Which Philosopher Has a Better Insight of Human Existence?

Jean Paul Sartre begins his essay in pointing out the common misconceptions that people have on existentialists and points out that existentialists can be Christians like Gabriel Marcel and that they can also be atheists like him self, but that what they have in common is the belief that "existence comes before essence, that we must begin from the subjective." I believe this means seeing things as they are opposed to as they once were or might become. Jean Paul Sartre states that there is only "one being whose existence comes before its essence" which is that of man; that there is no human nature because there is no God to believe it exists. He then poses an example of when Abraham in the bible was told by an angel to sacrifice his son. Sartre believes it is man who chooses; that it that perhaps, it wasn't an angel who spoke to Abraham.

He then speaks of military leaders putting others to death he says that yes they were sent out on this mission to fight in war but that the ultimate choice to kill was that of the military leaders. In terms of freedom he says that man is free, man is freedom and that people who argue that if god did not exist everything would be permitted" Sartre says to this that man depends on something in order to stop himself from doing something therefore and this where the notion of God came about. Gabriel Marcel on the other hand speaks of freedom in saying that the soul recognizes that it doesn't belong to itself. It knows it isn't free. Sartre speaks of "abandonment", saying that there is no God and that we humans decide our "being"

Gabriel Marcel was open to find "truth." He believed that the best way to understand "the truth" is by our own reflection on "experiences" and meditating on questions. He also believed in the participation of "being"; to him is the "aspect of experience we can't understand or analyze. Mystery is highly important for Marcel he defines it as something that can not be solved or answered. To Sartre this wasn't the case his way of thinking was that we do have the answer and there is no mystery. Sartre in other words believes that we are the product of our own doing or conviction. To Marcel the need for "Mystery" is the need for "being" or also known as the "ontological need".

When speaking on despair, Sartre believed we should act without reliance and without hope. "That existentialism is not despair" and that it wouldn't make a difference whether god existed or not. While Marcel believed that because someone rejects the "ontological need" they are lead into despair. In speaking of Hope, Marcel believes that we humans "will" hope and if what we "will" deserve to be "willed" then our whole "being" wills it so.

According to Sartre the absolute truth towards consciousness is "I will, therefore, I am"

Marcel believes we live in a "broken world" With this he means that the world is essentially broken because we humans deny the transcendent and refuse to imagine and refuse the inability to reflect. According to Marcel the misplacement of the idea of function contributes to the "brokenness" of the world. He poses an Example of the misapplication of the idea of function in which the man loses the awareness of the sense, of the ontological. The man that distributes token in the subway, Marcel mentions that his job is mindless and repetitive and it is so much like that of a machine like the token dispenser he says that the only difference from the man and the token dispenser to the subway commuters is that they differentiate him/her is in determining which line is longer. The commuters do not interact with this man and are very superficial.

I agree with Marcel's insight because he in a way shares the same view to a pint as Sartre in stating that we become our functions if we let that to happen and Sartre says something similar saying that we humans are the ones that choose what we are. However, Marcel seems like he thinks realistic but at the same time doesn't deny god's existence and says that yes the problem of evil is within the people who deny the "ontological need" experience despair and are not happy. I also agree with Marcel when he mentions that the person who identifies themselves with their functions believes that the world is broken that the "exigence of the transcendent" slowly begins to die. According to Marcel this world views "everything and everyone in terms of function, and "all questions are approached with technique as one that is dominated by its technics." My interpretation is that he means that everyone is dependent on technology and that we no longer depend on our capabilities as humans we rely on technology so much that we become what we create, mere robots or automatons because we have let our functions define us. Marcel then points out that "technics" is inefficient and that because of us humans depending on "technics" we have used and misapplied the idea of function and lead this world into despair and thus created a "broken world" in essence.

"Existentialism is a Humanism" http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/sartre.htm

Class notes. Gabriel Marcel

Class notes. Marcel

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcel/ 2. The Broken World and the functional person.