Sartre on Emotions

This week we discussed Sartre and I wanted to focus mainly on his fox and the grapes story taken from Aesop’s fables. In the story, the fox comes across some grapes that he initially desires, but upon finding that they are out of his reach, decides that they are too sour anyway. Sartre uses this fable to explain his theory on emotions, and says that the fox is making an excuse to avoid action and responsibility because it is not the grape’s chemistry that has changed; the flavor of the grape didn’t change between the time the fox decided he wanted the grape and after he realized they were out of reach. The only thing that changed is the Fox’s attitude toward the grape.

The problem I have with Sartre’s analysis isn’t that the Fox’s attitude is what has changed, that I am in full agreement with, however I cannot agree that our emotions are a way for us to flee from freedom. The fox might have been deluding himself about the real reason he wasn’t devouring the grapes, but to say that he has fled from freedom or responsibility is a bit of a stretch. Had he assumed from then on that all grapes were sour because of his one bad experience with them, then perhaps you could say he was fleeing from freedom and/or responsibility. He would have been taking an extremely lazy route by doing that, basing his reality of the world on narrow ranges of experience and perception, instead of seeking out for himself whether or not his experience was really true. He would have become content with his conception of himself and reality (and his relationship to that reality). The Rabbi Menacham Mendel said of contentment with being:

"Just as it is the way of an ape to imitate humans, so too, a person, when he has become old, imitates himself, and does what was his manner previously. In other words, most of us, at some point in life, either consciously or not, become satisfied with who we are and what we've become. As such, we cease to strive toward attaining greater spiritual heights. We are content to live out our remaining days as a mere imitation of ourselves!”

When I injured my elbow because I was pushing the envelope while lifting heavy weights I said-- oh well, it’s probably not good for me anyway. And 3 and a half years later it is largely true. I’ve done only calisthenics since and I’m a lot lighter, leaner and my joints don’t ache. So while the initial response would have been seen as making an excuse by Sartre, sometimes excuses turn out to be something good later on as life unfolds. Had I refused to accept defeat and continued on, I would have likely caused serious injury to my elbow, and one that required major surgery, a cost I cannot afford. An excuse is just a response to a situation, same as any other, and it is neither good or bad. In this specific instance, the excuse was the appropriate response.

I think it is less important to place emphasis on excuses and more important to place emphasis on moralizing, especially in regards to other people. Where we really get into trouble in this culture is when any of us starts comparing ourself too much other people, which is a problem because that is the basic premise of our culture. This kind of competitive narrative we’ve framed for ourselves has led to whole lot of damn moralizing. And excuses. And that is when excuses reallllyyy become a problem, when used in conjunction with moralizing. For instance whenever an overly religious person blames the problems of the world on atheists, gays and baby killers, they are making excuses while simultaneously moralizing. This combination of the two is what leads people to oppress each other, which leads to immense amounts of suffering. I don’t think any of us want to be oppressed or to suffer needlessly.

(Semi-quick side note: While I realize that saying that weights weren’t good for me could be seen as moralizing, in this case it’s not moralizing because it really does lessen quality of life more than it adds to it. Maybe a similar comparison might be smoking tobacco vs not smoking. If looked at over a long enough span of time, it’s pretty easy to argue that tobacco is bad for you considering you can similar stress relief benefits from other activities, without all health risks. I’d be moralizing if I tried to create laws banning people from lifting heavy weights. I can share my experience and hope that it might lead a person to a better decision, but ultimately I can only be responsible for my own decision.)

I think similarly to Sartre when he said that man ought to ask himself the following, "Am I really the kind of man who has the right to act in such a way that humanity might guide itself by my actions?" Similarly, I believe that we must consider each and every one of our decisions from the perspective of the other. We must try to imagine how the actions of our decisions would affect me/I if the roles were reversed and the other was on the delivering end of the decision and me/I was on the receiving. And not just a singular other, an other of our particular liking, because that is just more moralizing. Everyone must be allowed.