Existentialism is a motion that focuses on the significance of human characteristics and its primary effects in our life and in our society. Since we ever interact in the society. this motion had explained certain societal phenomena that are left unexplained by other sociological and psychological theory. Since we deal with the witting heads of the people around us. such a theory would explicate why some people chose to make certain things that we think should non. This motion values the importance of existent and bing instead than the construct and abstract.
Jean Paul Sarte is one of the innovator philosophers who introduced this sort of theory. He is one of the best existential philosopher philosopher and besides a author who wrote novels and autobiography of some outstanding people. His experiences in his childhood and early young person had given him experiences for him to be able to make the point of detecting the importance of existential philosophy. One of his claims is that if a individual chooses to execute some action. so that individual affirms that the action is good.
He believed that we consciously choose the manner we act and our counter reactions in everything that we experience in our day-to-day lives. He believed that because we choose to make that action. hence. we accept the effects of it. believing that this is the good for us. Since being good is comparative. hence. it answers the inquiries and uncertainties about the legality of such construct. He claimed that in every action that we did. we choose what we think is the best for us and the best for all.
We do non take the immorality or something that will ensue in a monolithic negative consequence in our society because of our capableness to believe rationally. He argued that we do non hold the capableness of taking an absolute immorality. Because we are cognizant of the possible effects of every actions that we do. we consciously weigh the possible results of every actions that we are making for us to be able to hold the best reaction towards a certain state of affairs. Then. if we assume that every thing that we are making is good. and we believe it is good. hence. no 1 is making the “wrong” thing.
As Sartre is seeking to indicate out. “goodness” is comparative across different thoughts and beliefs and constructs of it. And he extended an account to turn to these sorts of statements that tackles the ground why there are people who we think that what they are making is right while some will state that evidently. it is non. This will take us to his following premise that it is psychologically straitening to confirm the value of an action which can non be universalized. This will reply the inquiry of the effects of our footing in making things that we think are good and for the better of all the concerned party.
He added that it should be universalized. or in other words. should be applicable to different people in a society holding different point of positions in their life. If such action that we affirm that is something good and for the improvement of our community. hence. this action will take to societal disfunction and some functional jobs of our society. So hence. he is seeking to indicate out that our action should be applicable to different people for it to hold a higher value in the society.
Or else. if such action have different intensions to different people. it will merely bring forth hurt to the heads of the people believing that what they are making is something worthwhile non merely for them but besides for the society they belong. In universalising certain actions. we should take into consideration his claims about the being of different beliefs wherein many of the people are seeking to associate themselves in the manner that their society identifies them. This would give us the thought of holding different significances attached to certain actions that most of the people take for granted that it is the best thing that they should make.
But for us to achieve this degree of account in certain actions that they are making. we should measure the possible result of it or the realistic consequence and effects that was due to the imbalanced credence of different people to different actions and functions that we are portraying. If we will take his two claims about the degree of goodness of an action and its catholicity. hence. it proves his 3rd claim that to take an action that can non be universalized is an mistake. and there is a ground non to take such an action.
Since we are presuming that what we are making is the good for us and for the society we have. we must take into consideration in taking the action that we are supposed to make the credence of different people and different subculture of the society. We are cognizant that we have different significances attached to certain actions that we are making and at the same clip. these significances vary depend upon the cultural account that they are offering.
This cultural diverseness that we have in consequence will consolidate a certain sets of norms that were accepted by every organic structure or the bulk of the community and trade name those actions that lie behind the recognized cultural norms as immoral. One of the major effects of this claim is that whenever that we are making something for our ego that we claim that this action is the good for us and somehow will profit the people around you. but the society thinks that your action is good outside the boundary of recognized cultural beliefs. so you will be classified as an immoral being that failed to conform to the stiff regulations of the society.
This is one of the thresholds of the claims of Sartre. Because of his belief that what we do is something that we think is the best for us and the value of the action should conform to the norms of different parts of the society for it to be universalized. hence. if we failed in making the action that will be accepted by bulk of the people so this is an mistake in our portion because we failed to acknowledge the importance and the effects of the actions that we did. This in fact is a manifestation of our wanting of making the best things that we think is fitted in the state of affairs that we are in.
If of all time that we failed to acknowledge and to take the action that will be universalized and alternatively. we did the things that will do hurt to some people. he besides claimed that there is ever a valid ground in taking that sort of behaviour. We did a behaviour that was consciously chosen by us to portray the good side of the action that we did. But we can non take the fact that because of the societal factors that affect the symbols and significances of certain things that we did. in consequence. it will take to making things harmonizing to our ain prejudices and cultural cognition that is most likely. our ain definition of goodness.
And aside from that. we can non take the fact that we choose things harmonizing to what is good to us and harmonizing to our penchants. therefore. some actions that we did look to be outside the restrictions set by the other people. Facticity and Transcendence: Bad Faith One of the constructs that he believed is holding a two dimension of human existences. Since the For-Itself focal points on the experiences that we had and is consciously cognizant to what is go oning in the environment. it is divided into two parts that have different maps and significance to the part to our reaction formation in certain fortunes that we are involved in.
