Free Essays on Existentialism

â€Å"Existentialism and Humanism† Sarte Existentialism is defined in the dictionary as a philosophical theory emphasizing the existence of the individual as a free and self-determining agent. John Paul Sarte says there are two types of existentialists, there are the Christians and the existential atheists, obviously their difference is that one group believes in God and the other does not. Sarte says that they do have something in common and that is simply the fact that they believe that existence comes before essence. Sarte classified himself as an existential atheist and thus believes there is no God. Sarte argues that there is at least one being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it and that being is man. He believes in the human reality and that man simply is, and he is what he wills. He makes his first principle of existentialism the statement that: Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. I would say that Sarte’s idea of freedom comes in his philosophy of existentialism. Sarte would say that as humans we are constantly trying to define ourselves, and through this process we are free to choose what we will in order to reach that definition. So, I would say that Sarte’s ideas of freedom lies in our ability as humans to make choices. Sarte believes this to be very important. Toward the end of his essay he says that man chooses himself, but that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. He says then that our responsibility is much greater than supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. My own definition of freedom is somewhat similar to that of Sarte’s. I defined freedom as an idea that differs from individual to individual. That one individual may believe freedom is the ability to make choices in the things they do, and another individual may believe that freedom is having no limits and no restrictions. Either way both individuals feel â€Å"free† and ... Free Essays on Existentialism Free Essays on Existentialism Existentialism has been defined as a philosophical movement or tendency, emphasizing individual existence, freedom and choice that influences many diverse writers in the 19th and 20th centuries. The philosophical term existentialism came from Jean Paul Sartre, a French philosopher. He combined the theories of a select few German philosophers, the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl, the metaphysics of G.W.F. Hegel and Martin Heidegger, and the social theory of Karl Marx. This philosophy became a worldwide movement. One phenomenon of this theory is its proliferation. Since its creation it has remained a part of contemporary thought. One explanation for this is its applicability to contemporary life and society. It focuses on the utter existence of man itself. According to Sartre, a true existentialist believes there is no God and thus man becomes alone with only ourselves as a guide to making the decisions that define our existence. Our existence not only defines, but also must be defined. Subjectivism provides this definition. Subjectivity refers to the radical freedom to choose with or without a God, but also that this radical freedom becomes a responsibility to use or not use. Another definition, provided by Webster’s dictionary defines existentialism as a philosophical movement especially of the 20th century that stresses the individual position as self determining agent responsible for his or her own choices. It becomes very clear through the definitions provided, that existentialism focuses on two things, the individual and choice. Breaking apart the word itself, you come up with another word, exist, to have actual being, and also existent, which is to have existence. The suffix –ism denotes and action or practice. A minimal definition of existentialism might be, an individual practicing his or her right to make choices for him/herself, ... Free Essays on Existentialism â€Å"Existentialism and Humanism† Sarte Existentialism is defined in the dictionary as a philosophical theory emphasizing the existence of the individual as a free and self-determining agent. John Paul Sarte says there are two types of existentialists, there are the Christians and the existential atheists, obviously their difference is that one group believes in God and the other does not. Sarte says that they do have something in common and that is simply the fact that they believe that existence comes before essence. Sarte classified himself as an existential atheist and thus believes there is no God. Sarte argues that there is at least one being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it and that being is man. He believes in the human reality and that man simply is, and he is what he wills. He makes his first principle of existentialism the statement that: Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. I would say that Sarte’s idea of freedom comes in his philosophy of existentialism. Sarte would say that as humans we are constantly trying to define ourselves, and through this process we are free to choose what we will in order to reach that definition. So, I would say that Sarte’s ideas of freedom lies in our ability as humans to make choices. Sarte believes this to be very important. Toward the end of his essay he says that man chooses himself, but that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. He says then that our responsibility is much greater than supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. My own definition of freedom is somewhat similar to that of Sarte’s. I defined freedom as an idea that differs from individual to individual. That one individual may believe freedom is the ability to make choices in the things they do, and another individual may believe that freedom is having no limits and no restrictions. Either way both individuals feel â€Å"free† and ... Free Essays on Existentialism Existentialism Existentialism, philosophical movement or tendency, emphasizing individual existence, freedom, and choice, that influenced many diverse writers in the 19th and 20th centuries. Major Themes Because of the diversity of positions associated with existentialism, the term is impossible to define precisely. Certain themes common to virtually all existentialist writers can, however, be identified. The term itself suggests one major theme: the stress on concrete individual existence and, consequently, on subjectivity, individual freedom, and choice. Moral Individualism Most philosophers since Plato have held that the highest ethical good is the same for everyone; insofar as one approaches moral perfection, one resembles other morally perfect individuals. The 19th-century Danish philosopher Sà ¸ren Kierkegaard, who was the first writer to call himself existential, reacted against this tradition by insisting that the highest good for the individual is to find his or her own unique vocation. As he wrote in his journal, â€Å"I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die.† Other existentialist writers have echoed Kierkegaard's belief that one must choose one's own way without the aid of universal, objective standards. Against the traditional view that moral choice involves an objective judgment of right and wrong, existentialists have argued that no objective, rational basis can be found for moral decisions. The 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche further contended that the individual must de cide which situations are to count as moral situations. Subjectivity All existentialists have followed Kierkegaard in stressing the importance of passionate individual action in deciding questions of both morality and truth. They have insisted, accordingly, that personal experience and acting on one's own convictions are essential in arriving at the truth. Thus, the und...

