By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Or as the graffiti on the wall of the bogs at University fifty years ago went “ To be is to do” Socrates “ To do is to be” Sartre “Do be do be do” Sinatra.
Or as the graffiti on the wall of the bogs at University fifty years ago went “ To be is to do” Socrates “ To do is to be” Sartre “Do be do be do” Sinatra.
It's been through a fair few incarnations, but as associated with Jean-Paul Sartre, it could be summed up thus:
*Existence precedes essence, ie: we are independently acting, responsible, conscious beings ("existence")–rather than what labels, roles or other preconceived categories any individual fits ("essence"). * We create our own values and determine our own meaning (as opposed to, say, religion, or 'society', or 'genes' ). * Its ethical goal is 'authenticity' (crudely put - be true to yourself), and what constitutes 'authenticity' can only be decided by you (supremacy of conscience, if you like). It also makes us responsible for our own actions - you can't blame the crowd for being rude to the ref; it's your 'choice' to go along with the crowd, as it were. * As Sartre says in his lecture Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world–and defines himself afterwards". The positive, therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: a person can choose to act in a different way, and to be a 'good' person instead of a 'bad' person.
I am little reluctant to post a link to this article, because Novack's defence of Marxism is rather heavy-handed. Nonetheless I agree with the gist of his remarks.
At the very least it's worth reading for: 1. Its analysis of existentialism 2. Its analysis of Sartre's failed attempt to reconcile these two conflicting doctrines
How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb? Two. One to change the lightbulb and one to observe how the light bulb symbolises an incandescent beacon of subjectivity in a netherworld of cosmic nothingness.
How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb? Two. One to change the lightbulb and one to observe how the light bulb symbolises an incandescent beacon of subjectivity in a netherworld of cosmic nothingness.
I am little reluctant to post a link to this article, because Novack's defence of Marxism is rather heavy-handed. Nonetheless I agree with the gist of his remarks.
At the very least it's worth reading for: 1. Its analysis of existentialism 2. Its analysis of Sartre's failed attempt to reconcile these two conflicting doctrines
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
