Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sartre existentialism
Sartre philosophy existence precedes essence essay
Sartre existentialism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sartre existentialism
Discussion
Most western Philosophies and monotheistic traditions base the creation of man as a design of god. God is the primary artisan that is the creator for all, and god’s conception of man is conceived before the creation of man. For Sartre this means that because god created humanity through a conception, it must mean that we are all created to that conception and are created with a purpose, or as Sartre defines human nature (Sartre, p.206-207).
As an atheistic existentialist Sartre sees a problem with a notion of a divine creator, as this would mean that our essence precedes our existence. Jean Paul Sartre’s notion of existence preceding essence is his ideology that debates freedom and human choice. Sartre’s basic claim is that the existence of humanity exists before there is conception of values and morals, human nature (Sartre, p 207). For Sartre humanity is born with a blank slate, no predetermined value and no basic essence that humanity shares. Subsequently this means that because we have no particular ideal abstract of human nature, we are all responsible to create our own construction of essence through the choices we make. We define ourselves by the sum of choices and actions we make. (Sartre, p. 208) Sartre’s argument denies the traditional philosophy of an existing human nature, or an ideal abstract of being that we are all born with. Sartre’s theory articulates the absence of an omniscient creator (Sartre, p. 209). Sartre believes that man creates his nature and finds value though his free choices. Sartre elaborates this through his concept of freedom by establishing that our conscience is separate from the physical world; it is without restriction and therefore must be free. (Sartre, p. 239-241) The radical freedom Sartre expresses however does have restrictions of facticity. The limitations that are instilled in us, the situations we are all thrown in does restrict some possibilities of our freedom, this is called facticity. Facticity is the situation we find ourselves in, but this does not change that we are still more than our situation; we always have choice and are destined to it. (Sartre, p 240-241)
Analysis:
To accept that existence precedes essence one would have to come to the conclusion that there is no innate human nature and therefore no god to conceive it (Sartre, p.207). For many western philosophies and monotheistic religions this proves to be problem and they dispute existentialism in that respect.
The term existentialist, according to Sartre, means existence precedes essence. This means that an individual first exists, and then they exercise free will over themselves to do things that define themselves, thus their essence. For this ideology to work for Sartre, an atheistic stance needs to be taken. This is so because of how he defines God. God is compared to an artisan producing a knife, through a definition and a formula. Thus, “when God creates he knows precisely what he is creating.” Under this identification of God, that Sartre dictates is a common implication in philosophical writings, God creates with intent and seemingly, purpose. Hence, God
In his lecture, Existentialism is a Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre discusses common misconceptions people, specifically Communists and Christians, have about existentialism and extentanitalists (18). He wants to explain why these misconceptions are wrong and defend existentialism for what he believes it is. Sartre argues people are free to create themselves through their decisions and actions. This idea is illustrated in the movie 13 Going on Thirty, where one characters’ decision at her thirteenth birthday party and her actions afterwards make her become awful person by the time she turns thirty. She was free to make these decisions but she was also alone. Often the idea of having complete free will at first sounds refreshing, but when people
Many Christians rejected the philosophy of existentialism on the grounds that it denies “the reality and seriousness of human affairs” and that man will “be incapable… of condemning either the point of view or the action of anyone else.” (Sartre 1). Sartre denies this claim later in Existentialism is a Humanism by rejecting the misconception that an existentialist holds no conviction. Rather, he states, existentialists have the most conviction of anyone, because in “choosing for himself he chooses for all men.” (Sartre 4) Sartre claims this to be the “deeper meaning of existentialism.” It is the subjectivity of what is good or evil, the essence that man decides for himself, that has an impact on everyone else; within this subjectivity lies the responsibility for bettering mankind, a responsibility few men would choose to ignore.
We choose, act, and take responsibility for everything, and thus we live, and exist. Life cannot be anything until it is lived, but each individual must make sense of it. The value of life is nothing else but the sense each person fashions into it. To argue that we are the victims of fate, of mysterious forces within us, of some grand passion, or heredity, is to be guilty of bad faith. Sartre says that we can overcome the adversity presented by our facticity, a term he designs to represent the external factors that we have no control over, such as the details of our birth, our race, and so on, by inserting nothingness into it.
