Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre Essay

January 23, 2021 by Essay Writer

Sense of Self-identity

People’s sense of self-identity can be described as the characteristic that makes them certain that they are the same individuals, either today or any other time. The sense of self-identity is a common characteristic of individuals. It contributes to the human nature that is universal to all human beings. This characteristic enables people to maintain the same character and personality while allowing them to adapt to their environment. Self-identity is one of the factors that differentiate human beings from other species.

The personal sense of self-identity is a product of many other factors. It ensures that the uniformity of thoughts is maintained throughout the various stages of life. The largest contributor to the personal sense of self-identity is self-consciousness and memory as Descartes and Locke reveal (Myers 43).

The personal self-consciousness allows the maintenance of a uniform personality or character. The sense of self-identity has personally been an important guide in the various spheres of life-based on how it allows the maintenance of relevant personality and performance of people’s daily activities.

As Descartes and Locke confirm, self-consciousness allows personal adaptation to all changes that take place daily, thus paving the way for a positive transformation. Memory is an important part of this sense. It forms the main basis of the self-identity. The development of the personal sense of self-identity takes place through the experience of several events and changes that occur in life.

This memory becomes part of the personal self-identity, which enhances the development of one’s character. Apart from Descartes and Locke’s self-consciousness and memory, another personal way that the sense of self-identity has developed is through choice and commitment as portrayed by Sartre.

A personal belief is that the sense of self-identity develops from choice and commitment that have grown over time. It is only through commitment that some of the basic characteristics of this sense have developed. Dedication contributes to persistence, which ensures that the sense of self-identity is retained originally. Sartre is one of the individuals who propose the creations of self-identity through choice and commitment. According to this individual, self-identity can only be established through the two characters.

Most people believe that authentic selfhood requires breaking away from conformism while other people believe that conformity can supply a ready-made self-satisfactory self-identity (Myers 17). While the two beliefs are justified, the personal belief is that authentic selfhood requires breaking away from conformism. It is only after individuals break away after conformism that they can establish self-identity and influence conformism to work to their advantage.

Most of the great people in the world were able to achieve great things and overcome major challenges through evading conformism and adopting authentic selfhood. Through this kind of self-identity, people were able to influence the world. As a result, they were able to change to the current values and beliefs.

A personal view is that conformism is a barrier to personal achievement. For the set goals to be achieved, there is a need to decline conformism and implement a personal sense of authentic selfhood. This choice will ensure that the challenges that emerge are tackled adequately. The other reason for adopting such a view is that most of the other people who have adopted a different view have ended up not succeeding in their activities.

Body-Soul Dualism

Body-soul dualism is common in the western cultural tradition. Different authors have produced many articles that analyze the same issue. Most religions have a definition of this concept. However, Judeo-Christian religious tradition has the most outspoken beliefs. A personal belief is that body-soul dualism is a real characteristic of all human beings. Another belief is that all human beings have a soul that is in constant opposition with the body and that the tag between the two determines the eventual fate after death.

The Judeo-Christian religious tradition insists that it is necessary for the soul to be viewed as being in a constant fight with the body in an attempt to transcend the temptations of the flesh (Kaufmann 43).

However, secular belief on body-soul dualism is that one can become more at peace with the material aspect of our being, thus enjoying the bodily pleasures without any shame or guilt (Myers 47). The latter belief that was advocated by the sexual revolution oversaw the increase in the number of cases that could be labeled as immoral by the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.

Based on the two beliefs, it is a personal opinion that the Judeo-Christian religious tradition is the right concerning this argument. This inference not only relies on the personal belief and allegiance to this religion but also on the evidence provided in support of the same. The belief is that there is a future where the soul will survive after death.

This future provides a sanctuary for eternal life. The belief that is propagated by the sexual revolution is meant to fulfill the desires of the responsible individuals. It justifies the actions that they think are unacceptable in their culture.

