I wish every idea could be explained to me this way: Illustrating Info graph, narration, cool Jazz. I guess I’ve turned myself into a video learner. There’s no escape.
You are a learner, which is more than can be said for most. We all wish we were smarter, stronger, better looking, more talented, etc. I have found that my learning experience is better when I stop worrying about my limitations and relax.
Internet just making it more credible... Just making ir easier for comolicated people to understand the oneness... Its just closer in space time, but in one way, i think it was obvious that internet gonna come one day since hundreds of years ago ... So predictable that it stills amaze me ... Bad things of everything leads us to internet in one way, you know... if its possible that exists something, its possible that existence and something are the same...
Is it stupid that I heard about this man from an end credit in an episode of Gravity Falls from two fantasy teenage boys dreamed up by Mabel who questioned their reality and existence and said it was "totally righteous"
Alot of existentialism feels like buddhism, ie it's all about perspective. And it's true, if you actually believe you can be a different person than who you are today, this label, your name, will fade and make way for another one. It is only the amount of effort you put in it that will decide how fruitful your success will be and often that's hard to say the least. Besides, life's quite amusing from an existentialist's pov, far more relaxing than being hopelessly romantic
Macabresque If you have an optimistic view it's easier to see the resemblance, I find. Also I read Nausea for a second time and somehow I couldn't stop laughing, if you don't take it seriously it's a perfect satire on artistry
Existentialism also says that you can kill someone if you want to because you are free to do that. That seems quite away from Buddhism imo. The meaninglessness of life implies that there are no rules and hence, no morality. Only what you create is what is your life.
I remember when I first experienced the realization that not choosing is a choice....I was 9 years old and had never hear of Sartre. It did turn my brains into a knot at first, I’ll tell you!
No, Carson. It's just that you like them. Existentialism suits well YOUR idea about what being human means. That's all you can affirm. To make such an statement as yours, you should first know ALL the other disciplines, as you call them, and of course you don't. So, as a good existentialist, just accept that fact and realize your statement is false, or at best, is only an expression of feelings, which is by definition, very anti-existentialist.
"Seek Natures Beauty" Beauty of nature is on full display An those who seek it win the day Natures wonder behold everyday Beauty of nature to be seen today An natures beauty has a lot to say
Jasmin Xxx No I mean that things have no innate "thingness" to them. It is merely the projection of the human mind. There is some underlying source of that which we call "things" but the essence of a thing does not exist separately or beyond the "thing" which we identify. I got the gist of that from the book "being and nothingness"
Ah I agree, I misunderstood you.. Though when a thing is created by a human, e.g the letterknife used as an example by Sartre in his essay "Existentialism is a Humanism", the essence preceeds existence, since it was created for a sole purpose
sleepyeyeguy The importance of the statement "existence precedes essence" is that the conscious being, of self awareness, is able to create itself, for-itself. An object may not have an innate "thingness" past the perception of the being perceiving it but it most certainly can't create it's own essence, like a human can. It's always object. The concept of self creation is not relevant to unconscious objects, and that is made abundantly clear in Being and Nothingness.
What do you do when the evidences contradict your theory? A: Discard the theory. B: Do a theoretical juggling to adapt the theory to the evidences. C: Ignore the evidences and proceed as if nothing had happened.
I agree with him up to the idea that our individual attitudes and actions are a prescription for others. Insofar as we are all individuals born into relatively idiosyncratic circumstances in an ever-changing world, it may be prudent for me to take up an attitude or commit an act for my own well-being in a particular moment, but it does not follow that I would or should prescribe those attitudes and acts to another, much less for the entire species, who is in all likelihood in a different place and time than I am.
This doesn't seem like news to me, but I remember being a kid and looking up existentialism because I thought it would be "Hey, is there any way to prove that we exist?" but being disappointed and writing off existentialism since it took existence as a given. Now I am older and much more boring.
Deep stuff bro. I think everyone should have their own perception and understanding of the world that is unique for them and ultimately defines them as a person.
Actually, you've summarized it very well. By having a philosophy about life and living by it, you are essentially "teaching" others how to live life, what purpose to value and what goal to strive for. Everyone should have their own philosophy on life, therefore everyone should "teach" everyone how to live life. Lastly, everyone's philosophy should consist of a goal, which everyone can strive for - an universal understanding and struggle.
This is the second time I'm watching this video. The last tenet discussed here 'in fashioning me, I fashion humanity', and that one acts as if everyone is watching him/her does't sit well with me, somehow. I mean, isn't that denying the private sphere of life? Or is private-ness just an illusion according to Sartre?
I don't actually think that the idea is related to privacy, it's more of an analogy. In the absence of universal moralities each decision you make creates a picture of how you believe people should act. The idea that 'everyone is watching' is used more to highlight the importance of making decisions carefully and deliberately. At least that my opinion based on my own reading of Satre's work
Kenichiro Hamlet Thanks dude- I just saw your reply now! Looking forward to picking up the book- I love Sartre's lucid, thought-provoking exposition! And I never knew about that play- will watch that too- thanks a ton!
Of course, Human beings in certain constrains that make them be anguish what Jean said. But it emphasizes the uniqueness of every individual existence about life, is no value, meaningless.
