POST #3: Sartre's View on Existentialism
POST #3: What is existentialism? Discuss Sartre’s understanding of existentialism and how it relates to ethics. Do the same for Kierkegaard. Now compare and contrast their views. How are they similar and how are they different? Be specific and offer details.
Jean-Paul Sartre is one of the best-known and most widely discussed intellectuals since World War II. He is also the only self-declared contemporary existentialist among the major thinkers. For Sartre, existentialism means individuals are “radically free”. This statement comes from Sartre’s belief that there is no God, and therefore there is no fixed human nature that forces one to act.
Another concept that can be derived from the above-mentioned theory is that, since humans have radical freedom, they are entirely responsible for what they make of themselves. And because people are always free to make choices, Sartre states: “who people are is a function of the choices they make, not that the choices they make are a function of who they are” (Great Traditions, 285). This statement means that people define who they are through making choices.
To further emphasize the importance of responsibilities in one’s actions, Sartre explains that people’s choices not only affect themselves but the entire humanity. “The man who involves himself and who realizes that he is not only the person he chooses to be, but also a lawmaker who is, at the same time, choosing all mankind as well as himself, can not help escape the feeling of his total and deep responsibility” (Great Traditions, 288).
Sartre thinks that a person’s action forms an image of him and also sets an example for everyone else around him. Therefore every individual is responsible for the whole mankind. He also thinks that as soon as a man realizes the fact that he is responsible for everyone else when making choices, he will be very anxious.
While Sartre’s troubling theory of human responsibility is an acute source of anxiety and despair, some of his additional concepts also upset many others. “Atheistic existentialism, which I represent…states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality,” (Great Traditions, 287).
Although Sartre uses the word “if” when discussing the possibility of God’s non-existence, his central theory of existentialism still comes from the precondition that God does not exist. This denial of God’s existence along with the pre-stated idea of human freedom places people in the precarious position of being solely responsible for their actions. Putting this concept together with one of the previous concepts, people are solely responsible for their actions, which can affect the entire mankind.
Sartre’s theories put tremendous pressure on people and change their view of ethics. For people who believe that good and evil are pre-destined by God, they can no longer say that they are not solely responsible for their actions because God is supposedly leading their way. Moreover, his theories encourage people to be more aware of the values in which they choose. “…we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without good for all” (Great Traditions, 287). Because anything that is good for the person is good for everyone else and vice versa, the person must make ethical decisions.
Soren Kierkegaard is another great existentialist besides Jean-Paul Sartre. Kierkegaard is a 19-th centuary Danish philosopher and theologian, and he is generally recognized as the first existentialist philosopher. Because much of his work deals with religious problems, Kierkegaard’s work is sometimes characterized as Christian existentialism.
Kierkegaard and Sartre share the same ideal that a person’s decisions determine his or her quality or character. They also value that the heart of human existence lies in the power of choice. However, Kierkegaard gives a more precise definition of the “choice” that people make. “…the manner in which one chooses is as meaningful as the content of choice. Ethical choices are absolute and strict, constituting the basis for finding oneself” (Great Traditions, 181).
Kierkegaard believes that people’s choices as well as their earnestness and inner passion when making these decisions are both meaningful to human existence. However, besides putting strong emphasize on the spirit, attitude, and will of a person, he also calls attention to religious faith. “For Kierkegaard, a third mode of existence is living by religious faith. It is neither mystical nor irrational but rather is suprarational” (Great Traditions, 186).
Therefore, although both Kierkegaard and Sartre are existentialists, these two philosophers have contrasting views on the topic of religion. While Sartre denies the existence of God, Kierkegaard maintains that the ultimate concern of a person is to become a Christian. This is the central concept that sets the two great thinkers apart.
Jean-Paul Sartre is one of the best-known and most widely discussed intellectuals since World War II. He is also the only self-declared contemporary existentialist among the major thinkers. For Sartre, existentialism means individuals are “radically free”. This statement comes from Sartre’s belief that there is no God, and therefore there is no fixed human nature that forces one to act.
Another concept that can be derived from the above-mentioned theory is that, since humans have radical freedom, they are entirely responsible for what they make of themselves. And because people are always free to make choices, Sartre states: “who people are is a function of the choices they make, not that the choices they make are a function of who they are” (Great Traditions, 285). This statement means that people define who they are through making choices.
To further emphasize the importance of responsibilities in one’s actions, Sartre explains that people’s choices not only affect themselves but the entire humanity. “The man who involves himself and who realizes that he is not only the person he chooses to be, but also a lawmaker who is, at the same time, choosing all mankind as well as himself, can not help escape the feeling of his total and deep responsibility” (Great Traditions, 288).
Sartre thinks that a person’s action forms an image of him and also sets an example for everyone else around him. Therefore every individual is responsible for the whole mankind. He also thinks that as soon as a man realizes the fact that he is responsible for everyone else when making choices, he will be very anxious.
While Sartre’s troubling theory of human responsibility is an acute source of anxiety and despair, some of his additional concepts also upset many others. “Atheistic existentialism, which I represent…states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality,” (Great Traditions, 287).
Although Sartre uses the word “if” when discussing the possibility of God’s non-existence, his central theory of existentialism still comes from the precondition that God does not exist. This denial of God’s existence along with the pre-stated idea of human freedom places people in the precarious position of being solely responsible for their actions. Putting this concept together with one of the previous concepts, people are solely responsible for their actions, which can affect the entire mankind.
Sartre’s theories put tremendous pressure on people and change their view of ethics. For people who believe that good and evil are pre-destined by God, they can no longer say that they are not solely responsible for their actions because God is supposedly leading their way. Moreover, his theories encourage people to be more aware of the values in which they choose. “…we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without good for all” (Great Traditions, 287). Because anything that is good for the person is good for everyone else and vice versa, the person must make ethical decisions.
Soren Kierkegaard is another great existentialist besides Jean-Paul Sartre. Kierkegaard is a 19-th centuary Danish philosopher and theologian, and he is generally recognized as the first existentialist philosopher. Because much of his work deals with religious problems, Kierkegaard’s work is sometimes characterized as Christian existentialism.
Kierkegaard and Sartre share the same ideal that a person’s decisions determine his or her quality or character. They also value that the heart of human existence lies in the power of choice. However, Kierkegaard gives a more precise definition of the “choice” that people make. “…the manner in which one chooses is as meaningful as the content of choice. Ethical choices are absolute and strict, constituting the basis for finding oneself” (Great Traditions, 181).
Kierkegaard believes that people’s choices as well as their earnestness and inner passion when making these decisions are both meaningful to human existence. However, besides putting strong emphasize on the spirit, attitude, and will of a person, he also calls attention to religious faith. “For Kierkegaard, a third mode of existence is living by religious faith. It is neither mystical nor irrational but rather is suprarational” (Great Traditions, 186).
Therefore, although both Kierkegaard and Sartre are existentialists, these two philosophers have contrasting views on the topic of religion. While Sartre denies the existence of God, Kierkegaard maintains that the ultimate concern of a person is to become a Christian. This is the central concept that sets the two great thinkers apart.
posted by Mavis Chao at 1:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home