Self Encounter; 7; Responsible Freedom

[beep] [beep] [music playing] [Dr. Hazel Barnes]: The existentialist state emphatically that man

is free. But if every man is free then then their exist paradoxically at least one limitation to my freedom and that is the freedom of the other person. Thus at the outset we find a paradox: freedom and responsibility are inseparable. What does this word responsible mean? First of all it means acknowledging oneself as the author of an act so that if I have led a responsible life, this means that I am willing to admit that the life which I have lead has been one in which at each moment I said to myself in so many words or by implication, this is the life I have freely chosen to make. I do not pretend that it could have been otherwise if other people had made it different. In this sense it's easy for us to see that we are are responsible for others as well. For in the course of my existence I am bound to do many things which

inevitably affect the life within which the other person makes his choices. Therefore, I am the author of the circumstances in which he has chosen. But responsible has another meaning as well and this refers to the idea of obligation and recognizing an obligation. Being willing to answer a demand whether it has spoken or unspoken. William James stated that we have all the elements of an ethical system the moment we have two loving souls on a rock. And this is all that it takes; just one person to exert acclaim upon me, which I am willing to acknowledge as in some way valid. The existentialist declare that one's freedom is responsible in both of these ways. That we should care for the other person, we should recognize the demand that he makes upon us. They start out by saying that I have to

recognize the other, for I need the other in order to know myself. As I develop gradually over the years my idea of myself this is inevitably influenced by the image of myself which I seem to see in the other person's eyes. And as I judge, as I judge him, I have to exert more or less the same judgment upon myself and I am aware too that he is judging me. What he thinks of me is part of my data. I am trapped on my own imagination. Jean-Paul Sartre has dealt with this theme in his play, "The Devil and the Good Lord." In one scene, a forest scene, Goetz and the priest Heinrich have met to settle a bet. Goetz had bet that he could do nothing but good for a year. He learns that he has miserably failed. That when he thought he was least acting, he had acted most. He finds out one other

thing too that he needs the other and especially an enemy in order to know who he is. The meeting takes place in the presence of Hilda, the girl gets gloves. [Heinrich]: Happy anniversary, Goetz. [Goetz]: Happy anniversary, Heinrich. [Heinrich]: The peasents are looking for you. To kill you. I had to run to get here before them. [Goetz]: To kill me. To hell with it. They do me an honor. I thought I'd been completely forgotten. And why do they want to kill me? [Heinrich]: Last Thursday's the barons cut ?Nastfs?' army to ribbons. 25,000 dead. It was a complete rout. [Goetz]: 25,000 dead. They should have never engaged in the battle. The idiots. They should've- The devil, we're all born to die, aren't we? They put the blame on me, of course. [Heinrich]: They say you would've avoided the butchery had to accepted the leadership of the troops. [Hilda]: Goetz. Goetz. [Goetz]: What is it? [Hilda]: You cannot stay here. [Goetz]: Why not? I must pay, mustn't I?

[Hilda]: You have nothing to pay for. You are not guilty. You have no right to get yourself killed. That would be cheeting. [Goetz]: Ah, yes. Cheating. Well I've cheated all my life, haven't I? Begin the interrogation. This is the moment. I'm ready. [Heinrich]: Tell her to go away. [Hilda]: You will have to talk before me. I will not leave him. [Goetz]: He's right Hilda. This trial must be conducted in private. [Hilda]: But why let him put you on trial. Let us leave the village. [Goetz]: Hilda, I need to have someone judge me. Everyday, every hour, I condemn myself but I cannot convince myself because I know me too well to trust in myself. I cannot see my soul anymore because it's under my very nose. Someone must lend me his eyes. [Hilda]: Take mine. [Goetz]: No. You cannot see me either. You love me. Heinrich hates me, therefore he can convince me when my thoughts

come from his mouth, then I could believe in them. [Barnes]: As human beings, we live outside ourselves. Since nobody ever is or could be a Robinson Crusoe from the moment of his birth, my being is effected at its very heart by my awareness of the other. I cannot judge him without knowing that at the same time I'm opening myself to his judgment. And I'm aware that as I judge him I will be called upon also to judge myself in the light of what I had thought of him. Simone de Beauvoir points out that in my relations with others, they enable me to escape the limitations of my own finitude. Life would be unimaginably impoverished if we were limited to just those things which administer directly and immediately to our own needs. But through my interest in the other, I expand my own experience. I can even in a sense

