Philosophy Essay

2085 WordsOct 23, 20129 Pages
Philosophy 3050 : Nietzsche and Sartre In providing a critical analysis of Nietzsche and Sartre, I am going to examine how one might live authentically. While both philosophers offer views that possess a degree of similarity, they are different in numerous respects. Sartre provides the idea that: “we have to deal with human reality as a being which is what it is not and which is not what it is” (165). While Nietzsche promotes a way of being in the form of the Super Man, Sartre offers the truth that would allow one to realize one is free. Sartre’s being in good faith and Nietzsche’s Super Man would most likely live the same life in many ways but the reasoning behind the approach is slightly different. Before delving into Sartre’s idea of authenticity and good faith, it is important to first look at Sartre’s concept of being and nothingness. In Sartre’s view, an object such as a rock is always a rock. That is its true form, its facticity. The same concept, however, does not apply to man. The present moment is ever advancing and ever changing and as such, so can man be ever changing and ever advancing. The only description one can provide is the role to which one has played up to that point. For example, I could say that so and so is a wrestler, and that would be an accurate description at that exact moment in time. As the words have left my mouth, that is no longer true because the hypothetical person could have chosen to do something else and is therefore no longer a wrestler. This sense of immediacy promotes the idea of freedom that Sartre so wholly believed in. Sartre refers to the rock or other such unconscious object as a being-in-itself. Sartre refers to conscious beings such as the wrestler as a being-for-itself. My proverbial wrestler can change himself into something else entirely different in a way that the rock simply cannot. As each

More about Philosophy Essay

Open Document