In Existentialism is a Humanism Sartre explains that one can imagine to be whatever they want, and through choice they can become that person. However, this choice is not found from with in but rather is a decision based on our consciousness of our own desires as well as the opinions of others. In To the Lighthouse, Woolf argues that the unreal are our thoughts, and these thoughts are centered around finding our purpose. She relates how our thoughts and abilities bring us to different perspectives of reality. In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, she provides a sort of combination between Woolf and Sartre. Through the character of the creature we see inherent notions that the monster has as well as perceptions from the outside world. In all of the works however it is noted that thoughts and conjectures are what lead to action, which thus reveal and create our reality.
Sartre's philosophy was often deemed as pessimistic, overlooking human solidarity and a propeller of quietism. (17-19 ) For this reason he composes the argument that existentialism is a type of humanism. Sartre considers himself an atheist existentialist, but regardless of his disbelief in God, he asserts that man is what he chooses to be. A man's choice however does not only develop from the individual's reason but also by considering the factors outside of himself. In order for a man to exist as an entity of any sort, man must think of himself as something and thereafter pursue it. Sartre proposes:
“This [existentialism] is humanism because we remind man that there is no legislator other than himself and that he must, in his abandoned state, make his own choices, and also because we show that it is not by turning inward, but by constantly seeking a g...
... middle of paper ...
...ly for Mary Shelley the combination between our perceptions, actions, and the perceptions of other are what causes reality. Sartre emphasizes action more that others perceptions, Woolf emphasizes the many perceptions more than action, and Shelley creates a balance between the two. However all three authors suggest that thoughts, actions and the consciousness of the other which help to elucidate and make reality.
Works Cited
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism Is a Humanism = (L'Existentialisme Est Un Humanisme) ; Including, a Commentary on The Stranger (Explication De L'Étranger). Ed. John Kulka. New Haven: Yale UP, 2007. Print.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Criticism. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2012. Print.
Woolf, Virginia. To the Lighthouse. Ed. Mark Hussey. Orlando: Harcourt, 2005. Print.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: the original 1818 text. 2nd ed. Ed. D.L. Macdonald and Kathleen Scherf. Peterborough: Broadview, 1999.
Works Cited Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1818. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. Norton Critical Edition. New York: Norton, 1996.
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
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.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. The Mary Shelley Reader. Ed. Betty T. Bennet & Charles E. Robinson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
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
“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue 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 will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1818. Ed. Paul J. Hunter. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1996.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edition. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W. W.
Ross, Kelly L. "Existentialism." The Proceedings of the Friesian School, Fourth Series. Kelly L. Ross, Ph.D., 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
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
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edition. ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism is Humanism.” Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Ed. Walter Kaufman. Meridian Publishing
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...
Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism is Humanism.” Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Ed. Walter Kaufman. Meridian Publishing