John P. Sartre

I never thought of human being's existence as preceding essence, nor have I though of human beings as essence preceding existence. Its crazy how it all depends on your own beliefs; apparently everything in life seems to tie into "one's own beliefs". It is all based on whether or not you are one of the atheistic existentialism or theistic existentialism. To be of the atheistic, is to believe that existence precedes essence versus theist who believe essence precedes existence. The atheist cut God from all things leaving them undetermined by him. They have the freedom to be whatever they please therefore existence without an identity. In contrast to the theistic who are very well determined by God and follow his guidelines giving them purpose and identity.

class synopsis

In class on Wednesday we talked about John P. Sartre (1908-1980). He was a French philosopher who believed philosophy is about a lived experience. He also believed that Existentialism is Humanism, meaning we are all free individuals and we are also responsible for our own actions. He thought this to be true for reasons like “existence preceding essence”. This was the idea that man appears on the scene and afterwards defines himself. For example when a person goes to make a paper cutter, he or she knows the idea of the purpose and duty of the paper cutter before they create it, leaving it determined. In contrast to the human being of atheistic existentialism who has no essence of what it is to be human, our “existence precedes our essence”. It was mentioned a story of a man who created many animals and gave them all a task. Within his creations he also made man, however, he forgot to give man a task. A second man comes along and inspected the creator’s work seeing that all was good, except that of the human. The inspector desired for the human to be destroyed for his lack of a task; for without a task man has nothing and no identity. The creator then thinks to give man hope, resulting in the human task being giving ourselves self essence.

There are two camps of existentialism: Atheist and Theist. Within the Atheist camp everything is up to you, man cuts God off, allowing them to define themselves; leaving all to bear the yoke of responsibility of the world not god. Within the Theist camp man is determined for God gives him or her a task.

We also talked about the idea of INTENTIONALITY whereas consciousness is geared toward something. It always has an object, with the starting point being the subject. There are two meanings to subjectivism, one the individual chooses and makes himself and two it is impossible for man to transcend human subjectivity. When man chooses his own self, everyone does the same. But when making that choice man also chooses all men. Sartre also thinks “Human was condemned to be free”. This determines us, therefore we must make choices. Anguish, responsibility and despair come from freedom. One can only understand freedom once they recognize themselves as a subject. With freedom comes responsibility for decisions, therefore one can not do what he or she pleases because of responsibility. Every truth and action implies human setting and subjectivity; creating ideas of what it is to be a human being.

We also discussed the idea of Bad Faith. This is the idea that one cannot transcend their situations in order to realize what they must be and what they are not. Living a life defined by an occupation, social, racial or economic class is essence of bad faith. For example, a waiter who seems to be the perfect waiter, identifies with that of a waiter, but is aware he is not a waiter but still acts “waiterish”. To make a choice is to define your self. To be different is to acknowledge and become responsibility for it that choice and change it. Virtue is to recognize you have a problem. There is no man that isn’t freedom.

There were also the Ideas of subject and object. The first was Being for itself, in which a person is completely free. The second was Being in itself in which all is thrown in to a world that is determined and the third Being with others which is a constant play of inter-subjectivity. Your freedom is your choice. To be a victim is because of your choice to be an object. Facticity acknowledges facts of the matter can be something more: object. Transcendence are facts of the matter that don’t really matter. I don’t ever study, wish over facts, rape never happened: subject.

class synopsis

In class on Wednesday we talked about John P. Sartre (1908-1980). He was a French philosopher who believed philosophy is about a lived experience. He also believed that Existentialism is Humanism, meaning we are all free individuals and we are also responsible for our own actions. He thought this to be true for reasons like “existence preceding essence”. This was the idea that man appears on the scene and afterwards defines himself. For example when a person goes to make a paper cutter, he or she knows the idea of the purpose and duty of the paper cutter before they create it, leaving it determined. In contrast to the human being of atheistic existentialism who has no essence of what it is to be human, our “existence precedes our essence”. It was mentioned a story of a man who created many animals and gave them all a task. Within his creations he also made man, however, he forgot to give man a task. A second man comes along and inspected the creator’s work seeing that all was good, except that of the human. The inspector desired for the human to be destroyed for his lack of a task; for without a task man has nothing and no identity. The creator then thinks to give man hope, resulting in the human task being giving ourselves self essence.

