Post by Renee Luedders on Jun 4, 2024 23:55:17 GMT
This article had a few things that stood out to me, but nothing more than when the author said that there's not really a definition for existentialism, but that it really depended on who was doing the defining! That seems very odd to me, especially since I have an A-type personality! I wrote down in my notes that Sartre himself even said that it SHOULDN'T be defined. What?! So... why so much emphasis on a topic that we aren't even sure what it means or if we even should be studying it?
By the way, I'm not saying that we shouldn't, I'm just questioning what the article is presenting...
It went on to present a "possible" definition, which even through my faith in God, agreed with some of the ideas presented. I agree with the idea of having an authentic existence. I think you can do that with or without a faith in God. I agree with the idea of moral choice, as well as freedom from tradition. We are supposed to evolve in our ideas, and can do that again, with or without a belief in God.
By the way, I'm not saying that we shouldn't, I'm just questioning what the article is presenting...
It went on to present a "possible" definition, which even through my faith in God, agreed with some of the ideas presented. I agree with the idea of having an authentic existence. I think you can do that with or without a faith in God. I agree with the idea of moral choice, as well as freedom from tradition. We are supposed to evolve in our ideas, and can do that again, with or without a belief in God.
