely of himself as

nonthetic and his project as thetic, which is to say authentic.

The third way in which authenticity can be brought about is what

Sartre describes as pure reflection. Accessory reflection is something

that is typical among most people and is characterized by a

reflected/reflecting dichotomy which for Sartre is inauthentic. This kind

of reflection is a contemplation or passivity and then a form of action.

That is why, "conversion comes even from the failure of accessory

reflection" (472). This is shown by the difference between action and

contemplation. For Sartre the two should be together instead of

separate. They should work together in unison instead of using each as

separate entities and that is why in inauthenticity the,

"reflected/reflecting never reaches absolute unity, [and] reflection

[through conversion] springs up as a third term meant to unify the

other two" (1983, pp. 473). With this unity of the two one can reach

authenticity, which is the true form of human consciousness and is how

action and contemplation should work together. That is why, "pure

reflection is the ideal form of reflective consciousness, a 'lightning

intuition without relief' that gives the For-Itself to itself with evidence

that is both apodictic and adequate" (Morelli, pp. 61). This is going to
be the main part of what it is to be authentic.

Authenticity

The radical conversion to authenticity has now been described in

detail, which leaves a description of what happens after the

conversion, namely that of authenticity. To begin with Sartre describes

authenticity as, "unveiling being through the mode of nonbeing" (1983,

pp. 474). What this entails has been briefly mentioned already; if

consciousness is characterized as intentional, then one must have an

intention and taking up that intention through action. Being is in-itself,

which is objectified as a table is objectified as a table. This is where the

aspect of nonbeing comes into play. Authenticity is transcending Being

and this transcendence is exactly this mode of nonbeing.

Though authenticity does lie in the mode of nonbeing there will

be a time when action is not apparent. Consciousness is contemplative

as well. One has to be cautious though, as too much contemplation

inevitably reduces one to an object, or the in-itself. Instead what Sartre

says is, "...in authenticity...I reduce the internalized objective quality to

a sequence of behavior..." (1983, pp. 475). Instead of sitting and

mulling over what needs to be done about something let the thought

come and turn that idea into action. What one must realize though,

which is crucial to this idea of authenticity, is that consciousness can

transcend itself. We can change ourselves as human beings, given the

circumstances to change. Sartre continues this by stating, "...I also

discover that I am not any one of these behaviors, or rather that I am

and am not"(1983, pp. 475). This is saying that while in the mode of

nonbeing and action I am wholly that action. However, one is not

always this action, one can transcend this action by choosing to do a

different action or taking a different stance on the issue.

With this constant changing from in-itself to the for-itself there is

no doubt of a tension involved. One side pulls one way for the amount

of time needed to develop just in time to have the other side pull the

other way. Again this is the amount of time needed to fully develop.

Sartre shows this through love as there is a same form of tension. One

person pulls what they need from the other person, just in time for the

other person to start pulling their way. He states, "So in love itself, at

its heart, there will be, if it is authentic, this being or not being, and

thus a fundamental anxiety that this love might not be" (1983, pp.

477). In love we rely on transcendence of this anxiety to maintain the

love. This is precisely what one does in relation to its for-itself and in-

itself; one uses the for-itself as the transcendence of the in-itself.

If one is authentic then one lives in this tension. However, this

creates problem(s) of choice by the calling into question of the self. A

strong problem in our society is people saying they will do something

and take action in a different direction. Ultimately it is the problem of

commitment. The President has to face these choices with great

responsibility in mind. He told the American people he would pull out of

the war but his want of this is different than his doing of this. The

pulling out of the war only has meaning when it is experienced, that is,

in action. This is part of the tension between the for-itself and the in-

itself. The in-itself is compelled to will a certain situation, however the

for-itself will take a different path when faced with the carrying out of

that will. This is what Sartre is describing when he says, "What will

define its love is the concrete sacrifice that it makes today, not what it

thinks or feels" (1983, pp. 478). One must overcome being grounded in

the in-itself and take what it calls into question, and put it into a form

of action. Sartre states this as, "...reflection is not contemplation, it is a

form of willing" (1983, pp. 479). This means that instead of reflecting

and then contemplating on the reflected-on one must refuse to look at

Being and take the reflection and put it into action.