“It is better to encounter your existence in disgust, then never to encounter it at all.” What Sartre is saying is that it is better to determine who you are in dissatisfaction, rather than never truly discovering yourself. Sartre’s worst fear in life would be to realize that you have never truly lived. For example, if you were to land a career that you were not interested in and you were just going through the motions of everyday life, Sartre would say that life was not a life worth living. Sartre’s goal in life was to reach the ultimate level; he said life was “Nausea” , because we are always trying to reach the next level, we are always in motion. Sartre had two theories that determine our way of life, Being-In-Itself and Being-For-Itself. Being-In-Itself is the ultimate level, if you reach this level you have fulfilled yourself completely, you have lived your life to the fullest. Being-For-Itself is where we as human beings are, we are always trying to work to become perfect. Our goal in life is to find an authentic existence, and we get there by saying no. Sartre’s philosophy of freedom is obtained by saying no, when we say no we are giving ourselves the option of what we do in our life. By saying no, we receive freedom of our life. “You should say no about every belief if there is a doubt about it.” Sartre also says our human existence is always in
...ar idea with Stephen; they both wanted to do anything and create their own human nature, and our value of freedom through those free choices. Generally, Sartre suggested that men have freedom to construct their nature and essence through their actions.
Jean-Paul Sartre claims that there can be no human nature, or essence, without a God to conceive of it. This claim leads Sartre to formulate the idea of radical freedom, which is the idea that man exists before he can be defined by any concept and is afterwards solely defined by his choices. Sartre presupposes this radical freedom as a fact but fails to address what is necessary to possess the type of freedom which would allow man to define himself. If it can be established that this freedom and the ability to make choices is contingent upon something else, then freedom cannot be the starting point from which man defines himself. This leaves open the possibility of an essence that is not necessarily dependent upon a God to conceive it. Several inconsistencies in Sartre’s philosophy undermine the plausibility of his concept of human nature. The type of freedom essential for the ability to define oneself is in fact contingent upon something else. It is contingent upon community, and the capacity for empathy, autonomy, rationality, and responsibility.
There are two kinds of existentialist; first those who are Christian, and on the other hand the atheistic existentialists. Many unfamiliar with the subject people associate existentialism with atheism, but they are wrong. The truth is that the majority of existentialists are not atheists. Sartre, which we place among atheists, stress that central concern of philosophy is human existence. He says that human being is a special kind of consciousness (being-for- itself). Everything else is matter (being-in-itself). He believes that human being has no God-given essence and is absolutely free and absolutely responsible. According to him, anguish is the result of the absolute freedom and responsibility. He also says that human existence is absurd and unjustified. Therefore, the goal of human being is to justify his/her existence.(2) Sartre believes that there are those in our history who have established a religion to reassure nothing more than what he calls a "fundamental project." That means that when we become anguished by the affairs of life we pursue a fundamental project in attempt to flee this anguish. He says that we try to make ourselves Gods in hopes that others would see us divine, and hold us in higher regard. To pursue a fundame...
“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
...ating Sartre's attitudes towards the constituents of human action, that which constitutes human being. Even though it may, in the final analysis, prove to be an unsatisfactory account of consciousness, it serves to illuminate some possible further lines of study, if only as a negative example.
They believe that man was indefinable at first; "he first appears, then defines himself." (1) There are no set plans as to how a man must live. He must make his own decisions and move towards his future with no help [from the outside world. The main idea of existential is what Sartre simply stated as…"I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a certain image of my own choosing. In choosing myself is choose man." (1) He is saying that man creates his own image of the self and it is different for all men. The belief that existence precedes essence directly ties into the fact that the atheistic existentialist believes that there is no god. They believe that there is no human nature and that humans are inherently free.
Man, by nature, is always searching for meaning. From the Atheistic approach, he must search for it without divinity. With divinity, only humanity and commonplace is present. Equipped only with everything – broad, yes, but accurate – man must content himself with what is available to him. This does not complicate things, nor make them trivial, it rather makes them quite simple. If your life has meaning, it is worth living. It is still meaning as it is still driving you forward and still causing you to better yourself, it just so happens that it is also commonplace. Existentialism thrives on the commonplace as it creates a system in which freedom of choice and abundancy of self-reliance is available. This is the true definition of subjectivism, though critics of Sartre will
In my opinion, much of Sartre’s ideas stemmed from his atheism. With the absence of a divine creator, he concluded that humans in themselves must be the start of all things. He rejected the idea that God could coincide with free will. While existentialism does raise some important and relevant points, its core that existence precedes essence is not a valid one, nor does a different view eliminate the possibility of free will.
...on their situation, and that for me seemed unfair. So for Sartre to show that humans can create their own lives, versus having it prearranged for them on some deeper level, seems much more appealing.
ABSTRACT: Historical research was one of Jean-Paul Sartre's major concerns. Sartre's biographical studies and thought indicate that history is not only a field in which you gather facts, events, and processes, but it is a worthy challenge which includes a grave personal responsibility: my responsibility to the dead lives that preceded me. Sartre's writings suggest that accepting this responsibility can be a source of wisdom. Few historians, however, view history as transcending the orderly presenting and elucidating of facts, events, and processes. I contend that Sartre's writings suggest a personally enhancing commitment. A lucid and honest response to the challenges and demands of history and the dead lives that preceded my own existence is an engagement that requires courage, wisdom, and thought. The consequences of this commitment for teaching history is discussed.