Help with the basic idea of free choices for Sartre

Question

what is required of an authentic choice is that it involve a proper coordination of transcendence and facticity, and thus that it avoid the pitfalls of an uncoordinated expression of the desire for being. This amounts to not-grasping oneself as freedom and facticity. Such a lack of proper coordination between transcendence and facticity constitutes bad faith, either at an individual or an inter-personal level. Such a notion of authenticity is therefore quite different from what is often popularly misrepresented as a typically existentialist attitude, namely an absolute prioritisation of individual spontaneity. On the contrary, a recognition of how our freedom interacts with our facticity exhibits the responsibility which we have to make proper choices

https://iep.utm.edu/sartre-ex/

1. Does freedom and facticity mean that I am subject to all that I am becasue I am free?

2. In what sense would that make for a "proper choice": how is it different to spontaneity considered as properly responding to things as they are?

Answer 1

In the Sartre link this is mentioned:

The main features of this ontology are the groundlessness and radical freedom which characterize the human condition.

Sartre picked up a lot from Heidegger and assuming he kept to Heidegger's understanding of freedom then he is talking about the freedom that allows/constitutes human transcendence. That is, transcendence to consciousness, or, from 'not being' to 'being a being'. Not just in the first instance of coming into being but in the fullest sense, as a self.

This is described in Heidegger's 1929 treatise On the Essence of Ground (Pathmarks, p. 126):-

All forms of comportment are rooted in transcendence. The "will" in question, however, must first "form" the "for­ the-sake-of" itself as and in a surpassing. Yet whatever, in accordance with its essence, casts something like the "for the sake of" projectively before it, rather than simply producing it as an occasional and additional accomplish­ment, is that which we call freedom. Surpassing in the direction of world is freedom itself. Accordingly, transcendence does not merely come upon the "for the sake of" as anything like a value or end that would be present at hand in itself; rather, freedom holds the "for the sake of" toward itself, and does so as freedom. In this transcending that holds the "for the sake of" toward itself there occurs the Dasein in human beings, such that in the essence of their existence they can be obligated to themselves, i.e., be free selves.