Philosophy

1. Having looked at the brief article on Existentialism, what might be your initial thoughts concerning Existentialism?
2. Soren Kierkegaard was a Danish Philosopher/Theologian, who famously declared the necessity for a Leap of Faith when it came time to consider the divine. There was not a rational reason to believe, yet a person still desires this connection. This, and in other ways did Kierkegaard articulate the anxiety of existence, written about in various works such as: Stages onf Life’s Way, Fear and Trembling, and the Concept of Anxiety. In all of these works he displays a sensitivity and understanding for some of the most profound emotions a human being can withstand. What might you think of such a project?
3. The documentary of Friedrich Nietzsche is a well produced look at this unique person’s life in the latter half of the 19th Century. It contains interesting insights into his life and times. Perhaps one of his most famous and probably widely misunderstood claims, was that “God is dead, and that we have killed him.” What might be made of this claim, or indeed what might make of his work in general?
4. In “Existentialism is a Humanism” Sartre presents the most straightforward understanding of what it means to use the term existentialism. He writes of the varioius forms, be they religious, or non-religious, and affirms that regardless, existentialism is a humanism, and is therefore concerned with the human being’s situation in the world.
5. Sartre argues that “existence precedes essence.” Now what might this mean? does it mean that there is no foundational human nature, as suggested by Aristotle, Spinoza, and others? And, then if so, does it mean that the human being is concemned to the creation, via choice, to establishing its own essence? What might such an approach portend?
6. Sartre argues that the human being is “condemned to be free.” This means that the human being has literally no choice but to choose. Further, when a human being makes a choice, they are then committed to that choice, and thus take responsibility for that decision, and live with the consequences.

In “Existentialism is a Humanism,” Sartre uses the example of a young man faced with the decision to either join the underground and fight the German occupation, or to remain home and care for his aging mother.

How do you see this and similar circumstances, and how indeed is one to choose?

Just briefly answer to the questions, down below is the article. thank you in advance.
–> https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/e/Existentialism.htm

ANSWER

Existentialism

Existentialism emphasizes on the individuals existing freely and being responsible for their development through acts of will. There are different views of existentialism, and the atheist view is interesting. According to the atheist view, there is no human nature as existence precedes essence. The Christian point of view of existentialism is not as interesting as the atheistic point of view. Man is what he makes of himself sounds practical than waiting to become what God meant him to become.

Human beings make the decisions of what they believe and who they become according to existentialism. Therefore, it is incorrect to define how human beings handle their emotions and the need to believe in something as long as they believe in existentialism. The whole concept of existentialism is about human beings deciding for themselves what to feel, what to believe and how to act (Reynolds, 2014). There are no charted moral codes.

Friedrich was an atheist and thus did not believe in the existence of a God. When he talked about God being dead, he was talking about the idea of God being forgotten in the post-modern age. After the enlightenment period, people were now more dependent on science rather than the world is run by an invisible God.

Satre talks about existence preceding essence, and in this, he means that people exist first, and then they decide why they exist. This also means that there is no human nature and that people become who they choose. It also means that human beings are condemned to the creation of their own character without a higher power to get insight, and thus they have to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong for them. The only way to do this is by living an authentic life.

According to existentialism, one makes their moral code and can only live authentically by following what one believes. In the young man’s case, there is no moral code that can tell him the right thing to do. The only thing he can do is make the decision he feels is authentic to him, which is the right decision.

References

Reynolds, J. (2014). Understanding existentialism. Routledge.