Since human kind gained the ability of reflection we have questioned our purpose of existence. What makes a human, human? Four philosophers, representing four areas of Philosophy, attempt to answer this question. First is the Dutchman Soren Kierkegaard and his book Sickness unto Death, who is considered the “Father of Existentialism”. Prevalent through all of Kierkegaard’s work was his constant goal to move people closer to God and thus closer to discovering their authentic self. Therefore, our relationship with God is what makes us human. Next is Jeremy Rifkin and his book The Empathic Civilization: The Race to Global Consciousness in A World in Crisis who believes that humanity is defined by our ability to empathize with other humans whether …show more content…
The outermost ring is Aesthetical aspect. This is all about pleasure, but the consequence of this ring is despair. This is where Sickness unto Death enters as it outlines the levels of despair one feels because one does not know one’s true self. “With every increase in the degree of consciousness, and in proportion to that increase, the intensity of despair increases, the more consciousness, the more intense the despair.” This means that humanity is doomed to be in despair unless it finds its purpose in discovering the authentic self through God. His book outlines the three main kinds of despair which are: 1)Despair by not knowing; 2) Despair by not wanting to be oneself; 3) Despair by wanting to be oneself but not being able to. (See Figure One) Think of despair as an addiction. A person suffering from the first level is an addict without knowing they are an addict, they have no way out because they do not know there is a problem. They have no sense of self or spirit, and thus no sense of God. Kierkegaard calls this paganism. This level is not just outside of the church, but inside as well. The pagan that sits at church is there because their family went to that church and does not truly believe. Yet, one
Not only is human connection vital to live a happy and joyful life, but it is necessary to create a legacy, and thus live on through others. But in order to do this, one must first overcome their ego and their sense of self. Once all of the “I” thoughts are gone, one can relate, but fully understand, the higher powers as well as other human beings around us. However, it is important to accept that we may never fully understand the driving force of this universe. While it can be experienced, and we can briefly get an idea of what it is, it is impossible to define these concepts in words, because we don’t have a language that transcends what we can understand. And though many recognize that these concepts could never be fully understood by the human brain, determined minds continue to ask questions that will never have an answer, “pushing their minds to the limits of what we can know” (Armstrong,
Take a minute to relax. Enjoy the lightness, or surprising heaviness, of the paper, the crispness of the ink, and the regularity of the type. There are over four pages in this stack, brimming with the answer to some question, proposed about subjects that are necessarily personal in nature. All of philosophy is personal, but some philosophers may deny this. Discussed here are philosophers that would not be that silly. Two proto-existentialists, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, were keen observers of humanity, and yet their conclusions were different enough to seem contradictory. Discussed here will be Nietzsche’s “preparatory human being” and Kierkegaard’s “knight of faith”. Both are archetypal human beings that exist in accordance to their respective philosopher’s values, and as such, each serve different functions and have different qualities. Both serve the same purpose, though. The free spirit and the knight of faith are both human beings that brace themselves against the implosion of the god concept in western society.
The framework question, “What do we owe to each other?”, addresses complex issues of human existence. No matter the response, the answer is subjective, related to one’s own personal experiences and their understanding of morality and inequality. Yet, an individual’s answer can be further influenced by academic study and helping others in need. Philosophy, theology, and service influence the understanding of the question, “What do we owe to each other?” by allowing one to explore problems of human morality, experience human connection through theology, and feel sympathy for others.
Humans look for some key equation through which they might tie all of the experiences of life and feel the satisfaction of action toward a goal, rather than the emptiness of which sometimes consumes the activities of our existence. However, humans may never find some great pure meaning beyond their mundane existences, because there is none. What there is to be found, however, is the life itself. Humans seek to find meaning so that emptiness will not pervade every thought, every deed, with the coldness of reality as seen by an unemotional eye. Without color, without joy, without future, reality untouched by hope is nothing more than an empty void. Man’s search for meaning is depicted in John Gardner’s Grendel, as Grendel’s perspective and philosophy
While Kierkegaard’s analysis of the superiority of the Knight of Faith in relation to those who follow the aesthetic life or ethical life is correct, he fails to acknowledge that faith can be rooted in joy and love, and can be far more spiritual and fulfilling than faith alone. This is the angst-ridden and unfortunate symptom of an existential despair, and does not truly reflect the complicated relationship between man and God.
Oftentimes, people reach a point in their lives when they realize that they need to think for themselves and take responsibility for becoming who they are cut out to be. Whether or not they actually become that person is questionable. In Sickness Unto Death, Soren Kierkegaard argues that to become the "self" we must avoid despair and the influence of the world, and we must become what God wants us to be. In his essay, Self-Reliance, Ralph Waldo Emerson promotes the idea of individualism and how we must rely upon only ourselves and God to establish and support ourselves. I will first explain Kierkegaard’s idea of what it is to become a “self” then I will show the many parallels between Sickness unto Death and Self-Reliance.