Mind-body dualism is thought to give rise to mind-body problems (Kaufmann 45). The question of whether this claim is justifiable arises. A personal conviction is that the attempts made to overcome the dualism are not justifiable. Some of the attempts include materialism, idealism, identity theory, and the view of the existence of the mind-body unity before the division between the two (Kaufmann 48).

Different individuals base these theories and beliefs on the desire to develop different practices that can suit them also. Various religious writers have also discredited most of these theories. Researchers have also demonstrated the utility of this dualism.

The attempts to overcome dualism present a chance for the proponents to develop justification for the actions and characters that are often non-human in origin. Different religious doctrines regard these elements as unnecessary. These attempts are also a means of justifying evils in society. The result is a degradation of the initially held morals. Therefore, a personal belief is that body-soul dualism is not only a component of Judeo-Christian religious tradition but also a truth that was meant to protect and preserve humanity.

One reason for holding this view is that the origin is religious. Scientific proof shows an essence for the same view. Mysteries that surround the origin and propagation of life provide evidence that there are natural forces that should be respected. Body-soul dualism is one of the forces. Scientists and secularists are some of the people who have failed to explain some of the mysteries that encircle body-soul dualism. Therefore, they should not be allowed to develop baseless theories to overcome this dualism.

Free Will

Free will is a concept that different individuals view as being a component of human nature. It is respected in most nations of the world. There are many versions of this concept all over the world, with different societies having perceptions that differ. Unlike other parts of nature that are determined by the causal law, it is a personal belief that human beings have the characteristic of possessing free will.

Free will allows the determination of different aspects of people’s daily life, including the moral values that are held by an individual. Personal reasons for the belief in possession of free will include the ability to determine the direction that life has to follow.

The personal ability to carry out free will allows a change of the conditions within the society and the environment. Personal ability has made man superior to other parts of nature. Therefore, this aspect is a beneficial personal characteristic. Free will can be defined as the ability to make individual decisions that are not based on particular laws, but that is decided personally after evaluation of some factors and interests (Kaufmann 14).

On the other hand, determinism is a concept in philosophy where certain events result from or are determined by other directly related events (Myers 27). From a determinist perspective, human actions are determined by predestined events.

The assumptions made in free will that differentiate it from determinism include the fact that choices and human actions are not determined by any events or factors (Kaufmann 34). However, a central concept in the determinist viewpoint is that events and human actions are determined by some special factors, events, and conditions. Determinism allows the creation of special beliefs in individuals and societies. Scientists and other researchers have debated the possibility of free will to lead to determinism on various circles.

The advances in natural science tend to undermine the belief in free will, which seems to be essential in terms of holding people responsible for their behavior as religion, morality, and criminal law contend. The advances in natural science continue to undermine the belief in free will through several ways.

Natural science creates special laws that are contrary to the basic belief of free will. It requires individuals to conform to these laws, thereby limiting their expression of free will. A cogent middle position between the two extremes allows individuals to hold the contrary beliefs of free will and the laws of natural science.

The middle position described above allows divergent views about freedom and necessity. This middle ground is a characteristic of the different positions that are held by different individuals. It allows room for people to be influenced by the free will and the different laws in existence. The reason for this belief is that throughout history, human beings have continued to be influenced by laws that exist based on science and those that have been passed from one generation to the next.

However, they have not lost the desire and ability to express free will, which is the main reason for the differences from other species. Free will also work best in an environment where there are laws that people can avoid since such laws act as determinants.

Dostoevsky and Sartre’s Radical Views on Freedom

Dostoevsky and Sartre advocate for radical views on freedom, with absolute freedom being the main determinant of the existence of free will (Kaufmann 29). According to these philosophers, absolute freedom of choice is the only true freedom. They advocate for people to observe this freedom (Kaufmann 25). The adoption of this notion of absolute freedom is a rebellion against necessity. However, several other researchers have countered it to retain necessity as the main concept in this philosophy.

Human beings are inclined to the notion that they are free beings. This ideology differentiates them from other natural creations. Most authors assert that human beings desperately hold onto the notion that they are free beings, with several reasons being provided in support of this claim. One of the main reasons as to why human beings proclaim to be free, unlike other creatures and nature is so that they can maintain their supremacy and dominance over all other species.

