1. I found interesting that Sartre stated the brutal honesty that dwelling in your sadness and despair does not change the rough situation that you are in. Many people would not state such a thing since anxiety and depression are such sensitive issues, but he does not sugar coat that fact. 2. I also found it interesting that both Christian and atheists believe that life comes before essence.
I don’t fully understand what Sartre means when he says that when someone makes a choice they are not only making it for themselves, but for everyone else. How do I “commit the whole of humanity” to a choice I’ve only committed myself to?
What struck me were the similarities to Kierkegaard, especially when Sartre writes about an individual’s “leap towards existence” and how “man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be.” It parallels Kierkegaard's ideas on the leap of faith and authenticity.
I like that Sartre brings upon the topic that if the idea of god didn't exist then we would have no values of what is good and bad. I think its interesting to imagine what we would be like without our ethical beliefs. I also liked his point that either way you must make a choice because not making a choice is a choice.
After reading I found it most interesting what Sartre thought of making choices and dwelling on your self pity. As for making choices, It was interesting that Sartre believed how many people a decision you personally make can affect, even if you think you decided not to take one. Sartre also explains how dwelling in your own self pity is not going to improve anything. This was old fashioned, and not something you would see someone write today with our understanding of mental illness.
Satre's belief that dwelling on one's despair does not change one's situation is a belief I truly believe in. Everyone in life must go through rough patches and often times people can feel engulfed in sorrow and despair. However, it is vital to keep going toward's one's goal. I believe Satre's thinking was ahead of its time because people of his time often would have said to mask one's pain in order to appeal strong. However, Satre thinking leads one to believe that acknowledging the pain and but moving on his okay.
I am confused about Sartre's reasoning when he asserts that when a man makes a choice, he is acting on behalf of all of humanity. He likely doesn't mean that in a literal sense, but perhaps I just need to reread the passage.
Since Sartre believes that existence precedes essence, then the idea of human nature is folly according to him. I wonder, does this mean he denies the influence of all biological presets in human action? Can't individuals still be free to act solely out of their own will, but with that will incorporating the influence of genetic psychological and physiological presets?
In my own subjectivity I completely agree with Sartre’s point that when we are to take the notion of the death of The Big Other seriously it does not imply this commonly misunderstood notion of freedom in the form of hedonistic pleasure. The absence of the Big Other in all of its forms implies a radical kind of unfreedom, for we are condemned to choice. Furthermore, these choices have very real consequences in the direct material conditions of people’s lives. In my own experience this is both paradoxically what drives me, and also what crushes me.
I like Sartre's overall proposition that man constructs his own essence through the choices he makes and that, regardless of circumstance, an individual can construct their own meaning from life and follow it optimistically. Presenting existentialism in a positive light makes a change from the slightly more pessimistic readings we've had previously.
Sartre states that if God does not exist, then the values and commands that legitimized our behavior do not exist either. Thus is he suggesting ethical constraints don't exist? If so, it sounds like Sartre is providing a legitimate excuse to behave in ways that may shock ad horrify others, if it is compliant with the meaning they want to create for themselves.
I am more familiar with Sartre than I am with the other philosophers we have read, but it is still refreshing to re-read a text again. I am reminded how Sartre asserts that existentialism is an “atheistic” view, not because it denounces the belief in a god, but that is doesn’t require the belief in a god, and that if a god were real, it would not mandate that the existentialist change his view. While I do admire Sartre’s philosophy, he seems to admonish determinism, claiming that it is man’s free will that makes his theory possible. I am not convinced by this. Maybe it is the case that the perception of freedom is enough to facilitate the existential perspective, even if it is nothing more than an illusion.
Sartre's assertions that the concept of *values* as a bourgeois is so good. This seems like a response that styles and customs are only _worthy_ if they creates value, which inherently in a bourgeois society means currency.
Another concept that Sartre introduces, which I think is interesting, is that authenticity can be applied to concepts such as culture or race. He makes a reference to the "inauthentic Jew", or those who are not Jews but other people take for Jews. It feels strange for me to read that something metaphysical can touch something as superficial as religion, race, or culture.
