![[kriiisbella_httpss.mj.runNX0Mhmum5vg_large_indoors_scene_in_an__c7ec3985-c8a1-43f2-8f88-623394f9def2 4.png]] -[by Midjourney](https://cdn.midjourney.com/c7ec3985-c8a1-43f2-8f88-623394f9def2/0_0.png) # The Question In order to argue whether Sartre or Heidigger’s account of everyday selfhood and approach to authentic self are more convincing, I propose to evaluate them based on the following criteria: - first, which approach is more **intuitive** and **manageable** in life? - Second, what different **values** they offer from their solutions of achieving freedom? And subjectively what are the values I resonate more? # Intuition ## Default modes of human existence For Sartre, freedom is the fundamental and inescapable condition of human existence. This can be supported as Sartre asserts that human beings are "condemned to be free," emphasizing that freedom is not a choice but an inherent fact of existence. In statement like “I did something because of A”, freedom is listed aside of the other answers like divine guidance to fill up the blank “A”. Freedom or free will is offered on the same layer of all the other answers here, and meanwhile it is the only correct answer that stops one from deceiving oneself and helps one facing the true self by no longer lamenting other factors for the choice. Heidegger, in contrast, argues that human being is entangled with the "theyself", like an auto-copilot that drives the daily routine such as playing basketball as a athletic teenager and attending classes as student. In other words, freedom is not naturally given to one, and can only be achieved through a realization. Specifically, such process involves facing the “nothingness” and viewing the everydayness in a stranger perspective. For Heidegger, individuals are initially absorbed in the "they-self," requiring a conscious "turn" to move toward authenticity. In sum, Sartre argues the freedom as a default mode when a person is thrown to the world even though in everyday life individual often hides oneself beneath excuses. And such view of freedom is more intuitive from my perspective as it appears like an option for people to choose, and thinking about the idea that one is given freedom when born supports human being’s need for dignity. Heidegger on the other hand, argues that freedom needs to be uncovered through a mental realization with facing nothingness, or one dwells inside the auto mode set by others. And this picture is more subtly abstract as freedom is under the veil, for one to uncover. Also, Heidegger’s account of one experiencing anxiety and then being led to nothingness is more complex than Sartre’s version. As a result, thinking about the two’s different view on default mode in human beings, Sartre’s argument is more acceptable. ## Absolute Freedom vs. Relational Freedom For Sartre, freedom is absolute and does not rely on others. Sartre frames freedom as a one-place concept—freedom belongs entirely to the individual. He argues that individuals are fully responsible for their choices, independent of external structures or relationships. Sartre’s notion of authenticity is transformative, involving a complete redefinition of oneself that transcends societal norms and expectations. "In life, a man commits himself, draws his own portrait, and there is nothing but that portrait" (Existentialism is a Humanism, p. 359). This "nothing but that portrait" highlights the boundlessness of Sartre’s vision of freedom. For Sartre, the authentic self is not constrained by prior roles or regularities. Instead, radical freedom allows individuals to completely redefine their existence, filling life with self-created values and meaning. Authenticity, therefore, involves not just rejecting conformity but creating a limitless self through deliberate action. Heidegger challenges Sartre’s conception of freedom by framing it as a relational, two-place concept: freedom arises in relation to the world and others. For Heidegger, to be free means to relate to beings as they truly are, without being distorted by societal norms or preconceptions. For instance, a cheeseburger is not merely "indulgent" for one person or "unhealthy" for another but is engaged with authentically as a cheeseburger. Heidegger argues that freedom involves recognizing the interconnectedness of beings and choosing authentically within that relational context. This relational view extends to the "theyself," which encompasses all aspects of everyday existence, including routines, habits, and identities. Authenticity involves integrating the "theyself" into a deliberate, coherent totality rather than rejecting it outright. For Heidegger, the self is not boundless but situated within the context of its thrownness (its place in the world), requiring thoughtful engagement with its circumstances. Therefore when comparing Sartre’s radical freedom with Heidegger’s relational freedom view, we are comparing the boundlessness of Sartre’s freedom with the totality of Heidegger’s freedom. Sartre’s freedom is characterized by boundlessness, where the authentic self transcends prior roles and constructs an entirely new existence. Heidegger, on the other hand, emphasizes totality—the integration of the "they-self" into an authentic mode of being without abandoning its situated nature. Heidegger’s view suggests a holistic approach, where all aspects of one’s existence (e.g., nerdy habits or devotion towards god) are seen as part of the whole. Sartre’s radical freedom, by contrast, involves replacing regularity with a self-defined project that is unrestricted by past constraints. ## Sartre’s Account Is More Intuitive Sartre’s account of authenticity resonates more intuitively because it centers on individual responsibility and empowerment. His vision of freedom as radical and boundless aligns with the human aspiration for autonomy