Basically, my entire last post was about my faith in God and how Christianity has influenced my morals. Ironically, the principle I am interested it is Sartre's atheistic existentialism. What I like about existentialism is that it really puts an emphasis on not judging other people, and not being hypocritical in your actions. While I obviously am in disagreement over the atheistic view on the existence of God, I can certainly agree with Sartre's existentialist philosophy on the judgement of others, and I like the idea of acting in good/bad faith (i.e. do I think that what i'm doing is an accurate representation of human beings?). I like this because it keeps you conscious and aware of each and every one of your actions. Your commitment to this philosophy/lifestyle must be extremely serious if you really want to live this way, and I respect that (though I don't think that I could actually do it).
Obviously, Sartre's existentialism conflicts with belief in God and current values, because existentialism suggests that God does not exist (and if He did it wouldn't matter anyway) and also suggests that there isn't really a set moral standard. But I can incorporate certain aspects of existentialism into my life. For instance, I also think that people are inherently good. Therefore I can become more aware of my actions, and before I do something, ask myself if it is an accurate representation of human beings (though it is not really the same because I will be judging my action through a lens of Christian morals, a.k.a. Jesus goggles - but I think it still holds some validity). I can also use existentialism in not judging other people, which I already try not to do. I like the principle that I am able to judge the basis of one's actions (i.e. based on truth or error) but not that person.
I commented on Becks' blog this week.
http://becksbradley.blogspot.com/
One judgment that Sartre is fine with making is the one of integrity - Are you willing to act only on those actions that you want to serve as an example for others to follow. I think you are right that this can be a useful standard even if God exists but only if your intention is aimed at choosing for humanity. If it is to please God then you are "masking your anguish" and that is the mark of a coward for Sartre. This would be a second judgement one could make.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I see what you're saying. I would like to say that my reasoning for trying not to judge anyone is to be the best person I can be. But I guess it boils down to why do I want to be a good person? And the answer would be to either please God or represent God well. Which would not be what Sartre intended for existentialism. But that is why I did state that the two obviously do conflict, and while I can incorporate one into the other, it wouldn't quite be the same.
ReplyDeleteI see how your ideas conflict with religion and the actual idea of Sartre, but I like your aim at defining that you really make an effort to not judge people. I think that is an important emphasis because it displays your grasp of Sartre's belief that human beings will follow their own morals and you will not judge them for it. However, I do think it would be very hard for you to follow Sartre's principles because as you mentioned, you always base your actions on representation of God.
ReplyDeleteYour blog was very interesting for me to read because we both wrote about Sartre but mine was through an Atheist point of view and yours through a Christian point of view. I like how we both feel strongly in that we should not judge people but their actions, because really to me the actions make the person.
ReplyDeleteI like the fact that you can accept another view even when it conflicts with your own. You can choose certain aspects of the piece that will not confict instead of just saying the entire argument is invalid. I agree when you talk about not judging people, I believe that only righteous judge on earth is the person themselves or God. I like your views.
ReplyDelete