escape my own mortality, for I can make a meaningful part of my life the projects of others until even what happens after my death is significant for me and makes my life worthwhile. Camus has attempted to connect the idea of revolt with the feeling of the oneness of mankind. When a man says I will go this far and no farther, I prefer to die rather than to suffer the shame or this suffering, then says Camus, he is asserting that there is something which transcends him, which is a value which is there for all of mankind. And human solidarity emerges. As Camus expresses it I revolt, therefore we are. Sartre speaks about the "us" object and the "we" subject. It is perhaps easier to feel one with other people in the face of some common threat. In political terms, the "us" object

emerges when you have an oppressed group facing conquerors or oppressors. But if the oppressed group suddenly asserts itself to throw off the yoke, then a "we" subject emerges as they try to gather to accomplish a value which is the same for everyone. In an everyday life we are constantly aware of the emergence of this "we" whether it be in the chamber music concert or the football team, where we accomplished not only something which we couldn't do alone in an external sense, but we developed our own capacities, our own potentialities in a way that we could never do by ourselves. Christianity and existentialism, the humanistic sort, both assert the infinite value of every human soul. For different reasons of course. For the Christian all souls are infinite because they were equally metaphorically at least the children of God. For the existentialist, the humanistic existentialist,

there is no god to guarantee this equality, but the mere fact that no subjectivity is privileged and that all subjectivities are from one point of view isolated, means that each one then is equally valuable. No one has any right over the other in any absolute sense. One cannot being logical give any value to his own freedom without thereby asserting an equal value for all other freedoms, individually and collectively. And if I say that the other person's activities are no more significant than those of an act, this is to say that all human endeavor is like that of the ant heap, including my own. One can of course refused to acknowledge the responsibility and the Christian camp I suppose theoretically say I believe in God, but I do not want his happiness. I do not accept his promise of heaven. But this is to be inconsistent and self-blinding. An existentialist too may

choose to be self-blinding, but we can call him mistaken and dishonest. This perhaps seems a little too abstract. Let's notice how de Beauvoir has worked it all out in her novel, "The Blood of Others." This is late and pre-war France. The two central characters are Jean, who feels perhaps too acutely his responsibility and ?Alain?, who can't get beyond the personal at all to feel that others even exist. They're talking together on the evening when they have heard the news that Austria has been annexed by Nazi Germany. [street sounds] [Helene]: Will you take pleasure in tormenting yourself? After all it's not your business. [Jean]: Not my business. Oh, I wish someone would tell me what is my business. [Helene]: There's your own life. Don't think that's enough? [Jean]: But my life is made up with my relations of remainder of mankind. Austria is part of my life. The whole world is part of my life. [Helene]: Quite. And these people who are passing us now are part of your

life because you see them. That doesn't mean that your responsible for what happens to them. [Jean]: That remains to be seen. [Helene]: Oh it's as though you imagine that you created the world. [Jean]: One day I read, "each of us is responsible for everything and to every human being." It seems so true to me. [Helene]: I don't understand. [Jean]: Of course if you look upon yourself as ant in ant heap, you can't do anything about anything. I'm not saying I could've stop the Nazis invasion by stretching out my arms, and yet if we had stretched out our arms [Helene]: Maybe, but no one did. Others are just as responsible as you. [Jean]: That's their business. Certainly we're all responsible, but all means each one of us. I've always felt that every since I was a kid. My eyes are sufficient for this boulevard to exist. My voice gives a voice to the whole world, when it's silent it's my fault. And you still don't understand. [Helene]: Yes, I- I understand

