The Concept of 'Bad Faith' in the Philosophy of Sartre

Jean-Paul Sartre is a French philosopher who makes his claims based on a combination of two philosophical traditions – existentialism and phenomenology. Sartre himself is an atheistic existentialist. He summarizes his claims regarding existentialism with three words – anguish, abandonment, and despair (25). In this paper, I will talk about Sartre’s definition of existentialism, its relation to essence, Sartre’s views on the moral choices and how they relate to art.

In the book Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies, by Seth Holmes he mentioned the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and his philosophy “Bad Faith”. Holmes explains “The phrase “bad faith” was introduced by Jean-Paul Sartre to describe the ways in which individuals knowingly deceive themselves to avoid acknowledging realities disturbing to them(Holmes86). The phrase explains us, when something bad is happening in our lives, we lie to ourselves to escape the truth that we don’t have to face them. This happens to everyone when we commit a really bad mistake and we don’t want to accept it. Another way this may happen is when you’re in a bad situation and you try to replace it with something else to get your mind off of it. Basically it’s a distraction, so we don’t think about what’s actually going on.

According to the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) “good faith” is the belief that those involved in a contract will act honestly and fairly. That is saying that those entering a contract will act in and honest and fair manner in regards to the contracts they are entering. The obligations of good faith are part of every contract under the UCC. They act as the framework for the parties entering a contract. An example of good faith is car insurance. A person pays monthly for car insurance with the understanding that their insurance company will cover a certain amount in damages if the car is involved in an accident. If after the car is involved in an accident they insurance company does not pay the amount agreed to for the damages they have not acted

Throughout the tragic play, Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, there are a multitude of characters who seem to act one way but, below the surface, are completely different than they are portrayed. These characters hide behind their own disguise, masking their true identities. The motif Seems Versus Is is brought to the reader 's attention in Hamlet because it shows that although people might seem to be one way, they can be completely different on the inside. These disguises serve as obstacles for Hamlet to overcome throughout the play.

Franco Zefferelli’s film, Hamlet, adapted from Shakespeare’s text, Mel Gibson’s Hamlet, struts and frets his life in Denmark, convincing almost everyone that he is “mad.” The film bases the question of whether or not Hamlet is actually insane almost solely on Gibson’s acting interpretations, but Zefferelli’s editing choices assist in making the point that Hamlet is not insane, but either in a fog of confusion and anger from his grief, or pretending to be mad to manipulate others.

       Hamlet is organized around various pairs of opposing forces. One of these forces is the difference between that what seems and that which actually is, in other words, appearance versus reality. What is, and what merely appears to be? We can discern two principal angles from which this question is approached in Hamlet. First, we have the angle of inward and outward emotions, and the profound distinction that is drawn between them. In other words, the tranquil face that we all show to the world is never the same as the turmoil of our souls. In Hamlet, Shakespeare explores this both explicitly, through the device of the play within the play, and implicitly, through the ways in which he uses

“Sartre believes mankind cannot escape responsibility by adopting an external moral system, as this in itself is a choice that we approve, implicitly or explicitly. He argues that, one cannot escape responsibility, as an attempt to separate one's self from their freedom of choice.”(Onof) “With freedom comes much more responsibility. Sartre feels that in bad faith however, the being is fleeing from more than just freedom, it’s fleeing from several aspects of its life, basically any type of lying. “(Solaman) “This inner anguish over moral uncertainty shows a personal feeling of responsibility over the choices one makes throughout their life’s.” (Onof)

Nearly every character in the play at some point has to make inferences from what he or she sees, has been told or overhears. Likewise, nearly every character in the play at some point plays a part of consciously pretending to be what they are not. The idea of acting and the illusion it creates is rarely far from the surface -

René Descartes was a skeptic, and thus he believed that in order for something to be considered a true piece of knowledge, that “knowledge must have a certain stability,” (Cottingham 21). In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes concludes that in order to achieve this stability, he must start at the foundations for all of his opinions and find the basis of doubt in each of them. David Hume, however, holds a different position on skepticism in his work An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, for he criticizes Descartes’ claim because “‘it is impossible,’” (qtd. in Cottingham 35). Both philosophers show distinct reasoning in what skepticism is and how it is useful in finding stability.

Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, begins with the appearance of a ghost, an apparition, possibly a hallucination. Thus, from the beginning, Shakespeare presents the air of uncertainty, of the unnatural, which drives the action of the play and develops in the protagonist as a struggle to clarify what only seems to be absolute and what is actually reality. Hamlet's mind, therefore, becomes the central force of the play, choosing the direction of the conflict by his decisions regarding his revenge and defining the outcome.

In doing so, one will come to the conclusion that Hamlet is driven by forces other than what is obvious to the reader, as well as Hamlet himself. Given this example, one must denounce the assumption that Hamlet is aware of the forces that motivate him, and understand that Hamlet’s true motivation is unconscious This unconscious force is the true reason behind Hamlet’s mysterious behavior. In naming this force, one must look beneath the surface of Hamlet’s own level of consciousness, and into what Hamlet himself is consciously unaware. The key to understanding Hamlet lies in the realization of the unconscious energy that provokes him to action and inaction. By channeling into Hamlet’s unconscious, providing Freudian psychoanalytical perspectives, Hamlet’s true unconscious motivation will be uncovered, and the mystery of Hamlet will be silenced.

Shakespeare’s use of illusion shows that illusion is in fact the most dangerous thing. Its benefits are outweighed by the never-ending list of dangers that the illusionist, victim, and innocent bystanders suffer from. Although both Claudius and Hamlet can fool others convincingly, it became apparent that their illusions can just as easily backfire onto themselves. Claudius lost control of his ambitions and exposed himself through his passion for what he’s gained, while Hamlet’s personal drive for revenge led himself to similarly deceive the masses, eventually succumbing to his own deceptions. Ultimately, both characters lose everything because of the dangerous game they played, all the while causing the deaths of innocent individuals whose involvement had good intent. From a theatrical point of view, Shakespeare’s utilization of illusion is what makes Hamlet such a brilliant play. The constant allusion to possible resolutions and the dramatic irony that it creates gives the audience the unfortunate opportunity to feel sympathetic for an entire cast of characters. Yet, Hamlet’s most important quality is in its ability to demonstrate for all the disastrous effects of illusion and why it is truly the “most dangerous

“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.

Good faith was described by Lord Bingham in Interfoto as “playing fair, coming clean, or putting one’s cards face upwards on the table.” It owes its origins to the law of equity and can be traced back to the case of Carter v

Jean-Paul Sartre was an influential 20th century existentialist who mostly acquired information on the study of consciousness and the study of being. Sartre spent many years studying philosophy and the existence of God mostly studying the works of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. He became a Professor of Philosophy at Le Havre in 1931 and then began teaching at Lycée Pasteur in Paris from 1937 to 1939. During his career, Sartre wrote about many philosophical theories, some notable books include La nausée published in 1938, Being and Nothingness published in 1943, and many more lectures and literature for individuals to read for years to come. Sartre was an important figure of existentialism and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1964 but turned it down. Some of Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialist principles are the act of free will, forced to take responsibility for all actions, and the existence of God.