Jean-Paul Sartre? An informal essay on French Existentialism.
Looking back, I haven't been a very good existentialist. Or at least, I wasn't when I was claiming to be one, which is a flaw in itself. For an existentialist wouldn't really claim to be an existentialist, at least not one inspired by the French existentialists.
I don't claim to be an expert about things but I'm just sorting it out so that maybe this will make sense, for both people and the people I know who'd be interested in Existentialism. I'm not asking anyone to agree with this (not even myself). This is just meant to be expository.
Let's first start with: Existentialism isn't so much a school of thought as it is a movement, which is precisely what someone you might label and existentialist might want it to be. But that's me being facetious. The point is that Existentialism stresses a few things, particularly according to Jean-Paul Sartre. While many schools of thought stress what makes a person a person/human (otherwise known as a person's essence), Existentialism places the importance of existence over essence. In this sense, the question of "What am I?" to an existentialist is absurd and incapable of answering. That is, to answer to "what" you are, you objectify yourself and destroy your ability to choose for you have chosen to become an object, never changing. Thus, you are not human. What one can claim is only that one is. You claim that you exist.
In Existentialism, people are "projects" in that from the moment a person is born, we are developing. It is like the cliche about labels being hindering. Well, for existentialists, that is true. If you take on a label, you solidify yourself and destroy your humanity because you become incapable of anything but being that label.
Another strong point in Existentialism is the "Condemnation of Choice." In this, humans have only one thing that they cannot avoid or give up; humans have to choose. Humanity is condemned to be free. And therefore, people are ultimately completely responsible for all of their decisions and choices, even the choice to not choose for oneself. Morality thus is formed by each person and is personal to each person. Another point is that there is no concept of fate (except that it is false) or determinism in Existentialism. And therefore, a person can not know the outcome of his or her actions. So a person must take responsibility for the outcomes of his or her actions. In a way, too, humanity is thus responsible for the actions of all humanity and makes us all responsible to one another.
In this way (because or for this), Jean-Paul Sartre states that God needs to be "dead" or erased, as "God" is too often used as the excuse for people who do not either understand or do not wish to accept the outcome of his or her actions. There are no longer absolutes or "given human traits" that can be stated as humanity's essence. Sartre said it best when he stated that people are alone, without excuses. This tremendous responsibility thus creates such anxiety that people try to escape it through creating false excuses (to Sartre: such as "God").
I think Existentialism is unfairly called atheistic, wherein there is also Christian Existentialists (such as Soren Kierkegaard) and even Jewish Existentialists (such as Martin Buber). French Existentialism composes a part of the "ungodly" Existentialism which criticizes and critiques the common notion of the nature of God. In this sense, not all people who fall into this category are necessarily atheistic nor are they all believers in a "higher power." Oftentimes, existentialists are brushed off for being considered atheistic without being considered for their philosophy.
In Existentialism, if you know nothing, know this . . . a person is simply the product of all of his or her actions. You are what you make of yourself and you solely are responsible for that. You cannot blame the divine or others for what you make yourself. You chose the situation you are now in, no matter what. You may say that XXX (economics, politics, etc.) has caused you to be this way but you may choose otherwise. You choose unhappiness. You choose to not know about your friends. You choose not to care, etc. If you say you are poor, you have chosen to be poor. However, you may choose to do something else than to be poverty-stricken. Then you can move beyond that, through whatever steps and however long it must take. You are thus responsible for your situation and can no longer blame it on anyone else.
I'll conclude with this: "The preceding merely defines a way of thinking. But the point is to live" (Albert Camus, An Absurd Reasoning). Such is Existentialism.
I don't claim to be an expert about things but I'm just sorting it out so that maybe this will make sense, for both people and the people I know who'd be interested in Existentialism. I'm not asking anyone to agree with this (not even myself). This is just meant to be expository.
Let's first start with: Existentialism isn't so much a school of thought as it is a movement, which is precisely what someone you might label and existentialist might want it to be. But that's me being facetious. The point is that Existentialism stresses a few things, particularly according to Jean-Paul Sartre. While many schools of thought stress what makes a person a person/human (otherwise known as a person's essence), Existentialism places the importance of existence over essence. In this sense, the question of "What am I?" to an existentialist is absurd and incapable of answering. That is, to answer to "what" you are, you objectify yourself and destroy your ability to choose for you have chosen to become an object, never changing. Thus, you are not human. What one can claim is only that one is. You claim that you exist.
In Existentialism, people are "projects" in that from the moment a person is born, we are developing. It is like the cliche about labels being hindering. Well, for existentialists, that is true. If you take on a label, you solidify yourself and destroy your humanity because you become incapable of anything but being that label.
Another strong point in Existentialism is the "Condemnation of Choice." In this, humans have only one thing that they cannot avoid or give up; humans have to choose. Humanity is condemned to be free. And therefore, people are ultimately completely responsible for all of their decisions and choices, even the choice to not choose for oneself. Morality thus is formed by each person and is personal to each person. Another point is that there is no concept of fate (except that it is false) or determinism in Existentialism. And therefore, a person can not know the outcome of his or her actions. So a person must take responsibility for the outcomes of his or her actions. In a way, too, humanity is thus responsible for the actions of all humanity and makes us all responsible to one another.
In this way (because or for this), Jean-Paul Sartre states that God needs to be "dead" or erased, as "God" is too often used as the excuse for people who do not either understand or do not wish to accept the outcome of his or her actions. There are no longer absolutes or "given human traits" that can be stated as humanity's essence. Sartre said it best when he stated that people are alone, without excuses. This tremendous responsibility thus creates such anxiety that people try to escape it through creating false excuses (to Sartre: such as "God").
I think Existentialism is unfairly called atheistic, wherein there is also Christian Existentialists (such as Soren Kierkegaard) and even Jewish Existentialists (such as Martin Buber). French Existentialism composes a part of the "ungodly" Existentialism which criticizes and critiques the common notion of the nature of God. In this sense, not all people who fall into this category are necessarily atheistic nor are they all believers in a "higher power." Oftentimes, existentialists are brushed off for being considered atheistic without being considered for their philosophy.
In Existentialism, if you know nothing, know this . . . a person is simply the product of all of his or her actions. You are what you make of yourself and you solely are responsible for that. You cannot blame the divine or others for what you make yourself. You chose the situation you are now in, no matter what. You may say that XXX (economics, politics, etc.) has caused you to be this way but you may choose otherwise. You choose unhappiness. You choose to not know about your friends. You choose not to care, etc. If you say you are poor, you have chosen to be poor. However, you may choose to do something else than to be poverty-stricken. Then you can move beyond that, through whatever steps and however long it must take. You are thus responsible for your situation and can no longer blame it on anyone else.
I'll conclude with this: "The preceding merely defines a way of thinking. But the point is to live" (Albert Camus, An Absurd Reasoning). Such is Existentialism.