Camus’, de Beauvoir’s, and Kierkegaard’s ideas about reason, disbelief, relation, and the human are discussed in their books: The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus, Pyphus and Cineas by de Beauvoir, and Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard. Each author has their own idea on how an individual should approach their life. Camus focuses on the individual and their relationship with the absurd, De Beauvoir addresses the importance of an individual from the perspective of others, and while Kierkegaard described the relationship between the universal and absolute. Each author has a different opinion about how decisions regarding their life choices are made. De Beauvoir’s description of the individual and their projects is different from the other two existentialists
…show more content…
He does this by examining the reasoning behind Abrahams willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac and his title as the father of faith. One difference between Kierkegaard and de Beauvoir is Kierkegaard’s the focus on the individual’s relationship between with the universal and the absolute. The universal decisions are the ethical and reasonable decisions while the absolute decisions are the decisions that can not be explained (Kierkegaard 84). Unlike the universal, the absolute relationship with God is unique to every individual. As a result, action cannot be explained in thoughts or words, so the action is absurd. An individual who has a relationship with the absolute reflects God through their decisions and actions. Unlike the universal relationship which the individual's decisions or actions reflect on themselves and their roles in society (Kierkegaard 80). For example, Abrahams willingness to kill Isaac is absurd and relation to the absolute because God told him to. How would he explain this to someone? They would be in disbelief because they can not understand something that can not be explained within in reason (Kierkegaard 88). Instead of looking to others for his actions and values, Abraham looks towards God for reassurance and value. In this analysis of Abraham, faith is needed to reassure actions that aren’t given by …show more content…
I think the best way to have a productive life is to surround yourself with people that value you. If the people you surround yourself with don’t support what you're doing, how successful would you be? There are occasions where people find motivation in others doubts. But I would personally feel better about what I was doing if others I work with the support it. I do believe that this mindset could be a product of the time we currently live in. We are constantly looking for support and attention through social media rather than in person. But ultimately, I find de Beauvoir’s argument the most productive because I believe that I find part of my value in what others think about
He does this by examining the reasoning behind Abrahams willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac and his title as the father of faith. One difference between Kierkegaard and de Beauvoir is Kierkegaard’s the focus on the individual’s relationship between with the universal and the absolute. The universal decisions are the ethical and reasonable decisions while the absolute decisions are the decisions that can not be explained (Kierkegaard 84). Unlike the universal, the absolute relationship with God is unique to every individual. As a result, action cannot be explained in thoughts or words, so the action is absurd. An individual who has a relationship with the absolute reflects God through their decisions and actions. Unlike the universal relationship which the individual's decisions or actions reflect on themselves and their roles in society (Kierkegaard 80). For example, Abrahams willingness to kill Isaac is absurd and relation to the absolute because God told him to. How would he explain this to someone? They would be in disbelief because they can not understand something that can not be explained within in reason (Kierkegaard 88). Instead of looking to others for his actions and values, Abraham looks towards God for reassurance and value. In this analysis of Abraham, faith is needed to reassure actions that aren’t given by …show more content…
I think the best way to have a productive life is to surround yourself with people that value you. If the people you surround yourself with don’t support what you're doing, how successful would you be? There are occasions where people find motivation in others doubts. But I would personally feel better about what I was doing if others I work with the support it. I do believe that this mindset could be a product of the time we currently live in. We are constantly looking for support and attention through social media rather than in person. But ultimately, I find de Beauvoir’s argument the most productive because I believe that I find part of my value in what others think about