refuting relativism

[mrnoodle]

Existentialism is nothing else but an attempt to draw the full conclusions from a consistently atheistic position. Its intention is not in the least that of plunging men into despair.

I say that existentialism, and Sartre, failed. If Sartre's own insanity and plunge into despair isn't evidence enough, then break his existentialism into its basic parts.

One man's actions define the condition of Man, and Man's condition defines the actions of one man. Yet you "deceive yourself" if you say that a will other than your own is being imposed on you when you choose an action. Those two statements negate each other. Sartre claims that "it is not for me to judge [a self-deceiver] morally..." then in the same paragraph claims, "Furthermore, I can pronounce a moral judgement. For I declare..."

There is no amount of pleasant, intellectual-sounding essay that can disguise the fact that atheistic existentialism is based on the circular argument that we can fashion a universality through our individual actions, and that our individual actions are the product of our universality.

Having decided that God didn't exist, Sartre spent the rest of his life trying to prove that it didn't matter anyway, and he went nuts. It's complete conjecture on my part, but I would imagine his internal battles were quite fierce, and only when the existentialist side won over in his mind did he actually put anything on paper.