Man has always had a desire to control the environment around him, including everything that is contained in it. According to Myers, man’s desire to be free has led to the different inventions and developments in his world, most of which are aimed at establishing total control over the other species and over the environment (97).

Human beings are described as willing to go as far as being nasty and self-destructive to prove that they are free beings. This situation is driven by the factors above. The stakes for freedom include the ability to survive in the environment by striking a balance between human desires and the available resources. A personal belief is in line with the global human emphasis on absolute freedom.

Although natural science indicates that the human belief on freedom is absurd, it is also a personal opinion that this belief should be maintained. Human beings should maintain their belief in freedom to dominate over all the other species for a chance of survival.

The belief in personal responsibility goes at par with that of free will. The practice of punishing people for the serious crimes that they commit is a demonstration that the belief in free will is related to that of personal responsibility. Human beings have the opportunity to demonstrate this personal responsibility by practicing what is considered legal, despite the existence of a conviction in free will.

Personal responsibility allows a chance for people to exercise free will while at the same time keeping within the limits that are granted by society (Kaufmann 37). This situation paves the way for the standardization of some of the practices by different individuals in a particular society.

The reasons for the above views include the fact that society cannot exist as a vacuum without laws to govern it. There is a high probability that different people who practice absolute free will influence the free will of others. The results of this influence include the development of harmful activities and cultures. However, the existence of a free will and personal responsibility allows individuals to keep their practices in check while at the same time, limiting their expression of free will.

Some philosophers have stated that free will determines the changes that are present in the environment where people live. The other reason for holding this belief is that throughout history, human beings have demonstrated the ability to influence others, with the result being a change in the local cultures.

Morality

Morality is an important part of any culture. Different individuals have different views on the same. Several beliefs have been developed on morality, with most of them being subject to several factors. As a personal opinion, morality can be considered both universal and relative to the place, time, culture, and the situation in which an individual is located. There is an absolute and objective standard of morality from which people can judge other society’s moral values or codes of being right or wrong, or perhaps progressive or backward.

The above view of the universal nature of morality is restricted to certain parts of it, especially the conviction and practices that are thought to be beneficial and harmful to human life. Some of the universally accepted standards on morality include those that deal with things such as murder and human health. These standards are important in the discussion of the beliefs that different societies hold. Although societies may have different beliefs, they tend to have a common notion that some of the practices are immoral.

Despite the above personal belief that some aspects of morality are universal, morality is relative to time, place, culture, and the situation in which an individual is situated. The individual can conform to moral values based on the above variables. Morality can also be judged differently based on the period within which an individual lives. The place within which this individual exists is also a major determinant of morality. Different areas have different moral values that are relevant to this place.

In the case of women and culture, the above personal beliefs on morality are evident. A moral issue that is universally common is that women are inferior to men in a number of ways. Different cultures have different versions of the same.

In the contemporary world, the belief of the second-class position has changed in most civilized societies, with this situation demonstrating the influence of time on morality (Kaufmann 320). Different places such as Africa and the Westernized nations hold diverse beliefs and moral values about women. This observation is equivalent to the variation of morality based on the place and situation of individuals.

The belief that some practices are moral in one society or a given situation and period in time does not mean that these practices are acceptable. The issue of clitoral circumcision is condemned by westerners and other civilized societies. However, the communities that uphold this practice consider it moral.

There is justification for the condemnation of the practices since they not only lead to the lifelong harm of the affected women but also often lead to their death and disability. Morality is also subject to influence from research. Evidence is currently being used to counter some of the issues that relate to morality. A universal agreement between societies and individuals also has the power to influence the moral values of individuals since most of the morals were formed through consensus and experience in the first place.

Therefore, it is important to note that when morals such as clitoral circumcision are considered unacceptable through a universal agreement, other beliefs on the same have to conform to the adopted one (Kaufmann 322). This inference means that through consensus, societies that practice clitoral circumcision should be discouraged from upholding this practice.