Contains Sartre's famous essay "What is Existentialism?" He writes that it's "nothing else than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent athiestic position." When God doesn't exist, we are alone with no excuses for our actions: this is *forlornness*. And when we have no excuses, we are forced to acknowledge a total and deep responsibility for these actions: this is *anguish*. And we never deal in certainties; only with mere possibilities: this is *despair*. Cowards hide their freedom behind deterministic excuses. Stinkers think their own existence somehow nessary, when it's nothing but a giant web of contingency. What is not possible for man is not to choose; and to choose is to invent, and create oneself through action.

This was all very exciting to read as a young man. But now, upon re-reading, I am very disappointed by Sartre's statement that "man is condemned to be free." I understand that he wants human life to have more dignity than a paper-cutter or a cauliflower; and that's wonderful. I understand that he sees existentialism as an optimistic docrine that gives man freedom to take responsibility for himself; and that's great, too. But this freedom is not something to be seen as a necessary evil. We are not "condemned." Instead, freedom is the greatest *gift*. Yes, there are challenges that come with freedom. Yes, Sartre, it's impossible to make choices using a fixed moral doctrine when the situations we face are unique and unrepeatable. But it's a mistake to accociate freedom with anguish, forlorness, and despair. The appropriate response is joy.

WILD RELEASE NOTES:

It's away!