my paper

Soooo I had to scramble... woke up late... didn't read the freaking chapters for my paper... yeah.... I know I'm awful.. why didn't I? Idk.. I had 3 days off... I just procrastinated... I feel like I did something one of them... I really have no idea where my time went....... but I know I chose not to read... because I'm a procrastinator like that...... Soooooo my faithful readers... could you do me a favor and tell me if this sounds too much like idk what I'm talking about? -it is about existentialism and moral philosophy. Sartre takes God out of the equation for his theory where Kierkegaard (so tired of typing his name) so there is a bit of religious views in it... and I'm just putting it out there.. I am agnostic, meaning I do not actively disbelieve in God, I just do not agree with what most believe to be considered God and traditional religions... Blame the mind of a scientist for it.. 

         

Sartre and Kierkegaard

    Jean-Paul Sartre and Soren Kierkegaard have both offered a method in defining humanity. Both existentialists form their own views, differing in their theories from ideas of religion, to strict responsibility to a ‘leap of faith’.  However, both philosophers offer valid points within their theories.

Jean-Paul Sartre claims that we are “condemned to be free”. This can roughly be explained as an innate will to freedom that was thrust upon us by the simple act of being born.  He believes that we are born and therefore are forced to make our choices no matter the circumstances. Sartre believes that freedom is the condition of human existence, not human nature. Being a condition of human existence would mean that it could not be stipulated by social convention, reason or even God’s will. Sartre extends into saying that “existence precedes essence”, meaning that we simply exist before we can be defined. In order to be defined we must make choices and that is what determines who we are.  That people are a function of the choice they make instead of the choices defining who we are.

However, like all theories Sartre’s theory does have its share of consequences and problems. The main consequence of this theory is that we are solely responsible for our choices. God, in Sartre’s opinion, is practically a scapegoat of responsibility. However, such reliance on an individual’s moral compass brings along the same issues as moral subjectivism. Most significantly, that there would be no objective way to judge one’s morals to be better or worse.

On the other hand, Soren Kierkegaard offers a different idea to define humanity. Soren suggests that there are three stages of life, and that they are all part of achieving his main goal for humanity.  He suggests that the beginning stage is an aesthetic one, one where our choices are not taken seriously, people make their choices based on a whim or an expectation of pleasure. It is an aimless stage of irresponsibility. Secondarily he offers the ethical stage, stating that this stag emerges once we acknowledge the authority of virtue and duty. We now must choose to meet our obligations and accept our responsibilities. That it serves our own interests by following the rules. Lastly, the religious stage develops after our guilt from our moral shortcomings accumulates. We then give everything up to God and take a leap of faith, proving that we have faith.  Soren’s stages seems appealing as they do resemble what we would view as a development from youth to maturity and it would be assumable that our beliefs and morals would develop along with us. However, the idea that not everyone is capable of experiencing the three stages leads to questions as to why or how to even achieve such stages assuming one would desire to.

In my opinion, I believe that even with the challenges posed to the theory that Sartre has the stronger view. I cannot grasp a ‘leap of faith’ mentality. Even if there is a God, I do not feel that such blindness would be required for his acceptance and that it should be our accountability and our willingness to accept our choices that would grant us favor.