Intelligent Journal: What do you think of Existentialism as a general philosophy and Jean-Paul Sartre’s perspective as demonstrated through his plays?
Through Jean-Paul Sartre’s plays, “No Exit”, “The Flies”, and “The Respectful Prostitute” I have come to the conclusion that Existentialism focuses mainly on a single person taking liability for their own actions, and those actions should be without the influence of society. This includes the idea that Sartre makes present in these plays; there are no easy answers, people must live by their own standards without searching for validation. While this idea seems rational in theory, I think the way Sartre presents it dismisses other people’s views and judges believers for them. For example, in
…show more content…
He basically calls the people of Argos fools for following Zeus and repenting their sins. Here he is removing the people of free will, making them blindly follow this religion. I do think free will is often restricted, but by the person themselves, because they feel like they need to conform and follow this power. Sartre, through Orestes, makes it seem like you can only be free when you are free from power over you, therefore free from religion. I think this is a skewed view of life. Sartre generalizes followers of religion, specifically Catholicism, so much that they all seem like mindless clones. I am not religious, but I think people who follow religion don’t give it all the power. Rather than letting it have a hold over them, they work with it to make their decisions. Here is where I think Sartre fails. He is hypocritical. Sartre makes it seem like searching for answers or validation through religion is foolish, so instead, he gives us the answers he thinks are correct, he gives himself the power over the reader. He essentially makes himself into a god and existentialism into a religion, completely counteracting his previous points. Sartre is telling the reader that they are stupid, and existentialism is the right way, but since according to existentialism there is no right way, it all just becomes a never-ending, pointless …show more content…
Here, Sartre writes with some of the same flaws, as in the other two plays, but he introduces a new factor: racism. The existentialist factors are still strong, but the reader is left with more of a societal commentary, on how aspects of society are skewed in favor of those with white skin, along with the better side of existentialism. This play focuses more on an actual problem in the world, rather than promoting Sartre’s Existentialist agenda. “The Respectful Prostitute” doesn’t really judge people for believing in a religion, or promote bad behavior, it calls for the reader to question society's beliefs, to develop and follow their own set of morals, and try and do what they think is right, regardless of a need for acceptance. These are the best parts of Existentialism because they don’t call out other people, which for Sartre can only end in hypocrisy, but they promote personal growth for a better more practical
The term existentialist, according to Sartre, means existence precedes essence. This means that an individual first exists, and then they exercise free will over themselves to do things that define themselves, thus their essence. For this ideology to work for Sartre, an atheistic stance needs to be taken. This is so because of how he defines God. God is compared to an artisan producing a knife, through a definition and a formula. Thus, “when God creates he knows precisely what he is creating.” Under this identification of God, that Sartre dictates is a common implication in philosophical writings, God creates with intent and seemingly, purpose. Hence, God
Sartre believes that the Anti-Semite gains strong conviction because he prefers to be "impervious to reason". The Anti-Semite's view on life is distorted by his impenetrability. Through his life, the Anti-Semite believes that his beliefs are rational and even valid. His perception is effected; his hate for the Jew often consumes him. This consumption does not allow him to admit when he is wrong, or even consider other reasoning. His idea of others, besides those that belong to his race, becomes false. He begins to label others as inferior, evil, greedy, etc. These ideas are based on fear and misconceptions. He believes that all Anti-Semitic views are fact with no exceptions. This causes a distorted view on the human condition. Sartre believes that the Anti-Semite views himself as pure, without flaw. On the other hand, everyone else ...
In his lecture, Existentialism is a Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre discusses common misconceptions people, specifically Communists and Christians, have about existentialism and extentanitalists (18). He wants to explain why these misconceptions are wrong and defend existentialism for what he believes it is. Sartre argues people are free to create themselves through their decisions and actions. This idea is illustrated in the movie 13 Going on Thirty, where one characters’ decision at her thirteenth birthday party and her actions afterwards make her become awful person by the time she turns thirty. She was free to make these decisions but she was also alone. Often the idea of having complete free will at first sounds refreshing, but when people
At the end of Being and Nothingness,Jean-Paul Sartre concedes that he has not overcome one of the key objections to existentialism viz., an outline of ethics, and states that he will do so later. Although Sartre attempted the project of an existential ethics, it was never quite completed. Enter Simone De Beauvoir. In this book, De Beauvoir picks up where Sartre has left us, refusing to answer the question of ethics. For De Beauvoir, human nature involves and ontological ambiguity whose finitude is bound in a duality. This duality of body and consciousness is the ambiguity which remakes nature the way we want it to be as a facticity of transcendence. It is within this understanding that the project of ethics must begin in ambiguity. However,
Many Christians rejected the philosophy of existentialism on the grounds that it denies “the reality and seriousness of human affairs” and that man will “be incapable… of condemning either the point of view or the action of anyone else.” (Sartre 1). Sartre denies this claim later in Existentialism is a Humanism by rejecting the misconception that an existentialist holds no conviction. Rather, he states, existentialists have the most conviction of anyone, because in “choosing for himself he chooses for all men.” (Sartre 4) Sartre claims this to be the “deeper meaning of existentialism.” It is the subjectivity of what is good or evil, the essence that man decides for himself, that has an impact on everyone else; within this subjectivity lies the responsibility for bettering mankind, a responsibility few men would choose to ignore.
