Heaven is other people
Photo by Andrea Piacquadio: https://www.pexels.com/photo/women-holding-wine-glasses-3937468/
“Hell is other people,” so ends the play entitled “No Exit,” written by the twentieth-century, atheistic, French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre. In the drama, three people seem to be waiting to be sent to the underworld. However, the main character is dismayed when he discovers that the inferno is not characterized by fire and brimstone, but rather, by being stuck with his two annoying acquaintances for the rest of eternity. This work is a commentary on Sartre’s own view that we are objects of others’ consciousnesses and that we can often be negatively influenced to live according to what we believe others think about us and how they expect us to act.
I have noticed this to an extent in my own self. Throughout my life, some people have looked at me differently due to my limp and left-sided weakness. Their gaze can make me feel ashamed about the body with which I have to live. When I am at the gym or playing sports, I frequently feel sized up by others who are more able than I am. If I am in a group of people sharing childhood stories, I can easily become reclusive out of a nostalgic FOMO or a fear of how others will react when I start recounting my sad memories of pediatric brain cancer. And, I am sometimes more reserved in social settings because I feel the actual or anticipated look of others on me, as if they are seeing through my facade and making judgments about who I am.
However, most of the time, the thoughts that we presume are behind others’ gazes are often unimportant or unfounded. If we let a stranger’s demeaning look significantly affect us, we are confused about from where we should be deriving our value. Contrarily, for the most part, those who know us well, although they may not always show it on the outside, truly want what is best for us. This includes God too. Even though He may feel absent at times, as our Creator and Father, He wants us to be the best version of ourselves. So, if we want to be able to become who we ought to be, we should reassess from where we derive our meaning. Our past traumas, perceptions of others’ perspectives, and preoccupations with the future can weigh us down. However, it is really only in the present, under the gaze of those who desire our good, that we can understand who we are now and discover who we are meant to be.
With regard to Sartre on this topic, although an atheist and an existentialist, he proposes some concepts that I find interesting, including his reflections on “the look.” In his writings, including Being and Nothingness, he highlights how strongly we are influenced by recognizing the existence of other people. Branching off from his predecessor Descartes, Sartre believes that we can know that others exist in the world outside of our minds. Cartesian philosophy proposes that all we can know is ourselves and our own thinking (i.e. “cogito ergo sum”). This vein of thought teaches that we cannot understand that other minds exist outside of our own consciousness. Contrarily, in the line of phenomenology, Sartre notes how there is a difference in our recognition of an inanimate object (e.g. tables, chairs) and a person. We can inherently pick up on the fact that in a person there is another rational being like ourselves.
However, this reality can be shocking because it makes us realize that others are at the center of their own individual universes, just like we are the center of our own experiences. Additionally, we cannot enter into the other’s perspective, to see the world through their schema. That means that they contain points of view to which we do not have access. In this way, others cause a certain disruption to our own universe, by taking away our status as the center of our human existence. Through encountering others, we become aware of the disintegrating effect that they have on us and that we do not have full control over our lives.
With regards to “the look,” Sartre goes a step further to evaluate what happens when we encounter other minds around us. The classic example that he employs is that of someone looking through a keyhole. If somebody is alone and peers through the hole in a doorknob, they are able to perceive what is going on inside the room. He or she is in control of observing the situation. Those in the room are the object of the subjective gaze of the onlooker. However, if the initial character hears footsteps coming down the hall, indicating that someone is approaching, the observer’s mindset has already changed. Even without seeing the other person, the one peering through the keyhole understands that they are now being looked upon too. The subjective viewer has also become the object of another’s gaze and judgment. The initial observer may feel that he or she has to justify their actions and their being in the world to the new observer. This realization may make them question or become shameful about what they are doing. Therein, the world has become alien to the first person. He or she is living in a world which is no longer their own. His or her freedom has become subjected to the freedom of another.
This may all seem like just some profound, philosophical ponderings, but it has important implications. I have come to understand it in the context of reflecting on what I believe about myself and how I act around others. For example, if I perceive someone to be looking at me in a negative way, I may come to form certain degrading beliefs about myself — based on who the other person is, what I am doing at the time, and how they are looking at me. This interaction, although maybe not even verbal, can impact how I see myself for a long time. Also, you may have noticed that you act differently around various people — be it your boss, your parents, your coworkers, or your close friends. The reality of us being social animals comes with the potentially adverse effect that we are strongly influenced by our interactions with others. If we define ourselves by what we perceive to be another’s negative look toward us, then we will become limited by these imaginary judgements. However, if we know who’s gaze to look for and which ones to more highly prioritize (i.e. those who are supportive of and know us best — our family, friends, mentors, and ultimately God), we can more quickly learn who we ought to become and we can more easily cast off the meaningless glances of strangers or of those who do not know us well at all.
