“It’s unfortunate that people even today are judged by the color of their skin and not the content of their character,” Martin Luther King Jr.
Throughout the free existence of humans, we have continued to question our life’s reason. What is our essence in this world? Who are we? What happens after life? If it is obvious that humans are created with no more worth than the other, then why would we not cherish our freedom of choice? Humanity governs our actions and prevents inhumane proceedings to take place. No one is born with more power than the next baby that is brought into this world. Sartre doesn’t permit the fact that similarities in physical features are drawn to each other. With the freedom of choice of socialization, one chooses selected group do to the value of identity and self knowledge. The concept of respecting and celebrating the heritage one possesses is a commendable process. These ideas form or create the self definition of who a person is. Cultural togetherness is not a bad thing. However, these ideas have negative retributions when acted upon in extreme degrees. This type of separation causes barriers or invisible lines and walls that are rarely crossed by people in our society today. Differences and diversity should be celebrated as a chance or opportunity to be able to stand out as well as the chance to educate each other about each other. Sartre’s view on freedom of choice is correct but he fails to include that the act of association through such subjects as race is a choice made to continue the everlasting pursuit of identity. Throughout religion, race, and culture, we seek self-identity to determine our purpose in this world and to be known by others.
Religion continues to predetermine our essence in the world and create a sense of self-identity, as it’s connected to a greater foundation. Beliefs in religion give opportunity to create a stronger sense of self due to predetermined characteristics of members of the group. In some ways, religion resembles the makings of a cult, using the faith as a division between its members and the common folk outside of the selected group. An example of this is evident in the "Christian Identity." This is the name of a religious movement uniting many of the white supremacist groups in the United States. The Identity's teachers promote racism and sometimes violence.
The id is considered to be unconscious activity that strives to fulfill basic needs such as those required for survival, procreation, and aggression (Mcleod, 2013). It is also considered to be the instant gratification state that is concerned with the here and now (Myers, pg. 425). When I picture our species operating on this level alone I envision complete mayhem.
We choose, act, and take responsibility for everything, and thus we live, and exist. Life cannot be anything until it is lived, but each individual must make sense of it. The value of life is nothing else but the sense each person fashions into it. To argue that we are the victims of fate, of mysterious forces within us, of some grand passion, or heredity, is to be guilty of bad faith. Sartre says that we can overcome the adversity presented by our facticity, a term he designs to represent the external factors that we have no control over, such as the details of our birth, our race, and so on, by inserting nothingness into it.
“It is better to encounter your existence in disgust, then never to encounter it at all.” What Sartre is saying is that it is better to determine who you are in dissatisfaction, rather than never truly discovering yourself. Sartre’s worst fear in life would be to realize that you have never truly lived. For example, if you were to land a career that you were not interested in and you were just going through the motions of everyday life, Sartre would say that life was not a life worth living. Sartre’s goal in life was to reach the ultimate level; he said life was “Nausea” , because we are always trying to reach the next level, we are always in motion. Sartre had two theories that determine our way of life, Being-In-Itself and Being-For-Itself. Being-In-Itself is the ultimate level, if you reach this level you have fulfilled yourself completely, you have lived your life to the fullest. Being-For-Itself is where we as human beings are, we are always trying to work to become perfect. Our goal in life is to find an authentic existence, and we get there by saying no. Sartre’s philosophy of freedom is obtained by saying no, when we say no we are giving ourselves the option of what we do in our life. By saying no, we receive freedom of our life. “You should say no about every belief if there is a doubt about it.” Sartre also says our human existence is always in
The id, is the most basic of the levels. It unconsciously develops thoughts, motivations and feelings. It is the only fundamental of personality that is shown since birth. It helps our body react to what our unconscious minds require or desires. The id requires
In the year 1896, a new term “theory of psychoanalysis” was invented by Sigmund Freud in which “it refers to all the processes that take place in our mind of an unconscious way and to a form of treatment of the nervous disorders” (Rodriquez). Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, was an Austrian neurologist who created and developed an entirely new approach to discover about the personality and the subconscious of the human. His creation in the psychology field was “at once a theory of the human psyche, a therapy for the relief of its ills, and an optic for the interpretation of culture and society” (Jay). Sigmund Freud is regarded as one of the most influential and controversial characters of the twentieth century due to his discoveries in many aspects of the field of psychology included Freud’s self-analysis that he left behind.
