Result 19 04 2022 21 03 28

Existence, according to Sartre, precedes essence, i.e., people create themselves through their existence and
cannot be grasped by preset and a priori categories, which he called “essence.” A person’s true existence is their
“genuine essence,” as opposed to a predetermined essence used by others to characterize them. Only humans
with awareness may choose their own values and purpose for their life. [24] These ideas contradict Aristotle and
Aquinas, who thought essence predated individual existence. [reference needed] Despite the fact that Sartre
coined the term, existentialists Heidegger and Kierkegaard were among those who shared his views.
He speaks in a way that the subjective thinker takes. His look must be as varied as the materials he holds
together. When the abstract system of ones, twos, and threes is brought to reality, it nearly invariably fails. In
the same manner that the subjective thinker is concrete, his form must be concretely dialectical. But, just as he
isn’t a poet, an ethicist, or a dialectician, his form isn’t either. His form must be rooted in life, and hence include
poetic, ethical, dialectical, and religious modalities of expression. The subjective thinker has only one setting—
existence—and has nothing to do with places and things like that. No, it is not a mental fairyland where poetry
offers closure, nor is it in England, nor is historical accuracy a concern. The setting is the inwardness of being
human; the concretion is the relationship between the existence-categories. The gap between historical
correctness and actuality is wide.
Some have interpreted the duty to identify as implying that anyone can aspire to be anything. A existentialist
philosopher, on the other hand, might argue that such yearning is a sign of “bad faith,” as Sartre would put it.
Alternatively, the statement could mean that people are defined solely by their actions and are accountable for
them. A cruel person is one who behaves harshly towards others. Individuals are solely responsible for their new
identities (cruel persons). Unlike the idea that their genes or human nature are to blame.
Sartre’s lecture calls Existentialism a Humanism. Men first exist, then experience themselves, then surge into the
world—and define themselves afterwards. Also emphasized is the therapeutic aspect of this: a person may
choose to behave differently, to be decent instead of cruel. Jonathan Webber understands the word essence
differently than Sartre: “an essence is the relational trait of having a collection of elements organized in such a
manner that they can collectively do some activity.” A home, for example, must be able to keep out bad
weather, which is why it has walls and a roof. Humans, unlike buildings, lack an innate purpose because they
can choose their own purpose and thus create their essence; thus, their existence precedes their essence. Sartre
believes that only we determine our own purpose, and that our actions have no weight or momentum until we
formally approve and support them.
[2
Simone de Beauvoir, on the other hand, believes that “sedimentation” is a barrier to changing our life path. They
can be changed by making different choices now, but changes take time to take effect. Their impact on the
agent’s evaluative worldview lasts until the shift. They are inertia. Sartre’s existentialism was based on
Heidegger’s seminal work Being and Time, which is considered the movement’s foundation (1927). In his Letter
on Humanism, Heidegger implied that Sartre misunderstood him to further his own goals of subjectivism, and
that he did not mean that actions take precedence over being so long as those actions are not reflected upon. [29]
So, according to Heidegger, Sartre simply reversed the roles given to essence and existence without probing
these notions or their historical development.
…