Existentialist Themes Of Anxiety And Absurdity Essay

, Research Paper

Existentialist Themes of Anxiety and Absurdity

In a world with such a vast amount of people their exists virtually

every different belief, thought, and ideology. This means that for every

argument and every disagreement that their exists two sides of relative equal

strength. It is through these disagreements that arguments are formed.

Arguments are the building blocks in which philosophers use to analyze

situations and determine theories of life. For the purpose of this paper I will

try and argue my personal beliefs on a specific argument. This argument is

presented in a form of a question and upon examination of the contents of this

question, several different and unique questions arise. In order to support my

theory as to the answer to this question I will attempt to answer the three

subquestions which deal less with the content of the question itself and more

with the reaction to reading the question. Also key to the support of my theory

is the concept of existentialism. I will go into the foundations of this

ethical theory throughout the remainder of this paper. Subquestion one, .E –>

C., simple asks whether it is true or false that if you have an ethical theory

then does it have to be consistent. Subquestion two, .(.) –> H., poses the

idea of what makes up the essence of being a human being. Subquestion three, .E

–> (H –> M)., asks whether it is true or false that it is ethical to assume

that humans should be given moral priority over animals.

I order to support my interpretation and answer the topic question, I

will try to explain my personal ethical theory. We were given several different

theories in which to emulate or pick pieces of in order to define such words

which have different meanings to different people. For such vague words such as

`right’ and `wrong’, the context in which they are presented are vital pieces in

order to define them. It is my belief, and a necessary requirement of this

paper to somehow define these two words. It is obvious that these two words

must be opposites of each other. Therefore, the understanding of one will

easily lead to the understanding of its opposite. However, the words themselves

will never be anything more than five letters grouped together. This is because

your ethical theory and someone else’s ethical theory could possible conflict

causing for a discrepancy in the definitions of these words. Therefore,

throughout this paper I will try not to use such vague words such as `right’ or

`wrong’.

Most of the Philosophers and ethical theories presented in Sober held

that the highest ethical good is the same for everyone. Kierkegaard, who was

the first writer to call himself existential, reacted against this tradition by

insisting that the highest good for the individual is to find his or her own

unique vocation (Web 2). I agreed with many of the different ideas of the

ethical theories but I was not able to overlook the ever present idea of God.

Personally I am a anti-religious person who feels strongly that religion in

general is filled with corruption and too often leads to a misguided life. It

is my belief that, .Blind faith is the CHILD of ignorance.(Quote, .). It was

therefor impossible for me to look at any of the theories which involved the

mentioning of God. However, I did find many interesting ideas encompassed in

the theory of atheistic existentialism. Existentialism is the popular name of

a philosophical attitude primarily associated with the 20th-century thinker

Jean Paul Sarte, but with a history that goes back to the 19th-century Danish

philosopher Soren Kierkegarrd.

All existentialists have tried to stress the importance of passionate

individual action in deciding question of both morality and truth (Warnock).

They have insisted, accordingly, that personal experience and acting on one’s

own convictions are essential in arriving at the truth. Thus, the understanding

of a situation by someone involved in that situation is superior to that of a

detached, objective observer. This emphasis in the perspective of the

individual agent has also made existentialists suspicious of systematic

reasoning (Warnock).

Perhaps the most prominent concept in existentialism is that of choice.

Humanity’s primary distinction, in the view of most existentialists, is the

freedom to choose. Existentialists have held that human beings do not have a

fixed nature, or essence, as other animals and plants do; each human being makes

choices that create his or her own nature. Choice is therefore central to human

existence, and it is inescapable; even the refusal to chose is a choice (Web 1).

Freedom of choice entails commitment and responsibility. Because individuals

are free to choose their path, existentialists have argued, they must accept the

risk and responsibility of following their commi

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать