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.
That’s a very accurate explanation I would like to expand and add on to your thoughts on Sartre’s essay of externalism where he emphasizes that essence precedes from existence. The essence in objects is there to hide the unexplainable aspects of its existence. He believes that humans are free to do whatever they want, but this freedom obviously comes with responsibility. And he ties this stating that it’s that same responsibility which limits and condemns us to be free. On the other hand, Stephen Hawking’s essay Is Everything Determined? Approaches this form a different angle stating that everything is defined by a mathematical or scientifically explanation. The belief that we already exist with a purpose, that it is not random at all and we have the free will to choose the purpose not only for humans but for objects as well The thought of people’s actions being a result of their fate had never occurred to me after reading the essay and connecting it to his idea that either science or God is the answer to why we do what we do. I don’t believe that everything is determined because if it was, we should be able to stay away from the bad things before they occur.
ReplyDeleteIn “Existentialism”, Jean-Paul Sartre states at the beginning what the principles are concerning what existentialism is about. To Sartre, a man is responsible for what he is and for all men, “Thus, existentialism’s first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him” (1128). Our actions involve humanity’s actions as well. A little later in the reading he goes on to talk about “existence precedes essence”. Sartre argues that we come to exist first and then we make choices on how we want to live our lives but at the same time our choices affect others. He mentions 3 words that we sometimes might feel having this responsibility: anguish, forlornness, and despair. Under anguish Sartre says that we suffer because we focus on who we are affecting around us and that those who don’t worry about this are forgetting out their “total and deep responsibility”. Under forlornness we should not make up excuses and assume the consequences because we are responsible for our actions. The last word talked about was despair, in which he says we should only worry about things that are in our control instead of feeling hopeless because we cannot control what goes on around us. His main argument here was to argue and inform us about what existentialists think is important and how it is up to us to define ourselves.
ReplyDeleteIn Stephen Hawking’s “Is Everything Determined?” essay, he is sharing with us the possibilities and problems if everything is really determined in the human life. Hawking is trying to inform us about the many ways we can think that everything is determined in life, but he states at the end that no matter what we might try doing to answer this question we will never know what is determined. I agree more with this essay because in both essays it is pointed out that we are free in choosing what to do, but in Sartre’s essay he adds that there is no good or bad.
In Stephen Hawking’s essay “Is Everything Determined?”, he discusses, just as the title says, if everything we do is pre-determined. He uses three grand questions and detailed explanations in order to convey his thoughts. At the conclusion of his essay he states that everything is determined, but we can never know what is determined. On the other hand, Jean-Paul Sartre claims that human beings are in control. He goes even further claiming that whether there is an omnipotent being that passes judgement on our actions is irrelevant. Even if there is a God, that still does not change anything. Human beings are still in control.
ReplyDeleteAs for who I agree with, I think that it would have to be Sartre. Despite Hawking’s credibility from being a world renowned scientist, I just don’t see how or why God or the universe or some scientific theory could determine, or would want to determine, each of our actions. Furthermore, if there is no free will or ability to truly think for ourselves, then all of our stress about the future that comes with “higher education” is pointless, which I refuse to believe.
After reviewing between the two authors and your statement I would have to be in favor with Jean-Paul Sarte reading that there is no sole purpose when we appear in the world that don’t know. However, we do create our own purpose in our own unique way that gives meaning to the world we are living in. Even though Stephen Hawking as a point that we as humans don’t know what we are expecting when we come in the world. Still the fact of the matter is that we have a purpose in live that come out of the ordinary; however that doesn’t change our perception of what we view in a world we are living in. Now when you mentioning about that we set rules to govern ourselves that does gives us a purpose to live by. Purpose comes in naturally as our day-to-day lives that we set ourselves to obligate rules and regulations that we have to live by. As for Steven Hawking’s point of view that purpose doesn’t happen in a naturally stage, it is more that we perceives that the “universe has already predetermined everything.” However how do we know for sure that it already exists when we have as humans develops our ideas that express our own purpose.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your conclusion Nathan, but I’d like to extend your thoughts a bit more. Stephen Hawking believes the future is not just predetermined but also calculatable. He references a grand unified theory, a concept that also peaked the interest of Einstein, which would be able to predict all future events with perfect accuracy. While still just a conjecture, including this and other logical and scientific examples and explanations, Hawking’s essay uses rationality to prove his point, as opposed to Jean-Paul Sartre who relies heavily on the meta and uses efficient metaphors and reasonable examples, but fails to base his argument in functionality. Any logician would agree that to make a statement using these abstract examples is fine as long as it is able to improve the life of those who understand it, which is making it functional. Overall, I side with Hawking more based on previous understandings and beliefs, but I will mention that Sartre has a popularly held belief that should be noted and delved into philosophically but not fully accepted, for its lack of presence in the real world.
ReplyDelete