Jean-Paul Sartre - Problems with the Notion of Bad Faith
In Being and Nothingness, Jean-Paul Sartre presents the notion of "bad
faith." Sartre is a source of some controversy, when considering this
concept the following questions arise. "Of what philosophical value is
this notion? Why should I attend to what one commentator rightly labels
Sartre's 'Teutonically metaphysical prose' (Stevenson, p. 253), in order
to drag out some meaning from a work so obviously influenced by Heidegger?
Is there anything to be gained from examining the philosophy of a thinker
who offers the statement 'human reality is what it is not and is not what
it is' as a grand philosophical truth claim about human ontology?" I
intend to contend that there is something of philosophical interest in the
notion of bad faith, primarily due to what Sartre is attempting to present
as being the constituents of human consciousness, and their relationship
to that which makes us human beings.
Jean-Paul Sartre is noted for his commitment to a radical view of human
freedom. His analysis of the human condition leads him to claim that,
since human beings do not possess an "essential nature" at birth, they
have to create their essence as individuals and they are "condemned to
freedom." As part of his investigation into "being-in-the-world, he
considers the notion of mauvaise foi or "bad faith", the denial of the
afore-mentioned freedom by its possessor. In this paper, I shall attempt
an investigation of the concept of bad faith, what it is, how it relates
to the rest of Sartre's phil...
... middle of paper ...
...ating Sartre's attitudes towards the constituents of human action, that which constitutes human being. Even though it may, in the final analysis, prove to be an unsatisfactory account of consciousness, it serves to illuminate some possible further lines of study, if only as a negative example.
Works Cited
Anderson, Thomas C. Sartre's Two Ethics: From Authenticity To Integral Humanism. Chicago & LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court, 1993.
Cumming, Robert Denoon, ed. The Philosophy Of Jean-Paul Sartre. New York: Vintage Books, 1965.
Oaklander, L. Nathan. Existentialist Philosophy: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. The Transcendence Of The Ego. New York: Hill & Wang, 1989.
Schlipp, Paul Arthur ed. The Philosophy Of Jean-Paul Sartre. The Library of Living Philosophers Vol. XVI, La Salle, Ill: Open Court 1981.
Every day, each individual will look back on decisions he or she have made and mature from those experiences. Though it takes time to realize these choices, the morals and knowledge obtained from them are priceless. In George Orwell’s nonfictional essay, “Shooting an Elephant”, a young Orwell was stationed in Burma for the British imperial forces, tasked to deal with an elephant who destroyed various parts of the village Moulmein while its owner was away. Backed by second thoughts and a crowd of thousands, he finds himself shooting the elephant and reflecting that it was not justified; however, it was a choice pushed by his duty and the people. Written with a fusion of his young and old self’s outlook on shooting the elephant, Orwell’s essay is a sensational read that captivates his audience and leaves them questioning his decision.
feelings, he lets those that he loves die, and abandons his own creation. Even the creature couldn’t have committed
Autistic children are isolated from most schools, socially and within the classroom. Although most children with auti...
However, Victor's irresponsibility is merely a continuation of how he deals with The Creature. One terrible way he treats The Creature is he cruelly withholds a companion from the helpless and lonely Creature. This irresponsible action causes The Creature to wail, saying, "'Shall each man,' cried he, 'find a wife for his bosom and each beast have his mate, and I be alone?'" (204). This is the turning point for The Creature: this cry of pain marks the end of his hope for an enjoyable life. No longer can he realistically wish for someone who will love him for who he is. Despite being the sole human who can provide for this dire need, Victor chooses to irreparably break The Creature's heart. Instead of rehabilitating him, altering his emotions from deep sorrows to jubilation, he plays with The Creature's emotions by starting to create a mate but then ripping it to pieces. Though he has power, Victor, by not assembling a suitable companion, demonstrates total irresponsibility. By creating a new race, it becomes his, and only his, responsibility to provide him a similar partner. The Creature, distraught by this new reality, one without any chance for love, decides immaturely to ruin his creator's life. In vengeance, The Creature leads his creator on a chase for him, in which Victor attempts to end The
...nsible for what the creature has become. The creature responds,“ You can blast my other passions, but revenge remains-revenge, henceforth dearer than light of food! I may die, but first you, my tyrant and tormentor, shall curse the sun that gazes on your misery” (Shelley 154). Victor has taken everything away from the creature, but the creature will always have the mindset on revenge for Victor. The creature will not rest until Victor feels the same misery he felt. This is the final stage of the creature’s life where he ignores his surroundings and takes matters into his own hand.
