How I’ve adored the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre. It was difficult for me to sit through this lecture without making stupid comments, for I love the man and wished I had the option to present on him. Sartre is a genius and his discussions of free will excite me. With god dead (as is of no contest to Sartre) there is no one to be responsible for your actions but yourself. You choose the actions for there is no higher power to choose them for you.
His writing gives me such inspiration when he elaborates on his belief that “existence precedes essence.” Certainly I believe that a man makes of himself what he chooses to be. Sartre declares that morality is subjective, and with the lack of god there is no objective good and evil. What is good or evil for sartre is simply what a man thinks is good and evil. Personally I have done a lot of things that people may consider to be evil or wrong, yet with his philosophy in mind it has allowed me to reach the understanding that perhaps my way is the good way, at least to myself.
Let me partake in Dionysian delights if I find it enjoyable and good. Perhaps that is what the ideal man should be, but there is no way to know for sure. For your ideal man may be different than mine. My favorite line from Sartre’s lecture on Existentialism is “If I hear voices, who can prove that they proceed from heaven and not from hell, or from my own subconsciousness or some pathological condition?” (Sartre, 209). What I believe Sartre is saying is that this inability to know for sure an objective morality and the abandonment into this world where we are left responsible for all of our choices gives us anxiety. So really, the atheist existentialist wants there to be a god, it would take away this burden.
Doesn’t this echo “The Grand Inquisitor” by Feodor Dostoevsky and how the inquisitor wanted to relieve the burden of choice from the populace by placing it on his own shoulders? Sartre says that that the struggle for atheistic existentialists is to come up with moral values which everyone agrees upon with the absence of a god. Hopefully I can assume that most people don’t believe that murder and genocide cannot be considered good. There is difficulty in making this assumption when morality is subjective, for a murderer or an instigator of genocide might find his actions to be “Good.”
One revelation I had when reading Sartre was his explanation that all human actions are indeed human. This includes genocide, torture, imprisonment, and war. I came to the conclusion that I will never again use the word “inhumane” when describing social injustices. These atrocities are committed by humans, therefore they are all too human. It all demonstrates the power of humanity’s free will.
Lastly there was Sartre’s phenomenological explanation of emotions. Sartre strongly opposed the belief that emotions are largely instinctual. He instead favored a view that we are in control of our emotions. He says emotional responses are truly attempts to change the world when there is a difficult situation. Emotions are a way of denying or fleeing from this difficulty. Does this mean that we are able to choose our emotions? I think Sartre would say yes. This is the first time i’ve found myself disagreeing with Sartre. I would like to believe that some emotions are instinctual such as fear or anxiety. I was once told by my stepfather who was a psychoanalyst that fear and anxiety are necessary instincts from our evolution which allowed us to survive when there were threats. Maybe someone can help me to better understand his sketch of emotions, for I am obviously having trouble with it. I would like to believe that I have control over my emotions, but it seems to be the other way around.
Anyhow, Sartre is a bold man. I love the fact that he refused the nobel peace prize. I watched a video where he said that the west wanted him to apologize for his marxist views and that was partly his reason for refusing the award. How can you not love the tenacity of this man?
No comments:
Post a Comment