Sartre’s existentialism leaves us with no moral rules or behaviour guidelines, yet it ultimately holds us responsible for our choices!. Do you find such a view appealing!? Contradictory!? Unsettling!? Liberating!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> Is Sartre's existentialist view appealing?Question: Is Sartre's existentialist view appealing!? Sartre’s existentialism leaves us with no moral rules or behaviour guidelines, yet it ultimately holds us responsible for our choices!. Do you find such a view appealing!? Contradictory!? Unsettling!? Liberating!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I feel that one who holds an existentialist view may be truely inclined to do greater moral actions than one whom is not!. they take into full acount ones own actions as what they are and who they stand for!. one who believes in fate, for example, may lay blame on their actions because of fate!. but sartre only would say that the blame would be layed on ones self!. therefore, the nicest people may be the existentialists!. Www@QuestionHome@Com I, personally, find Sartre's moral relativism cowardly, and inherently, abhorrently classist--I think that's the Marxist influence on his philosophy!. I quite agree, however, with his/our holding ourselves responsible for our choices!. I think it always seems more reasonable to the French to define themselves as expressions of their wonderful culture--with its inherent class structure--than it does to us!. Anyway, I much prefer the existentialism of Camus, without the influence of Althusser or Heidegger (whom I despise), to that of Sartre!. The difference might just be that Sartre was French, and Camus was Algerian!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Back in the day, when I had no money and lots of time, I would occasionally buy books based on thickness!. I discovered Nietzsche and Sartre that way!. Nietzsche was a treat right from the start, but Sartre (Being And Nothingness) was mostly an incomprehensible read!. However, over time, I managed to make sense out of it (Sartre might not agree with me)!. To answer your question, though, Sartre went on to write Existentialism as a Humanism, which basically takes a categorical perspective on doing for others--if it serves humanity then its good!. Only in the later part of his life did he switch from that perspective to his Marxist position!. I tend to extrapolate on things as I get older and I guess you could say that my final reading of Sartre might not make the old man happy!. Here's a bit of where I ended up (liberation, for me, is definitely the my final answer to your question): “Help me!. This is getting out of hand, and I’m tired!. Where’s God in all this!?” MV said!. “Right in the middle of Sartre’s self,” I replied!. “Sartre also saw time as an intrinsic component of consciousness, but he called it by another name--freedom!.” “Oh good, that’s got to be the frosting on the cake,” MV responded!. “No wonder God’s been invisible all this time!. He’s been living and hiding in the head of an atheist!.” “You got it,” I replied!. “He’s been hiding in a being such that in its being its being is in question in so far as this being implies a being other than itself!.” “That’s Sartre’s definition for the ‘for-itself,’ right!?” responded MV!. “You got it right again,” I replied!. “The part of the definition which is of particular interest is the part which says ‘being implies a being other than itself,’ for it is here that once again, we encounter the black hole that masquerades as self—the black hole that demands everything, but gives nothing back!. This hole in being implies, for Sartre, time and freedom!.” “Don’t tell me—freedom is God,” said MV “Chalk up another one, you’re on a roll,” I replied!. “It’s just that it’s a little more complicated than that!. Freedom, for Sartre, is not merely a description of external conditions wherein humanity confronts alternative possibilities!. It is the state of being to which being-for-itself is condemned!. In freedom, the human being is both past and future, but only through negation!. With respect to self-consciousness, freedom incessantly negates, as it continually forces us to confront our own nothingness, hence our ‘angst self!.’ But this angst is further qualified by Sartre when he says, ‘To be man means to reach toward being God!. Or if you prefer, man fundamentally is the desire to be God!.” Of course, Sartre goes on to show that not only is that desire unachievable, but God too is also an impossibility!. The religious search for God is very real, however!. In fact, for Sartre, the religious urge is basic to being human!. The kicker is that Sartre did not know that the same freedom he used to justify God’s impossibility is actually the self-conscious aspect of God in the here and now!.” Www@QuestionHome@Com |