Sartrazsxcf1534e Freedom

7/23/2019 Sartrazsxcf1534e Freedom

1/98

i

THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM IN JEAN-PAUL SARTRE:

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

BY

VICTOR CHUKWUEMEKA OGUGUAREG. NO: NAU/2009086028F

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHYFACULTY OF ARTS

NNAMDI AZIKIWE UNIVERSITY, AWKA.

JULY, 2012.


2/98

ii

THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM IN JEAN-PAUL SARTRE:

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

BY

VICTOR CHUKWUEMEKA OGUGUAREG. NO: NAU/2009086028F

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHYFACULTY OF ARTS


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OFPHILOSOPHY

FACULTY OF ARTS


IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THEAWARD OF MASTER OF ARTS (M.A.) DEGREE IN

PHILOSOPHY

SUPERVISOR

PROFESSOR MADUABUCHI. DUKOR.

JULY, 2012.


3/98

iii

CERTIFICATION

Victor Chukwuemeka Ogugua, NAU/2009086028F a student of the

Department of Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts Nnamdi Azikiwe

University, Awka, has satisfactorily completed the requirements for

course and research works, for the Degree of Master of arts (M.A.) in

Philosophy.

---------------------------------- ----------------------------------PROF. MADUABUCHI DUKOR PROF. HARRIS ODIMEGWU SUPERVISOR HEAD OF DEPARTMENT


4/98

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank God for his mercies upon my life for making this project a

success.

I wish to show a great deal of appreciation to Prof. Harris

Odimegwu, the Head of Department, Prof. Maduabuchi Dukor, my

supervisor, Prof. Obi Oguejiofor, Rev. Dr. C. Mbaegbu, Dr. Ifechi, Dr.

Chris Abakare and Mr. Fidelis Aghamelu.

My profound gratitude goes to my lovely parents Mr. and Mrs.

Stanislaus Ogugua, my cherished siblings, Godwin, Stella, Peter,

Emmanuel and Paschaline

Finally, I acknowledge the various scholars whose works formed

part of my sources.


5/98

v

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my parents Mr. and Mrs. Stanlislaus Ogugua and

to my lovely brothers and sisters.


6/98

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTSTitle Page - - - - - - - - - - i

Approval Page - - - - - - - - - ii

Certification - - - - - - - - - iii

Acknowledgements - - - - - - - - iv

Dedication - - - - - - - - - - vi

Table of Contents - - - - - - - - vii

Abstract - - - - - - - - - - ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study - - - - - - - 1

1.2 Statement of Problem - - - - - - - 6

1.3 Purpose of Study - - - - - - - 6

1.4 Scope of Study - - - - - - - - 7

1.5 Significance of Study - - - - - - - 7

1.6 Methodology - -- - - - - - - 8

1.7 Definition of Terms - - - - - - - 9

REFERENCES - - - - - - - - - 12

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW - - - - 14

REFERENCES - - - - - - - - - 32


7/98

vii

CHAPTER THREE: GENERAL NOTION OF FREEDOM - - 34

3.1 What is Freedom - - - - - - - - 34

3.2 Kinds of Freedom - - - - - - - - 39

3.3 Limitations of Freedom - - - - - - - 47

REFERENCES - - - - - - - - - 52

CHAPTER FOUR: SARTRES CONCEPT OF FREEDOM

4.1 Freedom as Absolute - - - - - - - 54

4.2 Freedom and Choice - - - - - - - 58

4.3 Freedom and Responsibility - - - - - - 60

4.4 Freedom and God - - - - - - - 64

4.5 Being - - - - - - - - - - 67

REFERENCES - - - - - - - - - 71

CHAPTER FIVE: EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Evaluation - - - - - - - - - 73

5.2 Conclusion - - - - - - - - - 80

REFERENCES - - - - - - - - - 85

BIBLIOGRAPHY - - - - - - - - 86


8/98

viii

ABSTRACT

Freedom has been construed as the absence of coercion and restraint

imposed by others (that is freedom from).Freedom is also construed as

liberty to engage in spheres of activities (that is freedom to).This

implies that the individual has the right to choose and make decisions

without any interference or restraint. The paradox of freedom is that its

existence has become a subject of debate and controversy. For some

scholars, freedom presupposes free will. For Jean-Paul Sartre, freedom

is absolute. Recent debates in Social and Political philosophy regarding

determinism, the extent of ones freedom, have, in some ways,

contradicted the idea of absolute freedom in Jean-Paul Sartres notion of

freedom. This notion of freedom in Sartre is an exaggeration of human

freedom which leads to nihilism in contemporary thought and behavior.

Spurred by Sartres claim on absolute freedom, this paper, through a

critical analysis, concludes that absolute freedom is not possible based

on the complexities in human nature which are climatic; genetic

hereditary of instincts and passions like love and hate; physiological,

psychological, sociological and spiritual factors.


9/98

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study

Freedom is a very enigmatic and perplexing concept. According to

Kant, the three great problems of philosophy are God, freedom and

immortality1. Among these, is the freedom of the will. It is one of the

perennial problems in philosophy and it is the one most accessible to

reason.

The problem of freedom is as old as man himself. It has been

debated by various scholars of different epochs. Human nature is

encompassed by many complexities, which are climatic; genetic

hereditary of instincts; passions like love and hate; physiological,

psychological, sociological and spiritual factors. These have led to the

distortion of the true understanding of the reality of the human nature.

Many attempts to proffer possible solutions to the effects of these

complexities have resulted to untold difficulties. This is true with the

problem of freedom and free will in philosophy

From the earliest philosophers to present day thinkers, one question

continues to cause a serious problem, that is:


10/98

2

Is man free to mould his own destiny, or is hea mere straw in the wind of fate? Do ourideas, hopes, acts and wills mean anything inthe universe? Is it true as some hold that wecome from the unknown, and are buffetedaround by forces of which we have no control,and at last return to the unknown?2

Our common sense or intuition tells us that we constantly face choices or

that we make mistakes or that we are undecided about some certain

matters. To make a choice implies that the will is free to move in different

directions. The act of taking time to think of a course of action implies that

one is situated in a special condition of freedom. Richard Popkin states

that:

In most of our judgment about people, weassume that, in some sense, they choosefreely to do what they did or to believe whatthey do; we punish, condemn, or blameindividuals for making certain choices anddecisions, and insist that they ought to havedone something else, and if they had, theywould then be deserving of rewards andpraises.3

Jean-Paul Sartre, a prominent and renowned existentialist is not left out in

this debate about human freedom. For him, man is condemned to be

free.4 For some scholars, what distinguished man from other beings is


11/98

3

consciousness, but this is not true for him, he prefers to say that what

distinguishes man from other beings is freedom.

In his autobiography, titled The words, Sartre says he hated his

childhood because of the suffocating atmosphere of his grandparents

household. Tutored at home, he was isolated and deprived of association

with children of his own age. Sartres only friends were books that filled

his grand fathers study. I began my life Sartre says, as I shall no doubt

end it amidst books. In his philosophy, Sartre described the way we live

out our lives by choosing projects in an attempt to define who we are. He

says about himself, I keep creating myself; I am the giver and the gift.

As the title of his autobiography suggests, Sartre decided his lifes project

would revolve around words.

Sartre argued that whenever we are able to recognize our freedom,

we have a sense of anguish. As a result of this fact, there is the tendency

to raise questions as to know how free we are in actual fact. We then

begin to look into some of those things that we exercise our freedom in

doing and in choosing. If it is a fact that we are free in making choices

does it make any sense for us to choose one thing and leave the other?


12/98

4

Sartre does not restrict himself to inquiry into freedom for man, at

the expense of the circumstance such as environment, birth and other

conceivable constraints, but he goes further to evaluate the

responsibilities of freedom. The freedom of man goes with responsibilities

and this fact is unassailable. Hence man being condemned to be free

carries the weight of the whole on his shoulders; he is responsible for the

world and for himself as a way of being.

