Sartre’s Description of Bad Faith: Critical Analysis

Consciousness must be embodied in order to be tied to the physical world. Missing either would leave someone disembodied. This idea’s significance in Sartre’s portrayal of bad faith is that someone in bad faith made a conscious choice to be there but pushes reality to the subconscious, mixing the two. Bad faith connects to Sartre’s beliefs about freedom because when someone is in bad faith, they are not free, but are also applying their freedom by engaging in choice. This type of contradiction is also central to Sartre’s conception of God, as he believes God himself would be a self-contradiction. The consciousness of being is central to Sartre’s Being and Nothingness.

Sartre argues that consciousness must be embodied because the two joined together are the only way to have physical form, or your body as one full presence. If you transcende, for instance, you will have consciousness but you will be without physicality. Having consciousness along with necessary interactions with the material world are what allow you to avoid disembodiment. Disembodiment is being separate from the physical world and lacking the needed physicality altogether. Consciousness comes from what is not, so the conscious and subconscious are not separate, but rather part of one being. Sartre argues that consciousness can in fact transcend itself, since how else would the past and present both actively affect us? Since the past does exist apart from us, whether in our consciousness, subconscious, or wherever else, it is here for those who are aware. Regarding the past Sartre wrote, “If it is unconscious, as Bergson claims, and if the unconscious is inactive, how can it weave itself into the woof of our present consciousness?” (Sartre 109). Sartre is using this to say that both the conscious is active and, therefore, the past is active and conscious. The author argues that the past is not separate from the present, but rather intertwined within it. Due to this ideal, consciousness must be embodied when it comes to a human being, but disembodiment does not mean unconsciousness. Your specific consciousness also needs its body to be grounded, approachable, and useful to you. The being, Sartre explains, is not aware of itself unless it is objectified by someone else. The past, although conscious, is not aware of itself because it is not a being. Nothing exists without their presence, or absence, being recognized. If something else were to be disembodied, having no physical form or appearance of any kind, it could be only consciousness or nothing at all.

Sartre argues that consciousness, which allows the world to exist, enters the world through the for-itself. The for-itself is described as being conscious of its own consciousness, while also being incomplete. It is a conscious existence, contrasting from the in-itself which is more related to subconscious, concrete, and unable to change aspects. For example, a doctor is not a doctor in the same way that a chair exists as a chair. The chair is being in-itself because it is unaware of itself and its independence of the for-itself. Sartre argues that no one will ever be able to get to a person’s essence or core through just the in-itself. It is too definitive to be the root of such a cognitively complex being. Because of consciousness, whatever you appear to be is also something that you are not. You yourself know that because you are human, you are not a different species. Within the consciousness of being, the for-itself and the in-itself are considered the being. Embodied consciousness exists within the for-itself, and so in part within the in-itself. The subconscious is part of the conscious, therefore the in-itself must be part of the for-itself, as well.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

The significance of embodied consciousness for Sartre’s description of bad faith is the revolvement around the fact that you are conscious in bad faith, but not conscious that you are in bad faith. Bad faith is the idea that you desert and deny the real truth in order to gain a pleasing falsehood. It itself is indeed a choice and your own decision, for which you will be held responsible for. Although bad faith is lying to yourself and others, it does not exclusively involve bad people. Sartre recognizes that there are in fact good reasons for someone to turn into this kind of liar, although you would still be held accountable. An example of this is the act of being tortured. When being tortured, the victim will choose to force their mind into thinking solely about other, happier scenes. Although the victim is in no way in the wrong, they are still in bad faith according to Sartre because the pleasing falsehoods replace the situation’s realities in the consciousness. A second way to think about this is that discarding your true nature will place you in bad faith, too. Sartre uses a cafe waiter to explain this. The waiter behaves in the cafe as he is expected to as a waiter, but that is not how he would act while driving, while with friends, or really anywhere outside of the cafe. Sartre also discusses how this man is in the mode of being in-itself, as his choice and trueness were eliminated in the process. His realities of freedom and choice are pushed down and hidden to replay the deceit of the waiter-act over and over again.

The next part of Sartre’s bad faith is the idea that you, a subject, have the ability to make someone into an object, or make yourself into an object for a different subject. This is known from him as “The Look.” Sartre wrote, “This woman whom I see coming toward me, this man who is passing by in the street…are for me objects-of that there is no doubt” (Sartre 252). It is clear here that although subject-to-object and object-to-subject relationships are in bad faith, they are also natural and somewhat unavoidable in the author’s eyes. The idea behind you as the subject to the other person as the object is that you erase the freedom of them, making them suffer in a way. You appear to be unconscious of others needs here, as well. When you are the object to the other’s subject, you erase your own freedom through becoming something else. An example would be molding yourself to be the thing that makes your partner happy, becoming unconscious of your own needs as this develops. The remaining options between subject and object are actually not true options in bad faith. You and the other being can not both be objects because this would mean there would be no consciousness. It is not possible to both be subjects either, as Sartre sees no justification, for example, for being friends with someone without getting anything out of the relationship.

Sartre describes bad faith as instantaneous and freedom as a spontaneous choice. The concept of bad faith is so important to Sartre’s discussion of freedom because bad faith suggests a contradiction of freedom. When you lie to yourself you are not free, however you are indeed using your freedom to make the subconscious choice to be in bad faith. Sartre argues that his idea of freedom is simply making choices, and not being able to escape making those decisions. Bad faith in itself is a choice, so therefore you are free to choose in such a context. The author states on page 45 that “negation directly engages only freedom.” Negation can be described as denial of something, which is quite similar to bad faith. Also, negation in the sense of being a contradiction would naturally lead to questions, and therefore alternative decisions. What this means is that contradictions and denials, or negation, is only concerned with freedom as it is the only way to be able to escape it. Having the freedom to choose makes negation possible. Sartre also makes it clear that freedom can not have an essence. The essence of bad faith is the denial of truth, which is a negation in itself if you think of denial and truth as conflicting ideals.

Sartre’s conception of God is essentially that God’s existence would be a contradiction to his beliefs about consciousness and existence. The concept of God, to Sartre, is self-contradictory. Sartre was an atheist because of his other philosophical beliefs that proved to him God could not possibly exist. He also somewhat credits his thoughts to the self-described “mystic crisis” that he had at a young age. He wondered how God could be everything, be in everything, and retain a consciousness of everything on earth and beyond. God would have to break Sartre’s rules and be both for-itself and in-itself to exist. By Sartre’s standards if God were an independent being, he could not exist because that would be a dependent act. His objection to God is not that there is no proof, but rather that there is too much proof of the opposite. Another link between bad faith and Sartre’s religious belief is guilt. The guilt of bad faith comes from not accepting responsibility for the choices one has made when using their freedom. Sartre sees this as only using freedom when it is appropriate to you, and relying on a greater being as backup when that is more beneficial.