Jean Paul Sartre: An overview to Human Existentialism

Have you ever taught if that bird you see outside your window every morning does exist? Or your shadow that follows you every time you walk under a light, does it exist? Or are we, human, are we existing?  What it is to be human? How can we say that you and I are human? There are different philosophical views of different philosophers regarding human existence. Different beliefs and analysis on how it is to be human, how can a certain person can be considered as a human or are we even a human? And most especially what is human? Seems very easy question but thinking in a philosophically way it’s a long way to go. 
           One of the many philosophers who study about Human existentialism is Jean Paul Sartre, born in 1905 in Paris. After a childhood marked by the early death of his father, the important role was played by his grandfather, and some unhappy experiences at school. Sartre finished high school at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris, after two (2) years of preparation he gained entrance to the prestigious Ecole Normale Superiure, where from 1924-1929 he met Raymond Aron, Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau- Ponty and other notables. 
Sartre sets up his own picture of the individual human being by first getting rid of its grounding in a stable ego. As Sartre later puts it in Existentialism is a Humanism, to be human is characterized by an existence that precedes its essence. Existentialism was not a term coined by Sartre or any other philosopher but one that the media attached to a certain movement of philosophy and literature that began to develop out of the 19th century. One of the key beliefs of existentialism, per Sartre, is that existence proceeds essence. What this means is that human beings are defined by their actions. There is no essential human nature. Being human is an act of constantly becoming something through the choices that we make. In this way, human beings are constantly evolving and do not finish this journey until they are dead. Sartre borrowed the idea of angst from Heidegger and insisted that the main human motivation is the fear of death. As an atheist, it was Sartre's contention that death was a state of nothingness but while there were plenty of philosophers linked to existentialism who were atheists. Whether God existed it was up to humans as individuals to find their own meaning in life whosesoever they could find it. Every action that a human being takes is his and his alone and so the responsibility of being completely in control of one’s own actions caused dread. This existential dread was the price that we paid for our freedom and would form the basis of what would become Sartre's ethics. 
           In learning Sartre’s Phenomology on Existentialism, it made me recall the data about the climate in which Sartre grew up. Remember for a moment of his childhood when no one wanted him for a friend, recall his heavy dependence about fantasy life as an escape from this offensive world. Sartre viewed the universe as an irrational, meaningless sphere. Existence was absurd and life had no sense, no purpose, no explanation. Death was the proverbially absurd icing on the cake, making life even more intolerable, more ridiculous. He felt "nauseated" by the vastness of this empty, pointless predicament, and he wrestled many hours for a meaningful solution. As I understand Sartre’s analysis, he was not interested in traditional metaphysics since he felt that the age-old problems of these thinkers would never be solvable by humanity. Although he does not believe in existence of God which detests my principle, I’ve learned that arguments against the existence of God were equally balanced, and n amount of rational argumentation would provide a final word. He gave us his reasons: “Humanity is virtually unable to discover solutions to such problems, so why waste the time? Therefore, he abandoned the rational approach and opted for the phenomenological one. Since a person's consciousness is outside the boundaries of objective inquiry, only one's freedom to choose one's own lifestyle allows for a definition of essence.” Among these people, Sartre attracted a vast audience by casting doubt on the heinous conformism recommended by "official" protocol. Since he did not believe in God, he offered what he believed to be logical conclusions based on a consistent atheism. "All possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven" disappear, he claimed, since God does not exist. That necessitated a shift from the outside to the inside: Instead of seeking answers to problems through prayer and divine intervention, one must turn inward and create one's own solutions. Therefore, I conclude: "Man is condemned to be free,"