The existentialist that I agree with the most is John-Paul Sartre. The main thing that agree with is the absurdity of World War Two. Also from what I have learned is that it is impossible to achieve systematic philosophy. I also agree with the idea that we exist first and then "create our essential being." This makes sense because when you are born you do not automatically create our essential being. I agree with John-Paul Sartre the most out of the existentialist philosophers we learned.
I agree with John Paul Sartre' statement "existence precedes essence" because humans need to create purpose. We seek knowledge and a big question about creation is how or why something was made. People who don't seek these answer can't live to their full potential because they are just going through the motions. The second step to this is making your own choices and being accountable for your actions, yet again this doesn't happen if you listen to what your told and follow the motions. Examples of Sartre' existentialism would be subjects such as science and religion. The Big Bang theory and the existence of god are two theories that attempt to explain the creation of life.
The philosopher that I agree with most is Nietzsche. Religion does seem to hold us back from assuming full responsibility for their decisions. We aren't free if we have to live by a set of rules that tell us who we should be. If these rules are set in place by a "God" or "gods," than we are forced to believe whatever we are told and cannot think freely. We will not be able to decide what is good and evil because it has already been decided for us. Therefore we may be doing "good" but the "good" may actually be "bad," it's a matter of perspective.
The existentialist that I would mostly agree with is John-Paul Sartre. Because he makes the point of every human needs a rational basis for their lives. It is definitely important to have purpose in your life. Because if you don't, you would be living without truth either. And that would be a problem with him and with me. He also makes the point that we must create "our essential being". Then you can also learn more about yourself.
The philosopher I most agree with is John-Paul Sartre. I find a lot of truth in his conclusions. His theory on humanity looking for rationality in a certain systematic approach to all situations is one of his best works. He follows it up with another great point, calling this approach impossible. Human life is a "futile passion". By not fully embracing ourselves, we subject ourselves to existential dread. Sartre has a very interesting and an almost morbid approach to philosophy. Which is why I find the most truth in it and agree with it the most.
The existentialist I agree with most is John-Paul Sarte, because of his beliefs on reality. He sees the world as two parts to it, the existence and the essence of it. I strongly agree with his idea that existence comes before essence, in the realm of being. One can have a life and carry on throughout it with whatever they do, and just being alive, that's existing. Bringing essence into life is what matters, by establishing meaning and anpurposenwith aspirations to define yourself by. Although I still believe there is some sort of pre destination with the ideas of destiny, but the Essence of it is a powerful factor in one's own hands.
I agree with Nietzsche the most because of his views on religion and the effect that it has on our society. Although religion allows people to have hope in things that they may believe that they cannot control, religion does also create a barrier between people and being responsible for all of their actions. Since we rely on the rules set by our religion, we are not necessarily free because we always have someone else what to do and they would take the responsibility of those things. Religion tells us that we must believe anything that our "god" tells us and we must do what that god says. We cannot tell the difference between good and evil because we are blindly following the rules of our religion.
In studying these philosophers, the most truthful in existentialism in my point of view is Nietzsche. This being because Nietzsche speaks the truth that many at the time were afraid to point out. Religion can be good, however each individual is not meant for following a certain religion. Religion holds back people in a sense because it does not leave room for self-conclusions, and thought. Instead it tells people what they should and should not do. A person needs to be able to think for themselves, and be their best person, rather than everyone living to the same set of rules.
I agree with Nietzsche in that the world is basically split into two parts. There are those who lead and those who follow. I also agree that religion is intact solely to give people hope for a better future. There is most likely no actual result of religion but it is important in keeping moral up for those with little to look forward to. Our goal in life should be to become the best possible people we can be and morality only manipulates us into thinking this push to success as wrong.
The main focus of Existentialism is to empower oneself, to better understand oneself, and to be true to oneself. While I feel this way of thinking is very good and can help many people live a good life; the problems come from the way the philosophers say the only way to live this life is to have nothing but original ideas. Soren Kierkeguard says that the only way to live a life true to oneself is by looking inward and not allowing oneself to follow others. Friedrich Nietzsche desires everyone to claim full responsibility for actions in the hopes he or she can become a ubermensch, ultimate being. John- Paul Sartro focused on finding meaning of existences only through assuming responsibility. The common theme within all these is focusing on the self, claiming responsibility for actions, and not doing what others have done. However, many people in this world never have done any of these things nor will ever. To an Existentialist, these people would not be true to themselves. However, by saying that one could cause a person to start following the philosophy of an Existentialist. Which once again in the eyes of an Existentialist would not be living up to truest self. Therefore, the truest self would be the one oneself carves out for themselves, whether that be taking an Existentialist approach, being a follower of others, or a mix of both.
