Existentialism is Humanism by Satre

Explain Sartre’s belief that we are we are responsible for the creation of morality and for prescribing morality to everyone else. Give your own example that demonstrates this view in addition to Sartre’s own example of marriage.

Existence happens before essence, god is not real, and humans are the future of humans. People are in this world and when they are thrown into this world they exist but they are nothing and man is only what they make themselves to be through choices and actions. Sartre would seem to believe that in the belief that since there is no god then humans came from humans there is no heaven so humans are responsible purely for themselves. Since we as humans are responsible for ourselves everything is allowed in that we make ourselves to be exactly what we purpose ourselves to be. Also because of this we must make ourselves as humans a moral code to live by because again since there is no god we or even better I am responsible for creating a good moral code to live by that cannot only work for myself but also for others. So if we are as humans purely responsible for ourselves and for the morals we set then we must share them with other humans to create the moral code that can be lived by all because of god not being real we are not bound by the fake morality that survives in religion.

As I see what Sartre is saying for myself is currently right now I have purposed myself to become a nurse, in doing this I am beginning to create an image of myself later on because right now I am technically nothing but I won’t always be that way. As I am making choices I am solidifying who I am and who I am going to be. I may have hopes and dreams but if I do not purpose myself to making those things a reality then I will just be a failure and create anguish in myself. But if I do continue to take the course and pass the tests needed to become a certified nurse then I have created my reality and image that I as a human being am entirely responsible on my own. And in doing this I am creating an image for other men to see and do as I do.

Sartre’s own example of this is on marriage. By choosing to get married Sartre says he is choosing monogamy for himself but not only himself but for all of mankind. This is the way that all men should be living their lives. In fashioning himself he is fashioning man.

This all comes back to the thought of if there is no god then man is the only thing there is. Man is responsible for man and there is nothing else. Man as his existence came before the essence of a man happened. We exist and then we create our essence and we or in this case I create everything. In his beliefs humans are everything there ever will be. My personal opinion on this is it sounds great but at the same time there has to be a little bit more to life than this and although he has some pretty convincing points I do not totally agree with him. I would tend to believe that there is something more to the belief that there was a dietal artisan that had the essence before the existence of man.

Memento

Do you agree with Leonard’s statement that we all need mirrors to remind us who we are? In the movie the mirrors were his notes, the photographs, and tattoos. What has he become by relying upon them? What would you become without your own mirrors?

Leonard seems to have to have an uncommon trust yet mistrust for people in Memento because of his lack of memory. He has to take everyone he encounters at their word or the word of what he has written on a photograph, the tattoos on his body, or notes he has written on paper. Because of living his life this way he has no choice but to take whatever he has put down in writing as fact without the shadow of a doubt that what he has written as false. This has put him in a precarious position because it leaves him open to being completely gullible in any situation because even though it may not be the truth he takes it as fact. He is at the mercy of himself and creating his own truths instead of real truth he lives on made up facts that he himself creates. We find out in the last scene of the movie that he killed the man that raped his wife over a year before, his wife survived the accident but was killed by Leonard by insulin overdose, and because he can’t remember he keeps chasing fake John G people and killing them because according to his notes to himself they are the person who killed his wife.

In a way I tend to agree with Leonard that we do need things to remind us of who we are. I think over the mirrors though we do need our memories because they do make us who we are in my opinion. I do believe that it is a very real and scary thought that people probably do create their own truths despite what actually may have happened and possibly lead them to do something horrific like killing people. It reminds me of the movie 50 first dates where the girl cannot remember what happened the day before and the man creates a video to show her what her life has been so that she can remember. The same idea that he the husband is creating her truths for her and while it is a nice idea that she will wake up every morning watch the video and fall in love with her husband again on the spot just seems a little far fetched. For me I do not think I would be a very good person if I did not have my mirrors(memories) and I say this because they do have influence on who I am they have given me goals and dreams to pursue. Without them I feel as though I would wake up every morning and feel a extreme sense of loneliness in the world because I think I would forever feel like I would always be skeptic of those around me I would have no baseline each day to make sound decisions based off of my memories. But at the same time even people with memories and the mirrors still create false truths because maybe they don’t want to see the truth or the memory just like Leonard does or they don’t like the reality they live in, and I believe this comes from the fact that people are imperfect including myself.

