Existentialist Themes of Anxiety and Absurdity


In a world with such a vast amount of people their exists virtually
every different belief, thought, and ideology. This means that for every
argument and every disagreement that their exists two sides of relative equal
strength. It is through these disagreements that arguments are formed.
Arguments are the building blocks in which philosophers use to analyze
situations and determine theories of life. For the purpose of this paper I will
try and argue my personal beliefs on a specific argument. This argument is
presented in a form of a question and upon examination of the contents of this
question, several different and unique questions arise. In order to support my
theory as to the answer to this question I will attempt to answer the three
subquestions which deal less with the content of the question itself and more
with the reaction to reading the question. Also key to the support of my theory
is the concept of existentialism. I will go into the foundations of this
ethical theory throughout the remainder of this paper. Subquestion one, “E -->
C”, simple asks whether it is true or false that if you have an ethical theory
then does it have to be consistent. Subquestion two, “(?) --> H”, poses the
idea of what makes up the essence of being a human being. Subquestion three, “E
--> (H --> M)”, asks whether it is true or false that it is ethical to assume
that humans should be given moral priority over animals.
I order to support my interpretation and answer the topic question, I
will try to explain my personal ethical theory. We were given several different
theories in which to emulate or pick pieces of in order to define such words
which have different meanings to different people. For such vague words such as
\'right\' and \'wrong\', the context in which they are presented are vital pieces in
order to define them. It is my belief, and a necessary requirement of this
paper to somehow define these two words. It is obvious that these two words
must be opposites of each other. Therefore, the understanding of one will
easily lead to the understanding of its opposite. However, the words themselves
will never be anything more than five letters grouped together. This is because
your ethical theory and someone else\'s ethical theory could possible conflict
causing for a discrepancy in the definitions of these words. Therefore,
throughout this paper I will try not to use such vague words such as \'right\' or
\'wrong\'.
Most of the Philosophers and ethical theories presented in Sober held
that the highest ethical good is the same for everyone. Kierkegaard, who was
the first writer to call himself existential, reacted against this tradition by
insisting that the highest good for the individual is to find his or her own
unique vocation (Web 2). I agreed with many of the different ideas of the
ethical theories but I was not able to overlook the ever present idea of God.
Personally I am a anti-religious person who feels strongly that religion in
general is filled with corruption and too often leads to a misguided life. It
is my belief that, “Blind faith is the CHILD of ignorance”(Quote, ?). It was
therefor impossible for me to look at any of the theories which involved the
mentioning of God. However, I did find many interesting ideas encompassed in
the theory of atheistic existentialism. Existentialism is the popular name of
a philosophical attitude primarily associated with the 20th-century thinker
Jean Paul Sarte, but with a history that goes back to the 19th-century Danish
philosopher Soren Kierkegarrd.
All existentialists have tried to stress the importance of passionate
individual action in deciding question of both morality and truth (Warnock).
They have insisted, accordingly, that personal experience and acting on one\'s
own convictions are essential in arriving at the truth. Thus, the understanding
of a situation by someone involved in that situation is superior to that of a
detached, objective observer. This emphasis in the perspective of the
individual agent has also made existentialists suspicious of systematic
reasoning (Warnock).
Perhaps the most prominent concept in existentialism is that of choice.
Humanity\'s primary distinction, in the view of most existentialists, is the
freedom to choose. Existentialists have held that human beings do not have a
fixed nature, or essence, as other animals and plants do; each human being makes
choices that create his or her own nature. Choice is therefore central to human
existence, and it is inescapable; even the refusal to chose is a choice (Web 1).
Freedom of choice entails commitment and