and self-creation. While Heidegger’s relational approach offers a nuanced understanding of freedom within context, it risks feeling constrained by its emphasis on the "theyself" and its totality. Sartre’s emphasis on action and the transformative potential of radical freedom provides a more compelling and inspiring framework for achieving authenticity, offering individuals the possibility of shaping their lives on their own terms. # The Values behind reaching authenticity And in the end I think my conclusion when thinking of which approach is more convincing, I believe it is based on one’s values. To “live” to one’s fullness, or to “understand” to the fullness of things while living. ## Sartre: Authenticity for a better living life Sartre’s emphasis on action as the defining path to authenticity positions human beings as radical agents of their own existence. By asserting that freedom is fundamental to the human condition, Sartre empowers individuals to embrace their agency in every decision they make. This focus creates an energetic and purposeful approach to life, as authenticity is achieved by actively shaping one’s essence through choices and actions. Sartre’s philosophy is inspiring because it instills a sense of ownership and accountability in every aspect of human existence. However, this framework can also be unrelentingly demanding. In Sartre’s view, there are no excuses or external justifications for one’s circumstances; even in oppressive situations, one must take responsibility for their role and actions. For example, in the case of a forced marriage for a 18-year-old teenager girl in a poor village in developing countries, Sartre would argue that the girl needs to take full responsibility of her own action, admitting that her action of getting married with the man, regardless how unwilling she is. This means that the girl cannot account the outdated social conventions for her own actions. This perspective risks overlooking systemic constraints and relational complexities, as it prioritizes individual agency above all else. Sartre’s approach is a sharp double blade, both demanding and energetic, and it leads to the focus on individual’s own life. Sartre empowered individuals from making one focus on the actions in the life. Through confronting one’s own choice and embracing the sense of energy of having freewill to the max extent, Sartre’s view on authenticity grounds individuals in tangible choices, and therefore grounds them towards their own life which is made of countless choices. In other words, Sartre’s freedom leads to life itself for individual. Freedom leads to such end that one is equipped with full self agency and is able to to live the fullness of life. ## Heidegger: Authenticity for unfolding the essence in philosophy In contrast, Heidegger’s approach to authenticity transcends the immediacy of human actions and choices, focusing instead on the unfolding of being and the essence of things. For Heidigger, actions are not the “doings” exerted but the achievements. Heidegger emphasizes on unfolding something to the fullness of its essence, and thinking, rather than doing, offers a more reflective path to authenticity, one that does not require rejecting the world of the “theyself” but rather inhabiting it differently. He views authenticity as a process of understanding and revealing—not only one’s own existence but also the larger scope of being itself. This perspective is more relentless and expansive than Sartre’s, as it does not confine authenticity to the boundaries of individual agency or personal responsibility. Instead, Heidegger’s philosophy aims for a deeper understanding of existence, one that surpasses the immediate concerns of individual life. For example, in the case of a forced marriage, Heidegger might argue that authenticity involves inhabiting the situation differently—not by escaping it or redefining it through action, but by understanding and revealing the essence of the relationship and one’s being-in-the-world within it. This approach shifts the focus from individual agency to relational understanding and existential insight. Heidegger’s authenticity is not about “a better living life of oneself” but about a deeper, broader understanding. For Heidegger, unfolding the authenticity of being is so important because it is the core part of philosophy. And one should exist as much as possible, to the fullness, to claim the being. Such approach aims not merely at personal fulfillment but at revealing the truth of being itself. This stands in contrast to Sartre’s focus on individual agency, which is more human-centered and immediate in its application. # Conclusion ## To “live” fully through action or to “understand” fully while living? The key difference between Heidegger’s and Sartre’s views lies in the practical implications of their philosophies. Sartre’s **action-oriented** framework offers a compelling guide for individuals seeking to take charge of their lives, but its relentless demand for agency can be both empowering and burdensome. Heidegger’s reflective approach, on the other hand, provides a more **expansive and relational** perspective, but its focus on understanding rather than action may seem less practical for addressing immediate challenges. Ultimately, the choice between Sartre and Heidegger depends on one’s values. Sartre’s philosophy emphasizes **living to the fullness of one’s agency**, embracing every choice as a step toward **authentic self-definition**. Heidegger, on the other hand, prioritizes understanding, guiding individuals toward a deeper engagement with the **essence of things while inhabiting the world as it is**. Both approaches offer profound insights, but their practical implications reflect different aspirations: *to “live” fully through action or to “understand” fully while living.*