How exactly do we to determine whether existence precedes
our essence? After all; I am a product of both essences my parents. Further
still, how am I completely free to take on projects for myself when I am
defined before I have any real control over myself?
We seem to be following an argument which cannot be proved
or disproved. C’est la vie, I guess. But still, it is interesting to ponder
whether I really do have any choice in the acting as myself through myself. I
would have loved to see a debate between Sartre and Nietzsche because of this
conflict.
According to Sartre, existence precedes essence, but how are
we not just playing the roles given to us? How am I to determine whether it is
indeed true that I have infinite potential (within reason) and am completely
free?
I really do not think we are free at all. I think we all
have roles to play within our society and we are condemned to play those roles
until we die. I guess that is why the internet is so freaking awesome, it frees
us of that oppression. As a kid, most of my free time was spent in front of a
screen of some sort. For better or worse, I learned that the internet was what
humanity wanted to be at its core. I believe that the advent of the internet
disproves Sartre’s claim in his essay Existentialism
is a Humanism.
On the surface, (Facebook, Tumblr, LinkedIn, MySpace,
Twitter etc.) are the most fake and base of human interactions. People go on
these sites to pretend to maintain contacts and business relations. These sites
exist to show people that you have friends, relationships, and ideas, all of
which are completely fake. I would analogize this as the Sartre level of our identity
as we take on projects to appear as the ideal versions of ourselves.
Deeper down we have the semi anonymous media sites (Reddit,
9gag, eBaum’s world etc.) where some pretty dirty things are said and done but nothing
unforgivable and utterly revolting. Despite this, we really can see the best
and worst of our society because people can do most anything without any real repercussions. People can somewhat
be themselves. I believe this is where most internet users hide out because their
need for anonymity is met. But it is still somewhat Sartrean as people take on
projects and appear to be somewhat sociable.
One more level down and we have pretty much the scum of the
earth. The deep web is a prime example of society’s outliers and social rejects.
Those whom do not play by Sartre’s existentialist rules reside in the deep web.
Sadly, a lot of horrible things go on here and there is not much anybody can do
about it. There is absolutely nothing that would resemble a Sartrean world.
guess the internet is prime example of how we are not
solely described by Sartre’s existentialism.
The advent of the internet I think sheds light on a completely different
view on humanity.
I don't know if I would agree with you that Facebook and other social networks are completely fake representations of ourselves. I will admit that they are not entirely real, either; rather, they are "edited" versions of ourselves. For I may not be completely revealing who I am via Facebook, but isn't the persona I choose to project, who I choose to be, actually part of who I am? If, as argued to Sartre, the projects we choose to take on define who we are, isn't the project of creating my Facebook image part of what defines me? The different ways people approach Facebook, even if they don't show who their truest selves are (though being able to judge someone's "true self" simply from being acquainted with them is unlikely as well), at least reveals how they want to be seen, and how they go about doing it--which can be very telling of their values and personality traits. Maybe I don't include some of my more embarrassing favorite tv-shows or movies on my profile because I want people to think I'm cool, but what I interpret as "cool" could be very different from others--and that could tell you a lot about me.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with your notion that you are condemned to play are specific or range of roles in society and that you are not free to create any kind of work for yourself. The truth is that you truly could if you wanted to drop out of school and join the circus if you wanted to set that as a project for yourself. Now just because you are free to do that does not mean that you would do that because you probably do not want to give up your college education. But just because you do not think it wise or simply reject the idea to join the circus does not mean that you are not free to. Also I think that many people choose a specific path for their life and set a kind of work for themselves for instance being a doctor. To be a doctor is a long and drawn out process of many years of school internships. The fact that this process is drawn out and the period of time between when you set the work and actually achieve the goal of the set work is long many people believe or feel that they are then stuck and have no choice. The truth is though that firstly you are still freely pursuing your original goal and secondly although it would be tough to jump ship and abandon the hard work in the past you could still create another work for yourself and lead you life down another path. I think that there is always a way in which a persons existence precedes their essence.
ReplyDelete