I agree with the idea that we exist first and then "create our essential being." I also agree that religion is intact solely to give people hope for a better future.It is good to note that each indivudual is not meant or suited for a random religion, the relgion itself is that of the individuals certainty. It tells a person what they should and should not do. Religion is the foundation of the individuals consciousness. There is such a thing as a good an evil act, because are religion forms those believes. It is what our god or whomever we worship tells us what is right and what is wrong. Our religion forms of what we are and who we are to become based on the principles that is given to us.
I agree with Nietzsche because of his idea on how the world works. Nietzsche believes that in the world, there are two types of people. There are followers and leaders. For example, these followers could be considered "slaves" and the leaders "masters." Another aspect I agree with is the important of religion. Religion gives humans hope in their life for a better future, a better job, and a greater amount of success. Humans should strive to be the best that they can be and not settle to be what they "think" they can achieve due to laziness or the examples and influences of others around them
The philosopher I agree with the most is Nietzsche. I agree with him the most because he states that if we are told to do specific things then we are not people. He also stated that our decisions are ours and not based on religions. He also made the point of even though we might think what we do is fine it can turn out to be a whole different problem.
The exisistentialist I agree with the most is Nietzsche. The way he broke up the world into two categories makes a lot of sense. The one aspect I don't agree with is his use of religion. He says that religion is essential to living life and being the best we can be. However, I find that if someone is just motivated to be better, there is no religion needed.
The existentialist I agree with the most is Nietzsche. Nietzsche looks at people in society as a part of one of two groups. One group is essentially the leaders and the others are the followers. These leaders can be translated into what are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies or any other type of billionaire. These are the men who essentially run the country. Then there are the people who Nietzsche calls the slaves of society. These are virtually lower and middle class citizens. They are controlled by the leaders or the rich. They are told what to do and are employed by that upper class. This is exactly how society still is today.
I agree, Nietzsche in that the world is basically split into two parts. There are those who lead and those who follow. I also agree that religion is intact solely to give people hope for a better future. People in this world never have done any of these things nor will ever. To an Existentialist, these people would not be true to themselves. However, by saying that one could cause a person to start following the philosophy of an Existentialist. Which once again in the eyes of an Existentialist would not be living up to truest self.
I find myself to agree with Nietzsche more. I seem to have bias because I have never been into religion, but I believe it to be created to ease the minds of the confused. I believe that now in today's society it is being used to conceal people and their thought process . Religion should be used to unite people but I think it can hold us back as a society because it is not allowing us to evolve, and in some ways it is appealing to the human nature of division and belonging to a team.Also the world does exist in two groups, it is easy to observe, we even give labels to the groups, like white collar, blue collar, rich and poor.
I find myself to agree with Nietzsche more. I seem to have bias because I have never been into religion, but I believe it to be created to ease the minds of the confused. I believe that now in today's society it is being used to conceal people and their thought process . Religion should be used to unite people but I think it can hold us back as a society because it is not allowing us to evolve, and in some ways it is appealing to the human nature of division and belonging to a team.Also the world does exist in two groups, it is easy to observe, we even give labels to the groups, like white collar, blue collar, rich and poor.
I most agree with Nietzsche's existentialist ideas, because he offers the ideas that the things we do are done under our own knowledge and power. Our thoughts and opinions should be our own and we should be able to make a decision based on how we want to live and act.
I concur with Nietzsche in that the world is based upon two different groups of sociality. There are the richer employers and the poorer workers. There are the individuals who lead and the individuals who take after. I also concur that religion is in place exclusively to give individuals trust in a superior future. Nietzsche breaks down his ideas of the mind very well and presents them with logic and reason.
I agree with the philosopher Nietzsche the most. Religion seems to hold us back from taking full responsibility for our decisions. We aren't free if we have to live by a set of rules that tell us who we should be. If these rules are set in place by a "God" or "gods," than we are forced to believe whatever we are told and cannot think freely. We will not be able to decide what is good and evil because it has already been decided for us. Therefore we may be doing "good" but the "good" may actually be "bad," it's a matter of perspective.
