Before reading Existentialism Is a Humanism I was very strongly opposed to the idea of Existentialism. However, Jean-Paul Sartre may have just shown me why it is ‘understandable’ that some people follow it. I am definitely not an Existentialist but I do see that some of their beliefs are logical as well as efficient. So, I am going to figure out how much of it I like and dislike while writing this blog.
The though that everyone is free does make sense because we as individuals should be free to make our own decisions and take action for what we believe in. For are we not puppets of society if we only do what is asked of us? The notion that one should question why and what they are doing is reasonable if not practical. It gives us more time to understand who we are and what we believe in. Moreover, with freedom comes the ability to make choices and existentialism believes that the choices you make creates human nature. This is reasonable as the human nature stands for the concept that we do something because it is in our nature, but how can we know what our nature is if we haven’t made choices? The choices we make, make us who we are and choices represent our feelings and beliefs towards a certain situation. All that being said, there are some points that Existentialist make that aren’t quite so logical.
Human free will is a tricky subject because if you give them too much freedom then there will be no order. Existentialism, in my opinion, thinks to highly of humans; they believe that decisions are not without stress and consequences. For most people that is true, we way our options and then take a decisions based on the repercussions it will have. However, there is a certain population of people that don’t use their rational minds to make decisions; instead they let impulse or emotions get the better of them. People who murder others in cold blood may be unstable, emotional, or simply believe in it. The problem is that these people will always exist not matter what, and if we let humans be completely free then how can we possibly keep everyone safe? The job of a society is to build laws and rules based on what will keep their population safe and happy, but if there is complete freedom then a society cannot function and fulfill its vital purpose.
Jean-Paul Sartre presents the reader with an interesting situation where a kid with no father has to choose between staying with his ill mother and leaving to avenge his brother's death as well as helping his country during a time of war. As Asim said in his blog, “I understand how he would see this to be a good example of following what you want and morality, but any decision other than staying with your mother is immoral. If the woman who brought you into this world is getting hurt, it is outlandish for you, as the son, to leave. The moment that family stops being your number one priority is the moment that I begin to look down on you. No matter how much you believe in self-exploration, to have the audacity to leave your mother to explore something for you own, is uncalled for. It is disgusting.” (http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/01/ironic-and-immoral.html) He is completely right, how is it justifiable to leave someone you love behind and go fight for people you do not know? In fact, it’s not even someone you just love they are also deeply sick and they’ve always been there for you, but now that it is your turn you just let them rot and die? This cannot be a good way to live your life! Although, we never find out which decision the boy took any belief system that asks you to leave your ill mother behind and leave for war is not one I would follow.
So, even though some decent points were presented there is no way that I would ever be an existentialist. I would not want to live in a society where people were unsafe and ‘being in the worst state or your life’ would be considered a remarkable thing!
No comments:
Post a Comment