Sartre poses a question that one would surely ask oneself after

discovering the tension in authenticity and the problem of

contemplation, "What therefore can the project of a reflection that

refuses to look for Being be? It can only be a question of a radical

decision for autonomy" (1983, pp. 478). This idea of self-governance is

a questionable one, since most people today would be discouraged to

not having someone else control their life, even surpassing the notion

of God. However, this radical autonomy would grant one tremendous

freedom, especially to explore the modes of one's own individuality.

Sartre sums this up by saying that authenticity is,"...the regaining of

the self on the basis of contingency"(1983, pp. 479). The contingency

Sartre speaks of is a product of radical autonomy and freedom. With

this, one cannot put oneself absolutely in any sort of social role. All

possibilities, within the limits of the situation could happen, but there is

no way of making certain of any specific possibility. Through this

contingency, one first encounters authentic passion. Sartre poetically

states, "...I consent to be a man, that is, in order to commit myself to

an adventure has that as much chance of finishing badly, I transform

my contingency into a passion" (1983, pp. 482). This becomes the goal

of one's life, that one creates through individual projects. If one is

going to accept the radical autonomy, contingency, and freedom one

must first accept that Being begins in Nothingness.

As it has been mentioned earlier in this essay, Being is authentic

in the mode of nonbeing. This nonbeing is represented as Nothingness.

Being-in-itself is essentially Nothingness, since one first exists and then

creates one's Being. This is where Sartre's notion of "existence

precedes essence" comes into play. In a lecture entitled "Existentialism

is a Humanism", Sartre defends his position in Existentialism and

proceeds to give a general outline of the Philosophy of Existentialism.

In the lecture he noted, "What do we mean by saying that existence

precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters

himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards"

(1946). This is why there is such a big problem with inauthenticity in

our day - most people of our society believe that humans do have a

given essence, whether it be the essence of a certain role in society or

even a role in the divine plan of a god. This is why Sartre stresses the

problem of bad faith so much, especially in Being and Nothingness.

Through conversion to authenticity, one realizes this ontological

concept of starting from nothing and begins to unveil authentic Being.

However, Sartre is quick to observe the fundamental human

characteristics that hold man back from creating his own meaning for

life, namely those which makes man passive such as fear or laziness.

He tells us this by stating, "...it is not in contemplation that Being will

be unveiled as having a meaning: it is in effort so that man has a

meaning, that is, in action" (1983, pp. 486). Through action one

creates the meaning of their life. Part of taking that action is when one

also realizes the contingency of their situation and its possible failure.

Even in failure, meaning is still inscribed, perhaps, in certain

circumstances, more so. In authenticity, one gains a being; which is

true to itself. Sartre mirrors this by showing, "If the For-itself really does

will to lose itself...then its task appears to it: through it Being is saved

from Nothingness, Being manifests itself: the For-itself springs up so

that Being may become Truth"(1983, pp. 484). However, one must

realize that the truth one unveils is not any universal truth, but rather

it is the truth of a subject.

As one creates authentic meaning for one's life, there becomes

the problem of clarity. Though most see clarity as something good, it

can have its downsides as well (which goes for most anything in life).

One must be hesitant to think that one becomes everything. Sartre

notes this by saying, "Here there is a tendency we must be careful

about: the illusion of being everything. I am inclined, seeing the sea

from the shore, to believe that I unveil the whole sea" (1983, pp. 485).

