Philosophy is plagued by problem of split of theoretical and practical ideas. Just because it makes sense and works with variables held constant, or simplified models Ceterus Paribus. This truly manifests in the transition to the real world where things are not so simply, application of theoreticals never work the way they are intended. Both Nietzsche and Sartre suffer in these regards, existentialism is not designed to be fully adopted. What, if any ideas can even survive the conversion from hypothetical into singular humanity and eventually society as a whole. The entire existential movement is a rejection of the world to embrace the self. That may in fact be the largest problem, the rejection of the world and society. Can existential ideologies truly survive the test of the world if they reject it?
Nietzsche have never been a philosopher to mince words, he has never been one to be swayed by the the opposition, he would state his opinions like facts and embodied the strong germany …show more content…
Both Nietzsche and Sartre have similar definitions for the self, being the master or the pour-soi, but the difference lies within the interactions they have with others. A master with another master, can either be enemies to compete, or agons to compete. Lovers are a source of carnal pleasure, and do not need to be more for Nietzsche, he simplifies the needs of man to that of animals and the wants of man to succeed. For Sartre relationships theoretically cannot work, for the freedoms of man cannot coexist in the same space, they begin to compete and cannot survive an extended period of time. Inherently the pour-soi cannot be bound by temporal feelings, eventually the freedom will break the ties that were made if they are inconvenient. Oddly enough, for Sartre relationships are not theoretically possible but in practice, are somewhat successful, but that is due to the submission as a
Nietzsche have never been a philosopher to mince words, he has never been one to be swayed by the the opposition, he would state his opinions like facts and embodied the strong germany …show more content…
Both Nietzsche and Sartre have similar definitions for the self, being the master or the pour-soi, but the difference lies within the interactions they have with others. A master with another master, can either be enemies to compete, or agons to compete. Lovers are a source of carnal pleasure, and do not need to be more for Nietzsche, he simplifies the needs of man to that of animals and the wants of man to succeed. For Sartre relationships theoretically cannot work, for the freedoms of man cannot coexist in the same space, they begin to compete and cannot survive an extended period of time. Inherently the pour-soi cannot be bound by temporal feelings, eventually the freedom will break the ties that were made if they are inconvenient. Oddly enough, for Sartre relationships are not theoretically possible but in practice, are somewhat successful, but that is due to the submission as a