One thing to be clear of upfront is that a lot of Sartre’s beliefs are based upon his atheistic and existentialist principles. Due to various influences in his life, including the post-War and French bourgeois milieu in which he finds himself and a preoccupation with the concept of le neant (i.e. “nothingness”), Sartre develops an atheistic angst. Without any theological basis, he instead emphasizes the importance of individual human freedom and responsibility in determining one’s development. A famous line of his is that “existence precedes essence,” meaning that we are nothing more than that which we make of ourselves. Separated from any moral or theological framework, Sartre’s philosophy takes on the themes of the meaninglessness of life, the arbitrariness of values, and the impossibility of altruistic love. Unfortunately, although Sartre has interesting insights into how we interact in the world with one another, he is severely lacking in proposing a foundation upon which we can ground ourselves and find meaning.
Further, Sartre’s conception of freedom is lacking in substance as well. I do not claim to be an expert on Sartre, or any philosophy for that matter; but, to my understanding, in Sartre’s view, freedom has no guide other than that which it decides for itself. In this sense, we can talk about being free to do whatever we please, based on our desires and will. It is understandably frightening to see the world as Sartre does, as merely a collection of rational agents all trying to act on their free will, without any inherent direction. However, by rejecting any source of meaning, the notion arises not just “freedom to do what,” but also “freedom from what,” and “freedom for what purpose.” If freedom is merely the removal of constraints, it proposes the question, “what is constraining us?” And, as Aristotle taught, all actions are directed toward some perceived good. So, we must ask what good is being pursued in our “free” actions? Are they actually free indeed, or are we still constrained by the looks of those around us? What are we using as our source of value to come to understand who we are and how we ought to live?
However, true freedom is not just the elimination of limitations; it is that which enables us to act as we ought. Pope St. John Paul II states, “freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” Real freedom is the removal of constraints in the sense of destroying any chains binding us to sinful, selfish, or sad tendencies. However, it is more than a utilitarian free-for-all. It is based on the fact that there is a natural law that will set us free, if we believe in and seek to follow it. As stated in the Gospel of John, “if you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31–32). It is the word of God that must be our guide, to lead us to true freedom. Pope St. John Paul II again reminds us: “Once the truth is denied to human beings, it is pure illusion to try to set them free. Truth and freedom either go together hand in hand or together they perish in misery.” We only fool ourselves if we try to find our ultimate purpose and self-image in anything other than Truth.
When it comes to understanding the importance of meaning, Viktor Frankl is a great model. As a Jewish, Austrian psychiatrist, who lived through the concentration camps of the Holocaust, he experienced and witnessed great amounts of suffering. Interestingly, he found that it was those who had meaning in their life outside of the camps (e.g. their family, spouse, children, occupation, hopes and dreams, religion, etc.) who were more likely to survive. Where the existentialists would propose meaninglessness and arbitrariness, Frankl would substitute purpose and love. He notes that:
In the concentration camps . . . we watched and witnessed some of our comrades behave like swine while others behaved like saints. Man has both potentialities within himself; which one is actualized depends on decisions but not on conditions.
Likewise, we have the ability to conform ourselves to the judgmental looks of those who do not know us or to the loving gazes of those with whom we are close. It is our choice to decide which identity we actualize. Additionally, Frankl famously puts it that, “the last of the human freedoms [is] to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way” (Man’s Search for Meaning). Similarly, Sartre believes that one can determine how they react to a given situation. However, in angst and an almost deterministic futility, the existentialist turns away from basing that decision on truth and love. Contrarily, in line with Pope St. John Paul II and Frankl, if we encounter a true source of meaning, we are able to ground ourselves firmly and freely there, learning how we ought to see ourselves, not just how we think or feel that we should understand who we are.
Again, in his quintessential work, Frankl shows us that it is only through love that we can come to actualize our full selves. He clearly details the impact of a loving relationship when he states:
Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another human being unless he loves him. By his love he is enabled to see the essential traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is potential in him, which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized. Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualize these potentialities. By making him aware of what he can be and of what he should become, he makes these potentialities come true.
Love, which can be simply defined as “willing the good of another,” also looks for the good in other people. By spending time with someone, we learn about them, both their good and their bad. Additionally, if we love someone, we want what is best for them. In getting to know their failings and limitations in a loving way, we are able to look past their shortcomings and understand who they are able to become. By realizing this and reinforcing it, the beloved becomes aware of this potentiality. For, if no one has ever loved them in that way before, they may never have believed that they could change. However, first by recognizing that hidden ability in someone, and then by accompanying them on the journey to actualize it, we can help others to reach their full potential.