One must realize that one is perceiving the world from a point of view;

the point of view is precisely one's character. Here we come back to

the truth of one's self. This self that is unveiled is the authentic,

absolute self. Sartre shows this better by saying:

...when by my reflective look I approve of myself for unveiling

this being and I will myself in unveiling it, then because I do

unveil this being I reach myself as an absolute and in

attaining myself as absolute I confer on this unveiling here

and now an absolute character (1983, pp. 485)

In this view of becoming oneself, in an authentic manner, one can

create meaning for one's existence. Our explanation of authenticity is

not yet complete however. If one reaches absolute character, there is

still one other absolute character who, at least in our society,

overarches every person, namely God.

There is no question that our society is based off of Christian

beliefs. Without arguing the good or bad of Christianity, Sartre clearly

writes that for the authentic person who creates the meaning of his
life, God must be relinquished. Sartre reflects this by simply stating,

"He is always in consciousness--it is God's point of view that one

envisages when one thinks that our grasping of being remains relative

to our finitude. If God does not exist, we have to decide by ourselves

on the meaning of Being" (1983, pp. 486). There is no room for God's

meaning if one is to decide on one's own meaning. According to Sartre,

this is the only way the authentic being can emerge, that is, without

God. If God gives meaning to everyone, and in turn everyone takes up

His meaning as the project of one's life, it is not the project that one

conceives of as an absolute Being, but the project of a different

absolute Being. To do this is to not be true to one's self. Again the

concept of contemplation vs. action becomes apparent. This is,

"...precisely because 'making there be Being' and 'giving a meaning to

Being' are one and the same thing, it is not in contemplation that Being

will be unveiled as having a meaning: it is in effort so that man has a

meaning, that is, in action" (1983, pp. 486). According to Sartre, in

religion, one seeks to contemplate on the meanings the divine One has

given to one. To do this is to put oneself into the in-itself; which is

Nothingness. Instead, through action one symbolically becomes the

God over one's life. This is not in the in-itself though, rather, "the for-

itself is God in that if it decides that Being has a meaning, Being will

have a meaning for the for-itself" (1983, pp. 485). As stated earlier, the

for-itself is a mode of action. So we come to the results of how

meaning is made for the person who has relinquished society's God

and has chosen to create one's own meaning through action and that,

"If action is successful, the meaning is inscribed" (1983, pp. 486).

However, as easy it is to say that through action one creates meaning,

there is still a tension involved in the action one is doing.

Between the switching from the in-itself to the for-itself one goes

from reflection to action. In certain circumstances, perhaps when the

most meaning is being inscribed, when one switches from the action to

a mode of reflection something seems to appear odd. It is the nausea

felt in Sartre's novel and the absurdity that appears to Camus'

Mersault. No doubt when one stops to reflect on ones actions, there

can be a weariness and struggle with the world. When we create being,

"it undoubtedly makes sense that I struggle, in the name of my

concrete project, against anxiety, dejection, laziness, despair,

depersonalization, psychasthenia, etc. " (1983, pp. 488). All the

characteristics Sartre lists in the previous quote are all aspects of the

human condition. They are something that helps bring about

conversion to authenticity as this essay has shown earlier. However, in

that converted authenticity, "...I must not refuse to live it, to try not to

take account of it, to repress its joys, its experiences. Rather, on the

contrary, push them to the absolute..." and this man who is authentic

and pushes every experience to the absolute, "...considers everything

that happens to him as an opportunity, in that what happens to him

permits him to unveil even more (even the risk of death)" (1983, pp.

488). What is beautiful about life is being able to make the authentic

choices, push them to the absolute, and to see the success of action,

specifically in the period of time that one is in.

As man proceeds in his day, his whole way of orienting himself

has to do in relation to his environment. He drives a car to work, brews

coffee with a coffee-maker, and uses electricity to run most of his

needs. All of these things are apart of the time of which we are

embedded in. Man 200 years ago did not do any of the aforementioned

things. His point of view and perception of his life was entirely

different. He did not have the options that man has presently and

almost equally important, man today does not have the options that

the man 200 years ago had, such as building one's own house or riding

a horse to travel. In light of this, one must look at the choices one

makes within History. This time that man is in now, is my time, "Hence

my epoch is mine-in assuming it, I assume myself; I see no task for

myself except in this epoch and in relation to it" (1983, pp. 490).

