The truth as creation of an individual can also be changed or rejected by him once he no longer believes in it. Eyes can not be used when one searches for the “truth” because the truth is what one wants it to be. And no human can ever look at the thing objectively. The things that one sees are defined variables and their understanding and interpretation is assigned from the “inside” where the “truth” lies. Different people will have unique comments on the same event because of their biases, yet they are all right because the “truth” holds only for a single person.
People who believe in existentialism tend to have no emotion because life is suffering so there’s no point in feeling. These ideas are expressed in The Stranger through a character named Meursault whom is a prime example of existentialism. His personality fits a lot of the beliefs in existentialism which makes him an odd character and stand out more than the rest. Through Albert Camus novel, The Stranger, Camus states that life is absurd and existence is chaotic and meaningless and an individual creates their own values and determines a meaning to their life. Existentialism is a form of living a certain way but not living at all.
Culture Relativism Culture Relativism is a contradictory theory for the explanation of the way we ought to live because the roots of the theory don’t give any explanation for what is right and wrong but instead only a means for right and wrong to be judged. By no fathom of the imagination can one contend that his or her own self ideas are correct there are certain bias that come with all judgments on the correct way to live, but if culture relativism stood true than it must be able to give some sort of universal truth. To produce a theory that says in its entirety the correct way to live depends on the culture you were brought up in and that is a truth contradicts itself. Culture relativists contend that this is a truth all people are different and we all have different moral codes. I think for the most we do, but to what does this argument mean?
Which they use the word to describe a search for answers in an answerless world. However, we are creatures who crave meaning but are abandoned in a world full of meaninglessness. So, if you remove god and the idea that the world was created for a reason and it doesn’t exist for a reason then there are no absolutes to abide by (i.e. no justice, fairness, order, or
They have insisted, accordingly, that personal experience and acting on one's own convictions are essential in arriving at the truth. Thus, the understanding of a situation by someone involved in that situation is superior to that of a detached, objective observer. This emphasis on the perspective of the individual agent has also made existentialists suspicious of systematic reasoning. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and other existentialist writers have been deliberately unsystematic in the exposition of their philosophies, preferring to express themselves in aphorisms, dialogues, parables, and other literary forms. Despite their antirationalist position, however, most existentialists cannot be said to be irrationalists in the sense of denying all validity to rational thought.
Because of this, existentialists think that reason cannot be absolute. Cause and effect relationship is concerned as determinism and it is approval when the scientist is in the state of being impersonal observation and experiment. As existentialists state, being impersonal cannot deal with personal experience. In addition to this responsibility is one of our basic experiences. “ Existentialism will teach us that we have to admit experience as evidence.”(Roubiczek, 1-17) If we don’t admit we cannot understand what we feel and we don’t feel responsibility for our actions.
He did not have any reason to believe that he could rely on his senses. Descartes doubting of his senses also caused him to reject any knowledge that he had gained through life experience. Most of the knowl... ... middle of paper ... ...se which…belong exclusively to the mind…things are sensed through understanding, understood through senses (Montaigne 414)”. It is also important to realize that our mind doubts things because it knows its own limits. Thus since we know nothing to be certain it is important to use softening phrases such as “perhaps, somewhat, some, they say, I think, and so on (356)”.
Otherwise, our lives may become meaningless. I believe the meaning of life is to find what is true to you using your own personal experiences and philosophies. Without reason, there is no meaning. Living a meaningless life would be depressing, difficult and dangerous. Nihilists believe life has no meaning because life does not have cosmic significance.
The very idea of people living life everyday suggests that actions to choose to live must mean that people have at least some subjective meaning, whether they are religious, atheist or nihilist... ... middle of paper ... ...e enough to conceive of Sartre’s freedom and does absolutely nothing to help those who do need help to achieve “true” or freedom that is to live life in the way you choose. I think that Marcuse makes very valid criticisms of existentialism; I do not think that they negate the existential philosophy but they rather they render it to a very limited usefulness. The strongest point I think Marcuse argues is against Sartre’s depiction of freedom, Sartre argues that we are all free, but how valid is this freedom when people are born into facticity that doesn’t even give them the basic rights of food and water. The fact that people are dying from social injustice such as, hunger, disease, and war does not excuse us who are more fortunate to not intervene as these people are not really free and more importantly existentialism does not help those facing these problems.
This form of egalitarianism requires people start at the same realms in life and compensate for what disadvantages may have been made either through socially or naturally. Walzer, however, does not agree with this system. He insists that this system is practically impossible since human cannot detach themselves from their history and membership since the choices have been made. The questions he says is not what rational individuals would choose under universalizing conditions but rather what would ... ... middle of paper ... ... we should embrace what is already upon us. To transcend social meanings of what people values will not help solving current problems.