The Storytelling Animal by MacIntyre

Choose a passage from the McIntyre reading that describes a particular aspect of persons as the subject of a narrative. Quote the passage, explain it, and tell a specific, personal, life experience that illustrates its significance with respect to identity (your identity).

McIntyre states in the selection “After Virtue” that “I am the subject of a history that is my own and no one else’s, that has its own peculiar meaning. When someone complains- as do some of those who attempt or commit suicide- that his or her life is meaningless, that he or she is often and perhaps characteristically that the narrative of their life has become unintelligible to them, that it lacks any point, any movement towards a climax or telos. Hence the point of doing any one thing rather than another at crucial junctures in their life seems to such a person to have been lost.”

The idea that we are storytelling animals in a basic sense of we associate ourselves with stories and also that we identify ourselves with our stories and stories of others that we can connect with makes sense. As with everything so far from what I have read of the philosophers ideas, I believe there is more to it than just associating my identity through the narrative story of my life. But the excerpt above from the passage as I read it rings true for me. As I read this part it brought me down a bit because it hit me close to the heart.

I think each day that I wake up and have another day to keep living there is some new chapter to write in my life, there is always something new to learn, something new to give to myself or some one, and some way that I can impact someone else’s life. When McIntyre talks of suicide and how at that point of making that decision, putting that final period on your life narrative rather than looking forward and seeing the stories still left to create and tell and the cause of that is the lack of seeing any point in the rest of your life I saw that in a coworker and friend who put the final period on their story long before they ever should have closed their eyes for the last time.

The coworker of mine during my stint in the military chose suicide because he couldn’t see the light at the end of the tunnel or as McIntyre would say the climax that would be getting out of the military. He believed his life would never get better that he was forever stuck in the pit of getting treated badly and being at the bottom of the military. Now while I know exactly how he felt as far as how bad people above you can treat you and how miserable life can be in the military I could never connect or find a reason as to how it could be so bad that you would want to end the narrative of his life. But as I read this specific part of the passage what McIntyre said it just seems to fit more than any other person trying to describe why someone would do this. The loss of the point to life, the feeling that there will never be any climax in your life, or the feeling that there will be other crucial junctures later on just connected the dots for me.

Just recently a friend of mine that I grew up with because our parents were best friends just chose to end her life. She was married with kids and a great husband and pretty much anything materially that a person could want in life. She left a note saying she believed everyone would be better without her here, and I believe she lost sight of the climax of her life that could be raising her kids or enjoying a life full of adventure with her husband.

For me how I see it is these two people in my life lost sight of their identity of the stories that they still had the ability to write. I see McIntyre as giving a reason that makes sense to me as to why people may do this. I have never been able and still am not completely able to connect with them on their decision because I still feel as though no matter what there is always a story worth telling and something down the road in life that I have to do a new story to take part in or connect with.

Of Personal Identity

Hume believes that the self is an illusion or a fiction. What is his argument? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not?

Perception is a main focus of Hume’s during this excerpt. He talks of a theory that other philosophers say that “we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self” and while this happens we are aware of its perfect identity and simplicity. Hume also says that pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other and are never experienced at the same time and since these are distinguishable and separate from each other have no need of a thing to support their existence. He says he can never find himself as he is while most intimately in himself to see anything other than perception which I think can also be experiences. And the only time he is removed from his perceptions is when he sleeps and he does not exist and further from that the only way possibly to not exist at all is by death. He believes that collectively the human race is a bundle of perceptions. Through these perceptions or experiences people are able to find their identity.