Therefore to be authentic is to consider one's self in this epoch and

more importantly to make choices in regards to this epoch. It goes

further than this though because not only do you make choices in

regards to your epoch, but these choices that one makes in the choices

that progress this epoch into something new, and therefore, "...to will

myself is to will my epoch" (1983, pp. 490). It is our choice to make or

break our epoch. All the Germans who chose to join the Nazi Regime

chose to will an epoch of destruction and that responsibility is on them:

they chose their epoch. We cannot escape the History that one finds

one's self in.

After having realized the beginning aspects of authenticity, we

have reached a new level. The conversion takes place and one finds

oneself immersed in the world. This immersion is something that

completely given to one and since it is given it is gratuitous.

Consciousness isn't something that man has to strive for, it is always

there. In saying this, we find that we do not have to gain a foundation,

but rather that it has been given to us. Therefore, "Consciousness is

gratuitous because it is not its own foundation and because it is

contingent (a point of view) by necessity" (1983, pp. 491). This

gratuitousness of consciousness is the joy of living.

Through the ups and the downs, life is always generous to us.

Even in the midst of our greatest worries, in times in which we stand

up against all odds, we have to love being in that time and not refuse

to experience it. For if our present world is the world of misery, we

have the choice to take this epoch that we are apart of and turn it into

something new and create a new world. Only in and through these

trials, "...can the new come into the world. Better: only in this way can

there be a world" (1983, pp. 493). For this concept, we can see how

Sartre is influence by Hegel with the idea of progress (thesis +

antithesis = synthesis). The aspect of the anti-thesis is important

because without it there is no synthesis and so for Sartre, "...the

authentic man, on the contrary, man's greatness...derives necessarily

from his misery or contingency" (1983, pp. 493). This is a very crucial

part for Sartre in regards to the authentic person. One can see that

even in the greatest genius, there is still an aspect of life-struggle, if

not more of it. Perhaps Sartre would have developed his ideas

differently if was not a P.O.W. Similarly if Nietzsche hadn't suffered the

medical problems that he did, would he have developed the Will to

Power? Sartre and Nietzsche both suffered from life, but more

interestingly they each took their suffering and turned it into

something new through their own eyes and no one else’s.

Yet here again we must return to the problem of God in relation

to the authentic Being. If we necessarily must take up our own being,

we must deny the eyes of God. In the existence of God, it is sure that

this God is omniscient. This God sees everything and consequently if

we are to believe in God we see things only through his eyes, as

opposed to seeing the world from our own eyes. Sartre shows this by

saying, "My look looks within God's look, I never see anything more

than the already seen" (1983, pp. 494). However if we are to relinquish

the eyes of God, "...the things seen disappear along with him...Being

turns into a tendency to open itself to Nothingness" (1983, pp. 494).

Again the idea of Nothingness returns. What must be realized is this

Nothingness of being is the absolute heart of man when one does not

create the meaning of one's life. When God is put in the picture, the

world is illuminated and there seems to be an inherent purpose for

man, which is exactly what man is looking for and probably the reason

why most people claim to have a religion. Sartre mirrors this by saying,

"...if God does not exist, then, yes, this silence in terrifying, for it is

neither the nothingness of being nor Being illuminated by a look"

(1983, pp. 494). To say this would be horrific for most people, but if

they can see past the darkness and illuminate their own life, and see

through one's own eyes, there is a sense of enjoyment and joy

unsurpassed by anything: this is the joy of authenticity.