Similarly, Sartre has a concept of this process of actualization, called “anticipation.” However, it is more in reference to knowing the truth. Sartre believes that truth is made as events come to pass. He writes that something can be said to be true or false only once it has or has not occurred. Apart from the fact that Sartre disregards the reality of a transcendent Truth, I believe that there is something to learn from this statement, with regards to self-actualization. Whatever we believe others think or say about us can never be known, until it comes to pass in a real encounter. The more time we spend getting caught up on what others may be thinking of us, the more we are constrained by these hypothetical perspectives. Only once we let go of the negative looks of others and embrace the gaze of those who love us, can we come to understand who we are meant to be and actualize our true capabilities.
The fourth-century, Catholic bishop St. Augustine of Hippo helps us to understand how we can come to this proper understanding of who we are. In his Confessions, he delves into how we can know ourselves and how we can come to know God. This autobiographical work is a reflection on his own journey to know himself and God more throughout his life. He keenly describes how both the past and the present exist in the mind. Events that have already happened are only held in our memories; and, our premonitions about the future do not exist but in our imaginations. We keep both the past and the future in our minds, until the future becomes present and the present becomes past. Nonetheless, Augustine indicates that all of these — past, present, and future — can indicate to us who we are. This can be seen when we hold onto past traumas, when we try to interpret what others’ current actions mean about us, and when we worry about upcoming possibilities. All these mental habits contribute to our identity.
However, it is only in the here and now that we can truly know and actualize ourselves. Augustine describes that, “if the present should always be present, and never pass into time past truly it should not be time, but eternity.” God exists in this eternal present. He transcends all of our past, present, and future moments. But, we can only live in the forever passing present. Therefore, it is where our present moment and His eternal present meet that we can encounter Him. Prayer and the Sacraments are the instances where we are able to come to know God in our temporal realities. Ultimately, it is in relationship with Him that we can realize our full potential and come to actualize it.
In our day to day lives, we encounter a variety of people and have a wide range of interactions. Whether subliminal or explicit, these occurrences affect how we see ourselves and the world around us. In the view of Sartre’s “look,” how others gaze at us, what they say to us, and the body language that they communicate to us all give hints of what they are thinking. When we may become bombarded by judgmental looks, harsh words, and closed off stances, it can negatively affect how we see ourselves, as our own beliefs about ourselves and the world may become disintegrated by the influence of those around us.
However, as Sartre says, we can never fully know what is going on in someone else’s mind. We can know that there are other minds existing in the world, but even with verbal communication, we cannot understand the complete intricacies of others’ actions. We can never fully step into someone else’s schema. When we pick up on another’s gaze or body language, we can make assumptions about what they mean. But, unless they clarify for us, we can never truly know if it was intentional or accidental or if it was meant to convey something negative or something positive. Sometimes, people cannot control their automatic responses, be it verbal or nonverbal. A positive statement may come across as forced or dismissive. Or, if someone does actually intend to do harm, but comes to regret it, they may still remain silent, out of fear of admitting their wrongdoing. However, their viewpoint did change after they realized that what they had said or done was wrong.
Therefore, we should take the things that people say to us with a grain of salt. If we tend to be self-judgmental solely based on another’s passing gaze or words, we should work to more actively consider the significance of their actions, without automatically allowing them to influence our view of ourselves. Of course, those who we know best — our family, friends, and mentors — can be trusted more to be clear and honest with us. But, they too sometimes say or do things that they do not actually mean, or they keep silent when they really want to help. That doesn’t diminish the fact that we should be humble and honest enough to accept criticism and make positive changes in ourselves, when we are called higher. By stepping back and analyzing the context and importance of another’s look, we can better understand which ones are meaningful.
Additionally, when we are the ones giving an unfriendly look or when we are not open to understanding another’s perspective, that goes for us too. We should not rashly judge someone just because are different from us, as we do not know what is going on in their life. Our gaze may actually, even though unintentionally, affect how they see themselves. It may be hard, or even impossible at times, to control our immediate responses to others; but, by trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and always striving to keep an open mind, we can learn to accept others as they are, without causing their world, or ours, to become disintegrated.
Sartre’s idea of “the look,” if followed in his existentialist line of thought, can lead to angst and despair. However, if we believe that there is a source of meaning in our lives — e.g. our family, friends, occupation, hopes and dreams, and ultimately God — we can learn to base our identity on those, rather than the passing looks or comments of others. It is only the gazes of those who love us that really matter and that can actually be transformed into constructive means of positive self-actualization. That does not mean that throughout life we will not still be the object of others’ negative subjective looks. However, when we learn which ones truly carry import and we try to be that source of positive affirmation for others, we can come to see that actually heaven — or a little part of it anyway — is other people.
