Existentialism, Ethics, & Consciousness The fundamental principle of existentialism emphasizes upon the alienation of man from normal society and his recognition of the world as meaningless and negative and oftentimes, absurd. It also accentuates the belief that man has freewill and as such must make their own choices without help from such external standards as laws, ethical rules, or traditions. Furthermore, because man is condemned to be free, his life is consequently burdened and encumbered with soul-scarring anxieties, bringing with it his need to distinguish between his authentic and unauthentic self. It is not unusual for existentialism to disclose that very few decisions carried out by man are without any negative consequences for some things are naturally absurd and irrational, without any sensible explanation. Nevertheless any decision, whether judicious or asinine, must be followed through and must necessarily be accompanied by commitment and responsibility. Dostoevsky and Ortega y Gassett are both considered staunch advocators of existentialism (although there are people who think that Dostoevsky is not) and like most existentialists has differing and oftentimes conflicting thoughts about things and life in general. Dostoevskys Underground Man and Ortega y Gassetts History as System are as different as light and dark but they share a common belief about man that somehow clarifies and explain the existentialist outlook. Dostoevskys man is someone who is concerned with what is happening within him and yet keeping certain aspects of his life secret to everyone and even to himself.
The Essay on The Importance of Authenticity in a Man’s Life
Authenticity, as defined by existentialist philosophers, is the degree to which one is true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character, despite external pressures. According to Jean-Paul Sartre, “Existence precedes essence”, in other words, man makes himself. In order for him to define himself, he should be totally free. But, how can he be free totally? Man can be totally free when he ...
His meaning lies in passively observing the society he feels alienated from oftentimes critiquing and finding faults yet doing nothing about it. On the other hand, Ortega y Gassetts man is a go-getter; he makes things happen by interacting with people in his milieu; by creating and producing ideas and things about himself. He is a project under construction and therefore has to conceive his own meaning in order to be in the world. The first sees man as someone who operates underground — delving into the inner sanctum of his being; keeping things buried underneath his interior self. While the former initiates action or responds to the actions around him thus, functioning above ground interacting with people in the market place, council chamber, living room, where ever he finds himself with people. The difference and with the tension created by these two assessments of human experience is the same unifying factor that elucidate and illustrate the existentialist viewpoint on freewill and the series of choices man has to make.
Both judgments about man point out to contrasting and even contradicting reaction of man to his situation yet both also emphasize the fact that they are united in the advocacy that man is an individual who has to create his own meaning in the world from within himself and from what he can get from society (either by passively sitting on the sidelines or actively participating in the actions happening from within him and around him).
Above all these, he also has to take on personal decision about his own meaning and follow though it no matter the consequences are. Dostoevskys observation about man illustrates and strengthens the existentialist outlook specifically on the matter of freewill and taking on the responsibility for the consequences of ones decision. His observation about mans ability to detach himself from the world where actions matter and even from his own self is a manifestation of his existentialist ideals. His perception and recognition of mans predilection to live away from his fellowmen (by his own free choice) because he refuses or is incapable of engaging with other people in any significant way and the realization that this choice does not satisfy him, but he has no intention of doing anything about it further enhances the concept of existentialism. Ortega y Gassett, with his pithy appraisal of man, repudiates Dostoevskys perspective about man by stressing on the human quality to constantly and consciously re-invent himself to arrive and fully become what he wants to be. Man, for Ortega y Gassett must discover and acquire his meaning either on his own search for it or through the environment and the influences of those people with whom he comes in contact.
The Essay on Assess The View That Religion No Longer Acts As A ‘shared Universe Of Meaning’ For People Today
Some sociologists would agree with this statement that religion no longer acts as a shared universe of meaning for people today and they explain this using secularisation. The word secular means not sacred, not spiritual and not religious therefore secularisation refers to the process of becoming less religious. Woodhead and Heelas identified two versions the disappearance thesis which states that ...
Man must possess the ability to imagine and then compose for himself a conception of his meaning and of life. It is imperative that he ideate the identity of the person he is going to be, visualizing and conceptualizing his own meaning is very important to his well-being. It sure is contradictory to the other assessment yet Ortega y Gassetts notion about man also endorses the same existentialist outlook as that of Dostoevskys — Man has a freedom to choose anything from the series of options confronting him even if in the end it will prove to be his downfall. Both passages give the notion that the life of every man, whether he explicitly recognizes it or not, is marked by irreparable losses whatever personal choices he might have made. Existentialism assumes that man is at his best only when he struggles against his very nature. Mankind can only display its best when challenged to improve his plight at all cause and will do everything to achieve distinction even with the knowledge that perfection is not possible. The existentialists underscore the fact that human choice is subjective —individuals must make their own choice how they will respond to the circumstances where they find themselves. But, while they are free to choose and do what they want, they are also completely and absolutely responsible for any and all choices made.
The existentialists emphasize on freedom and freewill yet there is no one or two-sentence statement summarizing what more than a dozen famous and infamous people pondered on about it. The only common factor from among the numerous reflections about existentialism seems to be despair and alienation and the concept that however good you try to make out of life, there is still that great possibility that things will not go on as you have planned it to be. Reference List Karl, Frederick R and Leo Hamalian. (1963).
The Essay on Charles Ives Man His Life
Charles Ives Charles Ives is known in our day as the "Father of American Music," but in his day, he was known just like everyone else- an ordinary man living his life. He was born in Danbury, Connecticut on October 20, 1894 (Stanley 1) to his mother, Sarah Hotchkiss Wilcox Ives and father, George White Ives (A Life With Music, Swafford 4). His father was renowned for being the Union's youngest ...
The existential imagination. Greenwich, CONN: Fawcett Publications, Inc.
Kaufman, Walter. Ed. (1988).
Existentialism: from Dostoevsky to Sarte. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam..
