Jean Paul Sartre believed that we all are condemned to be free. We are born into this world without any kind of essence, just our mere existence, and as we grow up and discover our identity, we are given more and more responsibilities and decisions to make. I think what he meant by "condemning" us to be free is that this freedom is inevitable. We don´t ask for it but it is presented in front of us anyways. Furthermore, we can't transfer it to someone el se. We are thrown alone into a world where our decisions direct the path our lives take, and this pressure can make us feel anguish and "condemned".
Sartre often made reference to Ivan Karamazov, a famous character in one of Dostoevsky books by saying that "if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitteed". However, it this is true why then do such things as a moral code and a wide variety of laws exist? I think maybe the answer lies on some need to have certain things written in ston, which may make the process of freedom and decision-making more bearable since it doesn't depend on us completely for certain things. Maybe people hold on to these moral codes and laws in order to justify themselves in front of them or condemn themselves when they don't follow them. These laws then, may be used to legitimize certain conducts, or in other words, as "excuses" and escape ways from "complete freedom".
No comments:
Post a Comment