The existentialist that I agree with the most is John-Paul Sartre. The main thing that agree with is the absurdity of World War Two. Also from what I have learned is that it is impossible to achieve systematic philosophy. I also agree with the idea that we exist first and then "create our essential being." This makes sense because when you are born you do not automatically create our essential being. I agree with John-Paul Sartre the most out of the existentialist philosophers we learned.
ReplyDeleteI agree with John Paul Sartre' statement "existence precedes essence" because humans need to create purpose. We seek knowledge and a big question about creation is how or why something was made. People who don't seek these answer can't live to their full potential because they are just going through the motions. The second step to this is making your own choices and being accountable for your actions, yet again this doesn't happen if you listen to what your told and follow the motions. Examples of Sartre' existentialism would be subjects such as science and religion. The Big Bang theory and the existence of god are two theories that attempt to explain the creation of life.
ReplyDeleteThe philosopher that I agree with most is Nietzsche. Religion does seem to hold us back from assuming full responsibility for their decisions. We aren't free if we have to live by a set of rules that tell us who we should be. If these rules are set in place by a "God" or "gods," than we are forced to believe whatever we are told and cannot think freely. We will not be able to decide what is good and evil because it has already been decided for us. Therefore we may be doing "good" but the "good" may actually be "bad," it's a matter of perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe existentialist that I would mostly agree with is John-Paul Sartre. Because he makes the point of every human needs a rational basis for their lives. It is definitely important to have purpose in your life. Because if you don't, you would be living without truth either. And that would be a problem with him and with me. He also makes the point that we must create "our essential being". Then you can also learn more about yourself.
ReplyDeleteThe philosopher I most agree with is John-Paul Sartre. I find a lot of truth in his conclusions. His theory on humanity looking for rationality in a certain systematic approach to all situations is one of his best works. He follows it up with another great point, calling this approach impossible. Human life is a "futile passion". By not fully embracing ourselves, we subject ourselves to existential dread. Sartre has a very interesting and an almost morbid approach to philosophy. Which is why I find the most truth in it and agree with it the most.
ReplyDeleteThe existentialist I agree with most is John-Paul Sarte, because of his beliefs on reality. He sees the world as two parts to it, the existence and the essence of it. I strongly agree with his idea that existence comes before essence, in the realm of being. One can have a life and carry on throughout it with whatever they do, and just being alive, that's existing. Bringing essence into life is what matters, by establishing meaning and anpurposenwith aspirations to define yourself by. Although I still believe there is some sort of pre destination with the ideas of destiny, but the Essence of it is a powerful factor in one's own hands.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nietzsche the most because of his views on religion and the effect that it has on our society. Although religion allows people to have hope in things that they may believe that they cannot control, religion does also create a barrier between people and being responsible for all of their actions. Since we rely on the rules set by our religion, we are not necessarily free because we always have someone else what to do and they would take the responsibility of those things. Religion tells us that we must believe anything that our "god" tells us and we must do what that god says. We cannot tell the difference between good and evil because we are blindly following the rules of our religion.
ReplyDeleteIn studying these philosophers, the most truthful in existentialism in my point of view is Nietzsche. This being because Nietzsche speaks the truth that many at the time were afraid to point out. Religion can be good, however each individual is not meant for following a certain religion. Religion holds back people in a sense because it does not leave room for self-conclusions, and thought. Instead it tells people what they should and should not do. A person needs to be able to think for themselves, and be their best person, rather than everyone living to the same set of rules.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nietzsche in that the world is basically split into two parts. There are those who lead and those who follow. I also agree that religion is intact solely to give people hope for a better future. There is most likely no actual result of religion but it is important in keeping moral up for those with little to look forward to. Our goal in life should be to become the best possible people we can be and morality only manipulates us into thinking this push to success as wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe main focus of Existentialism is to empower oneself, to better understand oneself, and to be true to oneself. While I feel this way of thinking is very good and can help many people live a good life; the problems come from the way the philosophers say the only way to live this life is to have nothing but original ideas. Soren Kierkeguard says that the only way to live a life true to oneself is by looking inward and not allowing oneself to follow others. Friedrich Nietzsche desires everyone to claim full responsibility for actions in the hopes he or she can become a ubermensch, ultimate being. John- Paul Sartro focused on finding meaning of existences only through assuming responsibility. The common theme within all these is focusing on the self, claiming responsibility for actions, and not doing what others have done.
