Existentialist philosophy of Jean Paul Sarter Essay
Based on an scrutiny of the nature of phenomena, he describes the nature of two sorts of being, being-in-itself and being-for-itself.Being-in-itself is something that can merely be approximated, a kind of being that can merely be imagined as itself if it is imagined without a witnessing consciousness, being-for-itself is the being of consciousnessSarter says that “ Ethical behaviour acknowledges our freedom in the universe and we commended to be free, one of the the major accomplishments of modern doctrine has been to liberate us of the sort of dualism.Bing in-it-self is a creat object, we create our ego by our pick and actions, diversion of ego is ever possible.Sarter illustrates that by the narrative in BEING AND NOTHINGNESS ( 1942 ) Sartre ‘s existential philosopher moralssSartre gives the narrative in Being and Nothingness ( 1942 ) of his pupil who came to see him sing a job: This was during the Nazi business of France in World War Two. The pupil ‘s male parent was a Nazi sympathiser and the pupil ‘s brother had been killed. The pupil was the lone staying boy of his female parent and the bond was near.The pupil asked Sartre if he should remain with his female parent in France or fall in the Gallic Resistance in England ( to contend Germany ) where the result was unsure.
Kant ‘s “ categorical jussive mood ” gives no reply here as either the female parent is the agencies and the cause the terminal or vice-versa. Sartre ‘s reply became existentialist moralss. He refused to rede the pupil cognizing that he had to make himself through his picks and the way he took would everlastingly shut the other way. Sartre was besides cognizant that the pupil had already truly made his pick before inquiring for advice ( as is frequently the instance ) .
“ Who I truly am based on the amount of all of my past actions ; being leads to essence ( nature ) .
Eg Linda is a sort individual because she has shown herself to be so by her actions. ”Being-For-Itself – Being has several dimensions. Being-for-itself is defined “ as being what it is non and non being what it is ” ( Sartre, 1956: lxv ) . It is our potency to be more than we are being. The For-Itself is perpetually planing itself non to be the In-Itself. If Dave is In-Itself, and David is For-Itself, we can state the undermentioned: Dave is being David, which Dave is non, and at the same clip Dave what Dave is. I am a plurality: Dave is portion of my being, and David is portion of my being, and so is the void that I have negated in both Dave and David.
I see a certain deficiency in David, but a figure of deficiencies no longer available to David. David is a line of flight off from Dave ; flying the being David was, and flying the being which David is non. David is non a meat-eater, non an intoxicant consumer, and non a Harley proprietor. Can I be joyful without Harley & gt ; I am the being David, along with the being Dave which I am denying in Acts of the Apostless of nihilation.
Being-For-Itself is an act of my self contemplation of David doing a witting act to go what I am non yet being ; Dave is finishing himself in going David. For illustration, Dave is a workaholic ( and write-a-holic ) who is in David about to go balanced ( in work, leisure, spirit, joy and passion ) . David-For-Itself reflect upon parts of David, such as happening balance, that is non yet. While being Dave, I had this fantastic Harley-Davidson bike. To go David, I sold the Hawg, stopped have oning all black apparels, black boots, and headed away to a new escapade. Being-For-Itself became redefined as post-Harley life style.
For-Itself is a informant of contemplation, reflecting upon a signifier of flight in the face of being ( Sartre, 1956: 1213 ) . Post-Harley is a line of flight by Being-For-Itself, without Harley.
- To not-be what it is – For-It-Self has to be its being, being what It-Is.
A void of facticity offprints Dave from David. David is still merely being Dave, seeking to not-be what Dave is. David can neither acquire rid of Dave, nor merge with it. You do non get away the Past ; it is ever bearing informant to David non-being David. As Sartre says, when “ I have finished imbibing, ” I have drunk the ensemble faux pass into the past ( Sartre, 1956: 141 ) .
- To be what it is non – is the game of David reflecting on what he is non being. David, is ne’er what David is, even with vegetarian patterns, David is non to the full vegetarian ; even as Vegan, there are patterns yet to be achieved.
David seeks to non be alcoholic, to non be Dave imbibing, but David is ever alcoholic, haunted by a craving to savor the ruddy vinos of France. David is ever groking himself as a certain deficiency, and it is this lacking, that prompts my desire to be what Dave is non. “ To imbibe or to be imbibing agencies ne’er to hold finished imbibing, to hold still to be imbibing beyond the imbibing which I am ( Sartre, 1956: 141 ) . You see Dave is the unachieved entirety of David, to be what it is non, that is the inquiry, I ponder.