Jean Paul Sartre's philosophy is one of the most popular systems of thought in the school called existentialism. Sartre valued human freedom and choice, and held it in the highest regard. To be able to live an authentic existence, one must take responsibility for all the actions that he freely chooses. This total freedom that man faces often throws him into a state of existential anguish, wherein he is burdened by the hardship of having to choose all the time. Thus, there ensues the temptation for man to live a life of inauthenticity, by leaning on preset rules or guidelines, and objective norms. This would consist the idea of bad faith.
the play may be pass to modern society, that one may not learn, or even
At the time of his death on the fifteenth of April, 1980, at the age of seventy-four, Jean-Paul Sartre’s greatest literary and philosophical works were twenty-five years in the past. Although the small man existed in the popular mind as the politically inconsistent champion of unpopular causes and had spent the last seven years of his life in relative stagnation, his influence was still great enough to draw a crowd of over fifty thousand people – admirers or otherwise – for his funeral procession. Sartre was eminently quotable, a favorite in the press, because his statements were always controversial. He was the leader of the shortly popular Existential movement in philosophy which turned quickly into a fad for the disillusioned post-World War I generation, so even when the ideas criticized were not the ideas of Sartre’s Existentialism, he still came to the public mind. Sartre was alternately celebrated and vilified, depending on which side of the issue the speaker or writer was on, and whether or not Sartre had early espoused – and possibly later turned against – the ideals in question. Despite Sartre’s many political and philosophical about-faces, fellow Marxist political philosopher Herbert Marcuse said of him, “He may not want to be the world’s conscience, but he is.” [Hayman, 458]
...ated and is a similar idea as Kant’s which is known as ‘Kingdom of Ends’. An authentic existence in Sartre’s eyes means two things. The First thing it means is a style of existing. Every moment is apprehensive and you should be fully aware of the absurdity and fragility of its freedom. Second, there is few minimal level of content to any of the authentic projects. Whatever Sartres’ project is, it must always be a project of freedom, for himself and for others.
Existentialism prescribes individuals to adopt their own values and life direction; although Gardner feels this will lead to nihilism. In a PBS television documentary in 1978, Gardner stated Sartre's philosophy as “paranoid and loveless and faithless and egoistic” (The Originals: The Writer in America). Gardner’s remark exemplifies a belief in organized society that benefits its citizens--he most likely wouldn’t be opposed to socialism. This is nothing Gardner fears more than passionless and sacrilegious human beings, per what Grendel
Existentialism is a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining his or her own development through acts of the will. To Sartre, saying that som...
Jean-Paul Sartre’s play No exit was compelling despite being written over seventy-two years ago. He was an influential French philosopher and was exceptionally interested in existentialism. Existentialism would be described as the analysis of existence and how people exist in the world. Moreover, Sartre described existentialism as the belief that existence follows essence and is a reaction against the common philosophical approach to objective understandings of human behavior. No exist depicts three individuals who are isolated from people they knew and the outside world. The three main characters are Garcin, a newspaper man, Inez who is a postal clerk, and Estelle is a young woman married. We learn about these characters and their qualities in depth throughout the play like Garcin is a womanizer, Inez is a lesbian, and Estelle is superficial.
John Paul Sartre is known as one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. He wrote many philosophical works novels and plays. Much of his work is tied into politics. The essay Existentialism is a Humanism is just one of his many works. Existentialism is a Humanism is a political essay that was written in 1945. Its purpose was to address a small public during World War II in Nazi occupied France. This essay stressed the public not to conform. Sartre introduced a great number of philosophical concepts in Existentialism. Two of these concepts are anguish and forlornness. They are simply defined, as anguish is feeling responsible for yourself as well as others and knowing that your actions affect others and forlornness is realizing that you are alone in your decisions. These two concepts are interwoven throughout the essay and throughout many of Sartre's other works. Sartre's view of anguish and forlornness in Existentialism is a Humanism addresses his view of life and man.
Man goes through life, waking each day and participating in his own existence without truly existing. He is always in search of a greater meaning, and in the process fails to find one as he is on a constant search for something that cannot be grasped by the normality that is the human psyche. A similar example can be found in the capitalistic work force of modern day. Man works the majority of his life, always training and aiming for more, only to retire and live on a portion of what he was making. During his time working he lost out on his family, his sleep, often times his own enjoyment, for an ideal that often times is never achieved. This is a trivial situation, yet it is painted in a rather angelic light in our society. Why is it, then, that Sartre can be dismissed as trivial when trivialities exist in nearly every day to day life? Quite likely, this is because Existentialism is an “on-paper theory” so to speak, and in theory is looks quite differently than in reality. Man, as in this case, does not realise that he often follows the rules which he opposes. In addition, much of today’s society exists under a form of organized religion, a society with which Existentialism exists in