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.
I agree with your statements. Jean-Paul Sartre central argument in Existentialism seems to be the belief that man has a purpose in this world. This is pointed out in the first sentence of the essay when Sartre says," man is nothing else than what he makes of himself" ( Sartre 1128). Stephen Hawking on the other hand argues that man has no pre- determined purpose and that we as human beings are free to choose and make our own destinies. Sartre would argue that we as people should live our lives with a purpose by taking responsibility for our actions in life in order to discover said purpose. Hawking would argue however that we should live more optimistically and feels we as humans are free to choose how we live rather than stress about what we cannot determine. I find myself agreeing more with Sartre, I believe that people have a purpose in life and that it is our job to find that purpose. I feel as though God instilled that purpose in all people when we were created and we should all search for our purpose but only some ever truly find their true purpose in life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stephens Hawkins Essay because I believe that everything is not pre-determined. I believe that everybody chooses what road that they are going to take. The chooses you make shaped what your ending goal is going to be. For example when somebody goes to jail it messes up their chances of finding a good job. That's why a lot of people take the fast money route , which isn't the best answer , but its quick money. This example shows that everybody is in control of their destiny , its just up to you were you are going to end up.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Stephen Hawking, because my religious beliefs find a fault in Jean-Paul Sartre's theory of "existence before essence." This theory, as you said, states that human life is an example of this, because humans served no purpose before they were created. I believe it is the other way around-- "essence before existence." I believe that the human race did serve a purpose, therefore they were created. So, my default would have to go to agreeing Stephen Hawking. I agree that everything is already self-determined, but humans are not aware. Due to free-will however, the previously pre-determined path can run astray into a new set of pre-determined options.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stephen Hawkings argument in saying that everything is not pre-determined. I agree with this because of the three main difficulties with everything being pre-determined that Hawking’s talks about in his essay. I mostly only agree with two difficulties though. The first one being that any thing we say about the theory would also be determined. We have no idea if things are actually determined or not so we don’t even know whether our theories about pre-determination would be correct or not because nobody will ever know. The second main difficulty I agree with that Hawking’s talks about is everyone’s choice of free will. With free will everyone is able to choose to do anything they want. I feel that it would be very difficult to say that everything is pre-determined with that factor of everyone’s free will. Everyone is able to choose and change things at any given time.
ReplyDeleteI think you made some very good points in both essays, it seemed like you really knew what you were talking about and had good diction! I too would have to agree that in Stephen Hawking's, Is Everything Determined? That everything is not predetermined and we as humans have a say in our lives. A really good example of this is when he points out the flaws with all three of the theories; the grand unified theory is presumably compact and elegant in mathematical terms, everything is determined by a grand unified theory is that anything we say is also determined by the theory, and finally that everything is determined is that we fell that we have free will-that we have the freedom to choose whether to do something. A real life example would be like we can choose who we marry, where we go to school, our car, house etc... In Jean Paul Sartre's essay Existentialism, his central was everything is predetermined and that everything is based on logic and thought out. His example is actually ironic to the previous example being that he says "If i want to marry, to have children, even if this marriage depends solely on my own circumstances of passion or wish" (1128), in that we as humans do not have a say even when we think we do. Like everything is dependent on science and faith that doesn't really make sense to make. I think we choose how our life plans out, i mean yes some stuff you can't control like how many kids you have, sickness, physical appearance etc... All choices lead you to another one though so because you made this choice then (blank) was the effect. I think i agree with Stephen Hawking's, Is Everything Determined? Just because it goes more with my values and morals rather something based on science and logic.
ReplyDelete