[Jean]: I didn't create the world, but I create it again at every instant by my very presence. And I see everything that happens [Helene]: Yes [Jean]: as though it were happening through me. [Helene]: Yes [Jean]: What's wrong? [Helene]: Why should other people have rights over us? That's the thing I've been unable to understand. [Jean]: It's not a question of rights. The others are there. One must be blind not to see them. [Helene]: Then I must be blind. [Barnes]: World War II begins and still Helene cannot get outside her own tight little world. By using influence she manages to get Jean transferred out of the army and into a civilian job and he is so disgusted he breaks with her completely. Then it is reported that the Germans are about to enter Paris. With hundreds of other parishioners Helene flees in mad panic only to find that there's nowhere to go and they have to return. As she is sitting with other refugees on dusty road

she seems suddenly to hear Jean's words from the past spoken to her now with a new meaning. [Helene]: What are your husband and the others waiting for? [Woman]: To be given a gas coupon. [Helene]: Once they have the coupon, will they get gas? [Woman]: When the gas comes. [Man]: They aren't taking any more train travelers to Paris. [Woman]: Why do they tell us to go home, if they won't help us to move? [Man]: They say there's a famine in Paris. [Woman]: And here. They'd rather we died on our feet. [Jean]: The others are there. One must be blind not to see them. [Helene]: Are you from Paris? [Woman]: We come from one of the suburbs. [Helene]: I with these people who have a car. They may find some gas to be able to start off again. Would you like them to take you? [Woman]: They'd take us? [Helene]: Well, I don't promise anything, but there is a chance. We must wait a little. [Man]: They've given me the ten liters. [Woman]: Oh, we'll be able to get out of this place. [Man]: They say its easier to get food further ahead. [Helene]: Ah, please

would you mind if I gave my place to the young woman who's over there with her child. Oh, I'll manage if you would be so kind to my suitcase with you. [Man]: This young woman? [Helene]: Yes. That child of hers will die if you don't take it away. [Woman]: What about you? It's impossible to carry an extra person in this car. [Helene]: I know. I told you I'd manage. [Man]: Then she better get ready. [Helene]: Come on. Get in. [noise] Watch your head. [noise] [Woman]: Aren't you coming? [Helene]: Good bye. [Woman]: Thanks. [car driving off] [Barnes]: Helene has taken the first steps in the direction toward recognizing her responsibility for others, but as the novel develops she has to go further. She can see that a particular other is there and a part of her life, but

she can't somehow feel the reality of the big events which are going on around her. She tries now to take refuge not in the personal, but in the impersonal. It's all a force of history, the march of history she says. What have I to do with it? I can't stop the march of history. What have I to do with the Russi- Russians or the Germans or any other nation which tries to enter into some other country. I as an individual must simply submit to my destiny. But as time goes on Helene finds that no matter how impersonal she may feel the force of history is, the people who suffer are real. Again, a concrete event broadens her horizons. Her childhood friend, ?Joyce? is about to be arrested and is likely to be sent to a concentration camp. She seeks help from Jean, whom she hadn't seen for a long time, and she tells him there that she wants to work with him in his resistance group, for

she has come to know the existentialist lesson, that history is carried on by people who lived the history and consequently the war which comes is my war, the peace whether shameful or prosperous is my peace. By my very choosing not to do anything to stop events, I am allowing them to happen and furthering them on their progress. Helene also finds the answer to another question. She had wondered throughout her life whether one can find any meaning to it, whether it was all worth living and no intellectual answer had ever seen to satisfy her. But as she works in the resistance movement, she comes gradually to know that life has meaning. "It is worthwhile for me at that instant when I find something which I am willing to die for." As it turns

out Helene does give up her life as a result of her work in the resistance movement. Jean, the leader of the group, sends her out on a mission with a bomb and as a result she is fatally wounded. The events of the novel, "The Blood of Others," have actually not taken place as I've been discussing them here in the same order. The whole novel is done as a series of story reconstructions, of flashbacks, partly in the mind of Jean; partly a matter of one might call the omniscient author's interpretation, but nevertheless giving us the events which Jean had known and known about. And supposedly all of this is being retold as Jean is sitting by the bed of the dying Helene. Not only is he thinking about his relation with her but he's thinking of what this means in terms of his next action. For he is posed to give the order that another friend is to go out

and lay a bomb or in the other hand he can stop him if he likes. And unless he can somehow justify the fact that he has been responsible for Helene's death he doesn't feel that he can give the order for his other friend. Jean from the beginning had recognizes responsibility, but he had been terrified always of the results which his action might have. Earlier in his life a friend had been killed because Jean had asked him to go with him to a political meeting and in the riot which ensued the friend had been killed. As so Jean felt almost paralyzed with regard to any action. How could he take any step whatsoever when another person might be harmed or killed by it. Was this not an assault on the precious freedom of the other? During the time before the war he tried to maintain a position of non-intervention but gradually came to see that neutrality, whether for better or for worse

