THE MEANING OF ENGAGEMENT IN SARTRE’S EXISTENTIALISM

Abstract

This paper attempts to present the notion of engagement as an indispensable moment of Sartre's understanding of existence. Sartre does not take man as a given among other facts, as a mere biological being or an object among other objects that will "explain" the positive sciences. He understands man, in the footsteps of Kierkegaard and Heidegger, as a self-conscious, free existence (lat. Existentia). On the original meaning of the term "existentia" and Sartre's use of that term, which is closest to the original spirit of the meaning, one can see the distinction that distances him most from other philosophers of existence, and most from religious ones. Existence is not just my (personal) thing, something that concerns only me and my closed subjectivity/interior, nor is it a matter of my (personal) relationship with God or the question of discovering the meaning of Being. Existence is always coexistence, being-in-the-world, always in a situation. If I am always "in" a situation, more precisely if I am a situation, I "exist only as engaged". Sartre's use of the word "engagement" opens up two dimensions of the term that correspond to his developmental path in philosophy. Addressing Marx as much as Kierkegaard, Sartre accepts the socio-collective dimension of existence. Such existence is not (only) engaged in the "exclusive" search for personal (own) meaning, but is always directed to Others. Others may be the limit and obstacle of my search for authentic meaning, but they are also a condition of my search, of my commitment. That is why being thrown into the world, among others, does not only mean being in conflict with and against others but also means the possibility of cooperation and a common search for collective meaning. The two modes of engagement that are operational in the early and late phases of Sartre's philosophy, although different in their meaning – one is focused on the individual-personal meaning, while the other is a matter of socio-collective practice – do not have to be opposed. I am a unique and concrete existence, but I am also a coexistence among Others, in-a-situation, in-a-world, in-a-society, in-a-collective. That being said – my personal meaning may be contrary to the meaning of community, but the fact remains that it can only be developed in that community!