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.
I agree with your opinion on which of the two you leaned closer to. It would make more sense that now that everything is expanded there would be more individualistic features in everyone’s existence. As said in hawking’s essay, the closer we were to have been the less progress were to have made as a species. Considering the progress made throughout the time since our ‘cave-dwelling’ there have been many changes; enough to say that it would be up to us the changes we wish to go through. I like Sartre’s essay on Existentialism because he writes about the idea of being able to determine things ourselves. Hawking believes that in time a higher power will show itself and its abilities to be able to determine us as a human race, while Sartre thinks otherwise. We are unpredictable to him, the idea of which I completely agree. If we had been pre-determined on our own, we would pretty much do the same thing but each of us live our lives much differently and certain circumstances can change our matters significantly. Every one thing that happens is seen differently through each witness and no one has the same way of perceiving a happening alike. This is because we are in the moment-like creatures. Day to day live lives with a set goal in mind: to get through the day. And when things happen to deter the path to goal, it will still happen no matter what, the end of the day will still come.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your viewpoint of the two essays. In Jean-Paul Sartre’s Existentialism, his central argument restated in my own words is that man is responsible for himself, there is no higher power and if there was man would still make decisions for their self. In Sartre’s essay, he discusses how man is subject to judgement by subjectivity, anguish and forlornness. However, he argues in multiple points how we shouldn’t allow ourselves to live according to these three methods of judgement. He is saying that we live our lives how we want to and at the end of the day we are ultimately responsible for our actions, God nor any other living being is.
ReplyDeleteIn Stephen Hawking’s, Is Everything Determined?, his central argument would be that we cannot be fully certain that everything that occurs on Earth was determined and under what force. So therefore, everything that is done by man was done by that individual and was done so by free will. He refers over and over to laws of science to clarify his arguments. I agree more with Hawking’s argument because I believe in free will and the power of man to do as they please, although my religious views contradict with some of his arguments involving science.
I completely agree with your views on both essays. In Hawking’s essay, Is Everything Determined? his central argument is rallied upon by The Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics. Thus, allowing us to see that due to the current world being much more apart, instead of earlier history where everything was closely together, now that the methods from before differ from the current reality. Stephen Hawking explains how we should go throughout our lives living as everything is determined, but that is all around false. I also agree more with Jean-Paul Sartre’s essay, Existentialism, he believes that we should live out life the way we want to, thus crafting our own future. The bumps that come our way will ultimately make us stronger and build up on the person we will be in the future. At the end of the day, we can at least say that we made our future, instead of having it predetermined. As Sartre goes on, she describes that our wiliness and freedom give us meaning of life. I completely agree, we pick and choose our own path. Between the two essays, reading Stephen Hawking’s essay allows me to see how we can not live with such limitations. In conclusion, I believe that we should live and craft our life the way we believe is best.
ReplyDeleteBoth of the essays were extremely deep. Stephen Hawking’s “Is Everything Determined?” essentially argues weather or not our lives are pre-determined. He breaks it down into three arguments or question. The first asking if everything is determined does that include the small menial details of everyday life as well. The second saying that if there was something determining everything, that in itself was also determined. And the third covering the idea of free will. In conclusion, Hawking declares that everything is determined but an infinite number of factors keep the outcomes in a constant state of change. In the other essay, “Existentialism”, by Jean-Paul Sartre, Sartre really explored the concept of existentialism and how man is responsible for man’s actions and we are only what we value ourselves to be. In other word we are our actions and there is no intervening deity. Both essays seem to end saying that we should live like predetermination doesn’t exist and be whole for ourselves and humanity as a collective. I liked the existentialist argument that “man is anguish” (Sartre, 1129) and that it is a hard pill to swallow learning that we are the ones choosing our goals and also the ones deciding whether or not they are fulfilled as well as how that impacts the rest of mankind.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post.
ReplyDeleteIn “Existentialism,” Jean-Paul Sartre argues against the misconceptions formed around the philosophical theory of Existentialism as a negative and pessimistic expression. He explains the argument through concrete details and relatable evidences, centralizing the core doctrine of Existentialism that is to emphasize man as a free and responsible agent making vital decisions through acts of the will which I agree. According to Sartre, people should apply this doctrine to live their lives by being aware and taking responsible for not only themselves but others as well. The author also condemned the inaction and the abandonment of the will as a form of religious mysticism in contrast with Existentialism, “a doctrine of action” (Sartre, 1136).
On the other hand, Stephen Hawking states in “Is Everything Determined” that men are not the masters of their own fate but more of a participant in a predetermined universe which I also agree. But the ideology in which freewill is just an illusion should not stop people from crossing the road since “One cannot base one’s conduct on the idea that everything is determined, because one does not know what has been determined” (Hawking, 912). According to Hawking, freewill disguises the real causes of human behavior which, he added, is unpredictable. It is only because men are not aware of the environmental causes of their own behavior that they are tricked into believing in their own ability to choose. It is rather a dangerous concept to live by. However, I disagree with determinism because it is problematic and inconsistent with society's ideas of responsibility and self control that form the basis of our moral obligations.
I agree, both authors do pose very different central arguments, in Stephens Hawking’s “Is everything determined?” he writes his views on if everything is of free will or if everything is determined. He gives examples of both sides of the argument. The idea of the central argument is found at the very end of the novel when he says this; “Is everything determined? The answer to this is yes, yes it is. But it may as well not be, because we can never know what is determined. In jean Paul Sartre’s essay Existentialism the author argues that although we exist in the world, we try hard to understand the meaning of our existence in the world. We are considered “existence before essence” which means out meaning for life is not predetermined when we were created like other objects. For me personally, I agree with Stephens Hawking’s idea that everything is determined. While he thinks of this as pointless, I believe although we may not know what it is we just have to trust that everything does happen for a reason, or if you believe in God as I choose to do, trust in God for he knows what he is doing.
ReplyDeleteto begin with both authors go very deep into each topic, I agree with both authors because they both make quite different viewpoints on the subject,But on the other hand in satres essay he speaks on humans crafting our own future verses stephen hawkings essay teeling us someone has crafted it for us and we have no clue of the future and how it is going to play out, honestly either way we have to live day to day. Me personally i believe in god and if you believe in god then you would better fit the view expectations of Stephen Hawkings essay of the human race being pre-determined. God has a plan for everything. we as humans do notknow what lies ahead in the future and sartes essay kind of points that way as we should.
ReplyDelete