Freedom constitutes the essence of man and not vice versa;

freedom comes first before other make-ups of man. He overcame the

traditional teachings on man, on freedom as the essence rather than as

an aspect of man. The use of ones freedom is mans first character. All

personalities of man are as a result of his freedom. The constitutive

fundaments of man are his freedom. This freedom is not bound by any

moral law; the only norm is freedom itself. We are not free not to be free.

According to Iroegbu, in analyzing Sartres concept of freedom, he states

that, we are not free to cease being free5. According to J.J. Rousseau,

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.6 It should be noted

that Rousseau upheld the freedom of man but argues that there are many

things about human nature that we are not free to choose. According to

the determinists, you did not choose to be born, to have brown eyes, to


13/98

5

be six feet tall, to have blond hair, or even to have a particular disease7.

It is assumed that all these have been determined genetically. It is equally

to be noted that human freedom has limitations. We are free to do what

we are capable of doing, that is; mans natural capacity determines mans

freedom, I cannot, for example, decide to walk with my head or write this

note with my right leg.8In short, my freedom is limited within the ambit of

my natural powers. In view of all these, the metaphysical problem free

will seems to revolve around determining how far a belief in human

freedom is consistent with our experience, our views about human nature.

It is against this backdrop that this work will center on the analysis of this

concept of freedom as posited by Sartre. The work will also examine the

relationship of freedom to human nature and more so, mediate between

Sartres Absolute freedom and the Limited freedom of J.J. Rousseau.

This work intends to mediate between two extreme positions: that

freedom suggests responsibility and that the greater the freedom, the

greater the duties. It must be made clear that if man is assumed to

possess absolute freedom as Sartre says, then it goes with many

implications.


14/98

6

1.2 Statement of Problem

The most intractable and certainly the most humanly important

philosophical problem connected with causation is that of human

freedom. The subject has been debated mainly in connection with ethics

and especially with the question of responsibility for our actions. Yet this

seems difficult to reconcile with something else that we are also strongly

inclined to believe namely : (i) that everything is caused or determined or

that (ii) we are not responsible for our actions. Sartre, more than other

philosophers, argued for freedom so much so that he considered human

beings as freedom incarnate. He said there is no determinism, man

is free, and man is freedom.9

Therefore, can this form of freedom posited by Sartre be

actualized? And to what extent is he correct to say that man is absolutely

free?

1.3 Purpose of Study

This work attempts to make a critical analysis of Sartres concept of

human freedom. It is a fact that Sartres love for freedom made him to

make certain generalization on freedom, especially as it affects man. I

intend to expose such exaggerations that Sartre made.


15/98

7

In a more related development, a critical analysis will be undertaken to

expose the fact that absolute freedom is not tenable. On this note, a

comparative analysis will be made between Sartres work and that of

other scholars to enable us arrive at a conclusion.

1.4 Significance of Study

The importance of this work is that it will present a detailed analysis

of the whole concept of freedom on human nature in Sartres philosophy.

Freedom will be treated extensively in respect with other issues in

Sartres work; most of these related issues will be discussed. Effort will be

made in this work to examine and clarify all-important issues bordering on

the freedom of human nature.

This work exposes the extremeness of Sartres notion on absolute

freedom and its implications. More so, it will help to appreciate properly

the place and the role of freedom in human existence.

1.5 Scope of Study

This work is designed to serve the purpose of analyzing the whole

concept of freedom in the understanding of Jean-Paul Sartres philosophy

and as exposed in his major works: Being and Nothingness (1957) and

Existentialism and Humanism (1948). In these works he contends that


16/98

8

Man is condemned to be free, this means that no limit to mans freedom

can be found except freedom itself10. According to him, there is no

determinism, man is free, man is freedom,11.

1.6 Methodology

In every research work, the issue of method is quite indispensable

for any effective and efficient outcome. Therefore, this academic work will

be limited only to purely library work. Meanwhile, in order to be

philosophical, the approach will incorporate a critical analysis. This will

enable us to bring to light Jean-Paul Sartres concept of freedom that

man is condemned to be free; this means that there is no limit to

mans freedom except freedom itself12. Freedom is not merely a quality

that man possesses; instead, it is the essence of man. That which defined

him does not exist in order to be free subsequently but he has freedom as

his foundation.

The work will be structured into five chapters. Chapter one of this

work will center on the introduction which will give us an insight into what

the whole work is, the problems, the purpose of this work or aim of this

research, the key concepts therein and various notions on the subject

matter shall also be explicated. Chapter two will analyze the philosophical

view of some scholars on Sartres concept of freedom, in order to have a


17/98

9

proper frame of mind. Chapter three explains the general notion of

freedom while chapter four will discuss the concept of freedom by Sartre.

The last chapter will, in a substantial manner, critically evaluate J.P

Sartres notion of freedom and then the conclusion will follow.

1.7 Defini tion of Terms

Freedom

Freedom is defined by the Merriam- Webster Dictionary as 1: The

quality or state of being free as a; the absence of necessity, coercion, or

constraint in choice or action b; liberation from slavery or restrained from

the power of another C; the quality or state of being exempted or

released, usually from something onerous (freedom from care) d; ease,

facility (spoke the language with freedom) e; the quality of being frank,

open or outspoken (answered with freedom) f; improper familiarity g;

boldness of conception or execution h; unrestricted use. 2: a; a political

right b; franchise, privilege13.

Isaiah Berlin, in his seminar paper titled Two Concepts of Liberty14

in 1958, notes that the term liberty has been used in many different

senses. He calls these the negative and the positive concepts. Berlin

outlines the history of negative and positive conceptions, their


18/98

10

philosophical presuppositions and their implications in terms of political

practice.

Positive freedom is the freedom to say and do as we please in

public, such as the freedom of speech. It is the freedom to set up and run

businesses, the freedom to choose government officials and the freedom

to travel, anywhere one wants. Ironically enough, there is no place that

has total, positive freedom. Every government and society imposes some

restriction in public on individuals.

Negative freedom is basically the freedom from harassment. It is

freedom from external pressures, but what those pressures are have

changed through the ages. Now it would include sexual harassment, but

that term did not even exist 200 years ago. It would in this age include

ones private life, church life, leisure pursuit and even non-governmental

transactions such as buying goods and services. It could also be

considered the freedom from worrying about things such as crime.

In Summary, it is the realm of personal choice, but it is also the

realm of privacy including the right to be free from arbitrary searches and

the right to confidentiality in our financial and medical affairs. Positive and


19/98

11

negative freedoms; you cant have one without the other, but it is best to

have as much of both as possible.

Responsibility

Our concern with freedom is connected with the concept of

responsibility. The word responsible comes from the Latin word

respondeo which means I answer. It means answerable, and

accountable. This is the state or fact of being responsible for ones

action. To say that a persons action is free is to be able to ascribe

responsibility. It should be noted that some scholars hold the view that

human beings should not be held responsible for actions which resulted

from determining factors beyond their control.


20/98

12

REFERENCES

1. I. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Trans. Smith, N.K, London. TheMacmillan Press Ltd. Cited in J.R. Lucas. (Oxford Clarendon Press,1970), p. 1.

2. S.E. Frost Jr., Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers(New YorkGarden City Publication 1962) p. 127.

3. R. Popkin, et al., Philosophy Made Simple (London: WilliamHeinemann Ltd., 1981) p. 105.

4. . J.P. Sartre Being and NothingnessBarnes H.E., (trans), New York:Washington Square Press, 1966)

5. P. Iroegbu, Metaphysics, The Kpim of Philosophy: (Owerri:International Universities Press, 1996) p. 254.

6. J.J. Rousseau: The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right(Trans. Tozer H.J.),Wordsworth Editions Limited 1998) p. 5.