The confrontation between the two demonstrates Victor 's weaknesses as an individual. Although Victor is the Creature 's creator, he refers to his creation as an "abhorred monster" (Shelley 68) and is willing to "extinguish the spark which he so negligently bestowed" (Shelley 68) upon him. This demonstrates Victor 's lack of responsibility. His goal was to create life, essentially to play God. Once the monster began to murder those dearest to Victor, he failed to take responsibility for the creature 's actions. Another weakness in Victor 's character is revealed through the dialogue exchanged between creator and creation. Instead of calmly trying to reason with the Creature, Victor lashes back at the Creature. He even suggests that the two "try their strength in a fight in which one must fall." (Shelley 69) The monster, however, maturely and eloquently urges Victor 's "compassion to be moved" (Shelley69). Because Victor is full of "rage and horror" he wants to destroy his own creation even though victor is playing god in recreation of humanity. They both are to blame due to the fact that Victor created the creature as well as the signs of irresponsibility between the two for the Creature killing people and for Victor trying to recreate
...e all the evil things they have done. When he goes to Victor's coffin, the creature does the opposite of what a evil being would do. He grieves over Victor despite all the horrible things the creature has done to Victor. The creature even feels guilt over the innocent people he has killed and the torment he put his creator through. Despite Victor's actions leading the creature to commit evil deeds, the creature finds in himself to feel regret in the end.
The first important and root-like unit in Duneier's arguments is "shared meaning." By deeply analyzing many unique sets of ideas, perceptions of different social class members, he was able to emphasize and portray the complicated system of multi-levels interactions that embody numerous social forces and constraints that inhabited in "sidewalk" society.
Victor has a lack of respect for the natural world that leads him on the path to becoming a monster. In creating the monster Victor is trying to change the natural world. He is trying to play the role of god by creating life.
Characterization plays an important role when conveying how one’s personality can disintegrate by living in a restrictive society. Although Kat is slowly loosing her mind, in the story, she is portrayed as a confident woman who tries to strive for excellence. This can be seen when she wants to name the magazine “All the Rage”. She claims that “it’s a forties sounds” and that “forties is back” (311). However the board of directors, who were all men, did not approve. They actually “though it was too feminist, of all things” (311). This passage not only shows how gender opportunities is apparent in the society Kat lives in, but also shows the readers why Kat starts to loose her mind.
...ar idea with Stephen; they both wanted to do anything and create their own human nature, and our value of freedom through those free choices. Generally, Sartre suggested that men have freedom to construct their nature and essence through their actions.
The Creature, after learning what it is to love, requests that Victor creates a companion for him. Victor rejects the creature’s proposition, as Victor now understands the consequences of animating what shouldn't be alive, the Creature wants nothing more than for Victor to suffer, to feel the pain that he, as a wretch, faces. The Creature does so by devoting his life to the destruction of Victor’s. In chapter 24, the Creature states “But it is even so; the fallen angel becomes the malignant devil.” The creature is viewed as entirely evil by the characters of the novel, despite the scenes in which his benevolent nature is shown. It is ironic that Victor and his creature are foils of one another, yet they suffer a similar fate: their desire to destroy one another led to their ultimate
A police officer in the British Raj, the supposedly 'unbreakable'; ruling force, was afraid. With his gun aimed at a elephant's head, he was faced with the decision to pull the trigger. That officer was George Orwell, and he writes about his experience in his short story, 'Shooting an Elephant';. To save face, he shrugged it off as his desire to 'avoid looking the fool'; (George Orwell, 283). In truth, the atmosphere of fear and pressure overwhelmed him. His inner struggle over the guilt of being involved in the subjugation of a people added to this strain, and he made a decision he would later regret enough to write this story.
The quest for power is one which has been etched into the minds of men throughout history. However, it can be said that true power is not a result of one’s actions but comes from the following one’s own beliefs without being influenced by others. This principle sets up the story for Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell. The protagonist, Orwell himself, is a sub divisional police officer in Burma, a British colony. Orwell must try to find and use his inner power when he is faced with the decision of whether or not to kill an elephant which has ravaged the Burman’s homes. The state of power established through the imperialistic backdrop show that Orwell, as a colonist, should be in control. As well, the perspective and ideas given by Orwell show his true character and lessen the overall power set up for him. Lastly, the symbols shown are representations of traditional forms of power, but take on different implications in the story. In Shooting an Elephant, George Orwell uses setting, characterization and symbols to show that true power comes from following the dictates of one’s conscience.