So I was wondering if someone could explain Sartre's take on how existentialism is a philosophy of action. It's found in Existentialism is a Humanism. Thanks!
So I was wondering if someone could explain Sartre's take on how existentialism is a philosophy of action. It's found in Existentialism is a Humanism. Thanks!
Well to put it super-simply.... life has no inherent meaning, so you must actively make your life meaningful yourself.
Really? How interesting.Originally Posted by Ser Nevarc
A meaning means something that is accurate and so if life is not accurate then making something out of it could not be either.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
I don't understand what you're saying mate
It would be accurate according to oneself though. And that is the point, if life has no inherent meaning then even by creating a meaning according to oneself it would not be truly accurate, rather a necessity in providing one a motive to develop oneself.
Indeed I agree that it is an incentive to provide significance to something that is insignificant but if life however is meaningless to start with then I think the difficulty of making sense out of it may clash.
The reason is that everything we do has links to life and if this latter is in meaningless then the end result may not bounce back as we wish it to. I think one must signify life first before making something significant out of one self. In other words it is not about oneself but about the general picture.
Last edited by cacian; 12-28-2012 at 06:10 AM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
I find this idea quite interesting but still I differ in view. It may be because we are coming from different starting points, you might be able to identify the cause better than I. I'm coming from the view that life is relative to a person or people collectively. I choose to speak of the individual as I do not believe that the world's population do, or could even share the same belief in a meaning of life. Therefore, it is for each person to fill the void and search for what will drive them through life while another finds something different. For many this is the current system, whether it is the best I do not know. However, with this idea meaning takes the form of incentive, so the true meaning which you talk about is absent here, and I believe you are right in being skeptical to the existence of truth or actual meaning.
I think we humans create life and give it a meaning. One meaning I might give to life may well not match someone 'else's meaning and I think this is where the clash is.
In order to give life sense of togetherness, as oppose to falling apart, that is safe and common to all of us we must agree on one meaning at a time and that is how to go about creating life suitable to all of us. Until then and as it has been suggested earlier life remains meaningless and almost chaotic. Anything I do to add or make sense is not going to meet someone 'else's requirement of what a true meaning of life is and so it is pointless in the long term.
In order to complete full circle of sense in life one must think of another human and another as part of this process.
The coming together of ideas and people is crucial if we are to give life its logical meaning and people their true fulfilment. The lack of understanding what life is about is what we humans are lacking. Whilst we are perfectly capable of challenging oneself we are on the other hand incapable of challenging all of us as one. Consequently life remains unchallenged.
Last edited by cacian; 12-28-2012 at 04:22 PM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
I reject the existentialist view of ethics in as much as it can be taken to mean that 'right' and 'wrong' are constructs of human freedom in a universe devoid of objective values. It seems to me that we are often confronted with a sense of what we 'ought' to do which is independent of our volition. Whether we choose to act on that imperative is another matter. In 'existentialism and a humanism' sartre presents the problem of the 'moral dilemma' which forces us to make a choice that on the one hand will be 'good' and on the other hand 'bad.' Existentialism is right here to emphasise the inescapability of choice and responsibility. Yet I'm sure that sartre might be tempted to say that both ends are (objectively) good but it is simply a practical matter that we cannot pursue both and must of necessity neglect one or the other. So while we are alone with our freedom this is not the same thing as denying objective moral requirements. It is just that sometimes they conflict and that this will scramble our heads. Nothing can guide us but our freedom. In fact in such situations perhaps its win win rather than lose lose. An eternal moral law cannot expect the impossible and as long as we pursue one good or the other...after all instead of joining the resistance or looking after my sick mother i could collaborate...
I'm going to try to join this conversation although I'm pretty inexperienced when it comes to these types of conversations and the philosophy of existentialism, but very much interested in learning. If we agree on creating a unified/collaborated meaning of life then wouldn't we be sacrificing our freedom? Also, has religion attempted on creating universal meaning using our biological context and psychological abilities. The result leading to death and destruction. Wouldn't the global meaning be under constant resistance by those who choose to use their freedom to establish individualism?
Have I stayed on topic...?
I am not will ever reach a common ground of what life is about but that is only because from one person to the next. I am not however understanding what you mean 'sacrificing freedom'.
I think religion is there because one way or another we would have worked out by our own self that there might other higher beings.Also, has religion attempted on creating universal meaning using our biological context and psychological abilities.
The origin of men other then evolution is open to interpretation according to different opinions. I think religion is set up as a shield to shape our opinions and views in case we decided to deviate from it.
How does one establish individualism?The result leading to death and destruction. Wouldn't the global meaning be under constant resistance by those who choose to use their freedom to establish individualism?
I think so.Have I stayed on topic...?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
What I was trying to say about 'sacrificing freedom' came from my understanding that you said something about having the world try to define life and give it meaning. If understood you correctly, then if a sort of meaning were to be created, those who would not believe in it would be reduced, looked down on, if they dont conform to that meaning which Im guessing would be accompanied by practices or duties. So when I say 'sacrficing freedom' I mean in the sense of having to conform to what will be held as a truth (meaning of life), and if one doesnt it will be regarded as absurd, no?
My imagination/comprehension of a meaning to life is very limited, so its kind of assuming Camus type thinking and religion.
This is very confusing...haha...and all the posts above, are they all from the philosophy of Existentialism, or have people included other types of philosophy that discuss meaning?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote