The ironical thing also influence many of philosophers thought. They also oriented their thoughts to confirm this teaching. Facing this condition, Sartre doesn’t satisfied with their thought, by adopting and adapting the methods of phenomenology Sartre sets out to develop an ontological account of what it is to be human. By his existentialism theory he want to against rationalism that pioneered by Rene Descartes. He defined existentialism as a teaching which causes the being of human live. Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself. Beside it, he defined existentialism as a teaching affirmed that every truths and actions contain an environment and a human subjectivity. It’s also called by a human universality of condition.
Existentialism cannot be separated by consciousness, because consciousness is the cause of existence. Self consciousness is being in itself (etre-in-soi). Being in itself is necessary and enough requirements for consciousness. We’re not need to Transcendental Subject or Absolute I as what Idealism understand. And etre-in-soi is awareness of something else. When I aware of something, it means I’m not that thing. If I saw a picture on wall or a glass on table, therefore I’m not the picture and the glass.
Meanwhile nothingness emerges with human by etre-pour-soi (being for itself). Human is the carrier of nothingness. The special activity of erte-pour-soi is “to nihilate”. To ascertain being or nothingness of Pierre in restaurant, firstly, we must saw restaurant, table, chair, guest, air etc as background of being-nothingness of Pierre. This is the “nihilation”, when we saw restaurant, table, chair and whose presence in that place as not Pierre. The nothingness of Pierre is only confirmed by “nihilate” beings (other Pierre). So nothingness emerge by “nihilate” world. Nothingness always haunt being, cannot be separated. From this concept, he analogize the nothingness of God.
He pulled down Descartes’ subjectivism theory. Descartes and his followers said cogito ego sum (I think therefore I am), which mean essence precedes existence, he loudly said the opposite of proper theory “Existent precedes essence.” Usually the previous existentialist said in order to make a table, the artisan must first have a conception of the table. Sartre argues not so with human being, if Allah isn’t exist, at least there is a creature which its existence is being before its essence, a creature that exist before he was determined by many of conceptions about his existence. That’s human.
We come into the world existent but without a nature, without essence. We define ourselves while existing. We are the sum of our experiences. So man simply is. Stand on this radical statement he always yell out the freedom of human being by his popular dictum “human condemned to be free.” There is no one can force us when we do something. What we do is our choice. Even, extremely for him life is choice. I cannot not choose, if I do not choose, that is still a choice.
A Few Apologies
Personally, I saw what Sartre did is so radical and extreme. In my opinion, if his aim only to release human being from their shackles is not must to ignore the existent of God. I also saw his theory about being and nothingness is more leaned to empiric concept. He didn’t believe God just because of His absent from sensory perception. I don’t know exactly whether this theory is only his disappointed expression to God because of his sufferings life.
I don’t blame his existence concept, even I’m in the same opinion with his existence precedes essence statement, but only in the way of thought not in the real reality. We are still creature, not The Creator. So in reality his concept only could be applied in God as a Creator. Tweet Follow @tirtanirwana
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar