Jean Paul Sartre: Re-questioned the Existence of God

It is taboo thing in our society when we try to “playing our thought” in God area. Even there is a fair feeling to do it. Because the religious ideology was engraft not to brave to think about it. Who has a doubt about His existent, he was apostate. Even to think about His essence is forbidden. If as this religion teaching is contradicted by its mission to human. Religions required human in order to worship God, but in other side religion forbid them to think about what they must to worship. This condition continually became big problem in all religion.
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.

Rene Descartes: Rationalism, a New Mythos

There are two primary sources of knowledge which human got naturally, those are reason and experience. All of knowledge include philosophy always circulate in both of them. Some people prefer to emphasize experience, and the others prefer to reason as their foundation. Who choose the first teaching called by empiricism, and the second is called by rationalism.
Rene Descartes, besides he was called by the founder of modern philosophy he also called by the founder of continental rationalism. His famous concept cogito ego sum became first crossbar for new period of philosophy, that’s modernity. Through his concept he want to affirm that only reason something could be the basic of philosophy, the only one believable principle, not faith and revelation in the same manner as what people hold in middle century. The appearance of Galileo, who find truth through science, is the victory for reason over revelation. Then, since the time, reason is always applied in human problems as modernity foundation.
In this case, human existence is determined by “I” element. Being or nothing of human are influenced and established by I existence as thinking subject. Cogito (I think) is not found through deduction of general principles or intuition. Cogito is found by our own minds, something known through self, not through scripture, legend, people opinion, prejudice, etc. it’s indicate that rationalism exalt subjectivism and individualism. Subject became very central in life until it be consciousness basic of someone existence.
Specifically, Rene Descartes set forth that in order to reach absolute assurance and universal guarantee truth, philosophy included epistemology must use mathematic method as its idealism. Because, according to Descartes the only discipline subject which produce certain and proved cogitation is mathematic. It means if philosophy want to find the certain result or thought, philosophy should make mathematic way as its idealism.
Furthermore, the rationalistic-positivistic paradigm will take some effects in modern life. Some of them are the emergence of subject-object dualism. By centre upon rationalism, the modernity life will consider human as life subject and universe as life object. By this dualism, human became in only his own world, not in surge, but in gap. The relation of modernity human with his universe is definite only as separated observer, not as a part of his cosmos who grappled intimately in it. Human is posited as active subject who free to observe, research, exploit and take over it. While cosmos around is only passive object that freely could be observed, researched and exploited as if it has no relation with the observer itself. That’s the cause of modern human alienation with his own world.
Because of that, rationalism at the first emergence was functioned to accuse mythos, now it became new mythos precisely. The mythologization is happened because of the rational paradigmatic system that his followers make it the one truth and deny truths from other views. Rationalism became a singularity and negated plurality. In its methodological context, modern science basically only know one scientific method that called by observation and experiment. It means there are a lot of possibilities which have truth values also over rationalism.