After reading both essays, Existentialism by Jean-Paul Satare and Stephen Hawking's essay Is Everything Determined?, it is very evident that both authors posed very different central arguments. In Existentialism, Satare's central argument is that existence precedes essence. What this notion means to me is that as we exist as humans-- we are here in full form and as we exist we determine who we are as individuals in society. Satare places a strong emphasis on having our own fate in the palms of our hands. For example, Satare talks about how as an individual he has the choice to marry whomever or even have children. He also points out that as people realize that they control their fate, they hold a deeper responsibility and have a stronger regard for mankind as a whole. On the other hand, in Hawking's essay, Is Everything Determined? he argues that everything is determined when it comes to our fate and we have no control over what truly happens to us. He also applies science to this argument and sheds light on the fact that even though everything is determined, we don't truly know for a fact what things are actually determined. All in all, I agree more with Satare's argument about Existentialism-- I believe that we determine our fate and we as humans have free will to determine what happens to us.

Hawking's vs Sartre

In Stephen Hawking’s essay, Is Everything Determined?, he talks about The Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics, I believe his central argument has to do with this principle. I conclude that this principle helps us acknowledge the fact that when things are far apart, there is less uncertainty. Hawking’s explains how in in early history everything was closer together, so there was a lot of uncertainty, which showed how there could have been different methods taken in the universe. Hawking’s is telling us that we are limited in the way we should live our lives because everything might be determined, however, we are not aware of what exactly is determined.

            In Jean-Paul Sartre’s essay, Existentialism, he talks about the beliefs of an existentialist. They believe that we should emphasize our freedom and choice. This ties in with his central argument where he believes that that we were born not to give the world a meaning, but to give our own life a meaning. Sartre wants us to live our lives freely, although there are some cons towards our freedom. These cons have to do with our own way of giving our life a meaning when there can be a wrong that creates uncertainty. Sartre believes that we are free to become who we want to be and that those decisions will be what determines your meaning of your life.

            I agree with Jean-Paul Sartre’s essay, Existentialism, because we should be the ones to determine the way we mold our lives. It should be based on the way we use our freedom. It may cause problems, however, it should not mean that we cannot learn from a mistake. Hawking’s allows me to see how we may be limited, but being limited should not mean that we should not mold ourselves the way we want too.

12-5-16

In Jean-Paul Sartre’s story Existentialism, I believe his central argument is that there are two different reasons for existence. These two reasons are the exact opposite of each other. In one case, he says we exist in order to create and find a purpose in life; Sartre calls this “existence before essence.” On the other hand, Jean-Paul Sartre states things are created because they already have a purpose, like technology and machines; Sartre calls this “essence before existence.”  Sartre explains this by comparing human’s and a penknife. The human race had no purpose before we were created, therefore our existence is described as “existence before essence.” A penknife on the other hand was created because people saw a need for it, if there was no need for this item it may not exist; this is the side of “essence before existence.”

In Stephen Hawking’s essay Is Everything Determined, he discusses the question on is everything determined or do we control our destiny. Hawking’s central argument throughout this essay is the point that everything is not pre-determined. Stephen Hawking starts out by saying there are three major difficulties with the statement that everything is pre-determined; it is “presumably compact and elegant in mathematical terms… anything we say about the theory would also be determined… and the idea that we have free will.” Hawking provides evidence to his claim by stating “One cannot base one’s conduct n the idea that everything is determined, because one does not know what has been determined.” Even if everything was already determined, we would still be unaware because we are not sure what has been determined and what has not. Stephen Hawking ends this essay by answering yes to the question he started with, Is Everything Determined, “But it might as well not be, because we can never know what is determined,” because there is no real way of finding out; even if we do find out, it could already be determined.

Author Jean-Paul Sartre of Existentialism, makes it clear that his central argument of his essay is that we as people are defined by our actions and we are also what our actions are.  As well, author Stephen Hawking of Is Everything Determined? makes a central claim that our ties are all due to works of God and that our fate is our so called free will.  Sartre is saying that we need to live with a purpose in life and with sure will.  A quote to prove this is when Sartre states, “Because by the word “will” we generally mean a conscious decision, which is subsequent to what we have already made of ourselves.”  Hawking’s is saying that we as people need to live our lives as whatever happens will happen with God’s work.  He determines our fate and writes our book and we just live it.  I agree with Hawking’s main idea more about how God is the main one in charge and we just live how he wants us to live.

sartre and hawking

Jean Paul Sartre’s essay Existentialism discusses how free humans are to create themselves. Jean Paul Sartre believes that we are not initially born with a purpose, that we have to create our purpose on our own. He believes we are all born with freedom and ability to become anything based on the choices we make in our lives, and these choices are what makes us who we are. He feels this freedom can sometimes be binding, because anything we choose contributes to who we are and the idea that there is no set right or wrong creates uncertainty. Existentialists believe there is no God, or at least God created the universe with no real purpose. They reject destiny or any predetermined will. I agree with some components of

Statre’s argument on freewill, but not fully on the idea of no higher being or God creating the universe without any sort of plan.

Theoretical Physicist Stephen Hawking essay tells another theory. Stephen Hawking believes that there are universal laws that limit freewill. He discusses how day to day, things are uncertain and people act freely. However, on a larger scale history is quite predictable. He also comments how limited we are because of how little we have changed biologically despite all the change in the world. Thus we are stuck with the same biological limits as cave people. For these reasons, he believes we do not have absolute freewill and are some things are predetermined. Perhaps not on a small scale, but on a larger picture, there are events that are bound to happen because of how humans are made and how the universe works.

12/5/16

According to Jean-Paul Sartre, there exists two types of things in the world. Things that exists with no purpose for the sole purpose to make one, such as humans. Or things that have a purpose before existing, such as a man-made machine. He illustrates this argument by describing existence before essence, and essence before existence. Humans by nature exist before having a set purpose, their birth is random with no purpose and therefore existence precedes essence. Humans are known to make things that have a purpose before existing. An example of this are rules that govern humans. They exist for the sole purpose of regulating things, and cannot exist without having this set purpose. A better example of this is man made human products. Humans are always manufacturing stuff, especially engineers. They have a set purpose in mind before creating something. An engineer may want to make a wheelchair that can climb stairs. Purpose happens before creation, therefore essence precedes existence.

In Stephen Hawking’s Is Everything Determined? Hawking explores the idea that the universe and everything in it can be defined through science or mathematics. Everything already exists with a purpose, and is in fact not random at all. This argument contradicts that of Sartre because he claims that humans exist out of random, and have the free will to choose their purpose. Hawking counters that argument by stating that the universe has already predetermined everything which removes any free will that someone could claim to have. Hawking’s arguments intrigues me more and therefore I would have to agree with him. He states “The ultimate objective test of free will would seem to be: Can one predict the behavior of the organism? If one can, then it clearly doesn’t have free will but is predetermined.” All actions can be predicted, especially if statistics are used. I can choose to use my hands to slap you or greet you, however I can not use my hands to combust into flames. The purpose of my hands have been predetermined and can’t be changed regardless of how much free will I claim to have.