You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 3 (753 words)
Jean Paul Sartre was one of the 20th century's great philosophers. Not only was he a powerful writer and personality, but he was the founder of one the great strains of thought in recent times: existentialism. In this bleak and sad philosophy, there is no God, nor is there any meaning to life…
That is existentialism in a nutshell. But does this philosophy make sense' Is it in any way a good way to live' This essay will make two arguments against existentialism and the ideas of Jean-Paul Sartre. First, if this is all there is why does so much science point to the opposite conclusion, and second, is the world really nauseously filled only with us and our perceptions, as Sartre argues in many of his works'
Is this all there is' Is the world we see around us all there is' No God, nothing more stronger or powerful than our own lives' We simply are born and die and there is no purpose to anything-this is what Jean-Paul Sartre believed despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. He essentially made up his philosophy in his own mind without looking to external evidence to solidify his own ideas. He even says this in Being and Nothingness, "Life has no meaning a priori ' It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose."1 This is also clear when he writes, "Nothingness haunts being."2 But these ideas do not take into account how much of the world is designed directly for us. A lot of the science around the alternative philosophy of anthrocentrism suggests that everything in our world is calibrated for us. If there was 1 % more oxygen in the air we probably wouldn't be alive. ...
Not exactly what you need?