This is a response paper I wrote for my Existentialism class.

The link is to Beauvoir’s work, below is my response.

I will be responding to Beauvoir’s publication which lays out the idea that everyone has access to freedom in its purest sense, but not everyone properly makes use of it. There are children, who exist in a state of pseudo-freedom; acting freely under the values which they take to be “ready-made” by the adults that they view as supreme decision-makers. There are sub-men who simply assume they are not free and serious men who eliminate their freedom much like a child by following a set of values that they take as absolutes. There are nihilists who have failed at obtaining their freedom and decided that inaction is the best course, and then there are adventurers and passionate men, complete opposites of each other. The adventurers move through life taking action at every turn, but with no regard for others, not caring about their goal; the passionate focus on their goal so intensely that they shut out others and disregard the journey to the goal. Those who are truly free are half adventurer, half passionate. They have goals, and take a long, enlightening journey to reach them, interacting with others with compassion and concern along the way.

Beauvoir answers questions that I have recently been asking myself in a very straightforward manner. “How did my childhood affect me? As an anarchist, how do I achieve the freedom I desire?” I often reflect on the events of my childhood and try to relate them to certain traits in my personality and decisions nowadays. “The unfortunate choices which most men make can only be explained by the fact that they have taken place on the basis of childhood,” says Beauvoir in her opening paragraph. While I don’t have to follow the ideas of some dead author, certainly not if I agree with her on the importance of freedom, it is always nice when someone with an air of authority agrees with you. Childhood is a time when we are thrust into this world that we had no say in the creation of, but many people simply accept that world and assimilate themselves into it. I want to have a say in the shape of the world, not just accept the course we are running down. I think Beauvoir is spot-on in her idea that true freedom requires concern for the freedom of others along with passion and adventure. My biggest goal in life is to travel around the world cheaply, helping people with my knowledge and skills. It seems this would fit Beauvoir’s definition of the truly free because I would be pursuing my goal, taking risks and action, and showing concern for my fellow man all at the same time.

The ideas laid out in Beauvoir’s work are still incredibly important nearly 70 years later. We have so many people around the world, especially in the Middle East, fighting for their freedom right now. The politically minded, the revolutionaries, anarchists, and communists, are always calling for people to “wake up.” What they mean is “realize that you have this freedom and use it.” Too many people are sub-men or serious men and they allow the state to exist and therefore oppress those who are free. Even nihilists, adventurers, and the passionate would be better, closer to true freedom. Nihilists have a disregard for the established system much like anarchists, and adventurers and the passionate provide excellent contributions to the world through their discoveries and creations.

As much as I agree with her, I disagree with Beauvoir’s use of the term “anarchy” in her 20th paragraph. “By following a strict injunction to commit disorder and anarchy, one achieved the abolition of all behavior, and therefore of all ends and of oneself. “ She means that if one’s only goal is to destroy any sort of established peace, to constantly create chaos, then there is no way to ever achieve a goal after that. Anarchy however, is not chaos. The anarchist logo, a capital “A” inscribed in a capital “O,” comes from a quote by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 19th century philosopher and politician. “Anarchy is the mother of order.” Anarchists reject an established hierarchy and anything other than autonomy or the consensual following of someone else’s authority and promote a “system” (I hesitate to use that word because of implications of a hierarchy or state) of peaceful collaboration. There is a fairly long discussion on the Wiktionary definition of “anarchist” about this, which I have contributed to.

Overall, I like Beauvoir’s piece. We share an almost identical point of view on the definition of true freedom. I would definitely recommend, and will probably share this work with others. It is clear and concise enough that you don’t have to be a philosophy student to understand it. I would read more by Beauvoir, as she is an excellent author and philosopher.