Phenomenology and

Existentialism
Based on Husserl and Sartre
Background
Phenomenology and existentialism are reactions to and development of the ideas
of Descartes who argued that the mind and body are two distinct entities

The body extends into space and time while the mind only exists in time; the mind
has no physical existence unlike the body. (mind =/= brain)

The mind, unlike the body can have mental acts (i.e. thoughts)

More specifically it can think, affirm, deny, will, decide… etc. Which is something
the body cannot do because the body relies on the mind while the mind relies on
itself.
Brentano develops Descartes idea of mental acts: all mental acts have
intentionality. A mental act must be directed towards something or refer towards
something. All mental acts must have an object. For example: To think is to think
of something, to dream is to dream of something.

The mind as a distinct entity still seemed mysterious to philosophers. Since the
age of enlightenment, some had thought that one could apply the scientific
method to study the mind just like in the natural sciences.

The problem: unlike objects of the natural sciences, the mind had no physical
existence therefore it could not be studied the same way as a biologist studies an
organism. How can one study the mind?
Husserl’s phenomenology
If Descartes was correct that the mind and body are distinct entities, how does one
study the mind as a distinct entity?

Husserl’s phenomenology solves this issue: To the study the mind we must study
how the mind experiences the world (how it acts/behaves) and one does this by
studying phenoma (recall Kant’s phenoma and noemena).
How does phenomenology do this?
Through eidetic reduction: one must shift one’s experience of a particular into a
universal (recall Plato’s world of forms). It is to recognize that a particular object
such as a chair is only an instance of the universal chair.

By using this method on consciousness, we begin to recognize that particular

events of consciousness (fear, imagination, dreaming) are instances of the true
nature or essence of consciousness.

By studying those particular acts of consciousness, we come closer to

understanding the essence of consciousness.
Husserl adopts intentionality
Only by studying the objects of consciousness (recall Brentano’s intentionality)
can we understand the nature of consciousness.

The subject matter is not the object of consciousness. Rather it is how

consciousness constructs/creates its object.
Sartre’s existentialism: Man is absolutely free
Combines the ideas of Brentano and Husserl:

- Brentano believed that only the mind can be conscious of itself, that is it can
be conscious of itself being conscious. Ex “I am aware that I am thinking”
- Sartre: The mental act or consciousness has two objects (two intentions), the
primary object, which is whatever is being thought of and a secondary object,
which is the act of thinking itself.
- In other words: Consciousness is conscious of itself (secondary object) being
conscious of something(primary object).
Sartre therefore says that consciousness is unique from the body because it exists
in itself and for itself. Consciousness does not simply exist, but it exists for itself
because it is its own object. This makes man free.

Since consciousness exists in and for itself it cannot be determined by anything

else but itself.

This allows consciousness to have a quality of “spontaneity.” Consciousness is

spontaneous because there is nothing that pre-determines it. And according to
Sartre this makes man absolutely free.
The self is non-existent
Man has no self because a self would be an entity distinct from a mental
act/consciousness, and therefore it cannot be self-conscious (since only
consciousness can be conscious of itself.)

If man had a self then he would be a being-in-itself and not a being-for-itself since
a self would mean that an entity would exist (essence/soul/spirit) that
pre-determines man.

Sartre says that if this entity existed it would divide his consciousness: one that is
free and spontaneous and one that is determined and unchanging.
Bad faith: a frightened consciousness
When consciousness becomes aware of its own spontaneity or its absolute
freedom, it becomes frightened and experiences an existential dread.

Consciousness is frightened because it realizes that it has no essence or constant

self that it can hold on it.

Consciousness in realizing its absolute freedom creates an ego out of fear: it

believes that the past, present, and future experiences all belong to a single and
constant ego.

This is what Sartre calls bad faith: consciousness tricks itself into thinking that a
constant self exists and that it is not absolutely free.
“Consciousness therefore tries to hide its own spontaneity from itself. By pretending that
all of my consciousnesses, past, present, and future, are parts of this particular structure
which is my ego, consciousness feigns limits to its spontaneity. By assigning
consciousness to a particular ego, we pretend that it is embedded in that structure, that it is
merely a part of a fixed pattern. But in reality there is no such fixed pattern, there is only a
spontaneous flow of consciousness. Man is free, not only in the sense that consciousness
does not harbor a chunk of being-in-itself in the form of a self, but also in that
consciousness is not a part of a rigid structure which is the ego. Consciousness is not a
creation of the ego, but creates the ego.”
“The spontaneity of consciousness is thus responsible for two important features of human
existence. Firstly, it is responsible for the dread that pervades our existence. Dread,
anxiety, is the fear which consciousness experiences when faced with its own spontaneity.
Here we have still another interpretation of the origin and nature of anxiety. Secondly, it is
responsible for what Sartre calls ‘bad faith’. Consciousness tries to hide its spontaneity
from itself. In order to escape from dread, it must lie to itself and deny its own spontaneity.
It must pretend to be part of a fixed pattern. It must think of itself as being determined by
character or personality. In order to escape from the dread of facing his limitless freedom,
man adopts roles and slips into personalities.”
If nothing else determines man, then he, Sartre says must realize that he is fully
responsible for himself.

All meanings are constructed by man’s consciousness and there is no meaning

that is outside man or pre-determines man.

Man must face his absolute freedom and create his own self and his meaning.