1. I found interesting that Sartre stated the brutal honesty that dwelling in your sadness and despair does not change the rough situation that you are in. Many people would not state such a thing since anxiety and depression are such sensitive issues, but he does not sugar coat that fact.
ReplyDelete2. I also found it interesting that both Christian and atheists believe that life comes before essence.
I don’t fully understand what Sartre means when he says that when someone makes a choice they are not only making it for themselves, but for everyone else. How do I “commit the whole of humanity” to a choice I’ve only committed myself to?
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me were the similarities to Kierkegaard, especially when Sartre writes about an individual’s “leap towards existence” and how “man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be.” It parallels Kierkegaard's ideas on the leap of faith and authenticity.
I like that Sartre brings upon the topic that if the idea of god didn't exist then we would have no values of what is good and bad. I think its interesting to imagine what we would be like without our ethical beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI also liked his point that either way you must make a choice because not making a choice is a choice.
After reading I found it most interesting what Sartre thought of making choices and dwelling on your self pity. As for making choices, It was interesting that Sartre believed how many people a decision you personally make can affect, even if you think you decided not to take one.
ReplyDeleteSartre also explains how dwelling in your own self pity is not going to improve anything. This was old fashioned, and not something you would see someone write today with our understanding of mental illness.
Satre's belief that dwelling on one's despair does not change one's situation is a belief I truly believe in. Everyone in life must go through rough patches and often times people can feel engulfed in sorrow and despair. However, it is vital to keep going toward's one's goal. I believe Satre's thinking was ahead of its time because people of his time often would have said to mask one's pain in order to appeal strong. However, Satre thinking leads one to believe that acknowledging the pain and but moving on his okay.
ReplyDeleteI am confused about Sartre's reasoning when he asserts that when a man makes a choice, he is acting on behalf of all of humanity. He likely doesn't mean that in a literal sense, but perhaps I just need to reread the passage.
ReplyDeleteSince Sartre believes that existence precedes essence, then the idea of human nature is folly according to him. I wonder, does this mean he denies the influence of all biological presets in human action? Can't individuals still be free to act solely out of their own will, but with that will incorporating the influence of genetic psychological and physiological presets?
In my own subjectivity I completely agree with Sartre’s point that when we are to take the notion of the death of The Big Other seriously it does not imply this commonly misunderstood notion of freedom in the form of hedonistic pleasure. The absence of the Big Other in all of its forms implies a radical kind of unfreedom, for we are condemned to choice. Furthermore, these choices have very real consequences in the direct material conditions of people’s lives. In my own experience this is both paradoxically what drives me, and also what crushes me.
ReplyDeleteI like Sartre's overall proposition that man constructs his own essence through the choices he makes and that, regardless of circumstance, an individual can construct their own meaning from life and follow it optimistically. Presenting existentialism in a positive light makes a change from the slightly more pessimistic readings we've had previously.
ReplyDeleteSartre states that if God does not exist, then the values and commands that legitimized our behavior do not exist either. Thus is he suggesting ethical constraints don't exist? If so, it sounds like Sartre is providing a legitimate excuse to behave in ways that may shock ad horrify others, if it is compliant with the meaning they want to create for themselves.
I am more familiar with Sartre than I am with the other philosophers we have read, but it is still refreshing to re-read a text again. I am reminded how Sartre asserts that existentialism is an “atheistic” view, not because it denounces the belief in a god, but that is doesn’t require the belief in a god, and that if a god were real, it would not mandate that the existentialist change his view.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do admire Sartre’s philosophy, he seems to admonish determinism, claiming that it is man’s free will that makes his theory possible. I am not convinced by this. Maybe it is the case that the perception of freedom is enough to facilitate the existential perspective, even if it is nothing more than an illusion.
Sartre's assertions that the concept of *values* as a bourgeois is so good. This seems like a response that styles and customs are only _worthy_ if they creates value, which inherently in a bourgeois society means currency.
ReplyDeleteAnother concept that Sartre introduces, which I think is interesting, is that authenticity can be applied to concepts such as culture or race. He makes a reference to the "inauthentic Jew", or those who are not Jews but other people take for Jews. It feels strange for me to read that something metaphysical can touch something as superficial as religion, race, or culture.