7. S.E. Stumpf, Philosophy: History and Problems, (New York: McGraw-Hill Inc: 1994), p. 741.

8. Ibid.p.742

9. J.P. Sartre Existentialism and Humanism (London: Methuen Books1984) p. 34.

10.J.P. Sartre, Being and Nothingness.p. 567.

11.Loc.Cit.

12. J.P. Sartre Being and Nothingnessp. 34.

13.http//www. An Encyclopedia Britannica Company Merriam WebsterM_W.com (access 23/04/2012).


21/98

13

14. I. Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty in F.A. Adeigbo, Readings insocial and Political Philosophy, Vol.1, (Ibadan: ClaveranumPress,1991)p.75


22/98

14

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 Literature Review

In our effort to understand properly the issue at hand and put this

present study in its perspective, the literature review enables one to see

the answers to this question of freedom of human nature. There are

different conceptions of freedom. Some scholars have made several

attempts, in written works, to solve the problems associated with freedom

of human nature.

In the course of their deliberations, different explanations gave rise

to contrasting positions on the concept. Here, we are going to analyze the

views of some prominent scholars who deliberated on Sartres concept of

freedom of human nature.

In his essay entitled, The Real Essence of Mans True Condition,

Cheryl Green defined what he considers mans reason for being or

existence. This is to make every man aware of what he is and to make

the full responsibility of his existence rest on him1. In assuming this

awesome task, man is plunged into three states or conditions, which are

not seen as negative to Sartre, but are means to activate, uplift and bring


23/98

15

into focus mans purpose of existence and his relation to other men.

These three conditions are anguish, forlornness and despair.

For Cheryl Green, Man is anguish2. One cannot only be concerned

for ones own good, but one also has to consider how ones actions will

affect those around one. The choice man makes in order to define his

existence necessitates taking an active, participatory role in creating who

he will be. This is in opposition to or with quietism or inaction.

For Cheryl Green, man, in relegating himself to the idea that God

does not exist, falls into forlornness which is abjectly accepting the fact

that he is alone in a place where there are only men and all possibility

of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with [God]. This

is to say that man is left to himself with nothing inwardly or outwardly to

hold on to for support. He is in fact, on his own without guide, without a

counsellor, without a consoler. In this state, Cheryl Green agreed with

Sartre that man is in absolute freedom. There is no one to blame, accuse

or excuse. Man is solely responsible for his existence and future. He must

therefore trust his own instincts.

Despair, the last of the conditions, focuses on mans will. Man has

the capacity and capability to decide for himself whether or not he will

engage in any endeavour or activity based upon the probabilities of that


24/98

16

event occurring. Once there is no longer control or involvement, one

should disengage from them because the world does not revolve around

the whims, the will of man. To be human is to be afflicted with

problems. Sartre writes: man is anguish, forlornness, and despair. This

condition crosses families, races, countries, and time. The words -

anguish, forlornness, and despair - automatically bring to mind human

suffering. I know these words to some extent, as I think all humans do.

What Sartre described in this theory of existentialism is mans true

condition when he is left to fend for himself in developing his place among

men. And if there is to be a future for man, he must rely upon himself as

the sole resource (inwardly and outwardly), to take upon himself the

responsibility for whom he will be and become in relation to himself and to

other men.

Cheryl Green argues that,

Man needs to be dependent on someone,something, or some environment to maintain asense of cohesiveness and belonging. It also is asafeguard and a check for his well-being and hispreservation, if you will. With man being so

awesomely made and capable of doing so much,why are there paradoxes strewn in his path. Man isso strong, yet so weak; so intelligent, yet capableof being so foolish3.


25/98

17

No man in himself could be all-inclusive; otherwise we could say he

is god. Man needs a polis with order, a polis in which man is responsible

for his actions, but not a man left to rely on himself as the creator of his

being and future according to Sartres notion of freedom.

Brandon Torrellas, in his article titled Exploring the Concept of Free

willexpressed his own view on human nature and freedom.The complex

question of whether or not human beings maintain freedom of the will as a

philosophical problem, demands attention. The implications of free choice

include the ability to assign personal responsibility and a sense of self-

worth. Ethical considerations rest on the ability of the individual to be held

accountable for his actions. Further, human experience seems to be

satisfied only with some conception of free will. Common perception

dictates that liberty of choice is apparent; but deeper investigation yields

some conflicting evidence. The term free will must be defined so that

the problem may be presented clearly. Brandon contends that freedom

of the will is normally understood to mean an individuals ability to choose

an action without coercion or influence from outside sources4. While this

definition does not appear remarkable, how can something be totally

without outside influence? It is clear that causes exist for almost

everything imaginable. If decisions and actions, like events and other


26/98

18

phenomena, have cause, then their outcome is merely as a result of

those causes. This could be stated as determinism. If human action is

dictated by an infinite series of preceding causes, then it cannot be

considered free. Determinism presents a tremendous problem for

advocates of free will because, if taken to its logical conclusion, it

describes a reality without any individual responsibility, a reality that is

unacceptable to a majority of people. And, herein lies the conflict. There is

a perception of free will, but at the same time, an apparently valid form of

reasoning concludes that there can be none.

Kirk Bookmyer, in his article titled freedom and choice, begins by

saying that our freedom to make choices in life has historically been

under scrutiny. The term freedom in this context relates to our day to

day decisions and the choices made available to us, and should not be

mistaken solely for political freedom5. The question whether we are truly

free to make our own choices has a number of responses. The two most

extreme responses range from a definite No, where everything in life is

pre-determined, to a definite Yes, where everything in life is

unpredictable and full of random events. The former belief is known as

determinism, and the latter is known as free will. Both of these arguments


27/98

19

will be explored to give an account of whether or not we are free to make

our own choices. A theme running throughout both arguments is our

moral responsibilities and being accountable for our own actions. It would

be difficult to talk about freedom without exploring morality because they

both have implications for each other. The theory of free will, which

advocates that we are free to make our own choices, has always been an

instinctive or a natural response with little evidence. Although this

argument can explain our moral responsibilities because if we are free to

do as we wish then we are accountable for our own actions. Sartre is

among the other philosophers that held this belief. He has his own

personalized ideas that encompass morality.

The free will argument states that we are free to make our own

choices. As humans we pride ourselves in the fact that we are free to

make our own choices and not having this freedom would leave us feeling

almost imprisoned. The free will argument takes into consideration that

there are some things in life that cannot be chosen, that is decided upon

by will, something Sartre calls facticity. These things could include the

fact that we were born as humans and that we are not free to lay eggs like

birds. But our everyday choices such as which job shall I apply for?, or

where should I live?, or as simple as shall I have a cheese or ham


28/98

20

sandwich? is up to us and nothing can stop us making this decision.

Sartre believes that we are free in life to make choices. This belief of

freedom stems from his existentialists views, that emphasizes that there

is no pre-existing blueprint of humanity to which we must conform. In

other words, humans choose what they become. This notion is expressed

in Sartres quote existence precedes essence, meaning, we exist first

and then later make some meaning in our lives. Some might say this view

is bleak and depressing because what Sartre, essentially, is saying is that

we live a Godless and meaningless existence, but it is exactly this notion

which permits us as humans to be free to make our own choices.

Toni Doswell, in his own article titled Choice in Decision Making,

argues that there are times when we do not have a choice, such as where

we are born, but at times, we are forced to make a decision. For instance,

if someone has a gun to your head and the options are to do what the

gunman says or die. It is in this situation that someone might argue that

this is not a choice because you are forced into a decision. However,

Sartre argues that in this situation we still have a choice, it might not be a

great choice, but it is still a definite choice. This concept is explained well

by Sartre in the following phrase talking about men in war: I deserve it


29/98

21

because I can always get out of it by suicide or by desertion. Anyway, you

look at it; it is a matter of choice.6

In these unique situations, such as having a gun to your head, you

could argue either way about whether you have a choice or not. However,

the matter of the fact is that you still have an option which could suggest a

choice. The options might not be great but life in general sometimes

presents us with poor options. For example, continuing an unhappy

marriage or divorcing your husband, either way you will probably get hurt.