From the beginning, it seems like an odious perspective, but then when he introduces basically the golden rule "In fashioning myself... I fashion humanity", it actually makes sense. At the very core, it aligns itself with a behavior that game theorists have seen survive better in all species. But I'm assuming that the individual who does treat others as they wish to be treated is not a sadist or masochist. Humans are a bit more complicated than other animals. That being said if the individual is also not a hypocrite, then this could be implemented into a tit for tat strategy when acting among others and would be a welcomed individual in that society. In short, this philosophical perspective seems to align itself with human social norms.
One thing I'd quickly like to address is that acting as if you're always being watched could be harmful. Many religious folk have had delusions that they are being followed, spied on, and embarrassing moments would be recorded and played back. All due simply because of the concept of god. Many people feel distress from believing god is in their thoughts, so developing this mindset that all your actions are somehow watched could cause harm to your mental well being.
But we all believe in things being right or wrong don't we? We see something and say "that is wrong", and we mean it, right? So where does that leave Sartre?
There is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Moral relativism showcases this, the aztecs used to think murdering people for Gods was "right" and no one questioned it. There's a tribe currently living in papa new guinea that has children perform fellatio on the elders to preserve their "essence". If you were born into that culture, you would think that was "right". Read more into situationism, one's environment is what shapes them, a baby only knows to not flog another, because he knows what it is like to be flogged, the pain he endured drives him to a crossroads where he now has the choice to choose to inflict that same pain on someone else or to not. And even then, he has to first see if what he feels is also universal to everyone else. Life is complex.
i feel like i have every right to answer to this, yes you live by your own choices there is no luck or fate, you just do things or choose path that will lead you to somewhere, i'm the last of the SARTRE along my brother and sister and father, and i can tell you that, you're your choices.
Well seen as “human nature” is not fixed, and to existentialists, meaning can be created, then it makes complete sense that Marxism (in terms of a complete transformation of the state of things) would work in tandem with it. It is simply one way of exercising this human freedom to a goal that recognises the non-fixed nature of human beings.
I work in shepherdsville Kentucky which people guess my. Heritage, is he Japanese, Asian, American Indian, Indian from India or Mexican. Downey California
My response to some comments is, when you learned there was no Father Christmas after all, did you want to commit suicide? No. You just wanted to be alive. Well, the same goes for “there is no life, of itself”. (read Part B of the following); www.linkedin.com/pulse/life-after-death-keith-perreur-lloyd-2c/
"We are thrown into existence" The canon is hilarious!!! So summarizing that part, we arrive to this existence by means of sexual pleasure or desire, with or without love, putting in function our natural mechanism to procreate, which we are born with, to satisfy our egocentric selves. In the process we bring into existence someone who will go through the same dilemma that we went through. So basically we are a set of penis's and vaginas, with or without either brains or reason. This is just to be breve, because the explanation can go on and on and on... with people accepting or not my view.
Is that what he thought when he and his long term partner were seducing and messing around with school girls? Is that why he defended a man who was being prosecuted for having an inappropriate, though arguably consensual, relationship with a 6 year old girl?
Without fixed values. I am confused. Humans share certain basic beliefs, a better description is values, fair play for instance, justice is another. Perhaps we can call it shared expectations. It can be argued that these are intrinsic human values, we don't take well to being given a reduced share or inferior quality when others have it better. I would argue these are permanent values, obvious roadmarks of human existence. Still, I do accept that I should conduct myself with the understanding that I am responsible, that my actions can have a major effect upon the world. This requires restraint, and constant vigilance on my part to preserve my awareness of the range of consequences of my actions. Funny thing though: Doesn't the Old Testament say the same thing?
The ending is very disappointing. Why should I think about others as I create myself. Why make a short video that ends with a slogan which contradicts the initial notion of freedom. Why does this video end in a way that is meant to satisfy the viewer? Informed propaganda is propaganda nonetheless.
It's not that we give life meaning, it that we find it. Every part of the body from cell parts to our organs all has a collective purpose to give life to us. We didn't gave them meaning they already have and we discovered it.
Just not right . Cause every human being is unique and every situation is also unique though it may look same . So whenever some one takes any action he/she chooses to act like what one should act on that exact same situation which doesn’t exist altogether. So he is just responsible for his own actions .
If Mr. Fry's last sentence holds true then the incoming surveillance state should be a breeze for all ; and a colossal windfall for A.I. Thing is: do we agree to allow grand theft of one's consciousness ( via our actions ) ?
So everything is born without existence, and dies by chance. There is no correct way to do things because people tend to thing that the first thing, is the correct thing, even though there is no one to say. Though to religious people God is the one to say and not to say.
A thing initself in ofitself or for itself is a matter of living in good faith or bad faith in ones life. Good or bad faith depending on living in your essence as that swiss army knife vs a plastic spork.Authenticity is a life well lived.
Interesting consideration here. If Sartre is correct that we are what we do, what can we make of Einstein who said, "the essence of a man of my type lies in what I think, not in what I do." Perhaps this exposes the practical inconsistencies of philosophy.
Yeah, but there is some cause which causes us to do what we do. We are more than just the effect and outcome of our actions. The essence of man is desire. We are not separate from the whole of nature, we just bring it together involuntarily.
