The article presents a critical comparison between Hellenistic philosophical practices of «care of the self» (as interpreted by Michel Foucault and Pierre Hadot) and existentialism (in the version of Jean-Paul Sartre). The analysis emphasizes that the practices of «care of the self», as specific forms of «everyday creativity», resist classification within the binary opposition of «professional» vs. «spontaneous» activity. Key distinctions between ancient forms of «care of the self» and various types of «techne» (professional skills) include: first, their imperative nature; and second, their essential incompleteness. Traits that elevate «practices of the self» beyond mere spontaneous actions – bringing them closer to professional forms of creativity – include: first, a developed set of «rules»; and second, the presence of a mentor. Furthermore, the individual who engaged in «care of the self» functioned simultaneously as both subject and object of their activity: as a creator guided by certain rules and as material to be shaped into a distinct form. The version of existentialism represented by Jean-Paul Sartre is proposed as a European analogue to the Hellenistic «practices of the self». At the same time, the article explains what makes Sartre’s concept of the «project of oneself» not identical to the ancient «art of existence». While Hellenistic «styles of existence» were grounded in pre-established principles and values that the individual was to follow with the guidance of a mentor, Sartre emphasized the absolute groundlessness of the subject's choice and viewed the figure of the mentor as unnecessary and even undesirable. Despite the significant differences in approach, the article argues that a middle ground can be found between the ancient «practices of the self» and Sartre’s «invention of the self». This intermediate position is exemplified by Cicero’s strategy, which Pierre Hadot describes as «probabilistic» or «eclectic». According to this strategy, it is not necessary to strictly adhere to a single, once-and-for-all chosen mode of existence. One should act according to the situation, adopting the model of behavior most effective under the given circumstances. Thus, by creatively synthesizing elements from various schools of «practices of the self», the «eclectic» can develop their own unique «style of existence».
Loiko et al. (Mon,) studied this question.