Sartre 's Views On Human Beings Essay

Jean-Paul Sartre is a French philosopher who makes his claims based on a combination of two philosophical traditions – existentialism and phenomenology. Sartre himself is an atheistic existentialist. He summarizes his claims regarding existentialism with three words – anguish, abandonment, and despair (25). In this paper, I will talk about Sartre’s definition of existentialism, its relation to essence, Sartre’s views on the moral choices and how they relate to art.

Descartian dualism is one of the most long lasting legacies of Rene Descartes’ philosophy. He argues that the mind and body operate as separate entities able to exist without one another. That is, the mind is a thinking, non-extended entity and the body is non-thinking and extended. His belief elicited a debate over the nature of the mind and body that has spanned centuries, a debate that is still vociferously argued today. In this essay, I will try and tackle Descartes claim and come to some conclusion as to whether Descartes is correct to say that the mind and body are distinct.

A famous philosopher Socrates once said, 'the unexamined life is not worth living.' With that idea, the question 'Are Human Beings Intrinsically Evil?' has been asked by philosophers for many years. It is known as one of the unanswerable questions. Determinists have come to the conclusion that we are governed by the laws of science, that there is nothing we can do about ourselves being evil because we naturally are. Evil is simply the act of causing pain. In this essay I will argue that human beings are born with a natural reaction to 'fear and chaos' to be instinctively evil.

At some point in time we have all wondered what it means to human, and what we are supposed to do with our lives. Throughout the centuries, there have been gradual changes in what it means to be human. Through Pico della Mirandola we will how man became the measure and took the place of God, through Charles Darwin we will see how nature and science began to take the place of man, and through the art of Friedrich we can visually see all of these changes.

In Meditation Two of René Descartes’ Meditation on First Philosophy, he notes the sight of “men crossing the square.” This observation is important as Descartes states, “But what do I see aside from hats and clothes, which could easily hide automata? Yet I judge them to be men.” This is an important realization as Descartes argues that instead of purely noticing the men through sight, it is actually “solely with the faculty of judgement,” the mind, that perceives and concludes that the thing wearing a hat and clothes are men. I argue that this view of the outside world by Descartes is incomplete as his idea of “I” is faulty, as well as having a misunderstanding on the importance of the senses.

In the reading “Existentialism is a Humanism”, the author Jean-Paul Sartre presents the idea of Existentialism. He introduces this idea by stating that man’s plan in this world is not pre-determined, as we only determine who we are or who we want to become throughout life. Sartre states that a person is what a person does. He also uses a metaphoric scenario of a man jumping on a scene before defining himself. These two ideas imply that man has no ultimate meaning, and it is up to us to find it through experience and by taking action. Additionally, Sartre also implies that humans have a huge responsibility on becoming who they want to become as it is only up to them to do so, making us entirely responsible for our existence.

Summary: The problem of the soul continues as Descartes suggested that the human is composed of two completely different substances; a physical body which Descartes compares with a machine, and a non-physical mind, related to the soul, that allows humans to think and feel even if it has no “measurable dimensions” (67). But Elizabeth put in doubt his ideologies when she realized that a non-physical thing doesn’t have the strength to push and move the body. This led to several questions unanswered and also let space for other materialist theories such as behaviorism, mind-brain identity, and functionalism, which also fail in offering an explicit solution.

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.

Rene Descartes Meditations is known to be one of his most famous works, it has also shown to be very important in Philosophical Epistemology. Within the meditation’s he provides many arguments that remove pre-existing notions, and bring it to the root of its foundation which Descartes, then will come up with his indubitable foundation of knowledge to defeat any doubt and to prove God is real. Descartes was a “foundationalist”, by introducing a new way of knowledge and with clearing up how people thought about things prior. Descartes took knowledge to its very foundations, and from there he can build up from it. In this essay, I will be discussing Descartes, and analyzing his first two meditations and arguing that he does indeed succeed in his argument.

It is the purpose of this essay to examine both Descartes’ Cogito argument and his skepticism towards small and universal elements, as well as the implications these arguments have on each other. First, I will summarize and explain the skepticism Descartes’ brings to bear on small and universal elements in his first meditation. Second, I will summarize and explain the Cogito argument, Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am” (it should be noted that this famous implication is not actually something ever said or written by Descartes, but instead, an implication taken from his argument for his own existence). Third, I will critique the line of reasoning underlying these arguments. Descartes attacks

Human nature is a broad subject. What does it truly mean? It is a word with more than just one definition. To put in simpler terms, human nature is characterized into two major types; human perception and human behaviour. Of course, not all humans have the same perspective. Likewise, they all do not perform the same behaviours. Humans are different from one another, as is every other living entity. Because of this, there may be similarities between humans, but there are most definitely differences as well. Written by Khaled Hosseini, The Kite Runner is a book that describes the life of a young Sunni Muslim/Pashtun named Amir. The book follows his life as he changes from childhood to adulthood to show how human nature greatly affects his life, and the individuals around him. This book is filled with many characters that have unique strengths and weaknesses that help describe their ‘human nature.’ For instance, Baba, Amir’s father, nicknamed as Mr. Hurricane, is described as an extremely brave person who acts upon himself to help and defend others from their troubles. An example of this is when he decides to build an orphanage (Hosseini 12-13). His downfall in the end was his decision to reject the chemotherapy, as his bravery made him ignorant. The author’s perspective on human nature shows how it is able to determine the fate of an individual throughout their life. This is evident on Amir’s case, as his actions revolve around the

In his Discourse on Method, Rene Descartes offers the above proposition, in response to the radical doubt (Discourse on Method 15)This implies that, even the human ability to doubt one’s existence is proof that humans are thinking beings, and therefore must exist in the universe, despite all else. Nietzsche has written in contrast to this statement, discussing the contradictions and assumptions surrounding the proposition. Stemming from this initial premise, both Descartes and Nietzsche go on to discuss the mind/body problem. Descartes argues for the separation of mind and body, while Nietzsche offers a premise based on a deep connection between the two. I seek to compare the writings of both philosophers, and explore holes in judgment and scope on the part of Descartes, and prove as to why Nietzsche’s discussions are superior of the two.

“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.

In his work Meditations on First Philosophy, published in 1641, René Descartes sets out to establish a set of indubitable truths for the sciences. He begins by discarding all of his beliefs, then works to rebuild his beliefs based on careful thought. Descartes clearly states this goal, saying in the First Meditation, “I will work my way up… I will accomplish this by putting aside everything that admits of the least doubt” (I, 17). He is able to establish his own existence, but struggles to move beyond his internal thoughts to discuss external objects. Descartes decides that the Christian God is the bridge he needs to escape the confines of his own mind, and argues for the existence of God in the Third Meditation in order to move on to discussing the physical world. In this paper I will argue that Descartes’ rationalistic project would have been improved without an appeal to the Christian God, although I will also argue that Descartes thinks this appeal is necessary.

Seventeenth century philosophers René Descartes and John Locke endeavored to question the views on consciousness, self, and personal identity. They examined belief in God, the certainty of knowledge, and the role of mind and body. The goal of this paper is to deliberate John Locke’s and René Descartes views on “self” and personal identity and how each come to examine how knowledge is captured. René Descartes and John Locke both present arguments that are rational in the discussion of consciousness, self, and personal identity, but each lack conclusive evidence that would provide the proof necessary to believe one or the other philosophies are true.