When people find their identity through experiences they are then shared with others which help people relate to each other through these shared perceptions. He also talks about how memories do not necessarily produce personal identity as they do help discover personal identity.

This idea that who we are as people is based off of perception is somewhat believable theory. People may say that perception is reality and then in that case to what I think Hume is trying to say would be completely true because as my mind perceives then that would have to be true. But in a way I can say that I do not necessarily agree because I have had many different perceptions of many different things and while they may influence to a certain extent of what I believe and what I do they do not necessarily make me who I am. To say that I am constricted only to my perceptions almost makes me feel as though I am selling myself short. I think where I would differ from Hume is that while I do believe perception/experiences influence decisions also thought separate from perception makes a difference in decision making. You are as much intimately conscious of yourself as you are with your perception and with yourself and your perceptions that makes you who you are.

Is there Art in War?

War is a despicable thing. As Sun Tzu states in The Art of War “The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.” and I couldn’t agree more with him. But sometimes war is a necessary tool in which to create a safer society or to extinguish a threat to innocent people around the world.

Now would I think that Tolstoy would consider war in itself to be an art in itself? No, I do not and I also do not think war in itself is art because of how Tolstoy deems art as the individuality of the feelings transmitted. But I do think the intricacies of war: the senior leaders, the commanders of battalions, and the small unit leaders and their passing of knowledge and wisdom with the ensuing destruction on a battlefield are art.

The activity of art as Tolstoy says is “receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man’s expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it” and I see this is evident through personal experience during my stint in the military. The leaders I had through training leading up to a combat deployment would describe prior experiences they had in battle and through these shared experiences with words and emotion used were able to give us invaluable lessons towards learning how to stay alive and also while staying alive help us learn to defeat the enemy. These men, the leaders my fellow brothers and I had used their words and emotion to make us better warriors and I cannot say any different but what they did was art. The art for me comes from the fact that what they imparted to us took root in our hearts it became real and we were experiencing what they had experienced.

The second aspect of war that I believe is art is the destruction on the battlefield. For me there is almost no greater raw emotion creator than bombs and bullets raining down on a field of battle. The reason I consider this to be art is, behind every bomb, missile or bullet being sent down range is a man or woman pulling a trigger. Someone on one side of each exchange is inspiring fear, awe, anger, sadness, terror, and bravery and the people on the other are sharing those same feelings. Although this is a very brutal and savage display of art I believe it is art none the less and no one involved in these confrontations leaves the encounter unscathed emotionally or physically in some way.

I see art as a flower blooming, a tree blossoming, a baby being born, a shared happy experience from another person who has found success in some aspect of their life and really anywhere that life can be seen flourishing in a happy healthy way. But on the opposite side I can see art as being destructive power held in the hands few to be wrought only in dire circumstances to keep an evil held at bay and that is why I believe that in war there is art.

What is art? Leo Tolstoy

Tolstoy uses the test of infectiousness, not only as a descriptive measure for what should count as art, but also as a standard for good art (#28-32). What does he mean by this standard? How does he suggest we apply this test to evaluate art? Is this a useful proposal for evaluating the quality of art? If you disagree with this proposal, how would you challenge it?

Art is a way of connecting people together, as Tolstoy states “The activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man’s expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it.” This quote I feel gives us a clear picture of the idea that Tolstoy is trying to express in his writing. The idea that art is a way of connecting people through written word, paintings, or talking. Then there is the impact that the art has on others whether it be strong or weak. The scale on which we can tell how strong or weak the art is depends on the sincerity of the person creating the art and then on top of that how well the person receiving the art is able to connect to the person portraying the art. So if the person creating the art is sincere and one or more people are able to connect to the art and feel what the author of the art is feeling then we can consider it to be very strong art. Now on the other hand Tolstoy also believes that there is counterfeit art, this being as Tolstoy states “if the work does not transmit the artist’s peculiarity of feeling and is therefore not individual, if it is unintelligibly expressed, or if ti has not proceeded from the author’s inner need for expression – it is not a work of art.”

