The paper will critique an issue I dislike on better never to have been using different reproaches positioned in existentialism

The paper will critique an issue I dislike on better never to have been using different reproaches positioned in existentialism

Both existentialism and antinatalism are philosophical movements that address human existence from a different perspective. However, existentialism explicitly addresses the question of “the least scandalous and the most austere” of teaching intended for philosophers and technician while Antinatalism advocates for never to be born or the harm of camming into existence. Benatar (1997, p.345) raises the issue that it is wrong to assume that bringing future people into reality will on balance be reasonable and generally beneficial. He claims that always being brought into existence is a harm. However, Sartre elucidates people dwell in quietism of despair and regards contemplation as a luxury. And the common denominator of existentialism is the belief that for human existence comes before essence (Sartre, 1946, p.2).

Different philosophies are employees on the existence of humankind, and from the communist, in particular, the author terms them as bourgeois philosophy. Humans are accused of having emphasized that what causes public disgrace or shame to be cruel, despicable, and a base for repelling what is beautiful to the human nature. Thus, although human kind is expected to cause goodwill, they are accused of harm. Humans are also criticized for leaving out what is considered solidarity of humankind and instead embracing isolation of man. And this is because we base our doctrines on pure subjectivism, as noted by the communist. The theory of “I think” has made it impossible for man to gain solidarity once again due to a solitary man attained on himself (Sartre, 1946, p.3). Moreover, from a Christian point of view, humans are reproached as people who deny the human affairs seriousness through ignoring God’s commandments, and all values ascribed to His kingdom and what we are left with is strictly voluntary. We think that everyone can do whatever they desire as they will be responsible for their actions.

Existentialism is a doctrine that renders human life possible through the affirmation of every truth, and action implies both and environment and human subjectivity. However, the change laid upon humanity is brought about by the over-emphasis of the evil side of humanity. In most cases, ugliness or immoral behaviors is associated with existentialism, in a belief of naturalistic where no one is afraid of this belief. However, we all are familiar with the saying that you must not oppose the powers that be, meaning you should not fight with superior forces, and thus one should not meddle in affairs that go beyond their abilities. The feeling of not being able to change any undertaking which no support proves experience foredoomed man invariably to evil, and thus there must be rules to retrain them to avoid anarchy (Anderson & Rojas, 2017, p.110). Arguably, these confront mana with a possible choice of whether to do the right thing or not.

Sartre explains that there exist two kinds of existentialists, on the one hand, are two Christians, both of professed Catholics whom he names Jaspers and Gabriel and, on the other hand, is atheists including Heidegger and himself. All have a common belief of the simple fact that existence comes before essence, or in short, we must begin from subjective. A good example is a paper-knife that must have been manufactured by an artist who had a conception on it and what it could achieve. The artist paid attention to the pre-existing techniques of production, which is part of the concept, and this becomes his formula. Thus the sum of the method and the quality made of the paperknife made its existence possible.

Consequently, the world and existence of humans in it are seen in this viewpoint from a technical standpoint (Anderson & Rojas, 2017, p.110). Therefore, we can have agreed that production proceeds existence and that existence is for a specific purpose, and only the manufacturer knows the real reason for producing an item. When we think God as the creator, we view Him as a supernal artisan, although from different doctrines. Agreeably, we all imply that the will follows from an understanding or accompanies it, and thus when God created, He knows what He was creating. God makes man according to a formula or concept precisely as the artisan manufactures a paper-knife following a defined method (Sartre, 1946, p.5). Man possesses human nature, meaning that he is a concept of universal conception and is a state of life having fundamental qualities, which means they see a sense of man proceeds that history exists.

However, it is argued that there is no human nature because there is no God, and that man I simply what h conceives himself to be, which is what he wills. Man is nothing but what he makes out of himself, which is the first principle of existentialism or what people cell subjectivism (Marino, 2019, p.65). Thus, man is placed to be responsible for himself as he is, which contradicts the philosophy of antinatalism. Further, every man chooses what to do and which actions to undertake, whether good or bad, have consequences that are entirely liable to them. However, this commitment is not just for the individual but on behalf of the entire humankind as a whole. It is described as anguish, which explains that what a man commits himself does not make a choice for the theme self but as a legislator’s decision for the whole of mankind. This is compared to a military leader whose judgment is not theirs alone even though the final decision was his and his alone.

The existentialist opposes secular moralities that suppress God as the latest possible expense. And those that say God does not exist, and it is important to draw concerns from His absence right to the end. However, if we are to have morality in a law-abiding society, individual values to be taken seriously must have prior existing ascribed to them. It enables a lawful world that avoid causing pain to others as attributed by Benatar’s Better Never to have been. In other words, nothing changes even if God does not exist and the same norms of honesty, progress, and humanity. However, in case of actions precedes existence, one may not be able to explain actions using references to give a specific human nature; man is free. And man is condemning to be free because he did not create himself, but he is at liberty and is responsible for everything he does.

Also, the despair, which is merely manning the action of limiting self rely on what is in or will or probabilities sum that are our feasible action (Anderson & Rojas, 2017, p.111). For instance, if one is expecting a visitor who is traveling by train or tram, they will assume that it will arrive on time and will not be derailed. Thus, one remains in the realm of possibilities but remain possibilities under considerable cease to effect the actions. Consequently, for there is no God and, therefore, no prevenient design that can be adopted by the world, we remain optimistic. That is, we can count on what others are doing elsewhere to take up your final action to its ultimate accomplishment, which will be the revolution. However, other philosophical work claims that there is no reality except in activities that one undertakes. Thus, it can be concluded that man is no different than a series of talking with the organization and a set of reactions that constitute various undertakings.

Summary

Existentialism is nothing but an attempt to draw more conclusions from consistent atheistic positions. Therefore, the objections have revealed philosophy defines the action of man, describes the man in an optimistic was which places the destiny of man upon himself. Although Benatar’s philosophy believes in better never have been existed, the existentialism philosophy explains that it was purposeful for man to exist and thus should not be annoyed by things out of our control. His opinion on pain as a fundamental asymmetry for suffering by all humans is explained by existentialism, which elucidates that actions of one man represent the entire humankind. That man is responsible for their actions. Also, death should permit life and should be a reason one lives, but our efforts should be as a self-commitment to ethics. However, we are still reproached by our subjectivism and for that strict philosophical reason. Again, this is not because we are bourgeois but because we seek the truth and not just theories that lack real foundations.