Philosophers

=Philosophers:=

Questions to consider:
How do they distinguish belief from opinion? What does their reasoning process look like? What is defined as true? What is belief? Are they a rationalist or an empiricist? What role do senses play in knowing? What role does rationality play in knowing? How is rational different from non rational? What can we know? What can we not know? How do we acquire knowledge? How do they define our place in the world?

=Existentialism=

Beauvoir, Camus and Sartre were 20th century philosophers who each believe that the world we live in is only shaped by the human qualities we, the individuals, have. Existentialist philosophers define their ontology and epistemology as the human existence that is unique and unexplainable, where existence is created in a chaotic world by the choices we make. Existentialist philosophers believe that we are completely responsible for everything we become. The dominant school of thought within existentialism is that our existence precedes our essence. Sartre considers the human situation as absurd. Classifying the world as absurd is defining it as having no “ultimate reason”. A major belief in existentialism is that how we live life is more important than knowing whether life is worth living. Existentialists do not fully consider belief or opinion valid. They consider the only true distinguishing factor commitment and action vs. no commitment and no action (Lecture). Man does not reason himself into existence but simply is. There is no system or process associated with the existence of man. It would not be fully correct to classify the existentialist as either, but if a choice needed to be made I would classify the existentialist as an empiricist. The existentialist is more concerned with the thought that our lives are affected by the world of reality where the sickness, pain and frustration dictate our lives (angelfire). Contrastingly the existentialists were also opposed to the use of scientific answer. The use of the senses is very concrete within existential belief. A common thought is that there is nothing more to the world than what we can garner using our senses. It is nothing more than it appears. The use of reason has or holds little value within the existentialist society. The entire human existence is seen as irrational or an absurd concept. There is no logic. Reason is rejected because it can be seen as systematic or scientific. __Skit__

//Albert:// I think therefore, I am. //Jean-Paul//: So you need to think to exist. //Albert//: Precisely! //Jean//-//Paul:// Why? //Albert//: What do you mean why? //Jean//-//Paul:// Why do I need to think before I can exist? //Albert//: Well, I know that I exist because I can reason that I am living. I exist because my life has a set of goals, purpose. //Jean//-//Paul:// There is no reason for things to happen the way they do. The fact that we exist precludes the fact that we live. //Albert//: My existence can be comprehended by the simple fact of conceptual mechanical system. There is order in the world, I breath, eat and sleep. I think using logic and reason. I think therefore, I am. //Jean//-//Paul:// All that systems do is cause a mechanistic view of human kind. They bring about anxiety, fear and alienation, they cause war, and they illustrate the failure of religion while turning the "subject" into "an object", an individual into a social security number. //Albert//: How is it possible that I can exist without any reason and logical deduction? //Jean-Paul:// The world exists without reason and purpose. It exists simply because it exists. There is no deeper meaning and no need to strive for a deeper meaning to life. How we live life is more important than knowing whether life is worth living. Your greatest responsibility is to yourself and choosing what you are, the individual. //Albert:// So I have to know how to live not whether to live? //Jean-Paul:// Yes, I do not think and then exist. I simply am.