I believe that Tolstoy’s depiction of what art is is pretty spot on. The thought that art is what connects people to others rings true for me. My thinking when I think on art is that whoever is creating it is sharing their thoughts and beliefs or the struggles they may be encountering at any point in their life. For example there is a mini series that was shown on HBO called Generation Kill about the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I believe that according to Tolstoy that this is art because it is clearly creating a picture of what Marines went through when they went to war and many people who either served in Iraq or Afghanistan in the last 12 years can clearly connect to what is being depicted in the show. Although the depictions include death, sadness, some perverseness, and the ugliness of war many people can connect to it because of the shared feelings they themselves encountered when serving overseas in the war. I believe art is common feelings shared and how the author of the art is connected the the perceiver of the art. So I do agree with how Tolstoy interprets what art is.

The Republic Book X By Plato

o Plato’s concept of “forms” or “ideas” is introduced beginning at paragraph 16. What is the difference between “beds in the world” and “the idea of a bed.” Where does “art” fit into his hierarchical scheme of reality?

o Plato criticizes art for being “deceptive.” How does art deceive us, according to Plato? Do you agree with this criticism?

Plato in his writing discusses how poets and artists are imitators, corrupt good and create images extremely far removed from the actual truth. Plato gives the example of the creator, the maker, and the imatator of a bed. God is the creator, he made the bed in nature and there is none other like it. Then there is the particular maker who makes a particular bed. While he is not the creator he is still making a bed and is only once removed from the truth which would be the creation of the bed. Then there is the imitator or the artist who may paint the bed. This imitator is 3 times removed from the creation of the bed, he paints a picture of the bed but does not actually have any knowledge on how to make a bed. He can paint the bed from many different angles but in reality the bed is the same in actual reality so it is only different in appearance and is giving false information on what the bed is.

In his writing Plato says “Then the imitator, I said, is a long way off the truth, and can do all things because he lightly touches on a small part of them, and that part an image. For example: A painter will paint a cobbler, carpenter, or any other artist, though he knows nothing of their arts; and, if he is a good artist, he may deceive children or simple persons, when he shows them his picture of a carpenter from a distance, and they will fancy that they are looking at a real carpenter.” Paintings are deception and false representations of what things really are. A master of an art knows much or all of the different parts of their trade. An engineer can draw schematics and then instruct people on how to properly build the bridge, a general long studied and tested by fire in battle can give direction to those under him on how to most successfully wage war. The painter and or the poet can write songs about war they can write beautifully put together words and paint pictures of a bridge or the glory of a battle but do they actually have the personal knowledge of becoming an expert in that field? No they do not. They as Plato says can fool the common man and child because they too lack knowledge in those fields and are only harming society. On this matter I agree with Plato because when you don’t know something and someone gives you information on it whether they actually know about it or not people tend to believe them. And so for that I would say that Plato is saying that those that play to the ignorance of others are wrong because you are only misleading those around you.

Plato also describes how the soul is immortal. And begins to discuss the just and unjust and things that make a person fall into these categories. He gives a story of a warrior named Er who dies and goes into the after life those that were just go to heaven and those that were unjust go into damnation. But past that he focuses on the just who get to pick a new life for themselves. They do this based on their life experience to pick a life that will be pleasing to them. The moral I believe Plato is trying to get across in this story is we as people are responsible for our just or unjust souls our decisions are our own and if they are based on not finding out information then it our own fault and in turn finding answers and gaining wisdom on things is the answer to leading a just life.

Immanuel Kant “The Categorial Imperative”

The Golden Rule says that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What is the difference between the Golden Rule and the categorical imperative? Explain.

Immanuel Kant states if an action is commanded as being good without qualification the imperative is categorial. These categorial imperatives are unchanging. Kant also says that you should act on a rule only if it can become a universal law. So what Kant is trying to express is that if you are hungry then you should eat because this is a law that can be adopted universally among all people. Kant also says “man and generally any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all his actions, whether they concern himself or other rational beings, must always regarded at the same time as  an end.” He says because man is rational they are of worth but anything that is non-rational are just things and are there to show effort of our actions. Humans themselves are ends in themselves because we are rational and should never be used as a means.