Steve Marshall, in his article Where true freedom begins and Ends

states that freedom is a state in which a soul has a choice from the

infinite directions and possibilities open to it. Choice is freedom, such that

we make this decision solely as soul. In spite of all our connections,

guidance and our separation, at the end of the day, we are given this

freedom entirely to decide our own life direction. Nothing, not even God

can change our choice. They can only ever guide us but the freedom is

always ours to take the advice or not. This is total freedom within a

restriction. We are restricted in the sense that our choices affect

ourselves, others and even God7.


30/98

22

For Coty Chriss, in his article Free will, he explained that human

behaviour is not based upon free will as we cannot do anything we wish

to do and our actions have been predetermined, in that, they are

inevitable. However, the inevitability of those actions is based on free will

of our choice. We can choose what to do in almost any given

circumstance; however the choice we make is already guaranteed and

the results of that choice are also guaranteed. This cycle can continue ad

infinitum. St. Augustine presents an excellent argument when he states

that every act of mans will and every desire and inclination whose first

link is in the hand of God, the first of all causes, proceeds from

necessity.8.St. Augustine agrees with Sartre that we can make choices in

any situation. Taking for instance, Sartres example of war, Augustine

would agree that one chooses any war that one finds oneself as a part.

However, Augustine suggests that such a choice will be made based

upon values, fears and desires present in the chooser. This is because

the chooser is not responsible for his/her own since an individuals

desires, values and fears stem from an outside source because this

outside source, be it the individuals upbringing, genetics or other factors,

are outside of our power or will, for which we are not completely

responsible.


31/98

23

We as humans are highly intelligent. We have intelligence

unparalleled by any other creature on this earth. In fact, it is our free will

or our right to choose what separates us. I have been granted the right to

exercise what I believe. No one can wield power over me or force

anything upon me that I do not allow; I always have the right to choose.

Every human is born with the ability to choose. However, sometimes we

convince ourselves that we have no choice. We train ourselves to see

one way. This does not mean that choice does not exist rather it merely

means that we forget that we have choices. For the fact that I am

endowed with free will, this means that I am free. This is not to say that

there will never be consequence for my actions. This rather means that

the consequences that I experience can be attributed to no one else but

me. It means that I cannot blame others for my misfortune and no one

can truly take credit for my fortune.

It is funny how people walk in the belief that they have been forced

into something when the truth is that they were merely persuaded to act.

The reason that we seem forced is because we are dissatisfied with our

choices. But when it seems that there are no choices and that our will has

been held hostage we must remember one central truth. There is not one

house that is built that does not have a door. Sartre argues that,


32/98

24

There is always a choice to be made thatthere is an exit even when you cannot seeone. There are always options, God made itso. There is not one person exists without thefreedom to exercise choice and it cannot betaken away, this is free will9.

Brent Emmanuel, in his article Free will suggests that human

behavior is the result of deterministic forces rather than choice based on

free will. As philosophers attempt to discover whether there is a god,

many questions arise. One predominant supposition is that if there is a

supreme being and if that being knows everything, then how can we

suggest that we have freedom. In contrast, if there is no supreme being

then we obviously have complete freedom as our actions are not

predetermined by anyone or anything else. If, however, there is a god of

some sort and that god is infinite, then he/she/it would already know

everything and our lives should be completely scripted. Brent agreed that

there is a god and that god knows everything that will happen. Then

nothing will change the way things will happen, things do happen this way

because of peoples choice.

Brent suggests that it is therefore senseless to think of complaining,

since nothing foreign has decided what we feel, what we live, or what we

are. This argument is only tenable if one first rejects the existence of a


33/98

25

supreme being or a god. Indeed, Sartres first argument is basically that

there is no god or other supreme being hence we are completely

responsible for and dependent upon ourselves. Brent argues that the

very existence of moving matter necessitates the existence of a primary

mover who, that is not made of matter10. The nature of this god is difficult

to define however his/her/its existence is indisputable.

Considering the arguments that there are no accidents in a life, if

I am mobilized in a war, this is my war; I deserve it Sartre believes that

everything in life is a choice, hence we have complete free will. Emma

Jones argues that if Sartre is correct and we do indeed have complete

free will based upon our choice, we must also choose our choice; we

must also choose our circumstances. Then it would be logical to assume

that we can choose both our future and our pasts. Following this

argument, this present moment will become past instantly. Hence, being

able to choose our present means we are able to choose our past; our

present is simply our coming past. If we could choose our past, then this

ability must extend back to the beginning of our lives. Because we cannot

choose our parents, we cannot choose what type of situation we would

like to be born into. One cannot choose to or not to be born, into an


34/98

26

abusive home or a good home. Because we cannot choose our past, then

it is impossible to choose our present or future. They are simply pasts that

are yet to be. Because something foreign, our parents, and if one wishes

to extend the argument further, a God or other supreme being, has

chosen our past, it becomes our past. We can assume that Sartres

argument is invalid.

Louise Rusling, in his article Defining Determinism agreed with

Sartre that, as human beings, we are free to make our own decisions and

choices. This belief rejects the argument that life is pre-determined

because of past events (determinism). In other words, our everyday

actions are the result of other causes. He rationalizes the notion of human

freedom by explaining his thoughts on consciousness. For Louise

Rusling, human beings have free will and because consciousness is

empty, it does not determine what we choose. Sartre argues that we

definitely are not constrained by past choice and we are free to do as we

wish. Sartre does not deny that there are some things we cant change or

influence (facticity), such as, where we are born and who our parents are,

but believes we can change our attitude towards them. Sartre totally

rejects the concept that our genetics and upbringing shapes who we are


35/98

27

today; instead Sartre argues that humans have the responsibility to

choose what they become.

This view that we can choose who we become sounds appealing;

however, Sartre states that this freedom and responsibility we possess is

apparently too unbearable for us, hence his phrase condemned to be

free. Man being condemned to be free carries the weight of the whole

world on his shoulders; he is responsible for the world and for himself as

a way of being. I carry the weight of the world by myself alone without

anything or any person able to lighten it11.

Furthermore, Louise Rusling highlighted the example of war Sartre

used to portray our individual choices and decisions, stating that to be

involved in a war still means you had the choice to do otherwise, which

means that we have always got a choice no matter what. Sartre uses the

following phrase when talking about men in war. I deserve it because I

can always get out of it by suicide or by desertion. Any way you look at it,

it is a matter of choice.

Secondly, Bad faith (escaping our responsibilities): As human beings,

we always try to escape freedom which is too much for us, and one

coping mechanism to overcome this responsibility is something called bad


36/98

28

faith. Bad faith is a particular kind of self-deception that involves denying

your freedom. Louise agreed with Sartre because we are free in every

situation, we are also responsible for the choices that we make. However,

the weight of our freedom or responsibility, can lead to something Sartre

calls, bad faith.

Wang Stephen, In his article Freedom, Personal Identity and the

Possibility of Happiness, emphasizes that freedom is the foundation of all

human activity and of all the reasons, motives and values which arise

through that activity. In the search for explanations, there is nowhere

further back to go than the original choice of ends that takes place in our

very acts. Freedom is not just of many human capacities which we

activate now and then, it is the stuff of ones being. It is foundational

and self-continuous, since it is precisely the response we have to make to

the insufficiency of all previous foundations12. This raises a number of

questions. Is the free choice of each project irrational? Is everything within

each project complete?

Judy Merrill, in his article Natural Laws, holds that Freedom and

determinism is the balance that keeps us seeking for our purpose in life. If

all was determined as in destiny, then we would have nothing to strive for


37/98

29

in our search for the meaning of life. We would merely have to play out all

the events and circumstances already provided for us in our living.