How Higher Taxes for The Rich Actually Hurt the Poor

How Higher Taxes for The Rich Actually Hurt the Poor Do the rich actually pay for the higher taxes when they become law? Technically, the answer is yes. But the reality is that those costs are usually just passed on to other people or spending is restricted. Either way, the net effect is often a huge hit on the economy. Millions of small and medium-sized businesses fall into the target zone for higher taxation. If a small business is hit with higher costs due to an increase in fuel prices or raw goods, those increases are usually just passed on to the consumers, and those with less disposable income see their costs rise to sometimes devastating levels. Trickle-Down Taxation If the feed for livestock increases due to demand, that cost increase is eventually added into the price of a gallon of milk or a pound of cheese. When gas prices more than double causing the transportation costs of the milk and cheese to double, those costs are also built into the prices. And when taxes (income taxes, corporate taxes, Obamacare taxes or otherwise) are raised on the businesses that either produce, transport, or sell the milk and cheese those costs will equally show up in the price of the product. Businesses simply dont just absorb increased costs. Higher taxes are treated no differently than other forms of increased costs and are typically trickled down and paid by consumers in the long run. This makes life harder for both the small businesses seeking to survive by keeping costs competitive but being unable to do so and Americans with less money to spend than just a few years earlier. Middle Class and the Poor hit Hardest on Higher Taxes The main argument made by conservatives is that you dont want to raise taxes on anyone - especially in tough economics times - because the burden of those costs eventually is spread out and hurt lower income Americans. As seen above, higher taxes are simply just passed on to consumers. And when you have many people and businesses involved in the production, transportation, and distribution of products, and they are all paying higher costs, the added costs built into the selling prices quickly begin to add up for the end consumer. So the question is who is most likely to be harmed by increased taxes on the rich? Ironically, it may be the income brackets that continue to demand those higher taxes on others. Taxed More, Spending Less Higher taxes have other consequences that can also impact the lower and mid-range income brackets more than the wealthier people those taxes are supposedly aimed at. Its simple, really: When people have less money, they spend less money. Thats less money spent on personal services, products, and luxury items. Anyone who has a job in sectors that sell expensive cars, boats, houses, or other sometimes luxurious items (in other words, anyone in manufacturing, retail, and construction industries) should want to have a large pool of people looking to buy. Sure its fun to say that so-and-so doesnt need another jet. But if I make jet parts, work as a mechanic, own an airport hangar or am a pilot looking for a job I want there to be as many jets purchased by as many people as possible. Higher taxes on investments also means fewer dollars spent investing as the reward starts to be less worth the risk. After all, why take the chance at losing already-taxed money when any returns on that investment are taxed at even higher rates? The purpose of low capital gains taxes is to encourage people to invest. Higher taxes means less investing. And that would hurt new or struggling businesses seeking financial backing. And taxing charitable donations at normal income rates would also reduce the amount of charitable giving. And who benefits the most from charitable giving? Lets just say not the rich who would simply just be forced to donate less. Liberals: Punish The Rich out of Fairness Its generally accepted that raising taxes on the rich would do little to reduce deficits, close funding gaps, or help the economy. When asked about the potential negatives of raising taxes on anyone, President Obama usually just answers that the matter is about fairness. Then what follows are lies about how the wealthy pay less than fast food workers or secretaries. For instance, Mitt Romneys effective tax rate of about 14% puts him at a tax rate higher than 97% of the population, according to the Tax Foundation. (Nearly half of Americans pay a 0% income tax rate). Its just fair to tax people who have a lot more money than everybody else. Warren Buffett said that it would raise the morale of the middle class to have the rich pay more, also using the false argument that people like Mitt Romney pay less than most middle-class Americans. In reality, a taxpayer would have to make well over $200,000 in regular income to match the Romney or Buffett tax rates. (Thats even taking into account the millions upon millions both guys give to charity, another reason for the low-for-millionaires-but-higher-than-most effective tax rate.) Its also unfortunate to think that any individuals morale would be raised simply because the government takes more and more from someone else. But perhaps that defines the difference between a ​liberal and a conservative.