If I understand the actual meaning of existence, I completely agree that it precedes essence. I believe a person starts to exist as soon as they are conceived. However, I believe the essence of a person is his distinct features and characteristics. At the time of conception, it is not certain what features we will have and therefore, at that time before we are birthed into the world, we exist before having an essence. Sartre’s idea that we have limitless choices is one with which I completely agree! I feel that there are infinite choices a person can make and as Sartre says, we are “living in bad faith” if we do not believe that we are able to make all of these choices. Taking this is the religious direction, with every choice I make, I believe God is guiding me. Because I cannot see this actually happening, I have to have faith that I am making the right choices. If I constantly feel that I am making the wrong choices and that God is not right beside me, I am “living in bad faith.” I also agree with the idea that we are the sum of our choices. Every choice we make if full of responsibilities and when all is said and done, our life will be what we made of it. While I do agree with Sartre’s idea that we are always free to become something else, I do not agree with the idea that “nobody is essentially anything.” This, I feel, is a very harsh statement. First and foremost, we are humans and that is a major feat in itself. To say we are not anything means that we have no meaning to our lives. This, in my opinion, is crazy!
At the end of class, it was brought up that choices we make can be authentic or inauthentic. What exactly does this mean?
One of the principles of existentialism outlined by Sartre concerns the idea of existence preceding essence. Ignoring the basic principles of metaphysics, which in Western societies taught that something’s essence is more fundamental than its existence, Sartre argued that the fundamental and powerful concepts surrounding a person’s existence must be defined and understood before its essence can be explored and managed. Though Sartre felt strongly about such an assertion, it only applied to humans, not inanimate objects or other animals. I personally disagree with Sartre and find the Western precept of essence preceding existence more plausible. In order for existence to result, the essence—the most basic concepts---must be addressed. Through Sartre’s logic, I do, however, understand his suppositions. Regarding Sartre, regardless of my disagreements, I can appreciate his logic and his points. It seems as if his existentialist points of view manifest themselves through his work, as his concrete understanding is derived from deep, progressive thought. His work seems irrational if you have a closed mind in approaching it; however, he is rational and consistent within the confines of his own beliefs. Western society, which has seen the rise of each of us in this class, simply neglects a true understanding of Sartre’s ways. I also agree with Emily in her mentioning that we have limitless choices. In class, I began pondering this statement, and began to agree more and more as the day progressed. Having limitless choices is a positive reinforcing agent for those our age in college, because it motivates us to utilize the freedom to the most productive and beneficial extents. Limitless choices are an influential part of what makes us uniquely human—something existential I would agree with wholeheartedly.
After some reflection, I think I agree with Sartre’s assertion that existence precedes essence. As Sartre suggests, I believe that we, as humans, are completely in charge of who we are and what we become. When we are born, we have virtually no essence. In Psalm 139:13, it is written, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” I believe that our Heavenly father knows us from our conception. He knows who we are and what we will become; however, I believe that to have essence, we must first exist. Though God may know the choices we will make before we make them, I do not think that this limits our autonomy, as he is just the father looking over the fence, not making our decisions for us. We have unlimited choices that shape the person that we become.
Though our decisions are heavily influenced by our family and background, nothing is determined fully; therefore we have complete control over our actions. We are “condemned to be free” (82), which can be quite scary as we experience anguish in realizing that our life truly is in our own hands and we are responsible for the consequences of all our decisions in life. As Sartre suggests, “Every aspect of our mental lives, is, in some sense chosen and ultimately our own responsibility.” (183)
I definitely agree with Sartre that one is living in bad faith if they don’t believe that they have full control of these limitless choices. I am a strong believer that you truly are in control of your future. By the choices you make every day, you create a reflection of your inner self and shape the person that others see. You are the one in control! Ultimately, you can become whatever you would like--you just have to make the choices to get you there. If one sits back and lets their background, family, or past choices manipulate their future, they are acting in bad faith.
Your identity is a direct result of your choices; nothing is imposed upon you. I, like Sartre, believe that we all have the capacity to break free from stereotypes and all things that hold us back as long as our basic needs of food, sleep, water, safety, and security are met.
Who are you? The choice is yours despite what others push you toward or make you believe. Become what you want to be.
Existence preceding essence for me means that the things we do in our life determine our "interests" or our qualities. I don't show up to work on time and give my best effort each day because I'm a responsible person but rather my repeated actions define me as being a responsible person. I exist by defining myself each moment, through my actions. Essence is our everything. It’s what we assign to our self as who we are. My Existence is me. I exist and therefore I am. So I must exist before I can begin defining my essence. So yes, I would absolutely agree with Sartre that existence precedes essence. I see our existence as dealing with our non-biological aspects and our essence as regarding biological, or our material aspects. Essence would be limited to the scope of this world and further confined to the period of time which our human person is alive. At the moment death occurs our essence is lost along with all of our rights that come with our personhood. I believe existence is non-biological and therefore contains no material component. It does not have a limit in its scope. I can therefore exist both before and after my biological death as a human.