ReplyDeleteHowever, many people in this world never have done any of these things nor will ever. To an Existentialist, these people would not be true to themselves. However, by saying that one could cause a person to start following the philosophy of an Existentialist. Which once again in the eyes of an Existentialist would not be living up to truest self. Therefore, the truest self would be the one oneself carves out for themselves, whether that be taking an Existentialist approach, being a follower of others, or a mix of both.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that we exist first and then "create our essential being." I also agree that religion is intact solely to give people hope for a better future.It is good to note that each indivudual is not meant or suited for a random religion, the relgion itself is that of the individuals certainty. It tells a person what they should and should not do. Religion is the foundation of the individuals consciousness. There is such a thing as a good an evil act, because are religion forms those believes. It is what our god or whomever we worship tells us what is right and what is wrong. Our religion forms of what we are and who we are to become based on the principles that is given to us.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nietzsche because of his idea on how the world works. Nietzsche believes that in the world, there are two types of people. There are followers and leaders. For example, these followers could be considered "slaves" and the leaders "masters." Another aspect I agree with is the important of religion. Religion gives humans hope in their life for a better future, a better job, and a greater amount of success. Humans should strive to be the best that they can be and not settle to be what they "think" they can achieve due to laziness or the examples and influences of others around them
ReplyDeleteThe philosopher I agree with the most is Nietzsche. I agree with him the most because he states that if we are told to do specific things then we are not people. He also stated that our decisions are ours and not based on religions. He also made the point of even though we might think what we do is fine it can turn out to be a whole different problem.
ReplyDeleteThe exisistentialist I agree with the most is Nietzsche. The way he broke up the world into two categories makes a lot of sense. The one aspect I don't agree with is his use of religion. He says that religion is essential to living life and being the best we can be. However, I find that if someone is just motivated to be better, there is no religion needed.
ReplyDeleteThe existentialist I agree with the most is Nietzsche. Nietzsche looks at people in society as a part of one of two groups. One group is essentially the leaders and the others are the followers. These leaders can be translated into what are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies or any other type of billionaire. These are the men who essentially run the country. Then there are the people who Nietzsche calls the slaves of society. These are virtually lower and middle class citizens. They are controlled by the leaders or the rich. They are told what to do and are employed by that upper class. This is exactly how society still is today.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI agree, Nietzsche in that the world is basically split into two parts. There are those who lead and those who follow. I also agree that religion is intact solely to give people hope for a better future. People in this world never have done any of these things nor will ever. To an Existentialist, these people would not be true to themselves. However, by saying that one could cause a person to start following the philosophy of an Existentialist. Which once again in the eyes of an Existentialist would not be living up to truest self.
I find myself to agree with Nietzsche more. I seem to have bias because I have never been into religion, but I believe it to be created to ease the minds of the confused. I believe that now in today's society it is being used to conceal people and their thought process . Religion should be used to unite people but I think it can hold us back as a society because it is not allowing us to evolve, and in some ways it is appealing to the human nature of division and belonging to a team.Also the world does exist in two groups, it is easy to observe, we even give labels to the groups, like white collar, blue collar, rich and poor.
ReplyDeleteI find myself to agree with Nietzsche more. I seem to have bias because I have never been into religion, but I believe it to be created to ease the minds of the confused. I believe that now in today's society it is being used to conceal people and their thought process . Religion should be used to unite people but I think it can hold us back as a society because it is not allowing us to evolve, and in some ways it is appealing to the human nature of division and belonging to a team.Also the world does exist in two groups, it is easy to observe, we even give labels to the groups, like white collar, blue collar, rich and poor.
ReplyDeleteI most agree with Nietzsche's existentialist ideas, because he offers the ideas that the things we do are done under our own knowledge and power. Our thoughts and opinions should be our own and we should be able to make a decision based on how we want to live and act.
ReplyDeleteI concur with Nietzsche in that the world is based upon two different groups of sociality. There are the richer employers and the poorer workers. There are the individuals who lead and the individuals who take after. I also concur that religion is in place exclusively to give individuals trust in a superior future. Nietzsche breaks down his ideas of the mind very well and presents them with logic and reason.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the philosopher Nietzsche the most. Religion seems to hold us back from taking full responsibility for our decisions. We aren't free if we have to live by a set of rules that tell us who we should be. If these rules are set in place by a "God" or "gods," than we are forced to believe whatever we are told and cannot think freely. We will not be able to decide what is good and evil because it has already been decided for us. Therefore we may be doing "good" but the "good" may actually be "bad," it's a matter of perspective.
ReplyDelete