The principal objective by satre is to set apart his intent of lodging a defence of existentialism. The main point of contention is to denote the antagonist aspects communists and Christians and their previous accusations of existentialism. The misunderstandings are what prompted the dismissal by critics of existentialism. Satre’s arguments point to the fact that existentialism is the sole intellectually transparent framework that guides the action of humans. He affirms that the standpoint is because it ensures that humans are accountable for their actions and that they are aware of their judgment and rationale. It thus accounts for optimistic rather than pessimistic philosophy. Among the bases of his arguments is the constant denotation that communists predominantly saw existentialism in light of being a contemplative philosophy that was essentially action averse. The second base of Satre’s arguments is inclined towards explaining that existentialism is not limited to total subjectivity that is fronted by Descartes. Ultimately, it can be denoted that existentialism draws significant focus on the individual self and the meaning that leads it to forego interconnections that sprout among humans and the projects they front, additionally, Satre strives to demystify the blurred definitions of existentialism, essence and existence, while comparing them to accusations made by communists and Christians.
Satre’s meaning of “existence precedes essence” in the arguments of existentialism is a humanism.
The focus of Satre’s definition is on self. He affirms that existence precedes essence means that personality and behaviours do not subscribe to the prior constructed model of precise purpose. Through his arguments, he bases greatly on the aspect of transcendence. He argues that the descriptions of human nature ought not to be bound to tracing it to a supreme being in this case, God (Jennings and Rohan 3). The perception that existence preceded essence, therefore, means that existentialism negates the rationale of perceiving human beings as objects. He prescribes that humans have the independence to choose what their identity is, and it can only be authenticated by existence. Basing on the arguments of existentialism is humanism, he strives to create a distinction from other views that conform to atheism. Existence precedes essence, therefore, is a contrast of the Christian designations and explanations of the nature of human beings. Satre thus opines tha humans are liberal and possess the power to determine their purpose that is devoid of subjectivity to a specific destiny.
How the dictum is expounded on by Satre, using the analogy of a paper-knife.
In a bid to further defend his arguments, Satre draws resemblance to a knifes manufacture, with the concept of God as a creator of humans. Satre’s perception is that humans are the direct result of Gods work, meaning that they are material forms of God’s creation(Jennings and Rohan 6). . The argument here is stats to contradict the early philosophers, who placed sole significance on the essence aspect of humans. It thus gives the open designation that essence precedes existence. It is a notion that he seeks to overturn because of the overall perception, according to him, is that the ancient philosophers placed too much significance of describing humans based on primordial human nature. The perception, in this case, is creating essence in advance, an aspect that is contrary to Satre’s atheistic existentialism. It denotes a preconceived through that points to the fact that before an individual becomes anything or transforms to have any attachments, they fort have to be in the world. The human will is also expounded with the disposition stating that humans have the power to define who they are, and are liberal enough to churn out their destinies. The designation is further influenced by human action, and not the attachment to preconceived nature. Humanism, therefore, as explained by the knife’s manufacturer, ought to move away from subjectivity.
Three precepts of existentialism that make up the human condition according to satre.
The three precepts, majorly drawn from Satre’s conclusions, are despair, abandonment and anguish. He affirms that the three concepts are vital to grasping the meaning of existentialism, primarily because humans cannot escape or overcome subjectivity. The precept of anguish, therefore, means that it is a concept that does not prevent action. It is designated as a condition of action. It is a direct response to communist stands that denote that the existentialism stance, which propagates a lack of moral guidelines in society(Jennings and Rohan 7). . It is substantiated by the story of Abraham in the Bible who sacrifices his son at the request of God. He states that Abraham did not know for sure if he was speaking to God. The stand is what prompts communists to argue that through the understanding of anguish as fronted by Satre, people are prevented from moral action.
Conversely, abandonment points to the refusal of Gods existence, and that humans are to face the absolute consequences for basing their values and action on that assertion. Satre fronts the idea that in the modern world, people’s trust has wavered in the belief of a supreme God who is all-powerful because God has abandoned humans. He also foregoes the attempt to link human nature as a replacement to the fixed values fronted by religion. Despair is the third precept, that implores humans to weigh their chances because despair is the inherent meaninglessness of the world(Jennings and Rohan 7). . Ability to act ought to be analyzed, after a careful analysis of the probabilistic conditions of acting without hope. Satre, therefore, seeks to move away from the idealist faith expectation, which dictates that things will work out, should an individual has the right goals in mind. To counter this, he opines that there is a need to pay attention to the practical attitudes that define action.
Why does Satre say that a human is responsible for its individuality, and all other humans?
The assumption is inclined to the fact that the human chooses itself, and in extension, it incorporates the rest of the humans. It is a premise based on the demonstration of the apparent connection between humans in their pre existential existence. It is a fact that humans existed in the world before the labelling of essence means that there is probalitily that they will naturally choose each other. It is from the freedom that humans have to choose their kind, devoid of influence from subjectivity. Therefore, everything happens because man is liberal and that they can choose even before there is a prior interpretation of what is expected of them. It is a designation that is primarily based on a contrast from the communist and Christian dispositions that stems precise purpose from the resistance of God. Satre thus goes to allude that human is responsible for it individuality.