This argument can be best understood from Sartre's example of the pen-knife:

It has been made by a craftsman who has a clear understanding of the pen-knife’s purpose and builds accordingly. It must be built of the correct materials, easy to hold and sharp enough to cut paper. It isn’t intended to cut a steak or anything else beyond its purpose. The craftsman knows what the pen-knife will be used for, before it is created. The pen-knife’s essence is known before its existence.

Sartre’s is saying that humans are the opposite. There is no human essence or purpose. He says: A human materialises in the world, encounters himself, and only afterwards defines himself’

Tags: Identity, Existentialism

Introduction

Albert Camus addresses a reality of our lives that we must come to terms with…the absurd. According to Camus, life has no meaning or purpose and the idea of the absurd surfaces when we believe that there is a meaning: We are searching, hoping, believing in something that is not there to begin with…”The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world”

Camus maintains that to achieve a fulfilled happy life we must revolt against the idea that there is a meaning and that life should be lived according to our passionate and intuitive responses in coming to terms with the world.

Tags: Existentialism, Self

Two people of the same region, roughly the same age, do the same action. They both stop to pick up an old lady who has fallen to the floor. In that instance you can ask them both “why?”. One states that it is due to their religious beliefs dictating that this is how any person should act; veneration of elders, care for the infirm (to help them survive & help them with their objectives where practicable etc). The other for ultimately arbitrary reasons, they gave into their base compulsion to do the deed without much thought, there is some consideration for the possibility of them being in that situation in the future, and fostering the type of environment that promotes similar behaviour. Is there a wider value, particularly in terms of superiority and inferiority [if such a difference exists], to one over the other? “Is one approach better than the other?”

Tags: Morality

In Ancient Greece, Protagoras held the view that “Man is the measure of all things”; he is taking the relativist view that any claim to knowledge or any judgement in the world is relative to our point of view. He is saying that all the moral values we have and truths are ultimately subjective, we depend on ourselves to come up with definitions as there is no such thing as absolute moral ideals or objective knowledge.

For example, Is it acceptable to slaughter cows? The butcher and those that work with leather would say yes, Those that practice Hinduism or advocate animal rights would say no. Who is correct here? The relativist would say they all are, in accordance with their established beliefs. There is no universal law in nature that says we should act a certain way.

Tags: Ancient, Ethics, Epistemology

The ancient Pyrrhonist is an extreme skeptic who suspends judgment from all theories because all philosophical beliefs or doctrines cannot be conclusively justified. The attempt to justify judgements leads to an infinite regress.

The Pyrrhonist will not give in to demands of believing in a theory even if they are 'certified' as truth. He will act according to his natural instincts and the practice of ordinary life, he will abstain from attempting to discover a deeper truth behind appearances.

So what is there to gain from suspending judgement? Tranquility. However, his suspension of judgement is not just making a cautious and deliberate decision, it’s from the realisation that looking for deeper truths is fruitless… knowledge is impossible. No matter the theory or conclusion, the skeptic can always ask “well, is that really so?”

Tags: Ancient, Epistemology