The Existential God: He Doesn't Decide for You

Dear Reader,

        The interest point of the following essay is that the absence of God in existential works show in actions and this absence makes a better society. This idea is carried out through the whole essay but is mostly addressed in the 4th page where I put all the ideas mentioned above together.

        The readers have pointed out that there were some unclear areas, mostly the introduction paragraph which I have decided to rewrite. One issue that was presented was that my thesis statement wasn't clear enough, I have tried to make it more understandable in the new introduction by slightly changing the essence of it. There were some grammar issues that were addressed that I believe, I've fixed.

        One thing that readers have said was that the essay tends to be on a philosophical note that is sometimes too vague to understand. I tried to polish these parts by changing or further explaining certain words. Such as “superhuman”. I saw that there wasn't a clear description of the idea and it needed clarification. I believe these little changes have made my essay easier for people to understand since they got rid of the confusion some parts created.

        I was asked if  I could bring in another source and after a throughout research I figured there wasn't much I could add without going out of topic. The only addition I made was Existentialism is Humanism by Sartre. The ideas of this book was already integrated in the text but I've decided to put in citations instead of paraphrases. Which I think adds to the credibility. Although, If I had more time, I would certainly try to incorporate more research material in the essay which I think would add another dimension to it.

        Overall, existentialism has been an interest of mine and to be able to write about it was very delightful. It was a struggle at first to put thoughts together but in the end I think I've put together a good collaboration of my thoughts with those of the philosophers. This is what I like the most about the paper.

[pic 1]

Zeynep Akca

ENG 2100

Marc Rickenbach

Fall 2014

The Existential God:

He Doesn't Decide For You

        Existentialism is a philosophical movement that became popular in the 1940s. It's roots can be traced back to Danish Philosopher Søren Kierkegaard who started questioning the existence of God, creating the initial sparks of the movement in the 1840s. In time, the question evolved into philosophers reflecting on the existence of human beings and their purpose. They searched for a meaning in human life. They did not deny a God as much as they refused to believe God was in control of everything and men were merely players in a play written and directed by him. For them, people were to be held accounted for everything they do and where there is no other than themselves to blame they need to decide more carefully and take responsibility. So, the absence of God is clearly visible in people's actions and a society based on the idea of responsibility is better than that of a fatalist vision.

        God is said to be absent in existentialism because when God is present, people feel the ease to point things at him. In other words, people believe that certain things happen because God wanted it or because God asked them to do so in the holy books. For existentialists, especially Jean- Paul Sartre, this is not possible. For him, existence comes before essence (“Existentialism and Humanism”). Meaning that “the knowledge of what it takes to make something - say, a book - must precede its manufacture. Applied to religion, that means the knowledge of how to make God must have preceded what Sartre considered man's creation of him” (Moore). This indicates that God is not that different than any other object man uses in his daily life, he uses a book to learn from or as entertainment and God as a means of mental relief and sometimes as excuse. For Sartre however, God shouldn't exist to this extent. He believes that God's absence terrifies believers because “existentialism confronts man with a possibility of choice” (Moore).

        Choice is terrifying because it forces people to make their own decisions and own up to them, which is a recurring theme in No Exit written by Sartre in 1944. All three of the characters have made bad choices. Garcin had treated his wife badly, possibly abusing her both physically and psychologically in addition to making her live with his mistress. Inez has tried to seduce Florence who's already in a relationship with her cousin and has indirectly forced the woman she loved to kill Inez and commit suicide. Estelle has made the choice of marrying an older man for money only to later on have an affair with a younger man and give birth to his baby and with the guilt of it all, strangle her new born daughter. Within the play all of the characters try not to tell the others their sins and since they can't take responsibility for their actions. Estelle starts believing that they had been put in the same room in hell by pure coincidence. Inez however knows that there couldn't have been a coincidence and everything is for a reason. She then invites all the others to confess their sins saying “What's the point of play-acting, trying to throw dust in each other's eyes? We're all tarred with the same brush. […] Yes, we are criminals – murderers – all three of us. We're in hell, my pets; they never make mistakes, and people aren't damned for nothing” (p. 16). In this scene, Sartre means to show his readers that making the choice to do what is right makes someone virtuous. This implies one of the virtues Sartre wishes to teach his readers: “One should always choose what is of good faith” (Sartre, “Existentialism is Humanism”), which means that the person should always take responsibility for his actions good or bad and by doing so the person becomes virtuous.