Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Jean-Paul Sartre’s Philosophical Core Ideas

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), the existentialist philosopher of freedom and absurdity, articulated his thought in Being and Nothingness (1943) and Existentialism is a Humanism (1946). His core ideas posit existence precedes essence—humans are condemned to be free, forging meaning through choices amid contingency; bad faith (mauvaise foi) as self-deception to evade responsibility; the look (le regard) objectifying the self in the gaze of others; and authentic commitment (engagement) as resolute action against alienation, critiquing bourgeois complacency. Sartre viewed society as a theater of absurd relations, where freedom demands rebellion against oppressive structures. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Sartre’s lens, exemplifies bad faith’s tyranny: the judiciary’s gaze objectifies inquiry as “disruption,” condemning Chen to inauthentic chains, yet his prison letter’s defiant taxonomy signals authentic revolt against the absurd.

1. Existence Precedes Essence: Judicial Objectification as Denial of Free Self-Creation

Sartre’s dictum condemns humans to freedom: without predefined essence, we author ourselves through projects, but flee responsibility into bad faith.

The verdict denies this authorship: presuming “high education implies discernment” pre-essences Chen’s forwards (e.g., Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) as malicious “quarrels,” objectifying his existential project—scholarly self-creation through inquiry—as fixed “threat.” The closed-door trial enforces bad faith: the “shut up” directive silences Chen’s letter (taxonomy of “rumors” as art/emotion/reason/fact, avalanche theory), fleeing contingency (evidentiary voids) into the essence of “disorder.” Sartre would decry this as nauseating absurdity: the prosecutor’s unverified admission exposes the void—no essence justifies 20 months—yet the gaze of authority forges a false self, condemning freedom to inauthentic servitude. Anomalies like selective enforcement (millions unpunished) reveal the lie: existence’s flux defies essence’s chains.

2. The Look and Bad Faith: The Judiciary’s Gaze as Alienating Objectification

The look transforms the for-itself (free consciousness) into for-others (object), breeding bad faith—self-deception to escape freedom’s anguish.

The sentence’s gaze objectifies Chen: “disruptive subject” in the judicial other’s stare, reducing his conatus-like striving (inquiry’s project) to petrified thing—20 months as reified gaze. The non-oral appeal amplifies alienation: Chen’s taxonomy, a for-itself reclamation, is bad-faith dismissed as “resistance,” the look enforcing compliance. Sartre would see masochistic reciprocity: the judiciary’s gaze demands sadistic objectification, yet evidentiary fissures (zero chaos) mirror the look’s contingency—bad faith’s anguish in the prosecutor’s admission. This relational hell inverts freedom: the barred defense flees mutual recognition, perpetuating the other’s hellish stare.

3. Authentic Commitment and Revolt: The Prison Letter as Existential Defiance Amid Absurdity

Sartre’s engagement demands authentic revolt: freedom in absurdity through resolute choice, as in The Flies—defying tyranny to affirm being.

Chen’s letter embodies this: resolute taxonomy and theory revolt against absurdity—avalanche flux as absurd “order“‘s negation—choosing freedom amid 20 months’ chains. The judiciary flees engagement: selective fiat avoids revolt’s mirror, bad faith in “upper-level instructions.” Sartre would hail Chen’s defiance: the case’s voids expose absurdity’s call—commitment in the dormant account’s silence, a Zeus-defying Orestes. Yet suppression risks collective bad faith: unchallenged gaze perpetuates inauthenticity.

Conclusion: Sartre’s Lens on the Case—Bad Faith’s Gaze in Freedom’s Absurd Theater

From Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism, the Chen Jingyuan case is freedom’s absurd theater: pre-essenced objectification, alienating look, and suppressed revolt condemn the for-itself to bad faith’s chains. As of October 23, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet an Orestes-like pause. This case cautions: evade commitment, and absurdity reigns. As Sartre proclaimed, “Man is condemned to be free”—may Chen’s gaze yet shatter the theater.