There are two camps of existentialism: Atheist and Theist. Within the Atheist camp everything is up to you, man cuts God off, allowing them to define themselves; leaving all to bear the yoke of responsibility of the world not god. Within the Theist camp man is determined for God gives him or her a task.

We also talked about the idea of INTENTIONALITY whereas consciousness is geared toward something. It always has an object, with the starting point being the subject. There are two meanings to subjectivism, one the individual chooses and makes himself and two it is impossible for man to transcend human subjectivity. When man chooses his own self, everyone does the same. But when making that choice man also chooses all men. Sartre also thinks “Human was condemned to be free”. This determines us, therefore we must make choices. Anguish, responsibility and despair come from freedom. One can only understand freedom once they recognize themselves as a subject. With freedom comes responsibility for decisions, therefore one can not do what he or she pleases because of responsibility. Every truth and action implies human setting and subjectivity; creating ideas of what it is to be a human being.

We also discussed the idea of Bad Faith. This is the idea that one cannot transcend their situations in order to realize what they must be and what they are not. Living a life defined by an occupation, social, racial or economic class is essence of bad faith. For example, a waiter who seems to be the perfect waiter, identifies with that of a waiter, but is aware he is not a waiter but still acts “waiterish”. To make a choice is to define your self. To be different is to acknowledge and become responsibility for it that choice and change it. Virtue is to recognize you have a problem. There is no man that isn’t freedom.

There were also the Ideas of subject and object. The first was Being for itself, in which a person is completely free. The second was Being in itself in which all is thrown in to a world that is determined and the third Being with others which is a constant play of inter-subjectivity. Your freedom is your choice. To be a victim is because of your choice to be an object. Facticity acknowledges facts of the matter can be something more: object. Transcendence are facts of the matter that don’t really matter. I don’t ever study, wish over facts, rape never happened: subject.

Kierkegaard

To love someone is not a duty but a commitment. Abraham sacrificed his son out of a commitment to God in proving his faith. God's demanding of Abraham's son was out of a spiritual trial not for a greater cause. God wanted to test Abraham to see in what place his heart laid. Abraham is a knight of faith for this but what then do we call him if he had chosen not to sacrifice? Is he now a tragic hero? For what purposes? For Abraham to not sacrifice is that now for a greater cause? To save a nation? Or is there some sort of third category that dedicates to that of the selfish and unfaithful?

Argument Formation?

A sequencing of reasoning intending to establish or attest the truth of a conclusion? A premise or conclusion? Formal or informal? Valid or invalid? Sophistic or Socratic? All of which come into play to form arguments. I have now become conscious of the more complex structure or that there actually is a complex structure to making an argument. This discussion actually helps you better comprehend how to make an argument and how to distinguish if our debaters are people of mere opinion or Socratic argument. Merely stating your opinion or preferences when making an argument is as dense as contradicting your opponents’ every word.

An invalid argument is worthless to the beholders for within it truth will never be attained.

The Sixth Sense

Today in class we discussed the question "What Can We Say Exist"? In my opinion no one has the power to say what actually exist. Why, because their views and reasoning can be the product of not knowing or double ignorance. The other day I watched a move called "The Sixth Sense" in which a child psychologist, Dr. Cole, was shot by a raged former client. Years later Dr. Cole sought out to help a child of similar need as the first. This child who was the product of divorced parents and was constantly bullied, told Dr. Cole that he had the ability to see dead people, some of which who were dead and did not even know it; While Dr. Cole believed the child needed to be medicated and he and his wife lost communication through anger, the story unfolds to reveal that he was actually the dead one who did not know it. His wife ignored him not in anger, for the bullet that pierced his abdomen forced him to no longer exist. His non-existence was obvious to everyone one but him. So we see the things that we understand to be true can very well be the opposite. Can we was as questioning beings function properly with uncertainty of our own existence?