The way in which one is able to see past this Nothingness at the

core of Being is to lose one's self. Though one must be careful as this

does not mean to be lost as a person, but rather to have projects and

goals in which one gets passionately involved in, to the extent that one

forgets (loses) oneself. As stated earlier, life has meaning only through

action and this is precisely the way in which one surpasses

Nothingness. There are two ways in which one is able to lose one's self:

the first stemming from relatedness. To begin, it must be noted

through Notebooks for an Ethics that, "The For-Itself is Relatedness"

(1983, pp. 496). What this means is that Man has a reality only in that

he has relations with that reality. This leads into the first of two parts of

Beings absolute whole. Sartre confirms this by saying that the first
part, "...is to want to grasp myself in the manner of realism...as being

aware of and thereby confirming this relation..." (1983, pp. 496). If this

is given in terms of absoluteness then one is apart of the world and

having intentions, projects, and goals. Consciousness of the Self is no

longer an aspect because the Self is lost if Man is no longer conscious

of it.

In turn, however, we come to the second half of absolute Being

when Sartre quotes, "The other way of losing myself is to conceive of

myself as creating the relation without myself being this relation

(Kant)" (1983, pp. 496). This quote shows how Sartre attempts to

unveil the aspect of change in one's life. If a student in college

concentrates on being a model student, and his For-Itself becomes that

of a student rather than the person-who-attends-college then his entire

role and outlook on life will be that of a student. He limits his freedom

to the extent that he is free as much as a student is free. If authenticity

steps up, through conversion, the second half is that of not being this

relationship, a student, to the college. Rather the person would realize

he is a person and not a student. He has the choice to change the

status of his relationship to the college.

With these two absolutes working together, consciousness is

experienced as joy. To show this Sartre shows the downside to having

only part of the whole by saying, "Thus, in realism, consciousness loses

all joy of becoming pure contemplative passivity...in idealism, it loses

all joy because it and the world appear as pure relativity" (1983, pp.

496). However for authenticity these ways are not mutually exclusive,

but rather must each be integrated into one's life for it to be authentic.

This is because authenticity entails absolute being and if one part of

the two is only present, then it will be missing its second half to make

it whole. This is shown by Sartre in that, "unveiling of Being is a

contact of two absolutes where each one is centered on the

other"(1983, pp. 497). His use of the term centered shows the reliance

of each other to remain balanced and thus authentic.

As was stated earlier, the For-Itself is relatedness. This holds

especially true in relation to the Other, or other humans. Remember

that the conversion to authenticity can be brought about by the Other

and this is something that is valuable. Most people aren't completely

alone in the world. By this I mean that some form of communication

with another person is inevitable for people. As long as we are within

the world, we are within the world with other people. This is very

important because for Sartre, "...[the Other] enriches the world and

me, he gives a meaning to my existence in addition to the subjective

meaning I myself give it..." (1983, pp. 500). In this sense, the other

unveils a world to me and to the extent that the Other is authentic in

our relationship, he helps to allow me to have absolute freedom in

unveiling my own authenticity. Likewise, "...in authenticity I choose to

unveil the Other" (1983, pp. 500). One must understand here, and we
will make it more clear, that choosing to unveil the Other is a process.

Like everything in authenticity, there is action and a goal. This holds

true particularly in regards to unveiling the Other. Sartre states this

very well by saying, "...freedom that is nothing other than the free

project of some undertaking does not unveil itself to itself except in

and through this undertaking" (1983, pp. 500). This shows how there

must be some form of action in the authentic unveiling of the Other.

However, with every form of action, there is the concept of

failure. The failure that can be brought about through my project is

something that can be recognized by the other and, if the other is

authentic, can be grasped as something to help me. Sartre reflects this

nearly perfectly when he says, "...to see a man from the rear is to see

him in terms of what he does not see, it is to constitute him on the

basis of what he is unaware of, to foresee what he cannot foresee, and

to foresee him in terms of what he cannot foresee about himself (1983,

pp. 502). A modern example of this would be the terrors of September

11th, 2001. Though it can be argued, America was never aware of any

plot to destroy the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. However, if America

had an authentic ally that was aware of the potential attack, they could

have been avoided. This ally could foresee what we could not foresee

and consequently prevented thousands of deaths. To continue Sartre

later states, "...I am the one who watches his back and who deflects

from his back the danger he cannot see" (1983, pp. 508). With this, the
aspect of fragility comes into perspective and is dealt with

authentically.

