Is Existence Necessary? -Views on Sartre

If you’ve read some of Sartre’s work, it can be slightly misinterpreted what he’s getting at but there are certain parts, especially in ‘Nausea’ that interest me.

Theres a part where he says that existence of people is contingent rather than necessary. It stuck out for me as this is a world where it appears necessary for humans to be here due to the intelligence that we have reached. The fact that we’re able to read and write and drive and do these day to day things that seem so normal to us, seem to point to a purpose of some kind. What if it’s not though?

Existence can be worthless unless we have those around us who make our own existence more than just a ‘walking consciousness’, we rely on interaction. We rely on those around us for acceptance as thats the development path we as humans have taken. It’s not great but it’s true. It’s like the development intended for us is finally reaching the pivital point where we choose to mess it up or actually do something that gives us a purpose. Without a purpose, we are just contingently acting wrongly on a dying planet that we’ve decided to ignore.

See, if existence was necessary, we would be guided towards a purpose and on one hand, the destruction of our planet maybe is that? But on the other hand, the planet would be fine without us. Ecosystems would flourish and live in harmony as no machines would be around to take out forests. We really aren’t necessary to this world and it sucks but what I think Sartre occasionally includes is that, even though we may not be necessary, we can make ourselves seem necessary by being a person who appreciates that around us by looking back and understanding the world as it is. We can make the world we live in meaningful by our actions and what we do otherwise it is meaningless.

The world is here and we’re on it and there’s no ultimate gain from us here apart from what we can do to communicate to each other and protect the world as natures pretty awesome but it’s being destroyed. Perhaps it’s by reading Philosophy that you can really appreciate that even though there’s a separation between humankinds actions and the natural world around us, we have the freedom to create a meaningful world that we live in and that’s what we should aim to do.


If you have any views on Sartre’s books or this post, comment and i’ll get back to you.


  1. Existence as a walking consciousness is still, existence. Human interaction is mainly to formulate our thoughts, which we already possessed before the interaction, and hence it isn’t as important. I’m just arguing for the sake of argument, love your post πŸ™‚

    Liked by 1 person

    • I like your thinking, thanks for the comment! I would then ask you whether you think interaction is not needed? I think that without interaction- we wouldnt develop and understand our thoughts because we wouldnt know what it means to interact and communicate.

      I dont think interaction formulates our thoughts but perhaps the other way round? What do you think?

      Also, i agree walking consciousness is still, existence but in a form of just existing rather than having true meaning?if that makes sense πŸ˜‰

      Liked by 1 person

      • I think true meaning, as yo put it, is a choice we make and where we find it is where we desire it. For example if, i want to exercise and be fit, i will find meaning or feeling in it, and somehow find something that i enjoy in the entire process.
        I think interaction dilutes our thoughts, and makes it a group effort rather than my own thought. For example if i ask you to read something i have written with my own thought, you will read it and then tell me what you think. In the interaction, we will talk about it and your opinion will somewhat influence my thought, diluting it and making it “ours” and in my opinion it isnt pure anymore. I agree with the interaction formulating a thought though πŸ™‚

        Liked by 1 person

      • I get what you mean, I feel meaning can be found by simply choosing to find it? Which is why I think alot of humans don’t find meaning as they cant be bothered to make the right choice.

        And what youre saying about interaction is true, i mean youve influenced me just by this comment section so its provable right there;) does this mean that any interaction is then about influencing the other till youve found a point of common ground/won the argument? Abit like wittgensteins language games argument?

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s