If I understand the actual meaning of existence, I completely agree that it precedes essence. I believe a person starts to exist as soon as they are conceived. However, I believe the essence of a person is his distinct features and characteristics. At the time of conception, it is not certain what features we will have and therefore, at that time before we are birthed into the world, we exist before having an essence.
ReplyDeleteSartre’s idea that we have limitless choices is one with which I completely agree! I feel that there are infinite choices a person can make and as Sartre says, we are “living in bad faith” if we do not believe that we are able to make all of these choices. Taking this is the religious direction, with every choice I make, I believe God is guiding me. Because I cannot see this actually happening, I have to have faith that I am making the right choices. If I constantly feel that I am making the wrong choices and that God is not right beside me, I am “living in bad faith.” I also agree with the idea that we are the sum of our choices. Every choice we make if full of responsibilities and when all is said and done, our life will be what we made of it.
While I do agree with Sartre’s idea that we are always free to become something else, I do not agree with the idea that “nobody is essentially anything.” This, I feel, is a very harsh statement. First and foremost, we are humans and that is a major feat in itself. To say we are not anything means that we have no meaning to our lives. This, in my opinion, is crazy!
At the end of class, it was brought up that choices we make can be authentic or inauthentic. What exactly does this mean?
One of the principles of existentialism outlined by Sartre concerns the idea of existence preceding essence. Ignoring the basic principles of metaphysics, which in Western societies taught that something’s essence is more fundamental than its existence, Sartre argued that the fundamental and powerful concepts surrounding a person’s existence must be defined and understood before its essence can be explored and managed. Though Sartre felt strongly about such an assertion, it only applied to humans, not inanimate objects or other animals. I personally disagree with Sartre and find the Western precept of essence preceding existence more plausible. In order for existence to result, the essence—the most basic concepts---must be addressed. Through Sartre’s logic, I do, however, understand his suppositions.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Sartre, regardless of my disagreements, I can appreciate his logic and his points. It seems as if his existentialist points of view manifest themselves through his work, as his concrete understanding is derived from deep, progressive thought. His work seems irrational if you have a closed mind in approaching it; however, he is rational and consistent within the confines of his own beliefs. Western society, which has seen the rise of each of us in this class, simply neglects a true understanding of Sartre’s ways.
I also agree with Emily in her mentioning that we have limitless choices. In class, I began pondering this statement, and began to agree more and more as the day progressed. Having limitless choices is a positive reinforcing agent for those our age in college, because it motivates us to utilize the freedom to the most productive and beneficial extents. Limitless choices are an influential part of what makes us uniquely human—something existential I would agree with wholeheartedly.
After some reflection, I think I agree with Sartre’s assertion that existence precedes essence. As Sartre suggests, I believe that we, as humans, are completely in charge of who we are and what we become. When we are born, we have virtually no essence. In Psalm 139:13, it is written, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” I believe that our Heavenly father knows us from our conception. He knows who we are and what we will become; however, I believe that to have essence, we must first exist. Though God may know the choices we will make before we make them, I do not think that this limits our autonomy, as he is just the father looking over the fence, not making our decisions for us. We have unlimited choices that shape the person that we become.
ReplyDeleteThough our decisions are heavily influenced by our family and background, nothing is determined fully; therefore we have complete control over our actions. We are “condemned to be free” (82), which can be quite scary as we experience anguish in realizing that our life truly is in our own hands and we are responsible for the consequences of all our decisions in life. As Sartre suggests, “Every aspect of our mental lives, is, in some sense chosen and ultimately our own responsibility.” (183)
I definitely agree with Sartre that one is living in bad faith if they don’t believe that they have full control of these limitless choices. I am a strong believer that you truly are in control of your future. By the choices you make every day, you create a reflection of your inner self and shape the person that others see. You are the one in control! Ultimately, you can become whatever you would like--you just have to make the choices to get you there. If one sits back and lets their background, family, or past choices manipulate their future, they are acting in bad faith.
Your identity is a direct result of your choices; nothing is imposed upon you. I, like Sartre, believe that we all have the capacity to break free from stereotypes and all things that hold us back as long as our basic needs of food, sleep, water, safety, and security are met.
Who are you? The choice is yours despite what others push you toward or make you believe. Become what you want to be.
Existence preceding essence for me means that the things we do in our life determine our "interests" or our qualities. I don't show up to work on time and give my best effort each day because I'm a responsible person but rather my repeated actions define me as being a responsible person. I exist by defining myself each moment, through my actions. Essence is our everything. It’s what we assign to our self as who we are. My Existence is me. I exist and therefore I am. So I must exist before I can begin defining my essence. So yes, I would absolutely agree with Sartre that existence precedes essence. I see our existence as dealing with our non-biological aspects and our essence as regarding biological, or our material aspects. Essence would be limited to the scope of this world and further confined to the period of time which our human person is alive.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment death occurs our essence is lost along with all of our rights that come with our personhood. I believe existence is non-biological and therefore contains no material component. It does not have a limit in its scope. I can therefore exist both before and after my biological death as a human.