So what is freedom?

Freedom is the ability to control ourcircumstances by the way in which werespond to all the visitations of life. We cansay that a particular circumstance is abusiveto us, by our own judgment, or we can chooseto enlighten rather than abused13.

Our feelings are our responsibility. If existence precedes essence as

Sartre portrayed, can we assume that we have circumstances on how we

accept (or reject) any of the experience of our lives? Our essence is in us;

we determine what our lives will be; we can accept and go with the flow of

the circumstance or we can rank rail against any circumstance and reap

the results of disorder, disease and discomfort. If freedom was offered in

all circumstances without some form of responsibility, then we would be

treading on others right to freedom of choice. That is, perhaps, where

balance comes into play.

William Bowman, in his article Freedom and Choice writes that we

can only assume that our lives are ours to live as we seem fit or assume

that they are predestined, pre-scripted, and were just saying our lives are

going through the motions. But nowhere will we find real, actual proof for


38/98

30

one side or the other of the argument. However, we have the ability to do

whatever crosses our minds to do. I could smear Alfredo sauce all over

my body and run through the streets singing the star spangled banner but

this choice is weighed against various bad outcomes that would follow

such a choice. I might be arrested, I would certainly be laughed at,

considering the shape Im in, i might very well have a heart attack.

So, while we are free to do what we are not free to do, without

consequence, so its not really free will, is it? I think truly, free will

extends only so far as restricted by what we have been taught and what

we have experienced.

Where does that leave us? Well obviously, William contends that,

We have freedom to make choices thatchange our lives, but our freedom only existsas the ability to choose between thoseoptions. Some of those options are so self-injurious that theyre not really choice at all,but we can choose them all the same. Theonly restrictions placed on our thoughts thatwe can know about are our experience andour imagination14

From the above literature review, it is clear that no scholar agreed

completely with the view of Sartre on absolute freedom. The different

explanations, during the course of their deliberations gave rise to


39/98

31

contrasting positions to the concept. Yet none was able to mediate

between absolute freedom and limited freedom. However, the main thrust

of this work is to critically analyze the concept of freedom in relation to

human nature as elucidated by Sartre, and the gap this study wishes to fill

is to assert that there is a nexus between human nature and freedom with

a view to exposing the possible limitations and implications of the concept

of absolute freedom as expressed by Sartre.


40/98

32

REFERENCES

1. C. Green, The Real Essence of Mans True Conditionhttp/www.cheryl green.com (access 16/06/2012)

2. Ibid p.1

3. Ibid.p.2

4. B. Torrellas Exploring the concept of free will, http/www.BrandonTorrellas.com(access 16/06/2012)

5. K. Bookmyer, freedom and choice, http/www. KirkBookmyer,.com(access 16/06/2012)

6. T. Doswell, Choice in Decision Making http/www.Toni Dosewell.com(access 16/06/2012)

7. S. Marshall,where true freedom begins and Ends, http/www. SteveMarshall.com (access 16/06/2012)

8. C. Chris Free will http/www.Coty Chriss.com (access 26/06/2012)

9. . J.P. Sartre Being and Nothingness Barnes H.E., (trans), New York:Washington Square Press, 1966) p. 231.

10. B. Emmanuel Free will http/www.Brent Emmanuel.com (access16/06/2012s)

11. L. Rusling, in his article Defining Determinism, http/www. LouiseRusling.com (access 16/06/2012)

12. W. Stephen, Freedom, Personal Identity and the Possibility of

Happiness,http/www. Wang Stephen.com (access 16/06/2012)

13. J. Merrill Natural Laws, http/www.Judy Merrill.com (access18/05/2012)


41/98

33

14. W. Bowman Freedomand Choice, http/www.William Bowman.com(access 16/04/2012)


42/98

34

CHAPTER THREE

3.1 GENERAL NOTION OF FREEDOM

What is Freedom?

The term Freedom has been defined differently by different scholars

and it is used as frequently as we use the words like love, pleasure,

pain, hate, 'justice and peace with the hope that we know its

meaning. But, when viewed critically, we notice that we do not possess

the real meaning of the word. Different scholars have developed different

conceptions or ideas about freedom; some see it as the absence of

blame. As a philosophical concept, there is no unanimity regarding the

concept of freedom, that is freedom is allowing us to wear anything we

like to school and have our hairs as long as we choose"1. Freedom is a

relative concept and therefore has generated both negative and positive

concepts. But the understanding of freedom is related to absence of

constraint, though the constraints can depend on diverse causes.

According to Royce, another general meaning of freedom is "absence

of coercion or necessitation. It does not mean lack of influence, but only

that these influences do not force me2. Freedom is considered as the

"...absence of external restraint"3. In a democratic system of government,


43/98

35

it is assumed that every one is free, at least to make a choice of

candidate for election.

However, we must not define freedom only in a negative fashion as

it were lack of something. Free choice, in itself, is action, a positive force

rather than a mere absence of force. According to the Encyclopedia of

philosophy, there are at least two basic ideas in the conceptual complex

we call 'freedom namely: "rightful self-government (autonomy) and

overall ability to do, choose or achieve things which can be called

'optionality' and defined as the possession of open options"4. In the light of

above quotation, freedom may be defined as the power for self-

determination, that is, ability to choose what to do.

A free action would therefore mean an action which a person

chooses to perform and which the person could also choose not to

perform. In other words, one has a freedom of action when one has an

open option in respect to some possible action. For example, choosing to

attend a wedding ceremony, when nothing in the objective circumstances

prevents the person from doing so, should the person choose not to

attend the ceremony. This implies that one has freedom of action when

one can do what one wills but in order to have full open options, it must


44/98

36

be supplemented by freedom of choice (free will) which consists of being

able to will what one wants to will, free of internal psychological

impediments. No wonder, Omoregbe says that "Freedom is part of man's

very nature as a rational being, and to lose one's rationality (by insanity),

cannot be free actions since the agent does not know what he is doing"5.

However, the Webster's New Encyclopedia Dictionary has the idea

of freedom being synonymous with license, which means "the power or

condition of acting without compulsion"6. Freedom has a broad range of

applications from total absence of restraint to merely a sense of not being

unduly hampered or frustrated. Freedom suggests release from former

restraint or compulsion. License implies freedom specially granted or

conceded and may connote an abuse of freedom.

Finally, almost all dictionaries have different approachesbut agree

that the term freedom calls to mind the negative aspect of absence of

restraint and the positive element of a certain idea of autonomy; self

control on one's activity.

Having taken a look at the general idea or conception of freedom, it

is pertinent to look at the individual views of freedom. For Royce, freedom

is defined as "The lack of both extrinsic and intrinsic antecedent


45/98

37

necessary. It means the 'will' enjoys the spontaneity of any elicited

appetite, which cannot be coerced against its inclination by any efficient

cause"7.Battista Mondin sees freedom as the absence of constriction8.

According to Hegel, freedom is the proper essence of the spirit, and, that

is to say, its own reality9. Obafemi Awolowo says:

Freedom means a state of being free to do whateveryou like in whatever way you choose, and atwhatever time you elect. We are all free to embark on

whatever trade, vacation, and profession we judgebest suited to our individual talents. In Short, we arefree to do anything.10

Philosophically speaking, freedom means the capacity to choose. It

involves the inevitability of choice, for to be free is to be compelled to

choose. It is therefore impossible for a free being to refuse to choose,

since refusal to choose, ipso facto, means a choice. For Sartre,

freedom is the freedom of choosing but not the freedom of not

choosing11. Freedom therefore, is a heavy burden laid on man's

shoulders from which there can be no escape, for I am responsible even

for the very desire of fleeing my responsibilities.