The question “How am I to exist?” is the question sought after by many thinkers and is at the center of existentialism. Existentialism is any philosophy that emphasizes fundamental questions of meaning and choice as they affect existing individuals. (Soccio 391) Existentialists develop theories that describe how a person should to live his or her life. Two existentialist philosophers that will be discussed in this paper are Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche. Søren Kierkegaard is a very enthusiastic philosopher who believed that the way to live is to have a religious authenticity and avoid the crowd life. Friedrich Nietzsche is a very controversial philosopher who believes that everyone is entitled to their own point of view on life and that there is no absolute truth. Both thinkers express ideas that are different from the norms of their societies and have therefore provoked controversy in their respective times.
Two very defining characteristics of the societies present around the world, both past and present, are those of imperialism and existentialism. Whether it be as broad as a government or as small as a person, there is an overwhelming presence of power hunger and greed and complete disregard for those who may be “in the way”. So too is the seemingly mindless existence which people live life with. What the world strongly needs now is people who actually contain a soul; a soul that makes a human a human. Sadly, this is very much lacking.
It is only natural for humans to question why we have been put on this wonderful earth of ours. What does it mean to be these lucky ones called humans? Do we really have a human nature that is all our own? Are there really living beings that kind find something within this world to call our life purpose? And if there are, how do may we achieve it? It is happiness or simple the drive to survive that propel us forward? These are just some of the types of questions that philosophers have been wrestling with for centuries. Some argue that human nature is very much a real thing and that it is essential to living a happy fulfilled life, while others reject that idea completely. However, despite the completely opposite stances that philosophers can take when it comes to human nature, it’s not uncommon to see some surprising similarities between those who support it, and those who do not. One of the biggest examples of this, would be in regards to the Aristotle and his books on Nicomachean Ethics and Sartre with his writing of Existentialism Is a Humanism. When it comes to these two philosophers in particular it would appear on the surface that they are nothing alike. Aristotle being quite the supporter of human nature and it’s ability to give humans fulfilling lives, and Sartre who rejects the human nature completely for the idea that we as humans are essentially just going through life and making choices. Having said this, I would now like to discuss the individual views and arguments that both men have in regards to their views on human nature, it’s relationship to purpose, free will, and politics, and show that within these both Aristotle and Sartre give us the ability to see, that maybe to a certain that we are in fact responsible fo...
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.
Philosophers who debated the meaning of life in 19th-century Europe were trying to understand what it meant to have a 'self' and how human beings could live an ethical existence. While mathematicians and scientists explored the natural laws of the universe, religious people and theologians discussed God's expectations for a good life and the human soul. At the same time, social scientists
... best political system has caused dispute between mankind in which the pursuit of the answer turned our very own kind against one another. The search for the answer could not have pushed us further away from the initial question. The question being what is the best way to treat one another on the largest known scale? It seems that although we are able to pursue such important questions, our animalistic instincts get in the way of the answers. We find ourselves defensive and skeptical of each other’s actions and thought. There must be a push in better understanding of happiness, comfort, and virtue, in alignment with every human. Once humans can understand one another as equals of the same wants and needs, self-reflection of one’s intentions, and the pondering of others intentions will draw parallel, without doubt, and create once again innovation of thought.
Humanism is centrally concerned with reason and rationality. It specifies that the meaning of a thing is inherent in the thing; simply, it exists throughout texts, objects and persons. A form of universalism, humanism absorbs the concept of empiricism. This is the ability to examine the world objectively and in turn gain access to ‘common sense’ truths, the belief that the principles of humanism can supposedly be applied equally to the entire population. The thought processes, ideals and practices are envisioned as rational and objective meaning they can be applicable to everyone, universalised, as well as being arrived at through a rational analysis. The identity of humanism is associated ...
What is the meaning of life? What is the point of living if we all eventually die? Philosophers have come up with many different theories regarding this subject. However, there remains a lack of any agreed upon theory for the meaning of life. Thomas Nagel and Harry Frankfurt are two philosophers who have offered their opinions on this issue. In his book called What Does it All Mean?, Nagel distinguishes between meaning within a life and the meaning of life as a whole. The differences between the two create a discrepancy that does not provide a clear conclusion which attributes meaning to our lives. On the other hand, in his book called The Reasons of Love, Frankfurt argues that love is the key to a meaningful life. He describes the idea of self-love, the purest form of love that commits us to finding meaning in our lives. This paper discusses Nagel’s distinction between the two types of meaningfulness, Frankfurt’s analysis of the love-meaning connection, and my argument that Frankfurt’s point of view addresses Nagel’s meaning within a life but not meaning of life as a whole. Then, the paper concludes with my belief that the search for the meaning of life is the meaning of life itself.
The Theme of Death in Poetry Robert Frost and Emily Dickinson are two Modern American Poets who consistently wrote about the theme of death. While there are some comparisons between the two poets, when it comes to death as a theme, their writing styles were quite different. Robert Frost’s poem, “Home Burial,” and Emily Dickinson’s poems, “I felt a Funeral in my Brain,” and “I died for Beauty,” are three poems concerning death. While the theme is constant there are differences as well as similarities between the poets and their poems. The obvious comparison between the three poems is the theme of death.