How does "Spot bad faith in yourself" work?

Sartre’s concept of "bad faith" (mauvaise foi) is self-deception about one’s freedom: pretending you have no choice when you do. Bad faith disguises as necessity ("I have to", "there’s no alternative", "that’s just how I am") when the reality is a choice you are uncomfortable owning. Recognizing bad faith creates the discomfort of owning responsibility — which is exactly the point. It overlaps with the locus of control construct: internal locus (I choose) is associated with better outcomes than external locus (it happens to me).

How does "Take radical responsibility for your choices" work?

Sartre pushes responsibility further than most: you are responsible not just for what you intended but for what you chose and its effects, even within conditions you did not choose. This extreme version of responsibility is uncomfortable because it removes every available exculpation. The mechanism is clarifying: when you fully own a choice, you see it clearly enough to either stand by it or change it. Partial ownership produces rationalizations that obscure the real choice.

How does "Choose authentically — from your own values, not from expectation" work?

Sartre distinguishes authentic from inauthentic existence: authentic choices are made from one’s own evaluated values; inauthentic choices are made by conforming to a role, a class expectation, or what "one does." Authenticity is not self-expression in the casual sense; it is owning your choices as yours. The mechanism is values-based decision-making: when choices are grounded in explicit personal values, they are more consistent, more durable, and less prone to the regret that follows "I only did what was expected."

How does "Sit with the anxiety of freedom" work?

Sartre names the feeling that arises at the moment of genuine freedom "anguish" (angoisse) — the vertigo of realizing nothing compels you. This anguish is not pathological; it is the accurate emotional register of a being who is genuinely free. Trying to escape it drives you into bad faith. The practice is to sit with it — to recognize the vertigo as evidence that you are actually facing a real choice — and then choose anyway. This is functionally similar to ACT’s approach to acceptance: the discomfort is a signal about what is real, not a problem to solve.

How does "Define yourself by actions, not intentions" work?

Sartre: "you are nothing other than your life." The practical implication is that self-knowledge comes not from introspection about what kind of person you are but from looking at what you have actually done. The identity you perform in your head ("I’m a generous person") is irrelevant until it shows up in behavior. This aligns with the behavioral research showing that stated values and actual behavior frequently diverge — and the divergence is more informative than the statement.

Sartre

What is existentialist philosophy, and how do you use Sartre’s ideas in practice?

Radical freedom, bad faith, and the weight of choosing who you are

Short answer

Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism holds that human beings have no fixed nature — "existence precedes essence" — and are therefore radically free to define themselves through their choices. The practical implication is that you cannot hide behind role, instinct, or circumstance: you are always already choosing, including when you tell yourself you have no choice. This is philosophical rather than clinical; its overlap with ACT and CBT is real but indirect.

Sartre argued that the anxiety of being human is the anxiety of freedom: there is no script, no essence, no pre-given nature that tells you what to do. You are what you do, and every inaction is itself a choice. That is either liberating or vertiginous depending on how you hold it — the existentialist practices below are about learning to hold it as liberation rather than paralysis. These are philosophical practices, not therapeutic protocols; the evidence is where the mechanism has psychological grounding, and honest about where it does not.

The practices (6)

Why it works

Sartre’s "existence precedes essence" means there is no human nature that determines what you must be; you define yourself through accumulated choices. The practical effect of really accepting this is that fixed self-descriptions ("I’m just not a morning person", "I’m not the kind of person who...") lose their excuse-granting force. They describe patterns, not fates. This overlaps with growth mindset psychology (Dweck): identity is made, not discovered.

How to do it

1Notice a self-description you treat as fixed ("I’m disorganized", "I’m not good at confrontation").
2Ask: is this a fact about my nature, or a record of past choices I could make differently?
3Identify one choice available this week that would constitute evidence of a different self-definition.
4Make that choice and notice what it reveals about the malleability of your "nature".

Evidence

Observational

Growth mindset research (Dweck) finds that believing traits are malleable rather than fixed is associated with greater effort and persistence after failure. Sartre’s philosophical claim is the deeper version of this: there is no fixed nature at all, not just that traits can change.

Honest caveat: Growth mindset evidence is real but has faced replication questions in some domains. Sartre’s stronger philosophical claim is not a psychological hypothesis; the overlap is directionally real but not identical.

Common mistake: Taking "no fixed nature" as "therefore all my patterns are meaningless." Your history is real and patterns have genuine momentum. Sartre’s point is that they are not fate — not that they don’t exist.

Go deeper on this practice →

Practice this with IX Coach

Reading about a practice changes nothing on its own. IX Coach turns these into a guided, adaptive routine — discerning where you are in real time and walking the practice with you, session after session.

Start with IX Coach →