3.2 Types of Freedom

Most legal freedoms can be divided into three main groups:

1. Political freedom


46/98

38

2. Social freedom

3. Economic freedom

3.2.1 Polit ical Freedom

For Battista Mondin, Political freedom consists in the absence of

political pressures12. For Ogunmodede, political freedom is collective

freedom. For him, it is the state where multiple complex group of people

known as the state are both politically self-autonomous and economically

self viable and reliant13. Political freedom gives people a voice in

government and an opportunity to take part in its decisions. It is self

determination and the absence of imposition of political rule on any group

of people by another.

This freedom includes the right to vote; that is to choose between

rival candidates for public offices and to run for office oneself. Political

freedom includes the rights to constructively criticize government policies.

Political freedom also includes the right to equal accessibility to

government offices and positions14

.

This is to say that every citizen who has attained the age of

eighteen and above has the right to participate in the politics of the state


47/98

39

through voting and through contesting for official positions. This right also

enables a citizen to have access to government offices and positions in a

state, either through election (elected officers such as the president,

governors, legislators etc), appointment (ministers, commissioners,

ambassadors etc) or employment (civil servants).This right also enable

the citizen to constructively criticize obnoxious policies of government

while praising government for good policies well implemented.

The contemporary idea of political freedom includes the notion of

full citizenship in the personal endowment of every matured man and

woman in the body politics.

3.2.2 Social Freedom

Social freedom, according to Battista Mondin,is the absence of

social determinism such as birth, status, class in the realization of ones

potentials and talents in the society15. This type of freedom is inherent in

the constitutions of states as Fundamental Human Rights. Chapter IV,

sections 33-43 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

contains the Fundamental Human Rights16 as adopted from the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


48/98

40

THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS

RIGHT TO LIFE

Section 33(1) Every person has a life to life, and no one shall be

deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a

court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in

Nigeria.

(2) A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his

life in contravention of this section, if he dies as a result of the use, to

such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such

force as is reasonably necessary

(a) For the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for

the defence of property;

(b) In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of

a person lawfully detained; or

(c) For the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or

mutiny

The implication of this is that no individual or government has the

right to take the life of a citizen. This is the most fundamental and crucial

right to which all other rights hinge.


49/98

41

RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF HUMAN PERSON

34(1) every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his

person and accordingly

(a) No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or

degrading treatment.

(b) No person shall be held in slavery or servitude; and

(c) No person shall be required to perform forced or compulsory

labour.

NOTE: Forced labour does not include that which is required as a

sentence or order of a court; any form of labour that is required as duty to

the community or well-being of a country.

RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY

Section 35(1) every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty

and no person shall be deprived of such liberty. The citizen is free from

assault battery and molestation. Any person who is arrested or detained


50/98

42

shall have the right to remain silent or avoid answering any question until

after consultation with a legal practitioner or person of his choice and,

within 24hours be informed of the facts and grounds for his arrest or

detention in a language that the person understands; and shall be brought

before a court of law within a reasonable time. Any person who is

unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and

public apology from the appropriate authority or person.

RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

Section 36(1) In determination of his civil rights and obligations,

including any question or determination by or against any government or

authority, a person shall be entitled is a fair hearing within a reasonable

time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in

such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality. . Every

person should be given adequate time and facilities to defend himself.

Citizens are entitled to appeal to a higher court against a judgment which

they consider unfair.

(5)Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be

presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty be a court or tribunal.


51/98

43

(10)No person who shows that he has been pardoned for a criminal

offence shall again be tried for that offence.

THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE

Section 37(1) the privacy of citizens, in their homes,

correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communication

his hereby guaranteed and protected.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION

Section 38(1) every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought,

conscience and Religion, including freedom to change his religion or

belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in

public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in

worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Section 38(2) No person attending any place of education shall be

required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any

religious ceremony or observance if such instruction, ceremony or

observance relates to a religious other than his own or a religion not

approved by his parent or guardian.


52/98

44

Section 38(3) No religious community or denomination shall be

prevented from providing religious instruction for pupils of that community

or denomination in any place of education maintained wholly by that

community or denomination.

Section 38(4) nothing in this section shall entitle any person to form,

take part in the activity or be a member of a secret society.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE PRESS

Section 39(1) every person shall be entitled to freedom of

Expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart

ideas and information without interference.

Section 39(2) Without Prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)

of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and

operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and

opinion. Provided that no person, other than the government of the

Federation of a state or any other person or body authorized by the

president on the fulfillment of conditions laid down by an Act of the

National Assembly, shall own, establish or operate a Television or

wireless broadcasting station for any purpose whatsoever.


53/98

45

RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION

Section 40(1) every person shall be entitled to Assemble freely and

associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to

any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection

of his interests.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

Section 41(1) Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely

throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of

Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereto or exit

there from.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall invalidate any law

that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society

(a) Imposing restrictions on the residence or movement of any

person who has committed a criminal offence in order to prevent

him from leaving Nigeria; or

(b) Providing for the removal of any person from Nigeria to any

other country to

(i) Be tried outside Nigeria for any criminal offence; or


54/98

46

(ii) Undergo imprisonment outside Nigeria in execution of the

sentence of a court of law in respect of a criminal offence of which

he has been found guilty provided that there is reciprocal agreement

between Nigeria and such other country in relation to such matter.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

Section 42(1) A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic

group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason

only that he is such a person:-

(a)Be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of,

any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of

the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of

Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex

religions or political opinions are not made subject; Or

(b) Be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical application

of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive

administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not

accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic

groups, and places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions.


55/98

47

(2) No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation

merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth.

RIGHT TO ACQUIRE AND OWN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

Section 43(1) every citizen of Nigeria shall have the right to acquire

and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria.

3.2.3 Economic Freedom

This kind of freedom enables people to make their own economic

decisions. This freedom includes the right to own property, to use it, and

to profit from it. Workers are free to choose and change jobs. People have

the freedom to save money and invest it as they wish. Such freedom

forms the basis of an economic system called capitalism.

3.3.1 Limits on Freedom

The laws of every organized society form a complicated pattern of

balanced freedoms and restrictions. Every form of freedom is to be

enjoyed within the bounds of law. Some people think of laws as the

natural enemies of freedom. The anarchists believe that all systems of

government and laws destroy liberty. Actually, the laws both limit and


56/98

48

protect the freedom of an individual. This means that the freedom that

sustains an individual should be linked to other individual. On this, J.S Mill

asserts that:

The only freedom, which deserves the name isthat of pursuing our own good in our own way solong as we do not attempt to deprive others of

theirs or impede their effort to obtain it17.

However, the law also promotes and forbids people to hit others. But

equally guarantees that people will be free from being hit.

3.3.2 Primary Limitations

Primary freedom is freedom for the full use of our abilities; the

freedom for each person. Its limitations come for each person. Its

limitations come from within us. They may be genetic e.g. sickle cell,

ontological or physical incapacitation. These limitations are causal. They

inhibit us from thinking, feeling or doing specific things and they arise from

our own psychosomatic make up.

3.3.3 Secondary Limi tation

Secondary limitations originate from our environment. They are

placed on us by our society. We are limited by the customs, traditions,


57/98

49

sociological structures and civil laws of the society in which we live. We

are also limited by the immediate needs and desires of the other people.

Even the freedoms we enjoy through rights have limitations.

