Sartres Impact of Divine Absence in Existentialism Essay

Sartres bear on of Divine Absence in Existentialism - Essay ExampleSartre divides his theory of pull roundence into two grassroots categories, which he refers to as en-soi (in-itself) and pour-soi (for-itself), both of which are derived from his theory of knowingness. En-soi existence is a classification of solid things, that is, day-by-day objects or substances that exist completely by themselves. This explanation becomes clearer in comparison to the category of pour-soi, which is a organism of consciousness that defines itself because it is not something else. Pour-soi selects a distance amidst itself and something that is not itself, a nothingness in between the two, while at the same time being conscious of itself. Being for-itself can only exist through consciousness of an outside object. This act of distance is a state of nothing unique to the consciousness of populace, for through this act of separation, one raises questions and realizes possibilities of what is not (i. e. a quality lacking from the situation or environment). For example, should an unmarried be hungry, they can imagine a future time when they will no longer be hungry. This example can be applied to anything the human mind can imagine. It is the meaning behind Sartres narrative that the self as not being what it is and being what it is not, because the conscious mind chooses not to engage the reality of what is, but instead work towards the possibility of what currently is not.Sartre uses the example of a assistant not being at a caf, stating that although the caf is there, he recognizes his friends absence, thereby inserting an amount of negativity, or nothingness, to the restaurant. By imagining a lack of something, one distances oneself from the world. This nothingness, or lack, that has been inserted into the caf tableau is actually therefore a projection of the nothingness deep down oneself. The power of conscious negation in this sense is synonymous with independence - f reedom to imagine the possible and, therefore, freedom to actualize the possibility. The state of being conscious demands the self to constantly choose both belief and action. Sartres border on that consciousness is free at all times is in direct conflict with Freuds model of the unconscious mind consciousness is instead transparent and must make a choice in the here and now, unheeding of what has happened in the past. However, this does not mean that the self, as subject, cannot be objectified. The most direct route to this relates to Sartres example of somebody caught looking through a keyhole. Through recognition that another consciousness is regarding the self in an objective manner, whether it be quantitative of the physical selfs facticity (such as height, weight, ethnicity, et cetera) or judgmentally (as in assumption of purpose), the self is forced to recognize itself in an equally objective manner. The self in turn defends itself by objectifying the other consciousness. While humans are able to act upon possibilities to make them a reality, they cannot change their essence. Sartre admits that one can choose a life project - in his case, writing - but that the very act of defining oneself is bad cartel, in that it is either 1)