- To be what it is non and to not-be what it is — within the integrity of a ageless referring – is my David = : = Dave ageless game of reflected-reflecting. I am plurality and a integrity of one, and the lines of flight my egos are taking. Whenever I reflect upon both David and Dave, one comes to mine and the other flights my appreciation. “ It is this game of musical chairs at the bosom of the For-itself which is Presence to being ” ( Sartre, 1956: 142 ) .
My Present, Past, and Future are all at the same clip, me scattering in three waies. No 1 has ontological precedence over the other except in the assumed imaginativeness of the narrator. Yet Sartre accuses Heidegger of seting the accept on the future ekstasis, and I accuse Sartre of seting the speech pattern on the present ( here and now ) one
“ being-for-others ” , how others perceive me. It should be near to “ being-for-self ” . It follows “ being-for-self ” like a shadow.
Some key footings“ Being-for-others ” is the feeling I leave behind me in the memories of others, eg you live for two old ages in a certain metropolis, the memory you leave behind there is your “ being-for-others ” .“ BFS can differ from BFO, eg if society misgivings and ill-treats Jews so a Jew ‘s BFO will be hapless compared to the individual ‘s existent behavior ( BFS ) ; this is a existent bound to freedom.“ The dead are at the clemency of the life ” ( Sartre ) aa‚¬ ” one time you die one individual leaves the narrative and you are at the clemency of others who choose how to specify you, eg in 1980 in China it was said that Mao Zedong was “ 70 % right and 30 % incorrect ” .Sartre provinces that many relationships are created by people ‘s attractive force non to another individual but instead how that individual makes them experience about themselves by how they look at them. This is a province of emotional disaffection whereby a individual avoids sing their subjectiveness by placing themselves with “ the expression ” of the other.
The effect is conflict. In order to maintain the individual ‘s ain being the individual must command the other, but must command the freedom of the other “ as freedom ” . These relationships are a profound manifestation of “ bad religion ” as the for-itself is replaced with the other ‘s freedom.
The intent of either participant is non to be but to keep the other participant ‘s looking at them. This system is frequently erroneously called love, but is in fact nil more than emotional disaffection and a denial of freedom through struggle with the other. Sartre believes that it is frequently created as a agency of doing the intolerable torment of a individual ‘s relationship to their “ Facticity ” ( all of the concrete inside informations against the background of which human freedom exists and is limited, such as place of birth and clip ) bearable. At its extreme, the disaffection can go so intense that due to the guilt of being so radically enslaved by “ the expression ” and hence radically losing their ain freedoms, the participants can see masochistic and sadistic attitudes. This happens when the participants cause hurting to each other, in trying to turn out their control over the other ‘s expression, which they can non get away because they believe themselves to be so enslaved to the expression that sing their ain subjectiveness would be every bit intolerable.
Bad religion is the effort to get away anguish by feigning to ourselves that we are non free. We try to convert ourselves that our attitudes and actions are determined by our character, our state of affairs, our function in life, or anything other than ourselves.
Although fortunes may restrict persons, they can non coerce individuals as radically free existences to follow one class over another. For this ground, persons choose in torment: they know that they must do a pick, and that it will hold effects. For Sartre, to claim that one amongst many witting possibilities takes undeniable precedency ( for case, “ I can non put on the line my life, because I must back up my household ” ) is to presume the function of an object in the universe, simply at the clemency of circumstance
Sartre ‘s Examples
- The cafe server who is making his occupation merely a small excessively keenly ; he is evidently ‘acting the portion ‘ . If there is bad religion here, it is that he is seeking to place himself wholly with the function of server, to feign that this peculiar function determines his every action and attitude.
Whereas the truth is that he has chosen to take on the occupation, and is free to give it up at any clip. He is non basically a server, but is instead consciously lead oning himself. [ 1 ]
- Another of Sartre ‘s illustration of bad religion. He pictures a miss sitting with a adult male who she knows really good would wish to score her. But when he takes her manus, she tries to avoid the painful necessity of a determination to accept or reject him, by feigning non to detect, go forthing her manus in his as if she were non cognizant of it. She pretends to herself that she is a inactive object, a thing, instead than what she truly is, a witting being who is free.
Sartre tells us that by moving in bad religion, the server and the adult female are denying their ain freedom, but actively utilizing this freedom itself. They obviously know they are free but do non admit it, when moving in bad religion, a individual is both cognizant and, in a sense, unaware that they are free.