Introduction
Sartre claims that human being creates meaning and for this very reason, there is no need for objectivity and ground for meaning. Value just alike judgments should be considered as meaning, so it seems that for Sartre value does not need objectivity and ground as well. Sartre claims that he is mainly concerned about subjectivity as the basic human principle, but according to him, subjectivity becomes conscious of either itself or the Other through action. In further explanation, he states that subjectivity understands itself and the Others through the creation of meaning and value. Existentialism states that: "The only hope resides in his actions and that the only thing that allows him to live is action."(Sartre, 40) In this way Sartre claims that human being
…show more content…
But his perception of ego is different from Descartes', who perceived subjectivity as the unifying element of consciousness: For Sartre, this is the unity of consciousness that forms something as ego. In a Kantian litrature, for Sartre, ego has a regulatory unity, and is not a constitutive unity. It means that ego does not exist in-itself and doesn't have an empirical existence, but it is imposed to the construct of the world to regulate and explain it, while if it was constitutive, it would have been formed within the lived experience; that is the reason why ego can not be considered ontological. The unity of consciousness is achieved through human's encounter with the Others and the world. In other words, this is human action that conceives subjectivity as a united ego, and at the same time, builds ego that is the unity of consciousness; therefore, action creates the meaning and value: "a man is nothing but a series of enterprises, and that he is the sum, organization, and aggregate of the relations that constitute such enterprises."(Sartre,