"It is nowhere written that 'the good' exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: 'If God did not exist, everything would be permitted'; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
For my money, it’s the best attempt any atheist has made so far.
Sartre wrote that if God does not exist, then "Man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. … At first he is nothing. Only afterward does he become something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. … Man is nothing but what he makes himself.
Sartre did say all that, but he was a philosopher, not a biologist. So in context, he was clearly talking about morality, spirituality, etc.. He wasn't talking about physical realities.
Otherwise, you're accusing him of believing that a puppy raised by a pig is in fact a pig just because it thinks it is. There's zero evidence of that, and I don't believe there's any evidence that Sartre viewed biological realities as simply a matter of choice/volition, in the same sense as mental/spiritual realities.
He’s making this a far more profound issue than it really is. Even the tranny crowd doesn’t believe this gender fluidity bullshyte. They know it’s logically unsupportable and absurd on its face.
But its purpose is not to empower trannies or deal with reality. It’s to disrupt normality, to undermine the status quo, and to redefine deviancy to the point that chaos ensues. It is the ultimate destructive force, existing not to create anything, but to annihilate everything.
It is what happens when existentialism metastasizes.
It’s very rare nowadays to find atheists who are honest and intellectually serious. At least the existentialists had that going for them. You could debate them, point out to them the shortcomings of their philosophy, and while they might disagree that those were shortcomings, they were not dishonest enough to deny your observation, or too intellectually dense to grasp the ramifications.
bkmk
Sorry for dumping the philosophical bent but tiny children “feeling inside” like the other gender is real to them. They didn’t get it from their parents. Say what you want about adults but toddlers don’t even know how to lie. What, 99% of toddlers feel good about being called their gender? (Even ones who will later have a gay orientation). But that 1%, who tell mommy that no, they aren’t a boy inside, are telling the truth about their brain function.
It’s not a philosophical problem. It’s a biological problem caused by some form of environmental pollution, most likely affecting the uterine fluid. One day we will figure it out.
Functional existentialism is not passe; it is ubiquitous.
I knew aspiring seminarians who were influenced by it. They are still leading sheep astray.
The Frankfurt School made good use of Sartre.