In his philosophical thesis, Existentialism is Humanism (1946) Jean-Paul Sartre defends existentialism by eloquently articulating his reasoning of existence

before essence. For it is in his estimation that mankind is brought into existence and the choices and actions he takes that create and define his essence. Therefore because it is in Sartres belief that man exists first the actions he takes to define his essence should be taken thus forth responsibly not only by man as an individual but to mankind as a whole. Though Sartre begins his thesis by clearly stating his only purpose here is to offer a defense of existentialism, (1a) in response to the many reprimands that have been laid before it by the communists, the Catholics and the Christians, but in truth Sartre not only defends existentialism against the many accusations laid before it but also goes quite in to detail about the atheistic view of existentialism and their view of existence before essence, which according to Sartre is the opposite of the Christian existentialists who believe in essence before existence. Though Sartre does give the Christian existentialist side of the defense it due his main focus is that of the atheistic existentialist view which he delves into on a much deeper level than the latter as he considers himself a representative of sorts for the atheistic existentialist standpoint. Nonetheless Sartre does put forth a worthy endeavor in an attempt to clear the name of existentialism by attempting to wipe clean the negative connation that has been associated with the term existentialism. Hence his first line of defense is to clam that existentialism, in our sense of the word, is a doctrine that does render human life possible; a doctrine, also which affirms that every truth and every action imply both an environment and a human subjectivity (Sartre 1b). In other words Sartre tries to adjust the focus of existentialism as a philosophical ideal to that of a religious view so that those of religious background who see offense with existentialism may see it in terms as that of their own doctrine. After all existentialists are being accused of having a

doctrine based upon pure subjectivity (Sartre 1a), yet if this is true, are not all doctrines based on subjectivity either religious or otherwise. For the bylaws set forth by said doctrines would only be subjective to those who it is meant for, after all, all religious doctrines are subjective to only those who follow that particular religion; the same is true for those of philosophical doctrines and so on. In response to the criticism of the existentialist doctrine Sartre attempts to explain it further but strictly for technicians and philosophers (2a) however. Yet he claims that this doctrine can easily be defined (Sartre 2a) however if there are complications in defining the existentialist doctrine it can only be due to the fact that there is more than one kind of existentialists, for in fact there are two. As mentioned before there are the Christian existentialists and the atheistic existentialists, however despite the fact that there are two very different sides to existentialism both are intertwined by one common thread: by the common belief that existence comes before essence (Sartre 2a). It is here that Sartre truly begins his arguments in the defense of existentialism. He does so by attempting to explain the existentialist reasoning of existence before essence by relating it to that of a manufacture creating a book or paper-knife (Sartre 2b). The manufacture knows what the function of the paper-knife will be before he creates it just as the same is true with an artist. Before pen is put to paper the artist in question does so according to a procedure and a conception, exactly as the artisan manufactures a paper-knife, following a definition and a formula (Sartre 2b). Subsequently just as the manufacture must contemplate what the function of the product s/he is creating, so must an artist envision what it is s/he will create before putting tool to material. Though reason can be seen with Sartres model, can one not disagree on his of an artist using formula to produce art? After all his/her work is not in truth thought out, it is more

or less thrust at them in the form of inspiration, the artist is simply struck with an idea of it is s/he wishes to convey in their work and though there is most likely a formula they follow to create their painting, sculpture, photograph, etc. there is no formula or procedure to what it is they actually create after all more times than not an artist simply works through some feeling or other unaware of what it is they are creating till it is accomplished and they are once again aware of their surroundings and what it is they have created. Though as stated yes there is a formula for whatever tools they may use to create their art, Sartres use of this kind of model is completely in accurate. Nevertheless, Sartres existentialist view of existence before essence, continues on to lead into the further belief that because man is created in a way that he encounters himself, surges up in the world- and defines himself afterwards (2 B), leads to the belief that mans actions will create who he is and what he is. For this very reason it is within existentialist reasoning that man must only be accountable to not himself as an individual but to mankind as a whole. In other words it is within reason to believe that according to existentialists mans sole responsibility is to take into consideration that their actions will not only reflect on their character alone but the character of all mankind. For mans responsibility is that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself, thus abandoned, must decide for himself; also because we show that it is not by turning back upon himself; but always be seeking; beyond himself, an aim which is one of liberation or of some particular realization that man can realize himself as truly a man (12 A). As one man is no better than any other, therefore one mans struggle and one mans problem is as that of another, With this in mind it can only be within reason that existentialism can be viewed with a romantic light, for with their belief that man is brought forth into existence and is only defined

by the character of his essence which consists of nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum f his actions, nothing else but what his life is (Sartre 7 A), thus he must choose for the good of mankind, what he is to be, for no man will intentionally create evil intentions against a fellow man, for he alone undertakes the choice with outside interference for he is abandoned; with no passion, guilt, or religion to cloud his choice nor signs to judge his actions is what truly speaks forthwith of a mans actions. For despite his impulsion to seek advice or claim divine interference man has already chosen what he would like to do prior to making said choice. Though be it doctrine of religion, a sign or a priori man forever chooses to make excuses on what has led him to that choice. Sartre however claims that man does not believe in the power of passion (4 B) abandoned (4 A), despaired (6 A), thus hence forth mankind must persist with life as a being that will triumph. After analyzing and evaluating Jean-Paul Sartres philosophical thesis, Existentialism is Humanism (1946) I must concur with his ideal of existence before essence for as he stated existentialism is nothing else but an attempt to draw the full conclusions from a consistently atheistic positionis optimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self deception, by confirming their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope (Sartre 12 A). In translation existentialism is nothing more than a philosophical speculation to matter of humanities existence and thus what is responsibility concerning mankind if not their essence.