The first is the facticity. This gives importance to the past scenarios of every state of affairs and the present or the existent scenario itself. It has a witting definition of the things that was happened in the yesteryear every bit good as the physical features of the environment he is in. On the other manus. the transcendency is the ability to research the hereafter and to make up one’s mind on doing picks that will impact the possible result of our actions.
This includes the negating of the existent scenario for us to be able to hold the capacity to believe the worst possible scenario and hence. giving us a broader position in the state of affairss that we are all in. Besides. in contrast with the facticity which chiefly based the determination on the existent facts. the transcendency takes into consideration the things that are non really go oning or the state of affairss that are non-existent. He tackled about the three individuals who failed to set up the connexion between the facticity of their For-Itself and its transcendency.
In consequence. they experience different sort of effects that is somehow dysfunctional in the manner that it should go on. This is what he called bad religion. The first 1 is the adult female on a day of the month. She had defined her factical and transcendency province but he failed to put the connexion between them. She moved back and Forth in its construction and hence defined different actions that had no relation with each other. In consequence. her consciousness as being a beautiful object had hindered her to show and to give a recognition to the existent feeling that her day of the month had for her.
She thought that her organic structure is merely a mere object of attractive force but finally. shifted to different focal point like her hereafter programs in life. This unstable state of affairs of her being resulted to confusion of the significance of the reactions and the state of affairs itself. The 2nd 1 is the server. In contrast to the adult female on a day of the month. the server wholly failed to set up his transcendency and focused on the existent scenario. He defined himself as a delimited animal and has limited chances and capablenesss. But in world. his failure of set uping this portion of his being had affected the manner he understood the flow of life of the society.
Because he already assumed that his current state of affairs is fixed. he had suppressed his freedom to research many things in life that in world. he has the capableness to make so. The last 1 he mentioned is the homosexual. This is the contrast of the server. where he failed t recognized his facticity. In consequence. he sensationalized his transcendency being and thought the whole existent scenario as non-existence or being a false occurrence. He does non accept the facts that he had several relationship and brushs with the same sex. This facts had modified his ain perceptual experience on what he is making and in consequence. had produced a feeling of guilt.
This feeling of guilt had resulted to the manifestation of his tolerance to his existent behaviors and gave grounds to him to go on his behaviour. But in world. his clam that he is non gay while his witting head knew that he is a homosexual. therefore is a mark of holding a bad religion because of his false cognition. Bad religion is someway the manifestation of our failure to put up the unstable connexion of the two. as discussed on the different state of affairs of three different people. failure to make so will ensue to functional disfunction and will be a great societal phenomena. Existentialism: Heidegger’s Perspective
On the other manus. another philosopher from Germany. Martin Heidegger. had introduced some theories about existential philosophy. He has a close affinity to the church and hence based most of his plants in metaphysical facets. One of his major constructs is how the secular characters defined itself within the universe. His construction of social activities is composed of many assignments and mentions that if splited. will specify the ready-to-hand objects in contrast with presence-at-hand objects. Presence-to-hand involved chiefly detecting the natural phenomenon and establishing everything to known facts.
But. against the common impression of its equality. it has different tempers that affect the presence of an object and chiefly trade with the metaphysical facets that tend to convey all the degree down. For illustration. we had a chair. When the chair is broken. it exists as presence-to-hand and needs the immediate action like fix or replace. The importance of the object is seen non because of its mere being but its practical usage for our benefit. By the clip that this chair is fixed. it will all of a sudden turn into ready-to-hand object.
Ready-to-hand construct chiefly deals with the things without sing its theoretical importance. Ready-to-hand literally is the things that are present as of the minute and is available for practical intents. This happens when we have witting thoughts on what is traveling on in our environment and society. Therefore. this ready-to-hand experience gives us a top position of the physical things that we are seeing today. We value greatly non its metaphysical value but its practicality for us. Connecting the two constructs of being. based on Heidegger. ready-to-hand is a more aboriginal manner of life.
It does non intend that being aboriginal is crude or ancient manner. What he meant is this is the basic foundation of our perceptual experience of different entities that we had an interaction. These entities are chiefly affected by the inquiry of which is the ready-to-hand and presence-at-hand entity. Therefore. in happening covering with our mundane experience of the two. the ready-to-hand serves as the first deduction of the things that we see in our common yearss. We do things non because of its theoretical backgrounds but because we have to utilize such thing without believing deeper.
In add-on. the ready-to-hand lead us to a broader apprehension of our being. because we understood it non merely by theoretical premise but through our experiences. hence giving the impression that we can to the full understand the kernel of being through what is mundane or common experience for everyone and what is near to their wonts and behaviours. ( Guignon & A ; Pereboom. 2001 ) Existentialism gives primary importance to the being of human kernel and existences. Therefore. a critical analysis of our ain existences is needed for us to be able to give account to the grounds of our ain behaviours. attitude and manner of life.