Category: Bad Faith

Everyone has the same ability to accept or deny who they are. But according to French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), there is a specific habit that all human beings do constantly, and that habit is to deny and deceive ourselves. We keep ourselves from thinking that we have the freedom to make decisions because there is a chance that we are going to get a negative consequence from what we decide to do. Sartre coins this as “mauvaise foi”, or the more commonly known term as “Bad Faith”. Bad faith to summarize is denying some part of the important role you have in becoming who you are, and Sartre believes that this is all we do, not matter how much we try to avoid it. In the movie The Master, the main character Freddie Quell, shows many forms of Bad Faith. But the main area where Quell shows bad faith when he initially joins ‘The Cause’.

When Quell, joins Lancaster Dodd, or more referred to as ‘The Master’, in his religious group, called The Cause, Quell joined in thoughts that he could change who he is and he could change, or forget the past about he joining the military and his past relationship with Doris. But the military and his other past experiences, changed the way Quell has lived, and it is now something that he cannot change about himself. But when he joined ‘The Cause’ he immediately went into bad faith, as he is trying to change who he is, and change his own action. Before Quell joined the religious group, he was a WWII veteran, who like many others drank, to drown themselves in their own sorrows and attempt to forget about the war in general. At this time, Quell isn’t in bad faith, because although he is suffering, he isn’t denying who he is and isn’t trying to change himself. But once he meets the Dodd family, and they try and convince him to change, that is when Freddie starts, to enter bad faith. In the beginning he was being manipulated into “being a better person” and Quell does not see that he is in bad faith, he simply sees the change as a good form of living in that time. But as the movie progresses, he sees that they are trying to change who he is and he may not exactly know that he was in bad faith, but he knew that wasn’t supposed to be who he is. Once he sees that he quickly tries to overcome it and leaves The Cause, at the end of the movie, he supposedly had a dream (could have been real—no one really knows) and that dream lead him back the Master, in London, where Quell himself tried to convince himself that he should be with The Cause again, but he finally makes that decision not to succumb himself into bad faith again and reverts back into his old self. In this case, Quell originally does not see the bad faith in himself, but as many events, such as being pushed to do something over and over until he breaks, made him see that this form of him at the time is not the true him he should be and at the end of all of the mental pain that the Master put him through, he relinquishes himself from the bad faith, that The Cause put him into.

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.

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.

Tolstoy is not fully associated with existentialism, although in his work many existential themes are expressed. Tolstoy’s (1993) ‘How much land does a man need?’ looks into the existential idea of authenticity in relation to land ownership. Sartre is a major part of the existential discipline, with two important works which are ‘Existentialism and Humanism’ (2007) and ‘Being and Nothingness’ (1969). Sartre (1969) suggests the idea of bad faith, which is where an individual denies their freedom and acts in the mode of the in-itself (Yue and Mills 2008). In this essay I will argue that if an individual has bad faith they are inauthentically living their life, which is what Pakhom is doing as he is greedy and always wishes for more land. This idea of inauthenticity due to land ownership relates to the way land is owned in todays society. Everyone needs access to land but many have to pay rent to a private individual to have land which is inauthentic.

Tolstoy (1993) published ‘How Much Land Does a Man Need?’, which is the story of Pakhom, who was a peasant. During the story he keeps wishing for more land, never being satisfied with what he has, which is what leads to Pakhom’s death. At the beginning of the story Pakhom states “My only grievance is that I don’t have enough land. Give me enough of that and I’d fear no one – not even the Devil himself!” (Tolstoy, 1993, p. 97). This indicates Pakhom thinks the way he will be truly fulfilled in life is by having land. When Pakhom first buys land it is due to as necessity as “if we don’t we won’t be able to live, what with that manager bleeding us white with fines” (Tolstoy, 1993, p. 98). However, after this, when the opportunity to buy new land arises Pakhom states “I don’t really need to go away, with all that land of mine” (Tolstoy, 1993, p. 100) displaying his desire for more land, which is unnecessary. His greed for wanting land is tested when the Bashkirs offer him all the land he can walk round in a day, ending at his starting point marked by a cap. However, as the sun starts to set Pakhom realises may not make it to the end point, he states that he “must take the shortest way back. It’s no good trying to grab too much, I’ve quite enough already!” (Tolstoy, 1993, p. 108). As Pakhom reached the crowd of the Bashkirs and his workmen “his legs gave way, he fell forward and managed to reach the cap with his hands” (Tolstoy, 1993, p. 109). He was so committed to gaining this land that he finished the task, even though he knew it may kill him. This greed that Pakhom has for always wishing for more land means he is inauthentic.

Sartre’s existential ideas can help to understand Pakhom’s greed and inauthenticity. Sartre (2007) suggests existence preceded essence, which means a humans’ characteristics are due to actions in their life rather than their biology. He states we are condemned to be free, so we do not rely on anything to determine who we are. In this case individuals have to fulfil themselves according to their projects. Sartre also suggests all humans have a responsibility to other humans. Every action sets an example for all other humans to potentially follow. Pakhom sets an example of greed, never being fully happy with what he has and instead striving for more. The fact that Individuals have freedom to make their own choices and the responsibility for choosing for all humans can cause anguish to arise (Lafarge 1970).

Moreover, Sartre (1969) introduces the notion of bad faith, also known as self-deception (Santoni 1995), which may explain Pakhom’s actions of greed for land. Bad faith suggests Pakhom’s actions are inauthentic due to him always wishing for things to be different and disowning his freedom. There is no way to know if Pakhom could stop and live with what he has or if he always wishes for more. Therefore, we can never truly understand Pakhom’s desire for land. However, this theory proposed by Sartre may not be a good tool for analysing the story of Pakhom as there is no criteria for what would be authentic. Santoni (1995) expresses that Sartre does not give enough detail to understand good faith. Also, there is no way for anyone to assess if Pakhom actually has good intentions. As Pakhom realises he may not make it back to the Bashkirs before the sun sets he says “I’ve been too greedy” (Tolstoy, 1993, p. 109). This could indicate Pakhom was starting to understand his greed for land, which could have led him too stop wishing for more land if he had lived. Hence, he may no longer be in bad faith.

Land ownership in perpetuity is seen as inauthentic. This is because all humans require land in order to live, so when land ownership occurs others are made to pay rent to a private individual to access the land. Due to the necessity of paying rent that many people face, a majority of the population are essentially being stopped from having access to land. Also, it is inauthentic because an individual cannot own a common resource that has value due to the surrounding community. To be authentic individuals must only have possession of land. This is authentic because the individual only possesses the land as long as they are using it, rather than owning the land in perpetuity. With this system individuals may pay a fee that goes back into the community instead of to a private individual. Therefore, land possession is a more appropriate use of land.

The question of “How much land does a man need?” (Tolstoy 1993) leads to two existential answers. One idea is that a man only needs enough land to be buried in. This is an existentially pessimistic view of the question. This idea is expressed in the story of Pakhom because when he dies Pakhom’s workman “dug a grave for his master – six feet from head to heel, which was exactly the right length – and buried him” (Tolstoy, 1993, p. 110). A more realistic view of how much land a man needs is that they would only need as much land as they can use. This is a more sustainable view of land necessity, as no land would be wasted.

In conclusion, using the idea of bad faith (Sartre, 1969) the existential meaning of Tolstoy’s (1993) ‘How Much Land Does a Man Need?’ demonstrates how land ownership is inauthentic. It is a necessity for all humans to have access to land, without ownership in perpetuity, and instead with possession. Therefore, humans only have access to land they are using, while also ensuring that any fees being payed going directly back into the community.