Existentialism: Sartre’s Views Essay

Existentialism is a movement that focuses on the significance of human features and its primary effects in our life and in our society. Since we always interact in the society, this movement had explained certain social phenomena that are left unexplained by other sociological and psychological theory. Since we deal with the conscious minds of the people around us, such a theory would explain why some people chose to do certain things that we think should not. This movement values the importance of real and existing rather than the concept and abstract. Jean Paul Sarte is one of the pioneer philosophers who introduced this kind of theory. He is one of the best existentialist philosopher and also a writer who wrote novels and autobiography of some prominent people. His experiences in his childhood and early youth had given him experiences for him to be able to reach the point of discovering the importance of existentialism. One of his claims is that if a person chooses to perform some action, then that person affirms that the action is good. He believed that we consciously choose the way we act and our counter reactions in everything that we experience in our daily lives. He believed that because we choose to do that action, therefore, we accept the consequences of it, believing that this is the good for us. Since being good is relative, therefore, it answers the questions and doubts about the legality of such concept. 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 not choose the evil or something that will result in a massive negative effect in our society because of our capability to think rationally. He argued that we do not have the capability of choosing an absolute evil. Because we are aware of the possible consequences of every actions that we do, we consciously weigh the possible outcomes of every actions that we are doing for us to be able to have the best reaction towards a certain situation. Then, if we assume that every thing that we are doing is good, and we believe it is good, therefore, no one is doing the â€Å"wrong† thing. As Sartre is trying to point out, â€Å"goodness† is relative across different ideas and beliefs and concepts of it. And he extended an explanation to address these kinds of arguments that tackles the reason why there are people who we think that what they are doing is right while some will say that obviously, it is not. This will lead us to his next assumption that it is psychologically distressing to affirm the value of an action which cannot be universalized. This will answer the question of the effects of our basis in doing 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 having different point of views in their life. If such action that we affirm that is something good and for the betterment of our community, therefore, this action will lead to social dysfunction and some functional problems of our society. So therefore, he is trying to point out that our action should be applicable to different people for it to have a higher value in the society. Or else, if such action have different connotations to different people, it will only produce distress to the minds of the people thinking that what they are doing is something worthwhile not only for them but also for the society they belong. In universalizing certain actions, we should take into consideration his claims about the existence of different beliefs wherein many of the people are trying to relate themselves in the way that their society identifies them. This would give us the idea of having different meanings attached to certain actions that most of the people take for granted that it is the best thing that they should do. But for us to attain this level of explanation in certain actions that they are doing, we should assess the possible outcome of it or the realistic result and consequences that was due to the unbalanced acceptance of different people to different actions and roles that we are portraying. If we will take his two claims about the level of goodness of an action and its universality, therefore, it proves his third claim that to choose an action that can not be universalized is an error, and there is a reason not to choose such an action. Since we are assuming that what we are doing is the good for us and for the society we have, we must take into consideration in choosing the action that we are supposed to do the acceptance of different people and different subculture of the society. We are aware that we have different meanings attached to certain actions that we are doing and at the same time, these meanings vary depend upon the cultural explanation that they are offering. This cultural diversity that we have in effect will consolidate a certain sets of norms that were accepted by every body or the majority of the community and brand those actions that lie behind the accepted cultural norms as immoral. One of the major effects of this claim is that whenever that we are doing something for our self that we claim that this action is the good for us and somehow will benefit the people around you, but the society thinks that your action is well outside the boundary of accepted cultural beliefs, then you will be classified as an immoral being that failed to conform to the rigid rules 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, therefore, if we failed in doing the action that will be accepted by majority of the people then this is an error in our part because we failed to recognize the importance and the consequences of the actions that we did. This in fact is a manifestation of our wanting of doing the best things that we think is fitted in the situation that we are in. If ever that we failed to recognize and to choose the action that will be universalized and instead, we did the things that will cause distress to some people, he also claimed that there is always a valid reason in choosing that kind of behavior. We did a behavior that was consciously chosen by us to portray the good side of the action that we did. But we can not remove the fact that because of the social factors that affect the symbols and meanings of certain things that we did, in result, it will lead to doing things according to our own biases and cultural knowledge that is most probably, our own definition of goodness. And aside from that, we can not remove the fact that we choose things according to what is beneficial to us and according to our preferences, thus, some actions that we did seem to be outside the limitations set by the other people. Facticity and Transcendence: Bad Faith One of the concepts that he believed is having a two dimension of