Sartrean freedom requires facticity, not its absence

Evidence

None of this means that I make choices in a completely open field or void. I am always in some sort of pre-existing ‘situation’, out of which I must act. I actually need these ‘situations’, or what Sartre calls ‘facticity’, in order to act meaningfully at all. Without it, my freedom would be only the unsatisfying freedom of someone floating in space — perhaps a high jumper who makes a great leap only to find herself drifting off in zero gravity, her jump counting for nothing. Freedom does not mean entirely unconstrained movement, and it certainly does not mean acting randomly. We often mistake the very things that enable us to be free — context, meaning, facticity, situation, a general direction in our lives — for things that define us and take away our freedom. It is only with all of these that we can be free in a real sense. — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café, 508

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Defines ‘facticity’ and ‘situation’ and the counterintuitive point that constraints enable rather than negate freedom.
  • DEEPTHINKING: The zero-gravity high-jump image captures a genuinely dense paradox: freedom needs a constrained context to mean anything at all.
  • XREF: connects to: Facticity and the past are identical in Sartre’s ontology — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 433; Sartre holds freedom and facticity are ontologically distinct, so situation never limits freedom. — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre: The Riddle of…, 636; Freedom is not self-founded but thrown, creating its own facticity — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1156 (+10 more)

Broader Connections