I often wondered what the problem of our nation is, usually blamed it on governments and other economics factors, but with more careful thought it’s something else all together. The unfortunate strata of society don’t have much of a choice but to exist in the prevailing situation without having much say. It’s the upper class of society that usually talks about concepts like “free will”. Does this mean that freewill exists only for those blessed with abundant financial resources?!! The same people that talk about free will also believe in destiny, but even these so called financially abundant and educated people live in this sphere of contradiction.
Free will is for those who like Sartre said are “condemned to be free” they will do what they want and go about life building own set of rules that in the end justify their ENDS. It is these people that inflict upon themselves the worst kind of pain, the pain of self degradation, self pity and what not. It’s a choice not a way of life… condemning yourself to be free means u begin to judge others on your own scale of right and wrong. Until you realize before it’s too late that your standards were too low to begin with. This freedom gives you an important choice of either being a part of the problem or a part of the solution… choice is yours... evaluate where you stand today and the truth will cause you heartache and shame. Essence precedes Existence….
My take on this well… to a certain level you are free, but when start believing in a higher being you believe in his WORD, and when you do so correctly, you fulfill your destiny. Your will combined with that of the Divine.
Free will for the better part of the existence of life hasn’t worked out that well; we have laws constitutions, police and armies which in reality are restricting free will. For existentialism, responsibility is the dark side of freedom. When individuals realize that they are completely responsible for their decisions, actions, and beliefs, they are overcome by anxiety. They try to escape from this anxiety by ignoring or denying their freedom and their responsibility. But because this amounts to ignoring or denying their actual situation, they succeed only in deceiving themselves. The existentialists criticize this flight from freedom and responsibility into self-deception. Free will is a relative term depending on your situation, salves wouldn’t be slaves if they had a choice, wars wouldn’t have taken place, and people wouldn’t have died if they had a choice…
1 comment:
Roydon,
I couldn't make sense of your Sartre citation "Freedom is existence and in its freedom..." except if I understood "its" to be a typo-- "IT" being correct.
You're right, about what this then means-- that we create our essence though our actions (or the choices we make).
But you then write that "Atheists use this to their advantage that man is born a clean slate while Religionist argue like Christians that man is born with original sin and Muslims that every is born a Muslim. Every one chooses their Essence by choosing their actions... "
Existence-preceding-essence seems to lend itself more easily to Atheistic morality (since it essentially makes God redundant), I've really never understood how some Christians (famously Kierkegaard) can identify themselves as Existentialists. Still less how a Muslim can wear that hat. But you seem to suggest that the Original Sin doctrine, or the belief that Muslims are born Muslim, can somehow be consistent with existence-before-essence. To me, the opposite is suggested.
However, you seem to be on sounder logical ground when you say, " I disagree I just believe that there is something that determines what we choose." The question, then, is, What is that something? Is a God or Religion necessitated? Or would biological imperative, genetic make-up, and, of course, circumstances, be adequate determinants?
Btw, I wasn't suggesting you prescribed to the "religion will set you free" contradiction; and thanks for clearing up your personal position re Essentialism.
But there seems to me to be a problem with "Religion will help you fulfill your God-prescribed destiny" too. The underlying assumption here is that there is a God, and, consequentially, a prescribed destiny. Empirical evidence, however, would suggest that such belief is largely, if not completely, determined by the accident of one's birth. So, by extension, is one's "God-prescribed" destiny.
The point doesn't refute Essentialism per se, but it does, I think show the arbitrary nature of its basis. OR at least of an essentialism based on religious conviction (as opposed to, say, biological imperative.)
I completely agree with your take on questioning the philosophers. I actually find that immensely refreshing. (Have you seen Before Sunset, btw?)
Post a Comment