Jean Paul Sartre

On what interpretation of "human existence" does existentialism exist?

- Fundamental idea is that we are not born with a function or purpose we choose our own function or purpose, and in that way we create ourselves

According to existentialism, value is subjective in one sense but not in another. Explain.

- He thinks that if god does not exist and we were not created for a purpose then we do not have any purpose in coming into existence/ we have no purpose - Meaning that any purpose we have is one we give to ourselves - Things have value only if we value them/ the source of value is our own wants choices attitudes and so forth - According to existentialism, we create value; this is a subjective's view: something is good, right, desirable if someone thinks it is - An objection to this view is that everything is permitted and that we are not in a position to criticize anyone's else's actions as objectively wrong - When we choose something for ourselves we are choosing it for everyone in think; thinking its valid for us were thinking its valid for everyone

How does Sartre's view about choosing for all mankind help defend existentialism against the charge that it is subjective in a bad way?

- If it entailed that an act was wrong only if they believe that it is wrong, that would be bad because some acts could be believed to be wrong that are not wrong, or say a serial killer thinks killing is not wrong but it is. Sartre avoids it by saying although values are subjective in one sense, they are not subjective in another sense. Because choosing for oneself is choosing for all mankind.

What, in general, is existentialism, according to Sartre

- It is the view that existence precedes essence

What does Sartre mean in saying that in choosing for oneself one chooses for all mankind? What is his argument for this position?

- Judging its right for me, I'm judging its right for everyone. Judging its wrong for me, I'm judging its wrong for everyone - The argument is if x is wrong for me to do, it is wrong for everyone similarly situated - So in judging that x is wrong for me I am judging that it is wrong for everyone similarly situated When I choose my values I'm choosing them for everyone/ all mankind

Does the conclusion that in choosing for oneself one chooses for all mankind follow from the premise (1) that one chooses to do something only if one believes it to be the best choice and the premise (2) that one believes that something is the best choice for one person only if one believes that it is the best choice for everyone similarly situated? Why or why not?

- The answer to this question is no because not everyone is similarly situated - to the extent people are similarly situated to a certain choice

Why, offhand, does existentialism on this interpretation seem incoherent given the standard metaphysical understanding of "essence"?

- The essence of something is something it must have in order to exist - If something has an essence and loses it, it no longer exists - If this is true existentialism doesn't make any sense because we exist without any of the properties that we need I order to exist and that is incoherent

Sartre seems to infer from the premise that essence does not precede existence, that existence preceded essence . what is anything, is wrong with this inference

- What's wrong with it is that existence and essence can come at the same time/ they can coexist simultaneously

What, according to Sartre is the " first principle of existentialism?"

- man is nothing else but what he makes of himself

Why does Sartre think that atheism entail existentialism? Does it on the standard interpretation of essence? why or why not? Does it on the alternative interpretation? Why or why not?

Essence is essential properties, and these properties are needed to exist. Existentialism is existence precedes essence, which makes no sense. If existentialism is impossible and atheism entails it, then atheism is false. If god did not exist, then it may be possible. If god does not exist, then god did not create us with a function or purpose. Therefore, if we weren't created with a function or purpose in mind, we exist before our function.

According to Sartre, atheism implies that value is subjective in one important sense. Why does he think this? Is he right? Why or why not?

He thinks this because if god doesn't exist, then god did not create value. Therefore, if anything is of value, we must create it. That leaves the gap that value is even created by someone, so this is only if you assume that. It is not true that atheism implies this because it only implies that value is created, which one might reject. Value may not be created, it just is.

How, given his position in Euthyphro, would Socrates disagree with Sartre on the nature of value?

Socrates believes that we approve of things because they are good but Sartre believes things are good because we approve of them.