The Individual Case

As defined by Google Dictionary, an individual is, "a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family." I will examine Max Horkheimer's and Jean-Paul Sartre's concepts of the individual. They both focus on the individual and the importance of critical thinking. Their views have an obvious difference by the implication of social context, which limits the amount of choices that we truly have access to. Horkheimer takes into consideration the importance of social context while Sartre does not consider it in the same level of depth. Illusions are present in both of their concepts of the individual, but approached differently. Sartre and Horkheimer have similar but also very different qualities of their view of the individual through the application of social context, choices, authenticity, and illusions.

For Sartre, the individual is animated by choice. He argues that through nothingness we experience absences. During these absences we are able to detach ourselves from what is objectively present. Individuals are not locked into any given situation. They are not confined to the existing objective reality of consciousness which opens up our imagination. Through imagination comes a realization of freedom. Freedom is inherent in human beings. We are free to make choices. An individual, for Sartre, is an authentic human being who is "... condemned to be free," (Sartre, 41). Existence precedes essence. Individuals 'are' based around their spot in history, the experiences that they have had, and how they choose to react to them. Nothing about a human being is certain. All a human is, essentially, are the choices that they have made, "human freedom precedes essence in man and makes it possible; the essence of the human being is suspended in his freedom" (Sartre, 113). They have no essence; they cannot be defined. They are not static, rather dynamic.

What happens then if an individual defines themselves? According to Sartre, they would be in bad faith. Bad faith emerges out of the fact that we have freedom, and experience anguish (the fear of your own response due to human freedom). We tend to flee into our facticity or our transcendence. Facticity is the escape to define ourselves by facts such as, 'I am a Student', while transcendence is an escape to define ourselves by our possibilities. We should not define ourselves by one or the other. Sartre is not as concerned with how it is affecting people, as much as he is concerned with the running away and defining ourselves. Individuals do not have an essence; humans are not objects or things. Humans have the tendency to define themselves, but Sartre believes that by defining themself they are, to a certain degree, ignoring their human freedom - their individuality. They are not in-itself, but rather for-itself. By defining ourselves we are moving more towards in-itself. Since humans cannot be defined, no two humans can be the same. Therefore, the authentic human is an individual. I will discuss what it means to be authentic after addressing the basis of Horkheimer's concept of the individual.

Max Horkheimer disagrees with Sartre by suggesting that Sartre has not sufficiently considered social context into the individual. "Every instrumentality of mass culture serves to reinforce the social pressures upon individuality, precluding all possibility that the individual will somehow preserve himself in the face of all the atomizing machinery of modern society," (Horkheimer, 107). The true individual is an independent unit of society. Philosophy has these illusions of reason and the individual. Reason was once an approach of understanding the self, but there is very little self or individuality remaining in our society. We have the concept of the individual, but do not have individuals now. Often we think of ourselves as being individuals, but Horkheimer thinks we are just deluding ourselves. We may think that we are doing something original and unique, but truly, we are still thinking in the box. Even if we think outside of the box we may not be thinking far from the box. We should instead think, 'what is the box?' Horkheimer wants us to address, think about, and realize the social context surrounding our individuality.

Originally, Horkheimer suggests that the individual develops while focusing on long term interests and restrained impulses, which deepen our inner life and help construct the individual, "The individual could maintain himself as a social being only by pursuing his own long term interests at the expense of ephemeral immediate gratifications." (Horkheimer, 94). He gave the example of when 19th century capitalism emerged. A small amount of people at the top thought for themselves. They had to implement new ideas, innovations, and had to market these to the public. The long term interest was the idea that they could look after their descendants. They had more individuality than we do now; they could think more long term.

On the contrary, the executives at the top of the capitalistic market in the 20th century have no individuality, "Those who occupy the commanding positions have little more autonomy than their subordinates; they are bound by the power they wield." (Horkheimer, 107). Executives have choices, but they cannot act upon them. Their job is to please the shareholders rather than themselves. At this time - mid 20th century - Horkheimer suggests that individuality has habitually vanished. We are controlled and regulated; we are inside the box. The way in which we delude ourselves from this truth is by means of internalizing the control, regulation and social norms surrounding us.

For Horkheimer, there are two main aspects of individuality; you must be engaged and also have a realization that you are constrained. Sartre believes that we are free to make a plethora of choices, but Horkheimer thinks our minds our trapped within the mainstream box and we in fact do not even consider or are aware of the vast amount of choices that suit our individual. "It is not technology of the motive of self-preservation that in itself accounts for the decline of the individual; it is not production per se, but the forms in which it takes place," (Horkheimer, 103-104) It is the social structures. We must think about the box and think about the extent to which we live in a conformist society. We simply, do not see the choices outside. Therefore, our individuality is lacking. Does Sartre address any external forces?

I believe