is not a passive thing. It is an active position. Not to choose is already to have chosen. In anguish Jean learned another existentialist lesson. He realized that the other person changes, distorts the meaning of my acts and this is the cause of human despair that I recognized my total responsibility at the same moment that I realize my complete inability to control an act or to judge its outcome. As Helene dies, she finally gives to Jean some assurance. She explains to him that people just like the things in the world have to be, in a sense, the objects within which my freedom chooses itself and makes of itself a life. But just as I need the resistance of the outside world in order for me to take

any action whatsoever, just as it is I who gives the significance to these actions, so with other people. I come to them, I interfere with their freedom. Whatever I do is an assault upon it. If I cry to prevent them from risking their lives this is just as much an assault as if I were to try to force them forward. But basically I am to them just like the material world in which they live. I may assault their freedom by my action but it is they who choose what significance to give my act. Let us look at the scene in which Helene tries to tell Jean not to feel guilty. [Jean]: You awake? [Helene]: What did the doctor

say? [Jean]: He didn't give much hope. [Helene]: I thought so. I don't mind. [Jean]: Helene, you're here and it's my fault. [Helene] Where in lies the fault? It was I who wanted to go. [Jean]: But I could've forbidden you. [Helene]: You had no right to decide for me. [Jean]: That's what you used to say. But I let you choose. Did you know what you chose? [Helene]: I chose you and I would make the same choice over again. No, I wouldn't have wanted any other life. [Jean]: You didn't choose me. You stumbled against me as you stumble against a stone and now - [Helene]: Now? What is there to regret? Was it really so necessary for me to grow old? [Jean]: Is it true you regret nothing. [Helene]: Nothing. And above all, don't feel

guilty. [Jean]: I'll try. [Helene]: You mustn't feel guilty. I did what I wanted. You were just a stone. Stones are necessary to make roads. Why otherwise how would one choose a way for oneself? [Jean]: If it were true. [Helene]: But it is true. I'm certain of it. Why, what would I've been if I'd never done anything? [Jean]: If I could believe you. [Helene]: Whom will you believe? [Jean]: When I look at you, I believe you. [Helene]: Look at me. I'm going to sleep for a little while longer. I'm tired. [Jean]: I must believe you. No harm came to you through me.

Under your feet, I was an innocent stone. As innocent as the stones, as that piece of steel that tore your lung. It was not I who killed you. Helene. Helene. [knocking] What is it? [Laurent]: I want your answer. [Jean]: Yes it's over. [Laurent]: Did she suffer much? [Jean]: No. [Laurent]: The time bomb can be laid within an hour. Do you agree or not? [Jean]: For you, only an innocent stone you had chosen. Those who will be shot tomorrow have not chosen. I'm the rock that crushes them.

I shall not escape the curse. Forever I shall be to them the blind force of fate. But if only I use myself to defend that supreme good which makes innocent and vain all the stones and all the rocks that good would save each man from all the others and from myself. Freedom. Then my passion will not have been in vain. You've not given me peace. And why should I desire peace? You've given me the courage to accept forever the risks and the anguish. To bear my crimes and my guilt which would rend me eternally. There is no other way. [Laurent]: Don't you agree?

[Jean]: Yes, I agree. [Barnes]: There we saw the full scope of the paradox of the existentialist view of responsible freedom. The existentialist accept Dostoevsky's statement that everybody is responsible for everything and to every human being. And I know that in the anguish of my decision the world and others will steal my action from me and make of it what they will. There is no escape. And yet whatever I do to others, whatever others may do to me, cannot be made by either one of us a way of evading our own responsibility. We are all, each one of us, totally responsible and totally without excuse. [music playing] [music playing]

[music playing] [music playing] [music playing] Material for Self-Encounter was taken in part from "The Literature of Possibility, a Study in Humanistic Existentialism" by Hazel E. Barnes published by the University of Nebraska Press. "The Devil and the Good Lord" by Jean-Paul Sartre was translated by Kitty Black. "The Blood of Others" by Simone de Beauvoir was translated by Yvonne Moise and Roger Sandhaus. Both books are published by Alfred A. Knopf Incoporated. This is NET, National

Educational Television [ambient sound]