The right to life is limited by the taking of the life of a person

condemned to death by the ordinary court of law for offences of murder,

armed Robbery and treason (crime that could cause danger to your

country such as helping enemies during war). The right to the Dignity of

the Human person is limited by lawful detention and torture of a suspect

to get information. The Right to Personal Liberty is limited by lawful

detention; imprisonment by a law court; detention of lunatics and

detention of the sick on medical grounds not to spread infectious or

contagious diseases. The Right to Fair Hearing can be limited through

timing, when the case is delayed or through court congestion and when

the judiciary goes on a strike action. The Right to Private Family Life can

be limited by the infiltration of Law Enforcement Agents into the home of

suspected traitors for the purpose of state security. The Right to Freedom

of Thought, Conscience and Religion can be limited by the fact that if a

parent decides to send a child to denominational or religious school other

than that of his parents religion, such a child will be given instructions on

that religion. An example is a Muslim sending a child to a catholic school,


58/98

50

the child will certainly be taught Catholicism. The Right to Freedom of

Expression and the Press can be limited by the law of libel, sedition and

slander. LIBEL is the act of printing a statement about somebody that is

not true and that gives people a bad opinion of that person. SEDITION

involves the use of words or actions that are intended to encourage

people to oppose a government. SLANDER is a false spoken statement

intended to damage the good opinion people have of somebody.

The Right to Freedom of Association can be curtailed by police

order to ensure peace and order in times of organized or violent

demonstrations. The Right to Freedom of Movement can be limited when

a dusk to dawn curfew is imposed in times of emergency. (A curfew is a

restrictive law which says that people must not go outside after a

particular time at night until morning). It can also be limited when one

commits a serious offence that prevents one not to leave the country.

The Right to Freedom from Discrimination can be limited by the

following: (1) A lunatic will be deprived of some of his rights when it is in

the interest of other citizens (2) When a person has a contagious disease

such as leprosy or tuberculosis. Such a person is isolated in the interest

of all.A citizens right to ownership may be infringed upon by government

if such is considered useful for developmental purpose and compensation


59/98

51

is paid for such. Also a citizen can lose the right of ownership if such has

been used as collateral for a loan or mortgage1


60/98

52

REFERENCES

1. B. James, Freedom and Choice in Education (London: HutchinsonEducational Ltd 1973) p. 50.

2. J.E., Royce Man and His nature, (United States McGraw-Hill Inc.1961) p.196.

3. P. Iroegbu, Kpim of Democracy Thematic Introduction to Social-Political Philosophy: (Benin: Ever-Blessed Publisher, 2006), p. 11.

4. E. Craig, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (London

Routledge, 1998) p. 753.

5. J.l. Omeregbe, Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study (Lagos:

Cepco Communication System Limited, 2nd edition, 1989). P. 50.

6. M. Harkavy, et al. Webster's New Encyclopedia Dictionary(LondonDog and Leventhat publishers Inc. 1993)p 321.

7. J.E.Royce,Man and His nature, Op.Cit p. 200

8. B. Mondin, Philosophical Anthropology, Man: An Impossible Project,(Rome:Ubanaina University press, 1985), p.102

9. G.G.F.Hegel, Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences,p442

10. O. Awolowo, voice of reason, (Akure:fagbemigbe Publishers1981),p15

11. J.P. Sartre Being and NothingnessBarnes H.E., (trans), New York:

Washington Square Press, 1966) p. 481.

12. B. Mondin, Op.Cit. p.103

13. F. I. Ogunmodede, Chief Obafemi Awolowos Socio-PoliticalPhilosophy: A Critical Interpretation, (Intec Printers, Ibadan,1985),p.80.


61/98

53

14. P.A. Igbafe & S.T. Ozara, Social Philosophy: An IntroductoryApproach,( Auchi: A&B computers), p.69

15. B. Mondin. P.102

16.The Constitution of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria, 1999.

17. J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government(NewYork: C.P. Douton and Company 1952) p. 427.

18. P.A. Igbafe & S.T. Ozara, p.77


62/98

54

CHAPTER FOUR

SARTRE'S CONCEPT OF FREEDOM

4.1 FREEDOM AS ABSOLUTE

Man Interrogates himself on his own reality. He cannotescape asking himself this question, since he is a problemfor himself. But, the more the spirit and the events of timeputs him in question, threaten him with confusion and thedissolution of the human order, and place him beforeexistence, then the more problematic he becomes. Thus,

the question concerning the nature of man, his place in theworld, and the sense of his existence, arises with a newseriousness and urgency1.

"Freedom is precisely the nothingness which is made to be at the heart of

man and which forces human reality to make itself instead to be"2

Sartre made freedom to be synonymous with nothingness, and as

such it constitutes the foundation of man's being his driving force. And at

the same time, the connection between the being flees from the

influences of being. This possibility of man is called freedom. Moreso,

expressing this clearly, Baskin asserts that;

The key of man's moral life is freedom. Man'sessence is to be free. Man is free to make what hewill of himself. Man begins without nature oressence. He (man) is the beginning of nothing. Manhas capacities, which he may or may not actualize,for he comes into the world with none of themrealized. Man is nothing, but he is free to make


63/98

55

something of himself. What he makes of himself willbe his essence. In other words, man first of allexists, turns up, appears on the scene and onlyafterwards defines himself.3

However, that man is nothing else but what he makes of himself, leads to

what Sartre calls subjectivity. The word subjectivity is used in two senses.

First, subjectivity means that an individual chooses and makes himself.

Second, that it is impossible for man to transcend human subjectivity. The

latter meaning is the essential notion of Sartre's freedom.

Sartre denies that there is such a thing as human nature, or a

human essence that determines or limits our choices. He claims that

what we choose to do (our existence) determines our nature (our

essence).he first principle of existentialism, then, is Man is nothing else

but what he makes of himself. If this is so, then people are absolutely

free. As Sartre explains in the essay "Existentialism", if existence

really does precede essence, there is no explaining things away by

reference to a fixed and given human nature, in other words, there is no

determinism man is free, man is freedom"4.The question of existence,

being, human freedom is not just a passive statement made by Sartre,

rather, it is based on his deep philosophical conviction that led him to

rejecting the existence of God.


64/98

56

Nevertheless, Sartre demonstrates his proof thus:- God and human

freedom cannot co-exist. If God exists, man is nothing. If there is freedom

for him, then there is no need to associate God with man. According to

Iroegbu, in Sartre's analysis of the absolute freedom, God has no place.

For to have a God beside man, would limit man's freedom. In fact, man's

total freedom banishes God as creator and as lawgiver, as both limit

human freedom5. The latter is absolute. In fact, Sartre's argument is that

if God were really to exist, then man's essence would have been fixed in

advance by God, so that man would simply be living according to this

fixed essence determined in advance. In effect, man would not be free but

determined prior by God, the creator of his essence. Man would then be a

ready made, finished product that lives and always remains as he is made

to be without the freedom to live otherwise or to be otherwise.

However, Sartre declares that man is a being who is not what he is

and what he is not that is a self creating being who is not anything in any

fixed way, but who continually makes himself as he pleases. There is no

human nature since there is no God to conceive it. Man is not only as he

conceives himself to be, not as he wishes himself to be, as he conceives

himself after existence. Freedom is man and man is freedom. Freedom is

not merely a quality that man possesses; instead, it is the essence of


65/98

57

man; that which defines him. For Sartre, human freedom precedes

essence. The essence of a human being is suspended in his freedom.

Man does not exist in order to be free subsequently, but he has freedom

as his foundation. In other words, man's essence does not precede his

existence, but rather his existence precedes his essence. Man was not

created, for he is free and independent and is a self-creating being.

Nobody gave him any fixed nature or essence according to which he must

live. It is he who creates himself his own nature or essence for he is free.

Man is free but lacks freedom not be free. An existence, which is exactly

what he is and which therefore, is pure positively, cannot be free. I am

condemned to exist for ever beyond my essence, beyond the causes and

motives of my act. I am condemned to be free. "This means that no limits

to my freedom can be found except freedom itself ... that we are not free

to cease being free."6The totality of man's reality is freedom, hence it is

"defined as a being such that in its being, its freedom is at stake because

human reality perpetually tries to refuse to recognize its freedom"7

It is futile "to attempt to stifle man's freedom. Such move will

always collapse which is enough evidence that freedom in its foundation

coincides with the nothingness at the heart of man. Human reality is free

because it is separated by nothingness from what it is and from what it


66/98

58

will be. The freedom of man lies in the fact that he is not himself but

present to himself. As a result freedom could be seen precisely as that is

made to be at the heart of man and which forces human reality to-itself

instead of to be.

