Morris Braverman (Milgram33). He is also tempted to laugh, and even hides his face that is beaming with some laughter. He is at some point unable to hide his laughter, although he sums up the experiment with a high level of intelligence. He emphasizes the rigid authoritative nature of the learning process, and also the inner feeling of tension that he experiences. Braverman explains that he also observed his humanness while conducting an experiment. He argues that he was keen to note when the learner cried out in pain (Milgram34). He is so considerate that he even considered changing the manner that he used to teach the victim. His human nature

Summary of ElinorRosenblum’s Case (Ch. 7)

Mrs.Rosenblum is a charming lady who takes pleasure in describing her social background, and the achievements she has made in social activities. One of her social work activities is volunteering in juvenile delinquent activities (Milgram51). She did Milgram she claims that she teaches manners and respect to her learners. She disregards punishmentas a way of instilling obedience, and emphasizes love, which she claims she employs as she teaches her students. A review of her performance and verbalizations shows that Mrs. Rosenblum believed that the learner was only being shocked and that there is no learning that took place (Milgram 54).

If Sarte was told to explain the wrong side of these two phenomena, he would have explained the two cases through human subjectivity. He would have argued that Morris Braverman lacks the inability to understand human subjectivity and that Rosenbaum was too soft to think beyond the mere earthly existence. In other words, Rosenbaum is too soft to use her individual freedom (subjectivism), while Braverman lacks the ability to understand human subjectivity.Sarte would not give them an excuse to defend themselves.

Question 2: Sarte’s Existentialism and How he responds to the Objections

Sarte’s starts by outlining the objections that have been made towards existentialism from different quarters, as the Christians, the communists and other groups. The first objection that has been made against existentialism relates to the nature of existentialism to encourage people to remain desperate and quiet (Sartre 17). This objection has termed existentialism as mere contemplation, which has no sense, but only promoting bourgeois philosophy. The second objection made against existentialism is its emphasis on the negative characteristics of humanity. The group that makes this objection argues that existentialism has capitalized on the negative side of human beings, but has not considered the positive attributes of man, such as beauty (Sartre 17). They claim that existentialism ought to have considered the bright side of human nature. The third objection is by the communists (Sartre 18). They argue that existentialism considers the pure subjectivity side of man and does not incorporate the cooperation that man has, especially with fellow men. The fourth and last objection that Sarte purposes to rule out was made by the Christians (Sartre 18). They argue that existentialism has ignored the commandments of the Lord and has invalidated the enterprise of a human being.

Sarte makes several arguments to defend existentialism, especially by countering the objections made by the four groups. anarchy. Sartre (19) expresses concern over the behavior of the people who oppose existentialism, since in their propositions, they seem to express pessimism more than optimism.

In his further defense, Sartre (19) argues that people have distorted the real meaning of existentialism, and thus the people who talk about it do not understand its meaning. He acknowledges that, through such distortion, existentialism has lost its meaning. He contends that existentialism is a pure, less scandalous doctrine for specialists and philosophers, and thus the objections against it do not hold water. Sartre (22) identifies that the division of existentialism in two categories has also been a factor for it being objected.Sarte, who represents the atheist existentialists, retorts that they believe in a supernatural being though the being may not be God. According to Sartre, atheistic existentialism has consistency and proposes that man exists first, then he makes himself. Since a man has the power to shape himself, there is no sense in the objection against existentialism, which claims that existentialism depicts man as lacking the good side. Sarte shows that a man is not just what he conceives himself, but man is what he has willed to be. In regard to the human subjectivity characteristic of existentialism, Sartre (24) connotes that the subjectivity has been misunderstood. He describes two interpretations of the meaning of subjectivity, and links existentialism to the inability of a man to understand the human subjectivity.

The propositions of Sartre in an attempt to defend existentialism from its opponents do not hold much water. Sarte seems to just have played with words, and modify the original existentialism to make his point. In his explanation, he has majored on objections made, restating them without providing a foundational basis for his argument. For example, he makes a divisionf existentialism into Christians-led existentialism and atheistic-existentialism, in order to defend atheistic existentialism. This looks like much of running away from the problem rather than solving the tussle. His defense is thus not successful.

Question 3: Existence recedes essence

For a better understanding of this clause made by Sartre (20), one ought to understand the words essence and existence in the context of Sartre’s pronouncement, and also understand how this affects the meaning, belief and value. The word essence in this context refers to an old idea in philosophy, which theorized that all matter or things have an ideal or predetermined set of features. It is, however, important to note is that not every matter matched with is an essence. In addition, the philosophers did not find a pattern to explain how every item matched s characteristics. The version of atheistic existentialism that Satre advocates posits that people are defined by what they do in life. The people’s will to do things defines the life they live. In this sense, Satre (20) tries to explain that human beings do not have a pre-determined, or ideal pattern that defines their future. His central argument is that people have to make a unique definition of whom they are, by inviting the will to work their lives out. From this proposition, it is arguable that Satre rubs off the idea of an idealized t of features common to all human beings. The central version of Satre’s argument is that any form of life does not have a set pattern of characteristics that define it. This proposition has also helped him argue out the people and groups that were against existentialism.

Satre’sOne person cannot be a complete model for the others, and a person cannot lead a life similar to another person’s life. Another implication of this proposition is related to individual freedom. From Satre’s clause, individual freedom is unbounded and obsolete.

After close consideration fSatre’s argument on essence and existence, I am in agreement with him. His account of God is one of the best. The pattern he explains here is also very observable with values. Although the notion of freedom that Satreexplains appears nuanced a bit, he very well expresses the relationship between man and God. With such freedom, man is a endowed with freedom, which comes directly from God. Man is thus assured of the freedom of choice, and he is the only agent who stands in the way of his freedom. Satre also explains well how man may interfere with his freedom. He explains the greedy nature of man, and how the materialistic nature of man limits his freedom. He explains that these traits also leads to the creation of rules and regulations, since, without them, the man’s society can invite anarchy. The expression of the closeness of reality that Satre brings out convinces me to side with him. However, I fault his expression because of his support of atheistic existentialism. Even though at some point he explains the existence of God, he does not advocate for God’s existence. For example, at some point, He argues that if God, does not exist, a supernatural being exists. I fault this pronouncement, and I am of the opinion that his position about God should b straightforward.

Works Cited

Milgram, Stanley, Obedience to Authority, n.d. Web. 22^nd, April, 2014.

Satre, Jean-Paul, Existentialism is a Humanism. n.d. Web. 22^nd, April, 2014.

Need assistance with this?

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW