Sartre's Defense of Existentialism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Sartres Defense of Existentialism - Essay voiceNevertheless, Sartres response to the remonstrance that his existentialism makes all survival arbitrary is not that undecomposed solely also sensible. Sartre interprets the disapproveion that confronts him and his existentialism It does not matter what you do in three shipway First they tax us with anarchy indeed they say, You cannot judge others, for there is no reason for preferring unitary purpose to another finally, they whitethorn say, Every topic being merely voluntary in this resource of yours, you give aside with superstar hand what you pretend to gain with the other (Sartre 13). The first objection the idea that they tax us with anarchy translates as to say that it does not matter what you choose is not correct (14). Sartre then responds to this objection by using logic If I do not choose, that is still a choice and unrivaled therefore cannot avoid choosing (14). To this, Sartre adds the idea that it is impossib le for onenot to take complete responsibility for making a choice (14). The people who object Sartres existentialism tell him one thing that there mustiness be some definite law that governs decision-making and that true free will does not exist. For example, they may struggle that when a man comes face to face with a lion, then the idea of free will is in some manner overridden by the instinct to run, and therefore one can say that there is no free choice in much(prenominal) a situation. Free choice, for these people who oppose Sartre, may only be restrict to everyday decisions about petty things such as which clothes to wear and which food to eat. Nevertheless, how Sartre responds to them is not only good but also sensible in that logic tells us that when one flees from a lion, then one definitely still makes a choice the choice of fleeing. Although the idea of instinct may someway seem to negate free choice in this particular situation, it actually does not because the on ly thing visible is the choice to flee for whatever basis there is to it. Whether there is a basis for such a choice or not, for Sartre, it is not important and that ones choice may be determined by no a priori value (14), and can therefore be an irrational one. Others may partly agree that an action such as fleeing a lion is indeed a choice but they would then require reason for it, or something a priori on which the choice must be based. Nevertheless, Sartre is sensible enough to say that not all choices may be based on anything a priori such as reason. Why? What is the problem with having an a priori basis for a choice? Sartre explains this through the fiction of a pupil of his who has chosen to live with his mother instead of fighting the enemy (7). Those people who object to Sartres existentialism believe that there must be a basis to every choice, but they do not recognize that whatever basis they use, it is still they who make that choice of using that basis, as Sartre conte nds. Sartres method of refuting this objection is excellent he explains the vagueness of the Christian doctrine as well as Kants Categorical Imperative if these two established doctrines were used as an a priori principle on which the young mans decision must be based. Sartre points out that although the Christian doctrine teaches one to act with charity,