The idea of categorial imperatives is quite alluring as an idea. The fact that a person would base his or her decision on the fact that if another person were in the same situation as themselves they would make the same decision is great. The golden rule says do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but kant would say do only what others would do in the same situation as you and only if it can become universal law among others. So basically as the golden rule would say if someone stabs you in the back then feel free to stab them back. The golden rule is based on feelings and interpretation and can be misinterpreted quite easily. Whereas the categorial imperative has the direct approach of do only if it can become universal law despite feelings. This way of thinking I believe is a steadfast and very logical way to live ones life. But at the same time I don’t think it is possible because emotion that is in every person which in my thinking makes it almost impossible to follow the categorial imperative’s way of making decisions.

Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

o What is Mill’s principle of utility? What does he mean by “utility?”

o How does Mill explain the fact that some people choose lower pleasures over higher pleasures? Do you agree with his assessment?

John Stuart Mill portrays the idea that there are lower and higher pleasures in life. He also thinks that desiring something and thinking something is pleasant are the exact same thing. There is a difference between the sum of pleasures and seeking higher pleasures. In the excerpt from “Utilitarianism” Mills states “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” He goes on to explain that if the pig or fool disagree then its only because they only know their own side. Mill’s is trying to convey the point that if you have higher learning and aspirations and you keep those going then you will know more about the higher levels of pleasure, and you will continually pursue those pleasures because of your understanding of the world around you. Mills also says that people who only shoot for the low pleasures in life are only there because they don’t have the understanding of higher pleasures. So they started life pursuing higher pleasures but then lost sight of it for the need of sustenance and then once they stopped using their mind they slowly lose their way and then lower pleasures are the only thing that they are able to enjoy any longer.

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. And what I have gathered is that Mills definition of utility is that higher pleasures are based off of your virtue, and how you positively impact society on a large scale and individuals on a small scale.

I think Mills has some solid points in that it is better to be more intelligent than say a monkey, because then you have the intelligence and mental capacity to enjoy things that the monkey is just unable to. But at the same time I think life and pleasures can be enjoyed just as much from a simple viewpoint over that of an educated scholar who has dedicated his whole life to learning.

The Ethics of Belief

Do you see any fallacies in Clifford’s reasoning? Reconstruct one of his arguments in standard form. Then evaluate that argument for soundness and validity. What practical significance does Clifford’s thesis have?

I believe Clifford is using a slippery slope/false cause fallacy argument to try and get his point across.

1. It is always wrong to believe something without having complete knowledge on that subject.
2. Learn everything you can so you have power of knowledge and a sound belief.
3. But if you don’t then you are wronging and hurting society.
4. You are sinning against society and putting society back on the track to return to savagery.

I think Clifford’s argument has valid premises. It is good to seek as much knowledge as you can to make informed decisions. I do think he is right in the sense that when you have a great responsibility to not know all knowledge on a subject could greatly effect society. Like having a doctor that doesn’t know everything about heart surgery but then does a heart surgery and the person dies due to mistakes made during the surgery. I do think in this case the premises are valid because if the doctor had learned what he was supposed to then the person undergoing surgery might have survived.

But what I think makes Clifford’s conclusion unsound is that there are things that every human believes that they don’t have complete knowledge on that doesn’t hurt or demean society. A simple example of this in my opinion is I believe when I turn the  key in my car it will turn on. I do not know all the reasons why or what goes into the car turning on just that it will when I do. According to Clifford I should not be turning the car on to operate it because I do not have all the knowledge on how it works so I am sinning against society. While knowledge is extremely good for the betterment of society and the safekeeping of those around us, it is not necessary that we have complete knowledge on all things in order for society to sustain its sanity and continue to operate as Clifford would infer.