You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.88 AVERAGE
3.88 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
reflective
fast-paced
For someone who read this at 1am while experiencing an existential crisis, I recommend this short lecture to anyone having a crisis over the purpose of life. Sartre did not dissapoint.
Despite being a fragmentary portrayal of existentialism, Sartre sophisticatingly managed to describe how existentialism relates to humanism through his conclusive and metaphysical defence that 'Existence precedes essence'. He has given a few items of defences with viable evidences that was, although short, brief and definite, making the topic comphrensible and plausible for any reader. However, I will have to to argue some of the credibility of Sartre's points.
Sartre rationalized, how we, mankind, exist, encouter ourselves, discover the world, and define ourselves afterwards. However, I argue that some people are not entirely conscious of their ownself and to other factors and foundation of human society. Does our unconsciousness an obstacle to existentialism? Or is it the intended ignorance? Self-deception, perhaps?
Then, if 'existence precedes essence', there is no reference of human nature to explain our actions we do for man is free and man is freedom. With this, Sartre states that we are incharge of our ownself and therefore, incharge to make meaning within or beyond it for we are free. We are what we concieve ourself to be, yet, we are what we will to be, and concieve ourselves after already existing. However, I argue that if this is the case, how are we concieved or influenced by other people like our friends and family? Perhaps it is due to the Christian doctrines or a priori, but does a priori or maybe the doctrines in any religion matter or not in the scope of existentialism? I'm still not so sure.
And if this is true, Sartre's defences will come to a certain point to conclude that we are completely and 100% responsible for our own actions as human beings. Which is probably what this lecture all about. Here, I agree to the standpoint that we are responsible for what we are. Not only for ourselves, but we are responsible for all men. In short, whatever action that we do, we create a certain image as we would have ourselves and for mankind. Sartre said 'In fashioning ourselves, we fashion man' and I couldn't agree more.
I am also fascinated at the theme of atheism. It transformed this lecture to be broader, fair, and to retain from bias against Christian doctrines. From this, he defended that the destiny and fate of man does not rest to God, but rests to the man alone. But what if God does or does not exist? Does it make a difference? I think not. For whenever we commit ourselves to anything, realizing that we are not only choosing ourselves to be but for the whole mankind, we come to the point where we learn that at the same time, God is not only the legislator, and we, ourselves, comes as a legislator deciding for the whole mankind to be. And with this realization, I come to believe and strongly agree with Sartre that we are condemned to exist for we did not create ourselves and are only here to exist and hence, find our essence.
These are the are some of the principles of existentialism and how its aspects relates to humanism I learned. These are also some of my arguments I pointed out that proves existentialism is a humanism from the vantage point of existence precedes essence.
Hence, to end this great review of this great lecture, I conclude that it is true for Sartre that we are nothing else but that which we make ourselves to be. In short, Existentialism is a humanism “because we remind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself must decide for himself; also because we show that it is by seeking an aim of liberation that man can realise himself as truly human.” A humanism indeed.
Despite being a fragmentary portrayal of existentialism, Sartre sophisticatingly managed to describe how existentialism relates to humanism through his conclusive and metaphysical defence that 'Existence precedes essence'. He has given a few items of defences with viable evidences that was, although short, brief and definite, making the topic comphrensible and plausible for any reader. However, I will have to to argue some of the credibility of Sartre's points.
Sartre rationalized, how we, mankind, exist, encouter ourselves, discover the world, and define ourselves afterwards. However, I argue that some people are not entirely conscious of their ownself and to other factors and foundation of human society. Does our unconsciousness an obstacle to existentialism? Or is it the intended ignorance? Self-deception, perhaps?
Then, if 'existence precedes essence', there is no reference of human nature to explain our actions we do for man is free and man is freedom. With this, Sartre states that we are incharge of our ownself and therefore, incharge to make meaning within or beyond it for we are free. We are what we concieve ourself to be, yet, we are what we will to be, and concieve ourselves after already existing. However, I argue that if this is the case, how are we concieved or influenced by other people like our friends and family? Perhaps it is due to the Christian doctrines or a priori, but does a priori or maybe the doctrines in any religion matter or not in the scope of existentialism? I'm still not so sure.
And if this is true, Sartre's defences will come to a certain point to conclude that we are completely and 100% responsible for our own actions as human beings. Which is probably what this lecture all about. Here, I agree to the standpoint that we are responsible for what we are. Not only for ourselves, but we are responsible for all men. In short, whatever action that we do, we create a certain image as we would have ourselves and for mankind. Sartre said 'In fashioning ourselves, we fashion man' and I couldn't agree more.
I am also fascinated at the theme of atheism. It transformed this lecture to be broader, fair, and to retain from bias against Christian doctrines. From this, he defended that the destiny and fate of man does not rest to God, but rests to the man alone. But what if God does or does not exist? Does it make a difference? I think not. For whenever we commit ourselves to anything, realizing that we are not only choosing ourselves to be but for the whole mankind, we come to the point where we learn that at the same time, God is not only the legislator, and we, ourselves, comes as a legislator deciding for the whole mankind to be. And with this realization, I come to believe and strongly agree with Sartre that we are condemned to exist for we did not create ourselves and are only here to exist and hence, find our essence.
These are the are some of the principles of existentialism and how its aspects relates to humanism I learned. These are also some of my arguments I pointed out that proves existentialism is a humanism from the vantage point of existence precedes essence.
Hence, to end this great review of this great lecture, I conclude that it is true for Sartre that we are nothing else but that which we make ourselves to be. In short, Existentialism is a humanism “because we remind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself must decide for himself; also because we show that it is by seeking an aim of liberation that man can realise himself as truly human.” A humanism indeed.
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
A nice clarification of certain existentialist terms and theories.
informative
reflective
The concept of existentialism and its critiques are all conveyed very well.
"Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower."
"Life is nothing until it is lived; but it is yours to make sense of, and the value of it is nothing else but the sense that you choose."
"Life is nothing until it is lived; but it is yours to make sense of, and the value of it is nothing else but the sense that you choose."