This quote is probably one of, if not, the greatest quotes I’ve ever encountered. My interpretation of this quote is to never relinquish one’s desire even if other people believe otherwise. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. never backed down from his belief that all people should have equal rights regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity. But conceptualise an America without this freedom. One that still lingers on the ideas of racism. Things would be very different from the world we have come to accept today.
Jean-Paul Sartre claims that there can be no human nature, or essence, without a God to conceive of it. This claim leads Sartre to formulate the idea of radical freedom, which is the idea that man exists before he can be defined by any concept and is afterwards solely defined by his choices. Sartre presupposes this radical freedom as a fact but fails to address what is necessary to possess the type of freedom which would allow man to define himself. If it can be established that this freedom and the ability to make choices is contingent upon something else, then freedom cannot be the starting point from which man defines himself. This leaves open the possibility of an essence that is not necessarily dependent upon a God to conceive it. Several inconsistencies in Sartre’s philosophy undermine the plausibility of his concept of human nature. The type of freedom essential for the ability to define oneself is in fact contingent upon something else. It is contingent upon community, and the capacity for empathy, autonomy, rationality, and responsibility.
Sigmund Freud was a neurologist and psychologist that studied during the 20th century. Many of his ideas such as the unconscious and psychoanalysis shaped his era and have continued to affect the modern world. While many of Freud’s ideas have since been proven wrong by contemporary science, the concepts are still very impressive considering the time Freud thought of them. Freud was also able to create a new vocabulary to diagnose and assess many human emotions and behaviors that were previously unable to be communicated.
...vious objections. In this paper argued that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I did this first by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
Psychology is the scientific study of the mind, brain, and behavior. In psychology, and all of the other sciences, relying on opinions is abandoned in order to find out which explanations best fit the evidence or data given. Science continually forces us to question our findings and conclusions. Over time, psychology has advanced greatly and a main reason for such progressiveness is because of the change in the research model used.
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...
Part of human nature is judging something by what surrounds it even if it is another human. Think of a community that has every color, every race, every religion, and every kind of person that community however, doesn’t value each other to some point which causes a problem, a problem that we call racism in today’s era, a problem that needs to be eliminated because it allows a gap that shouldn’t exist in our society. Our society must understand that it isn’t okay to discriminate someone for how they look or what they believe in or what color they happen to be, specifically speaking to those who aren’t smart enough to realize that discrimination isn’t making any change for the better nor is it allowing certain groups in the community to advocate
"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity." (S. King 17) These are the words made famous by a man who was one of the greatest civil rights leaders of our time.
When Martin Luther’s mother explained why the white sons wouldn’t play with him anymore, she brought up segregation and a quote that he remembered all throughout his life. The quote was, from the text, “‘you are as good as anyone.’” The full sentence from the text is, “M.L.’s mother explained segregation to him, but told him to remember that ‘you are as good as anyone.’” If you are black or white, everyone is human, so everyone is equally as good. Because Martin’s mother told him this, when he was older, he made the statement and belief that all of mankind are equal, and we should not turn on each
According to Freud, personality is built from internal psychological forces. The theory provides an elaborative framework which describes human personality. Through the theory, new treatments were derived to help people in mental distress. Freud encouraged a more positive way to approach psychological distress so that even the mental illnesses themselves could be treated; many of the therapies that the theory suggested have helped to treat people with different psychological issues. Another strength of the theory is that it acknowledges the existence of a subconscious which has an impact on our behavior and not only superficial thoughts. The theory was an eye opener to health professionals of the time, by introducing insights into the human mind, and how it functions, the psychoanalysis approach became greatly important for dealing with psychological treatment (Langs 83). Many researchers claim that, even though the psychoanalysis theory has its strengths, the weaknesses outweigh them in that, from the start, this theory had no scientific evidence, only theoretical explanations. For example, the psychodynamic model explains why or what causes abnormalities in children but it lacks research evidence to back it up. Sigmund Freud based all his arguments in his own analysis. It is evident that psychoanalysis is mainly dependent on what the therapist