Nietzsche And Jean Sartre 's View On The Death Of God

Nietzsche is widely known as a critic of religion. In fact, he talks in depth about morality in regards to religion in his essays about the genealogy of morals. But the problem is not within religion itself or within morals. The problem is involved in the combination of the two to create society’s understanding of morality through a very religious lens. In fact, Nietzsche has criticism for almost any set of morals constructed by a group of individuals and meant to be applied to society as a whole. True morality, according to Nietzsche, requires a separation from these group dynamic views of morality- or at least a sincere look into where they originated and why they persist- and a movement towards a more introverted, and intrinsically personalized understanding of what morals mean in spite of the fact that “the normative force to which every member of society is exposed, in the form of obligations, codes of behavior, and other moral rules and guidelines, is disproportionally high” (Korfmacher 6).

The debate between existentialism and the rest of the world is a fierce, albeit recent one. Before the "dawn of science" and the Age Of Reason, it was universally accepted that there were such things as gods, right and wrong, and heroism. However, with the developing interest in science and the mechanization of the universe near the end of the Renaissance, the need for a God was essentially removed, and humankind was left to reconsider the origin of meaning. John Gardner’s intelligently written Grendel is a commentary on the merits and flaws of both types of worldview: the existentialist "meaning-free" universe, and the heroic universe, where every action is imbued with purpose and power. Indeed, the

He would disagree with what Socrates chose to do in accepting death and would look at the demanor of good and evil and raise the idea that this is all dogmatic, which then should be eradicated. If Socrates’s was to leave and struggle by failing to adhere to his principals he would suffer to a degree, but in his sufferage he would become a man of greatness. Nietzsche’s ideas of good and evil being formed through religion requires for it to be gone because God is “dead” therfore meaning is found at the end of ones

Christianity had become the enemy of life and nature and the church has stifled its followers by turning them into closed minded and weak humans. Nietzsche ultimately believed that religion creates a concept of anti-natural morality which damages our development as humans quite

Existentialism, a philosophical ideology conceptualized by Jean-Paul Sarte, encapsulates most thought processes where “the individual is obliged to make a choice as though he were choosing for all mankind” (Arnold, “Jean-Paul Sarte: Overview). Put simply, Sarte’s concept of existentialism is the thought process by which humans find themselves existing, and the analysis of their existence itself (Tulloch, Sartrian Existentialism). This analysis of existence found itself in many writings during the twentieth century, and acts a driving force in both Bishop’s “In the Waiting Room” and Lispector’s “The Daydreams of a Drunk Woman”.

Yesterday, I enrolled for class. Now this decision was definite as I couldn’t go back and not enrol. However, the actual action of me actually attending was completely my choice; a conscious decision. Although it was compulsory to attend, nothing given could determine the outcome. John Paul Sartre an eminent existentialist, would argue that just because I made a commitment didn't necessarily mean I needed to follow through with it. Enrolling was part of the facticity of the in-itself. I had only made the decision, I had to follow through with an action. Sartre would contend that by forcing myself to attend if I didn’t want to would be trying to escape from my freedom. Sartre, stated that the basic principle of existentialism was existence precedes essence for human beings. In his essay, Existentialism is Humanism, Sartre attempts to answer the accusations. Essentially, he rejects the notion of any innate human nature; implying that because our essence comes to be after our existence, we are free to choose and live our lives accordingly. This essay will discuss Sartre’s explanation of the expression and the related implications.

Nietzsche points out that morals were not given to humans by God, nor was knowledge or instinct instilled in us by God: we have created morality just as we have decided standards for "truth" and explanations for our "human nature," and so there is no transcendent external standard. If God is dead, there are no objective values and we are free to create our own values. Nietzsche says that although the death of God liberates us, leaving us free to rule ourselves, this results in a cage-like freedom: while no value is objectively "right" or "true", if we can not choose then we are not free. Nietzsche supports the individual who, despite a lack of objective correctness or "truth", makes a decision anyway, accepting responsibility for her self-created values and actions, knowing she is these actions.

