In the two essays “Is Everything Determined?” and “Existentialism”
the authors discuss about the debate of whether our lives a predetermined or if
everything happens spur of the moment and nothing is to be expected. In
Jean-Paul Sartre’s essay “Existentialism” she argues that existentialism exists
and she states that “if existence really does precede essence, man is
responsible for what he is.” She wants her readers to be aware of what
existentialism exactly is, since it can be a confusing subject to many people
who may have not ever heard of it before. She engages the reader into her
argument by illustrating her points into something we can understand. In
Stephen Hawking’s essay “Is Everything Determined?” he ponders the question
about whether everything is meant to be or whether it isn’t. He opens up
everyone’s eyes by stating “I now turn to the third problem, the questions of
free will and responsibility for our actions. We feel subjectively that we have
the ability to choose who we are and what we do.” He is questioning the idea
that we are all free to do whatever we want in this world and choose to be
whoever we want to be. This may be true in America, but it is not true in every
country. So was it predetermined that America was going to be the advanced
country with freedom today, when there are countries struggling such as Guatemala?
The wrap up to Hawkins essay states that yes, existentialism exists, “but it
might as well not be, because we can never know what is determined.” In my
personal opinion, I am on board with Hawkins essay, the idea that yes some
things are determined by God, but that we are also free beings who can change
the plan with our own actions.
I think the central argument of Jean-Paul Sartre's’ “Existentialism” is an essay argued upon the sole concept that humans are born before we can be anything, before we can become anything; therefore, our existence precedes our essence. Our state of existence precedes our state of becoming. We have to exist first. In Stephan Hawking's “Is Everything Determined?” the central argument is how things are determined in society. It almost seems as if a set of laws exist that govern how the universe will develop over time. Hawking states that there should be a set of laws that determines the evolution of the universe from its initial state and God may have ordained these laws.
ReplyDeleteI think Sartre is saying that before we want to become doctors, or writers, authors and just a human being, we have to be born first to do this, we have to actually exist in the world to become what we want to be, we have to actually exist in the world to actually live. I think Hawking’s essay is saying that even before we are born our lives are predetermined, every step, every thought, every action, is determined by a manifest from God.
I agree with Sartre’s essay more, I still like Hawking as an author but this argument seems invalid because I believe we have to exist first before we live life. I agree with Sartre more because his argument truly mirrors the life people live. People are born, we learn to talk, eat, go to school, we adventure, we live, we love and then we die. All of this is not predetermined, but is how we live once we exist in the world, once we are born.
In reading Hawking's essay "Is Everything Determined" I think his central idea was about how we as humans might believe and portray why our lives are predetermined. In his essay he says that there are trivial details that can be determined by a higher power. H e then questions that if this is true that our lives are predetermined by someone else what happens to our free will he answer this by saying that to have free will our behavior can be predicted. In reading Sartre's essay "Existentialism" I believe his central idea was that before us to be there has to come something before us. In the beginning of this essay he writes "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself" I agree with this because I believe that what we do is what makes us who we are that no one else get s to choose or say who we get to be. He also says that in order for us to understand our existence we must first make man aware of what he is. H e gives a couple examples on how in the past people have said that a higher being is talking to them but that we can never believe it to be a higher being because there is no proof. There is no proof that God or an angel was talking to them but we are supposed to believe that there is a higher being that has written what we are supposed to do with our lives. Our lives are not predetermined what we do once we get here is how we exist it is how we live.
ReplyDeleteI think the central argument of Hawking's essay , is that they should be test, to test if man really have free will. Also, he does mention that God may have a hand in the laws of science or maybe not. He also sees that humans believe that we choose our own path, and it's not predetermined. He talks about the test , we should give to see if we really have free will. In the Sartre's essay, he speaks of man is what he or she makes of it. Basically saying, you're life will determined how you go about and live it. I don't really agree to both of these essays, because i've always stick to my religion and saying that God has always had a plan for everything including me. And that you're never suppose to question God in anyway .
ReplyDeleteWithin the writing “Is everything Determined” by Stephen Hawking I believe that he is trying to make the audience the question, is the outcome of our live inevitable or do we get to make or own choices. In the essay he does show his belief that there is some kind oh higher power that controls our lives, but at the same time, we have the power to control the outcome of what happens in our everyday lives. Within “Existentialism” by Jean-Paul Sartre’s, she goes against the thought of a higher being having influence at all, stating that all though out man’s past, there are examples of people stating that a higher power is speaking to them but at the same time there is no proof that this is happening at all, so if we can’t prove that, a higher power is real, how can we except that our outcomes are already made up by something that might not even be real. Even though I see the reasoning between each author, I’m going to have to side with Stephen Hawking, I know that we don’t have proof or we haven’t physically seen this higher power, yet we can feel that it’s there, helping us get through or lives, still at the same time I believe we still control the outcomes of or future.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument in both these essays is free will verses fate. One argues that there cannot be free will when god knows what is going to happen. The other states that a man can only be what he makes himself. The first essay by Stephen Hawking speaks of the god and fate verses free will. The argument is that if god sees all and knows all then how do we have free will. If this is the case is it right to be held accountable for our actions. Is it right to imprison a man that is pre-destine to rob a bank. It also brings about the argument if god is real or not. You can also argue that there are multiple realities and god just knows every possible outcome. The second essay is the one that argues that a man cannot be a man without free will, it is what defines him. Thinking of this argument it is true can we truly define an individual if he has no free will, if he is just doing what he is fated to do. You can also say that we are not truly alive if we cannot make our own decisions it is like we are just pieces on someone’s game board.
ReplyDeleteIn John-Paul Sartre's reading "Existentialism" Sartre raises the idea that man makes themselves who they are. Saying "...man will be what he have planned to be." Which means we determine our existence and choose how we will live our lives. We choose the outcome and we are responsible for what we become. She also bring up the word "will" and says that usually when we use this word we mean the conscious decision of that person. These conscious decisions determine who you are and we decide all of these decisions on our own. However, in "Is Everything Determined" by Stephen Hawking, in the introduction he brings up the question, "But, are we really masters of our fate?" And within the reading explains the idea that everything is predetermined by some other race in which we have not been contacted by. He believes the reason we adopt the theory to free will because we cannot solve some fundamental equations. I am siding with Sartre because I believe we have conscious decisions to make and nobody can make these decisions for you. You decide your present life and that will overall decide your future. I believe we think someone is ruling our overall outcomes so we are okay with the fact that one day we will be in a position we had no idea we would end up in, but in reality we put ourself there. Maybe even to help us get over the fact that we will one day die and scientifically we cannot conclude the idea that we will go to heaven.
ReplyDelete