For many, Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism" offers the clearest and most concise account of existentialism as a philosophical doctrine. Ironically, this clarity may have aided in bringing the existentialist movement to an end as other thinkers began to distance themselves from Sartre's brand of existentialism, to the point where existentialists were no longer to be found. Nevertheless, how does Sartre understand existentialism? Is it as dark as its critics claim or is there, in fact, a latent humanism here? And what might existentialim still say to us today, more than a half century past its prime?
5 comments:
Sartre’s explanation of the atheistic existentialist view of man’s existence before essence was an interesting topic in this reading selection. Sartre explains that if God did not exist, there would still be a living being which exists before its own essence does. This being is man, who exists before encountering himself, and after encountering himself he is able to define his own existence. Sartre goes on to explain that because man is born without an essence, he is seemingly a blank canvas when he comes into existence. Because man “begins with nothing” it is reasonable to believe that there is no human nature because God does not exist to hold a conception of it, and man is born with nothing. In this line of thinking Sartre describes how being born and encountering himself allows man to define himself in any way he wishes. Within this theory man is exactly what he makes himself to be. While the idea of being born with nothing, and no natural born nature to fall back on seems dismal at first, the possibility to make of yourself whatever you desire is an encouraging existential idea.
I liked the idea that “Existentialism is a Humanism” in the idea that man makes himself, that is existence comes before essence. This idea that man just exists and then “encounters” himself, surges up in the world, and then defines himself is saying that our actions and how we make decisions is how we define ourselves and our morals. I like to think of this as a latent humanism and not dark, because I think it is interesting to think of man as a blank slate, and however he decides to act makes him who he is and defined his virtues, as compared to the idea that man has inborn virtues and morality. Sartre says that man makes himself and this is the “first principle of existentialism”, and I have never been prompted to think of existentialism in that way. He says most importantly that if this is true, man is responsible for what he is, and I think that this is a good way to look at things, because we are responsible and held accountable for our actions and I like how he has combined this concrete idea of us in the world and the application of existentialism to it, rather than just as a metaphysical category that we just try to understand, but rather we can apply this to our lives.
After reading Sartre and researching his background I have gained many different opinion of his work. “Existentialism is Humanism” shows Sartre ideas on what existentialism is and tells how each human being should view his life. He first goes into how each man’s existence comes before essence, and then goes into his ideas of the subjective. He tells that each human person makes all of his own decisions, and these decisions effect mankind as a whole. This is a radical idea which gives each human a huge responsibility to bear on their shoulders. If I decide to make a personal decision to go to school at Salve, to Sartre, this decision affects mankind as a whole. I understand this idea to an extent, but feel that he has some holes in his theory. Sartre also tells of two different standpoints of looking at existentialism: the Christian side and the Atheist side. Sartre is a representative of the Atheist side of existentialism. “If God did not exist, then everything would be permitted” and that, for existentialism, is the starting point.” Sartre certainly believes man is free to do what he wants, but explains that this freedom does have a positive or negative effect on the rest of mankind. I overall enjoy reading Sartre and can understand why he believes, or desperately wants to believe his theories.
Sorry about the late comment, but I thought that Sartre was a very brilliant philosopher. The idea that every pereson should take full responsibility for all of their actions is so simple that it is brilliant. You do make your own life, you create your own purpose based upon your own decisions. You can argue that everything is fake, but I can not see how this can be true. You make your own choices, you go through a mental diliberation of pros and cons and decide which choice will be the best one for you. Fate plays no part, man makes himself.
I thought it was interesting when we posed the question, what do you think if society did not have a moral code and man was left in charge to make it. I would have to believe that society by itself would not be able to create a moral code, because our society cannot even adhere to the moral code that we have today. Rousseau could already see where our society was going with our morals and values in his first discourse, and I find it hard to believe that man could establish a moral code in our society today because of what Rousseau saw and because our society is already base today. I have just come to the point where I can understand why we need religion and its moral code, because without it, I’m sure whether man would be good or not. I can see some men being good and other men being wicked, but I think there would be a lack of drive to create a good moral code, because that is what our society has come to, the lack of drive to really care about what is good and to try and reach for it. I wish man would self-surpass and self-transcend, but in reality I think it would be extremely hard to do, and I can understand now the reason why we have moral codes from religion.
Post a Comment