The Deplection Of Bertrand Russel's Reflection On Worldview

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.

What is a worldview? To have a world view means that you have created a personal opinion of life. Those opinions you have created, help you make decisions as well as help you learn how to portray the world around you. As to be expected, one man’s worldview will not be the same as yours but it is always good to share your views with other people to hopefully open their eyes to your perception on certain topics. Finally it’s also good to listen to other people’s views to expand your own personal knowledge on the Christian world view.

A worldview is the way a person views and interprets the world around them. Life experiences and spiritual influences play a part in forming one’s worldview. A person’s worldview helps them to determine beliefs on creation, humanity, morals and what happens after death. According to Waddell, (2014) “Worldviews are also like lenses found in eyeglasses that serve as the means through which a person sees the world.” (para. 43) In this paper, the main components of the Christian worldview will be discussed, to include God, humanity, Jesus, restoration and analysis of Christian Faith as well as a reflection of my own beliefs.

Susan R. Wolf (born 1952) is a moral philosopher who works extensively on the meaning of human life and is the Edna J. Koury Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Wolf addresses the questions of the meaning of life in hope to distinguish the characteristics and reasoning that gives meaning to life. According to Susan Wolf view about the meaning in life, “I would say that meaningful life are lives of active engagement in projects of worth… two key phrases, ‘active engagement’ and ‘projects of worth’” (Wolf, 205). However, I believe that her proposal leaves out our basic motives and reasoning that’s

Throughout this class we have discussed the different worldviews that an individual may have. This class has taught me that a worldview is how an individual understands the world and their place in it. “A worldview consist of what a person believes to be real and true, what a person values, how a person makes decisions, and what forms a person’s desires, longings, and goals” (Fuller, Lecture One). An individual’s worldview is the motivating force behind their every emotion, decision, and action. A worldview is what helps an individual make sense of life and this world. A worldview will provide answers for many different questions in life. A few of the questions that a worldview helps answer are questions of origin, human dilemma, hope, and destiny.

Our worldview allows us to see into the world at such an angle that it coincides with our beliefs, therefore affecting how we think and live. Whether one falls under an atheistic, pantheistic, or theistic worldview, they are guided in their life choices depending on the beliefs of their worldview. Throughout this paper, I will summarize the elements of a Christian Worldview such as God, Humanity, Jesus, and Restoration; I will then analyze questions one might have about the Christian Worldview, and finally I will reflect on my worldview.

Society tends to live day to day without much question of their own existence. Humans are born into the world and without second thought begin to live their lives, but there comes a time when individuals begin to question the reason for their being. In Richard Taylor’s, “The Meaning of Life”, Taylor explores the thought that our existence, when viewed externally without our prejudices, is fundamentally pointless. A thorough analysis of Taylor’s ideas will be given to understand the reasoning behind his thoughts, his argument will then be defended from counter arguments that state that the meaning behind any entity’s life could have any alternative meaning.

Most people want to live a meaningful life. They feel that is important to live a life that is sufficient and worthwhile. The meaning of life has been debated among many people and philosophers throughout history. There have been several theories used to try to explain the true purpose of life in some subjective or objective perspective. Louis Pojman argued that religion gives every individual life meaning to it and those who choose not to believe have no morality or purpose in life. On the other hand, suppose someone would object Pojman theory and believed that life with or without God is not required for finding meaning in life. In the following paper, I will explain Pojman theories about religion giving meaning to life and what that life may consist of. Second, I wish to explain how an atheist would reject his premise and provide a response to how a person of faith would respond to and atheists argument.

The author’s metaphysical format brings together philosophical and religious issues, which are brought out by the use of paradoxes and conceits. For instance, death is compared to as a “slave” that brings the “soul’s

In “The Meaning of Lives,” Wolf asserts that the question “What is the Meaning of Life?” is inherently unintelligible because it is uncertain what the question is asking. In other words it is too general because it has no specified context. Wolf then acknowledges, however, that there is value in examining the meaningfulness of a life. This is because she observes people wanting meaning as an unchangeable fact. While there is no grand reason for meaning, she suggests that we can create value through what we do in our life. In her work, Wolf constructs a framework on how to obtain meaning in one’s life. I will examine her view, then critically discuss the positive attributes and the shortcomings. Wolf does a sufficient job to outline a possible way to achieve meaning. However, I will argue that a definition for the meaningful life that does not include morality and happiness is not sufficient. Lastly, I will express the subjective and objective tension that weakens her stance.

Ever since the existence of a civilization, the fundamental question of how and why; to identify and explain the human’s nature and how man is ought to live, has been the key element in philosophical world. Many philosophers provided and made public of how they viewed this world as, and the human in it, and experimented themselves with their approaches, however, no philosophers could possibly bring forth the same views as other philosophers nor yield an answer which do not leave a sense of doubt in our mind. None of the theories were incorrect, but none of them were right in the sense that even two

During the 17th and 18th century two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, arose carving for themselves a trench in the philosophical world. We can see the biggest distinction between the two in their theories of how we know things exist. The traditions of Plato and Aristotle have been dubbed rationalism and empiricism respectively. Under these traditions many well known philosophers have formed their own theories of God, existence and the material world. Through these individual theories I will show how each fits into the category of either Rationalist or Imperialist. The Plutonian philosophers to be

The story of Genesis, and the great philosopher Plato both depict a certain view on human nature. Genesis demonstrates that humans live on in their families. While, Plato creates this idea that we are in constant search of THE GOOD. In this paper, I will compare and contrast how these works answer three important questions; What are human beings like? What kind of world do they live in? What is the best life for humans to live? Finally, I will explain which one of these views better represents what human beings are really like.

“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.

The following essay will simply divided into 3 parts. First I will introduce both the Daoist philosophy and French existentialism. After that, I will compare and evaluate the approaches of both Daoist philosophy and French existentialism approaches. Then, I will compare and evaluate the approaches of both Daoist philosophy and French existentialism consequences. Finally, I will show the Daoist implications toward spirituality.