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are both considered to be the top existentialists for solely different reasons, as well as being very different from each other. They have different philosophies when it comes to their thoughts on religion and it is important to see exactly how they line up in this regard. The best way to do this is to start from the beginning of each’s work, their history and how they grew into their respective roles in their fields. It is also important to note exactly what existentialism is. It is the theory of exercising the idea that the individual has the freedom and free will to develop their own path and existence in a responsible manner. It is a very interesting subject that is debated on the concepts of thinking in absolutes. The need to compare and contrast these two is a volatile understanding of this particular philosophical theory. It is also important to review their thoughts and critique them in the sense of saying what makes sense, and what does not make sense.

In his 1946 essay Existentialism, Jean-Paul Sartre undertakes the task of defending existentialism against what he defines as “charges” (341) brought against it. Sartre begins to outline the “charges” brought against existentialism and further, existentialists. Following the medieval quaestio-form, Sartre begins with the statement of the objection, a short discussion, and then his reply to each.

Sartre attested that the human being is a useless passion due to our insatiable desires. Markedly, human beings desire to retain the infinite and that need is simply impossible. For the search for the unlimited is tiresome and unappeasable.

When Sartre says “existence precedes essence,” he means that a person first exists – is conscious and present in reality – and then is able to create their own personal essence – a person’s definition and purpose – through actions and will. The idea that God created man implies that God has a set purpose for each individual creation and knows exactly what is being created before it is actually created; therefore, in this view, essence precedes existence. However, Sartre argues that because there is no God, there is also no human nature – no “universal conception” – and each person is free, at their own will, to decide their being (348).

3). In his most basic claims, Nietzsche implicitly negates the possibility of a “disinterested” or “objective” truth. He would not urge so definitively for an affirmation of reality, if he held out for the possibility of fantasy or god. The ‘innocence of becoming’ is a clear example of how Nietzsche, for all intents and purposes, “debunk[‘s]” the relevance of claims made by traditional authorities. In essence, Nietzsche basically nullifies the relevance of societal hierarchy. Not only this, but the further claims made by such a society regarding morality and philosophical thinking, are seen to be – at best – gullible and naïve. The ‘innocence of becoming’ refers to even the lowest classes of society finding power in their status. In lieu of accepting that we are completely alone in the world, Nietzsche asserts that we have a constant need to blame others for our state. It is simply much easier to do than to accept that everything we do has no genuine or reaching consequences. While the ‘innocence of becoming’ is not necessarily an innocent process as those we choose to blame are usually blameless, it is fair to say that we are innocent of it; much like the ‘will to power’ it also works through self-deception. Evidently we are able to commit to life affirmation by essentially taking no responsibility for our weakness. Christianity itself is closely connected with the ‘becoming’ process as in its

Jean Paul Sartre is a philosopher that supports the philosophy of existentialism. Existentialism is a twentieth century philosophy that denies any crucial human nature and embraces that each of us produces our own essence through our free actions. Existentialists like Sartre believe there isn’t a God that determines people’s nature. So, existentialists believe that humans have no purpose or nature except the ones that they create for themselves. We are free and responsible for what we are and our engagements; even though we are mindful that this can cause agony.

Jean-Paul Sartre was an influential 20th century existentialist who mostly acquired information on the study of consciousness and the study of being. Sartre spent many years studying philosophy and the existence of God mostly studying the works of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. He became a Professor of Philosophy at Le Havre in 1931 and then began teaching at Lycée Pasteur in Paris from 1937 to 1939. During his career, Sartre wrote about many philosophical theories, some notable books include La nausée published in 1938, Being and Nothingness published in 1943, and many more lectures and literature for individuals to read for years to come. Sartre was an important figure of existentialism and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1964 but turned it down. Some of Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialist principles are the act of free will, forced to take responsibility for all actions, and the existence of God.

Sartre’s The Wall is a very intriguing, yet narrow illustration of the Spanish Civil War. The plot of the story is about the last night of 3 prisoners awaiting their death sentence. The short story does not focus on the details of the War, instead it deeply examines the most fundament element and result of the War: death. Consequently, Sartre’s critique of the nature of the universe and nature of man is viewed through the lens of one who is anticipating death. In The Wall Sartre makes an indirect comment about happiness by depicting the void of happiness that can reside in the anticipation of death. Despite deaths interconnection with the nature of the universe and life, Sartre most direct comment on the basic philosophical –religious questions of life is concerning human nature. Thus, I will begin this preview by analyzing Sartre’s discussion on the nature of man, followed by his comments on the universe in relation to the nature of man. I will conclude by analyzing his inverted critique on happiness.