Sartre Vs Kierkegaard Essay

Without strife, struggle, pain we don’t move forward. Our existence and purpose are pushed and perpetuated through these things. As a human it is not possible to exist and be completely happy or even dare to covet more. In that greed for more, one’s suffering proportionately increases. We wanted more.

Sartre says we should live in the moment, rather than in the abstract. Faith says we must live into our beliefs about God rather than merely holding them. Sartre’s philosophy shows us how “living out” a belief can work; we focus on extant instantiations of a thing rather than the idea of the

Exercise Three In chapter ten we read about Jean-Paul Sartre a French philosopher that deals with questions regarding authenticity. Sartre deals with the question of choices and how even our choices in life are authentic or inauthentic depending on what we choose. Sartre explains that as humans we always have a choice, what we choose reflects whether we are authentic or not. He explains that we always make a choice whether it be to choose or not to choose.

Although Sartre agrees with Dostoevsky who says, “If God does not exist, then everything would be possible,” he tries to pull back from nihilism by saying that each human must act “for all humanity” and before the audience of all of humanity. Sartre claims that all humans have no nature or essence, he disqualifies himself from calling them “all humans.” First Sartre affirms that human beings lack a nature, but if we lack a nature, then the term “human being” has no reference at all. The descriptive term that applies to something with inherent qualities and do what is required of the qualities can be identified as “human being”.

With the rejection of the Nobel Prize it in turn made history, making Sartre the first person to ever reject the Nobel Prize ” (Sartre A&E). “Sartre wrote No Exit to express his feelings about hell and existentialism. While he was in Paris, in the

By the way, of contrast to Heidegger, Sartre sees authenticity in connection the structure of human existence, a combination of facticity and freedom resulting in what he calls bad faith. Bad faith is when a conscious being denies their own freedom to choose from among an array of possibilities or denying an aspect of their own facticity, thus acting inauthentic. The two types of bad faith are, being-for-itself, and being-in-itself, both unavoidable, Sartre remarks, as the structure of human consciousness are a ubiquitous feature. For example, a murderer who refuses to acknowledge that they are a murderer, when his mother visits his holding cell and asks, with all sincerity, if he did murder people.

Argumentative Essay on Jean Paul Sartre’s No Exit Philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre, in his play, No Exit, displays the ideas of his existential philosophy through the backstories and characteristics of three main characters. Existentialism is the idea that humans are nothing but their own conscious existence. In discussion of existentialism, one controversial issue has been whether existence precedes essence or essence precedes existence. On the one hand Sartre argues that man is an independent individual, determined by his will alone .

Behind the facade that many may place on their exterior to the unwitting world, lies deep within their being a most decrepit and cynical nature that resides within all, waiting for the chance to unleash itself. It is at the very moment that something is placed at the mercy or submission of the individual or, when all else fails, that the facade fades away like a clearing fog, and the illusion is lost. The nature of human beings, being arguably inherently cynical, when given the opportunity exposes itself making it a “Hell” to all those who may succumb to their devilish nature. Sartre explores in his work, No Exit, human nature through the lens of absurdism. Through his use of literary devices such as similes, symbolism, and diction as well as characterization, and the exploration of the plot, Sartre demonstrate and explores that Hell is indeed other people.

Nietzsche elaborated upon an inherent meaninglessness of life and embraced the concept of nihilism. Later, French thinker Jean-Paul Sartre returned to the question of essence and pondered if humans are born without any hard-wired purpose and thus, it’s up to us to figure out our own essences. This is the fundamental concept of existentialism: “existence precedes essence”. There is no predetermined path that we must follow, no rules given by God, and we must write our own essence. This notion was considered a radical idea at the time of its conception because it refuted the age-old belief of a God-chosen

Sartre’s ideas provide everyone with the liberating idea that everyone has the ability to take their life into their own hands, if they are willing. This theory of overwhelming freedom is most can be seen in two different ways as I will elaborate on in the weaknesses of Sartre’s philosophy. The positive side of having such freedom is that it gives people hope that they have the ability to do what they want or what they dream to do. For many people, understanding such a theory of freedom is extremely liberating, as they no longer feel attached to patriarchal society and its rules. Even if they may continue to follow said rules, they now understand that they have the freedom not

They are free to make choices no matter under what circumstances. But this also implies that they must always make choices. And when one realized how heavy the responsibility he have to shoulder is, he will face anxiety and despair. Hence, in an attempt to avoid this sense of responsibility, one becomes inauthentic, shifting between his facticity and transcendence. The problem Sartre sees in becoming inauthentic is when one denies his transcendence, he denies the freedom he have, conforming to the pressure given by the society and its standards.

"(Sartre, 40) In this way Sartre claims that human being

Sartre was an ardent atheist and so believed that there could be no God in whose mind our essential properties had been conceived. Nor did he believe there to be any other external source of values: unlike for example, Aristotle, Sartre did not believe in a common human nature which could be the source of morality. The basic given of the human predicament is that we are forced to choose what we will become, to define ourselves by our choice of action: all that is given is that we are, not what we are. While a penknife’s essence is pre-defined (it isn’t really a penknife if it hasn’t got a blade and won’t cut); human beings have no essence to begin with: “… man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing.

(Sartre, 2003, p.649) Anxiety is felt in the face of my future, possibilities and freedom. Human beings are tempted by bad faith because it is the lesser of two burdens: it is a larger burden to choose from endless possibility, have limitless freedom and carry the vast responsibility that comes with this, rather than having to choose between limited possibilities that already exist. This idea is

Here different kinds of opinions come from different people, because everyone takes the reality of suffering in a different way. But those who realize their own actions and takes efforts to change, suffering leads to betterment. “The fact of moral evil is basically explained as necessary for the greater good of free will. The range of moral evil is mainly explained by reference to the greater good of the responsibility.”