This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Final review- people who are existentialist are also atheist usually, so this is something that unites them. They feel that the God hypothesis is not necessary. This represents a collapse of traditional religion. -The subject of study is always the individual for existentialists, which is a departure from plato of course. -why no human nature? Why no essence? Sartre says that god gave us an essence , an ought nature, we ought to do this by virtue of something put into us by god. When someone makes a table, they have something in mind so the table has an essence, a certain look, etc. the function of that is also very clear. A table is still different from a chair though. Now when you take god away from the picture, man is untethered and free floating. He or she has no nature or no “ought” to fulfill a function. All we do is exist, like the name of the philosophy suggests. There is no imperative. All you are left with is “I am.” We have to make for ourself the essence. There is no nature, but u are what u do. So you can do this that or the other. but this is still free floating, there is no model for it. - why no nature? Imperically, we learn from objects by their behaviors or their reactions to things. Then we move up from objects to animals and we continue observing. we observe tiger behavior so that the loop of data is closed, and the mystery is closed. Given enough data, the scientific enterprise seems to work. There is a tiger nature, a fish nature, etc. data, the scientific enterprise seems to work....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/09/2008 for the course BIO Bio 122 taught by Professor Anandan during the Fall '07 term at Drexel.
- Fall '07