Philosophy Now Forum

In his book Existentialism & Humanism Jean-Paul Sartre asserts that existence precedes essence - that we are free to define our own existence, and that we are defined as a result of our actions. However, what put Sartre at odds with much of the preceding and contemporary existentialist thinkers was his contention that there is no such thing as human nature.

In my reading of Sartre, I have not managed to find a satisfactory explanation of what precisely he means by this. Is he proposing that we effectively know nothing when we arrive into the world? Does he preclude the notion of instinct? That as humans we are predisposed to behaving in certain ways: love, grief, competition? Did Sartre even have an understanding of what human nature is?

Anyone any thoughts?

A human being is certainly not a 'Tabula Rasa' at birth, and the majority of our activity during our life is directed by Instinct or automatic processes. Only a very small portion is directed by conscious thought.

I have not read that book, just the lecture "existentialism is a humanism" and a lot of secondary texts on Sartre. And in the light of that, and thinking about that he talked about non-existence of a human nature, by best guess is that he more than talking about our innate capabilities, adresses that we cannot lean on "natural explanations" when we talk about human behaviour, taking things for granted, that there is a natual law that gives us answers about people.
We have to take the choice, to judge every single time,case by case when we talk about humans, as well as about other things.

I am just looking at an old interview with Searlse on Wittgenstein, and it gives me a little of the same taste, that there isn't things outside of the language game. I get the feeling that there is nothing to lean on, like a god or a nature, that there is a process and you have to appreciate that and enjoy the joyride.