human beings. Since the For-Itself focuses on the experiences that we had and is consciously aware to what is happening in the environment, it is divided into two parts that have different functions and significance to the contribution to our reaction formation in certain circumstances that we are involved in. The first is the facticity. This gives importance to the past scenarios of every situation and the present or the actual scenario itself. It has a conscious definition of the things that was happened in the past as well as the physical characteristics of the environment he is in. On the other hand, the transcendence is the ability to explore the future and to decide on making choices that will affect the possible outcome of our actions. This includes the negating of the actual scenario for us to be able to have the capacity to think the worst possible scenario and therefore, giving us a broader perspective in the situations that we are all in. Also, in contrast with the facticity which primarily based the decision on the actual facts, the transcendence takes into consideration the things that are not actually happening or the situations that are non-existent. He tackled about the three persons who failed to establish the connection between the facticity of their For-Itself and its transcendence. In effect, they experience different kind of consequences that is somehow dysfunctional in the way that it should happen. This is what he called bad faith. The first one is the woman on a date. She had defined her factical and transcendence state but he failed to set the connection between them. She moved back and forth in its structure and therefore defined different actions that had no relation with each other. In effect, her consciousness as being a beautiful object had hindered her to express and to give a credit to the actual feeling that her date had for her. She thought that her body is just a mere object of attraction but eventually, shifted to different focus like her future plans in life. This unstable situation of her being resulted to confusion of the meaning of the reactions and the situation itself. The second one is the waiter. In contrast to the woman on a date, the waiter totally failed to establish his transcendence and focused on the actual scenario. He defined himself as a bounded creature and has limited opportunities and capabilities. But in reality, his failure of establishing this part of his being had affected the way he understood the flow of life of the society. Because he already assumed that his current situation is fixed, he had suppressed his freedom to explore many things in life that in reality, he has the capability to do so. The last one he mentioned is the homosexual. This is the contrast of the waiter, where he failed t recognized his facticity. In result, he sensationalized his transcendence being and thought the whole actual scenario as non-existence or being a false happening. He does not accept the facts that he had several relationship and encounters with the same sex. This facts had modified his own perception on what he is doing and in effect, had produced a feeling of guilt. This feeling of guilt had resulted to the manifestation of his tolerance to his actual doings and gave reasons to him to continue his behavior. But in reality, his clam that he is not gay while his conscious mind knew that he is a gay, therefore is a sign of having a bad faith because of his false knowledge. Bad faith is somehow the manifestation of our failure to set up the fluid connection of the two, as discussed on the different situation of three different people, failure to do so will result to functional dysfunction and will be a great social phenomena. Existentialism: Heidegger’s Perspective On the other hand, another philosopher from Germany, Martin Heidegger, had introduced some theories about existentialism. He has a close affinity to the church and therefore based most of his works in metaphysical aspects. One of his major concepts is how the worldly characters defined itself within the world. His structure of societal activities is composed of many assignments and references that if splited, will define the ready-to-hand objects in contrast with presence-at-hand objects. Presence-to-hand involved mainly observing the natural phenomenon and basing everything to known facts. But, against the common notion of its equality, it has different moods that affect the presence of an object and mainly deal with the metaphysical aspects that tend to bring all the level down. For example, we had a chair. When the chair is broken, it exists as presence-to-hand and needs the immediate action like repair or replace. The importance of the object is seen not because of its mere existence but its practical use for our benefit. By the time that this chair is fixed, it will suddenly turn into ready-to-hand object. Ready-to-hand concept primarily deals with the things without considering its theoretical importance. Ready-to-hand literally is the things that are present as of the moment and is available for practical purposes. This happens when we have conscious ideas on what is going on in our environment and society. Therefore, this ready-to-hand experience gives us a top view of the physical things that we are seeing today. We value greatly not its metaphysical value but its practicality for us. Connecting the two concepts of being, based on Heidegger, ready-to-hand is a more primordial way of life. It does not mean that being primordial is primitive or ancient way. What he meant is this is the basic foundation of our perception of different entities that we had an interaction. These entities are primarily affected by the question of which is the ready-to-hand and presence-at-hand entity. Therefore, in finding dealing with our everyday experience of the two, the ready-to-hand serves as the first implication of the things that we see in our common days. We do things not because of its theoretical backgrounds but because we have to use such thing without thinking deeper. In addition, the ready-to-hand lead us to a broader understanding of our being, because we understood it not just by theoretical assumption but through our experiences, therefore giving the notion that we can fully understand the essence of being through what is everyday or common experience for everyone and what is close to their habits and behaviors. (Guignon & Pereboom, 2001) Existentialism gives primary importance to the existence of human essence and beings. Therefore, a critical analysis of our own beings is needed for us to be able to give explanation to the reasons of our own behaviors, attitude and way of life.