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.
The main argument present by Jean-Paul Sartre in “Existentialism” follows the idea that man’s purpose in life is determined by, solely, himself and his actions. He uses the idea of radical and groundless freedom, to contrast the problematic question that is the purpose of existence. He states within his essay “existence precedes essence,” meaning the purpose of man comes after his creation, that the purpose of man is the accumulation of his actions. Stephen Hawking, on the other hand, presents the argument that everything is determined but cannot be known due to innumerable factors. He belief follows the notion to disregard the laws of science and an omnipotent God – to disregard a theory to predict everything – and live with free will.
ReplyDeleteThrough reading both essays, I agree more with Jean-Paul Sartre’s central argument that he presents. While both preach the message of autonomy over agency, Hawking present his argument so by nulling the argument of agency. Sartre, instead, chooses to operationalize agency and autonomy by presenting ideas, beliefs, and concepts from several individuals as well as groups. He then explicitly states his main idea, and, in doing so, abandons everything before. As a result, this emphasizes his literal call to action. Thus, his argument and resolution is strengthened by his own actions.