4.2 FREEDOM AND CHOICE

Freedom can be seen as a being: it is the being of man, his

nothingness of being. It is inconceivable for a man to be a slave at one

time and free at another. Man, in accordance with his being, is free for

ever. And this freedom is exercisable only in choice. Whenever one

makes a choice, one has exercised ones freedom.

The freedom of man comes into action when he makes a choice.

Any situation that I see as mine is constituted by me. It is I that chose it. It

is my choice to constitute the world in a particular manner. This particular

fact makes the responsibility of man to be overwhelming since he is the

one to whom it happens. Sartre, commenting on freedom as choice

writes, "The foundation act of freedom is a choice of myself in discovery

of the world."8The choice cannot be deliberate since it is the foundation

of all deliberation and since deliberation requires an interpretation in


67/98

59

terms of an original choice. Iroegbu states that:

Man has the creative power to escape themechanical laws of nature and evolution. The

progress of human creativity proves this his totalfreedom, my freedom is my whole being, my entireexistence. At the moral plane, therefore only onelaw operates choose thyself, choose thy values.Consequently, life is empty except the content youchoose to give it. Values as such are non-existent.

You create them for yourself.9

Out of his free choice, man makes his being and personality authentic. To

choose is not an unconscious act. However, it is simply one with the

consciousness, which we have of ourselves. For Sartre, to will to love and

to love one, are one; for to love is to choose oneself as loving by

assuming consciousness of love.

When Sartre says that man chooses his own self, he means that

everyone of us does likewise and again in making this creating the man

that life want to be, there is no single one of our acts which does not at

the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be. "He

continued to be this or that is to affirm at the same time its values....."

Freedom is choice of its being but not the foundation of its being. This

choice is absurd according to Sartre, but not because it is without reason,

but because there has never been any possibility of not choosing oneself.


68/98

60

A free being cannot but choose. To refuse to choose is in fact a

choice already made. In buttressing his points Sartre writes that "Freedom

is the freedom of choosing but not the freedom of not choosing. Not to

choose is in fact, to choose not to choose"10. Therefore, man in his

freedom must choose, even when he refuses to choose, he refusal to

chooses is already choice, so he must make a choice. Our freedom

constitutes the limits which we subsequently encounter we are free to

fulfill our wish, Baskin Commenting on freedom and choice writes

Freedom or to be free, does not mean not toattain what has been willed, but choosethrough oneself to will. If one fails in theprojection of an action, it does not concernfreedom itself because freedom is not thepossibility of attaining a chosen goal, but theautonomy of the act of choosing. Thus, man iscondemned to be free and he is responsiblefor everything he does`11.

Freedom involves the inevitability of choice. For a free being cannot but

choose.

4.3 FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

Sartre says:

I bear the whole responsibility without been able, whateverI do, to tear myself away from this responsibility for aninstant. For I am responsible for my very desire of fleeing


69/98

61

responsibilities. To make myself passive in the world, torefuse to act upon things and upon others is still to choosemyself.man is condemned to be free.12

Man is condemned to be free which means that the idea of man's

freedom is not negotiable. In essence, man is born into freedom. And this

freedom of man goes with much burden. Since the idea of being free

implies that there is no excuse for man's actions. Therefore, "Man being

condemned to be free carries the weight of the whole and for himself as a

way of being."13He is responsible for the world and for himself as a way

of being. Responsibility, in this sense, implies the cultivation of

consciousness by one to the effect that one is the author of all one's

actions. So, in reality the responsibility of man is of immense nature since

he is one by whom it happens that there is a world, since he is also the

one who makes himself, the for-itself must wholly assume this situation

with its peculiar co-efficient of adversity even though it be unsupportable.

He must assume the situation with the proud consciousness of being for

it. On this Baskin asserts.

For the very worst disadvantages or the worstthreats, which can endanger my person, havemeaning only in and through my project; and it isone the ground of the engagement, which I am thatthey appear.14


70/98

62

Therefore, it is senseless to think of complaining since nothing

foreign has decided what we feel, what we live or what we are. Our being

absolutely responsible for our action is a logical follow-up of our absolute

freedom. This freedom is not to be seen as resignation "what happens

to me happens through me and I can neither affect myself with it nor

revolt against it nor resign myself to it"15. Whatever befalls me is mine and

I am equal to it since what comes to me through me or other men is

human. Even a situation one may see as terrible war or torture cannot be

seen as an abnormal situation, for it cannot be seen as a non-human

situation. Each individual is responsible for his situation. Such a situation

has my image which means that it symbolized me.

Sartre objects to a non-human situation. He holds thus:

There are no accidents in a life; a community event whichsuddenly bursts forth and involved me in it does not come fromthe outside. If I am mobilized in a war, this war is my war; it is inmy image and I deserve it. I deserve it first because I couldalways get out of it by suicide or by desertion; these ultimatepossible are those which must always be present for us whenthere is a question of envisaging a situation. For lack of gettingout of it, I have chosen it. This can be due to inertia, to

cowardice in the face of public opinion, or I prefer certain othervalues to the value of the refusal to join in the war (the goodopinion of my relatives, the honour of my family etc).Any wayyou look at it, it is a matter of choice. This choice will berepeated later on and on again without a break until the end ofthe war. Therefore, we must agree with the statement by J.Romains, In war there are no innocent victims If therefore I


71/98

63

have preferred war to death and dishonour, everything takesplace as if I bore the entire responsibility for this war. Ofcourse, others have declared it, and one might be temptedperhaps to consider me as a simple accomplice. But this notionof complicity has only a juridical sense, and it does not holdhere. For it depended on me that for me and by me this warshould not exist, and I have decided that it does not exist.There was no compulsion here, for the compulsion could havegot no hold on a freedom. I did not have any excuse; for as wehave repeatedly said in this book, the peculiar character ofhuman-reality is that it is without excuse. Therefore it remainsfor me only to lay claim to war16.

This is certainly one of Sartres most troubling ideas. Yet it does

dramatize just how much freedom and power Sartre thinks we really

have. Believing that you are genuinely responsible for everything

around you might overwhelm you. But if you cope with that

responsibility, you would also feel extremely powerful. After all, if you

are really responsible for something, you must also have the power to

change it.

However J.P Sartre, in buttressing negative fatalistic view of human

liberty, enunciates:

I am necessarily a consciousness (of) freedomsince nothing exists in consciousness except as the

non-thetic consciousness of existing.... I amcondemned to be free. This means that no limits to

my freedom can be found except freedom itself...17

This means that to man is given the full weight of being absolutely free,


72/98

64

and thus of being fully responsible for his choices and actions. He does

what he chooses in his concrete existence.

Nevertheless, to make such objections as I did not ask to be born

is rather an indirect way of placing more emphasis on my facticity. The

fact is that everyone is responsible for everything that has to do with him.

The only fact is that no one is the foundation of his very being. That man

is abandoned in the world is not in the sense of his being passive in a

hostile world but simple that he found himself in a situation for his action

without any aversion to escape. This is so for one's very desire of fleeing

one's responsibilities.

4.4 FREEDOM AND GOD

Sartres idea of God runs counter to those of most other

existentialists. He sees himself as one of the atheistic existentialists. His

strong beliefs in human freedom further strengthen his firm stake on the

nonexistence of God. Man creates his essence. In actual fact, there is no

external factor that defines man other than himself. That is the reason

why Sartre maintains that there is no human nature since there is no God

to conceive it. And "not only is man what he conceives himself to be but


73/98

65

he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust towards

existence"18

Sartre like oth

Sartrazsxcf1534e Freedom

Documents

Transcript of Sartrazsxcf1534e Freedom