Existentialism

So I just received a prompt for my second Existentialism paper, which is due in two weeks. I think I'm going to write about certain aspects of the human conditions which are described by both Sartre and Camus, particularly as described in Existentialism is a Humanism and The Stranger, respectively. Specifically, I think I am going to foces on the idea that 'man's only reality is his actions' (horrible paraphrase, but I'm not going to look it up to get the wording right). I've found this idea intriguing for a few reasons. 

When presented by Sartre, it appears very logical and self evident that one's intentions and inner thoughts are meaningless, and that the only thing one can truly rely upon is what they actually do. However, when reading The Stranger, it seems like a miscarriage of justice when the protagonists past actions are brought as evidence against him, even though his intentions and reasons for doing so were fairly reasonable and innocent. 

I think the problem here is the classic 'attribution error' of human psychology. When one makes a mistake, one tends to attribute the fault to one's own situation, i.e., poor road conditions, having a bad day in general, having had too much to drink. But when some other person makes a mistake, one tends to attribute the fault to that person specifically, i.e., they should have driven more cautiously, their day doesn't excuse rudeness, they shouldn't have drank as much or should learn to hold their liquor. I feel the same problem is true in comparing the situations in the works of Sartre and Camus.

When thinking about others, possibly ourselves, although probably in generalities, we can easily claim that actions speak louder than words. When someone acts in such a way that is harmful or irritating, and then claims that they would have done something else or were thinking about doing something else, one thinks 'Well, why didn't you just do that?' The problem arises when it is oneself whose acts are denounced. It is then that issues of circumstances and situations come up and act as excuses and sources of blame.

I think in the end, it is Sartre's claim (or rather, my interpretations of his claim) that wins out. When reading through the trial scene in The Stranger, one cannot help but think "Why doesn't he just explain himself? Why doesn't he just act differently." The hero's inner thoughts may make sense, and sure, the world may be indifferent and possibly malevolent toward him, but if only he were to act in a different way, he would not be in the same position.

The only reality that we know is our own actions. These are determined by our own free choice. With no divine purpose or meaning, we are condemned to constantly invent ourselves through our choices and actions, and in doing so (and maybe a little more of a stretch), invent mankind. Our thoughts and intentions matter very little, if they matter at all. It is only our actions for which we can be held accountable or receive praise. The coward does not receive praise because he wished that he could have acted differently; the hero receives praise because he acted in a certain way, even if he may have had misgivings. 

Our actions are our reality.