‘Existentialism is a humanism’ review
Essay 1
This essay reviews the lecture on ‘Existentialism is a humanism’ and gives an analysis of the talk and also a personal view of the conference. Existentialism can be defined as the ideology or the thought system that categorizes humanity as one whole and at its center, especially where the potential of human life and its value. In the lecture on Existentialism is a humanism, Sarte demonstrates the phrase Existentialism as a kind of logical humanism and also elaborates on how humanism is coherent with its notion. Sarte, who was an atheist, says that humans exist even before the definition by any concept which contrasts the Thomists and Aristotelians who believe that there is essence before existence here the existence of a man is predetermined by God. The lecture implies that man has the freedom to make his own decisions and defines himself through his own choices and actions since man cannot place his trust in any human nature. The biggest challenge to Existentialism is being accused of quietism and is an ethical and religious teaching. The general concepts of Existentialism are connected with the contemplative life attitude, the indifferences to virtues and vices, and the giving up of harsh and vigorous activities. Sarte argues that despair and lack of exercise are not part of Existentialism since people are free to make their own choices. He also breaks down Existentialism into two pieces, namely the Christian existentialism, which are represented by Marcel and Karl Jaspers as he claims and atheist Existentialism. He refers to French existentialists as well as himself. According to his view, is not easy to get the identity of a man at first since he is nothing and becomes a man when he creates his own identity. Since this is his main principle of Existentialism, he argues that Existentialism contrasts quietism where Existentialism is a concept that is optimistic where a person takes control of his life. The destiny of the person is in his or her own hands. Sarte further explains humanism in two different definitions, the first being that man is considered to be a goal and also the superior or supreme value. He claims that this kind of humanism should be avoided and that it formed the humanity cult. His second definition, which is from his understanding, is that there is the dynamic character of a person where he says that man is his legislator. A person decides his or her fate in a challenging situation by how he searches and implements goals that he or she has set. On Sartre’s argument on humanism, there is an essential aspect that he gives a set or system of rules of the organization that should be used in the governance of certain activities that are private and man’s responsibility for the outcomes of these activities. These rules correspond to his argument on humanism. In my opinion, Sarte is consistent in his understanding of humanism activities with the fundamental knowledge of the essential parts of humanism.
Essay 2
This essay is about ‘Why it is better never to come into existence’ and argues against the article’s notions that life is not a benefit but a burden and that having children is impermissible morally. David Benatar claims that having children is morally impermissible since life is less of an interest and more of a charge. He says that it is undeniable that people experience dangers and harm such as death, poverty, sickness, and disappointment and can only happen if someone begins to exist. He concedes that there are pleasures that come due to existence but explains that there are benefits and harms that occur due to the present where the desires are the benefits and the harms being the disadvantages. He argues that it is good to avoid injury or pain, but it is not wrong to have the absence of pleasure where there is no one to be deprived of this pleasure. His main point is that the lack of desire is neutral, but the lack of pain or harm is right, and by comparing one who exists and one who does not, the one who lives is exposed to all the harm and pain present, which is inevitable. I will, however, argue against Benatar’s point that others are not sympathetic to the thesis of asymmetry. Benatar claims that the positive utilitarian might say that we must bring people that are happy into existence or to make suffering exist if it gives others maximum utility. Benatar is trying to qualify the goodness of a person and the impersonal goodness where having pleasure is good, but missing it due to non-existence is not bad and that experiencing pain is terrible. Still, the absence of it due to non-existence is good. The claim that Benatar needs to make his point completely valid is that experiencing pain due to existence is terrible and the pain absence due to the lack of pain due to the person who would have experienced the pain due to non-existence is suitable for the person who did not exist. He also said that he does not mean to talk about impersonal goodness where he wrote that someone who does not live cannot have things better for him or her and continues to say that for anyone who is existent or non-existent, it is preferable not to live. This conclusion, however, is not satisfying since if someone is willing to fulfill the absence of something that would have done harm or brought pain to someone, that will be good for him in both the existing and non-existing worlds. This will, therefore, mean that the absence of something that would have brought harm or pain will be unfortunate for him in case he does not exist since it would mean he would miss a life full of pleasure without the things that would cause harm to the person. Moreover, even with pain, the happiness of existence may exceed the hurt and harm since also through illness and injury is inevitable, defeating them brings joy to humans.