One of the unfortunate consequences with living within the world

and being a living organism is the fact that we will inevitably come to

terms one day with death. With this knowledge, human life becomes

something that is fragile. In a sense, it is the fear of death that the

person who is obsessive/compulsive must be a slave to their rituals.

These rituals are perceived as something to keep him alive because if

he lives without them, he will surely die. It is interesting to note that

because he has a fear of death, he consequently has a fear of life. Life

is too fragile for him so he sticks to these rituals to maintain a sort of

immortality. Unfortunately these rituals make him extremely

inauthentic, since he is determined to these rituals and in some very

real sense, he is not free. In extreme cases, the obsessive/compulsive

cannot even carry a job, must less a project and goal in life; he is too

bound by his rituals. To show this Sartre says, "...all behavior involves

risks, it always has an aspect of thingness for me, even when it is lived

out with the greatest freedom (the acceptance of this risk)" (1983, pp.

505). In everything we do, we risk losing our project, our relations, and

we may even face death. However it must be pushed to the absolute

and not repressed: for it is repression that causes underlying anxiety

and neurosis in one's life.

This is where the aspect of the Other comes into play again. If
the Other is authentic, then one helps to overcome and foresee the

risks involved in one's project. The Other realizes ones project and with

this realization, "...I want it to be a victory over fragility. So I assume

this fragility. It becomes precious" (1983, pp. 506-7). This is really a

true stance on life and living. When we are authentic, we work so hard

to achieve an end, a goal, and along the way we meet people who

realize our project. They see where we are going and help us in making

what matters to us happen. Sartre ends this and mirrors this by talking

about the love of the Other and that authentic love is:

to unveil the Other's being-within-the-world, to take up this

unveiling, and to set this Being within the absolute; to

rejoice in it without appropriating it; to give it safety in

terms of my freedom, and to surpass it only in the direction

of the Other's end.

This is the true relation to others and what really makes up authentic

relationships.

To sum up, conversion from bad faith to authenticity can be

brought about in three ways: from the objectification of the Other, from

the failure of the for-itself, and from the failure of accessory reflection.

Authenticity can be described as a project or goal that is created by

the individual, without the eyes and project of God and without falling

into a sociological role which is given to the individual, and in which

one has pure reflection as opposed to contemplation/action that one

pushes to the absolute. In terms of the Other, authenticity entails an

unveiling of the Other and realizing the Other's project in order to help

the Other obtain their goal which includes protecting the Other in ways

in which they cannot foresee, however this help is in no way

appropriation of the goal. If Sartre was right in that existence precedes

essence then there is not good or evil, but rather inauthentic or

authentic. This is where a core of our society's ideologies fails us.

People will sacrifice themselves and their authenticity for the sake of

the "good". Though no one really knows what is good and what is bad,

only what somebody tells them is good or bad. Authenticity provides a

way in which to create truly meaningful lives that not only enriches

one's life, but the lives of Others as well in a positive way.

References

Morelli, Eric James (2008).Pure Reflection and Intentional Process.

Sartre Studies International. 14, 61.

Sartre, Jean-Paul (1943). Being and Nothingness. New York, New

York: Washington Square Press.
Sartre, Jean-Paul (1946). Existentialism is a Humanism. Retrieved
May 19, 2009, from Marxist Internet Archive Web site:
[Link]
/[Link]

Sartre, Jean-Paul (1983). Notebooks for an Ethics. Chicago,

Illinois: University of Chicago Press.