The Conditions of Human Existence Simone de Beauvoir believes that humans have ambiguity that they often fail to embrace. She says what makes up this ambiguity is our objectivity and subjectivity. Many philosophers have chosen one side to adhere to, Nietsche prefers objectivity while Kant and Plato embrace subjectivity. Our objectivity is our belonging to this external world based in reality. Our subjectivity is our ability to transcend that external world beyond our physical limitations through thought. Our subjectivity is what grants us our freedom and moral obligation. Many people are afraid to embrace this freedom as its expansive choices and unknown consequences are overwhelming. But because de Beauvoir insists everyone is free, a
…show more content…
Arendt disagrees with ideas such as Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’ which suggest that everything lives outside of reality. She thinks that there has been too much emphasis on the contemplative life and suggests that the two lifestyles are equal. She makes a case for the forgotten active life by breaking it down into three fundamental human activities. The first is labor which equates to biological process, then comes work which transcends life by creating products that outlive their makers. Last is action, which she puts most emphasis on as action is what allows us to act out our humaness. Action is interaction among people and it creates a plurality. The plurality is that we have both equality because we’re all born human. Despite this, we are all one of a kind which creates distinction. Only through this action and then plurality are we able to disclose ourselves. Action’s boundless and unpredictable nature creates a problem. To resolve it, we need forgiveness to allow someone to be free from their past deeds. This grants them the ability to continue anew and act freely. We also need promises to fix the unpredictable and chaotic future. Arendt believes promises are necessary in interacting and politics because they create certainty for the future and bind …show more content…
To me, de Beauvoir was more convincing because she embraced human unpredictability fully. I find Arendt’s account of human conditions too constricting and yet vague. How can promises help determine the future when promises are so easily broken? Even if we all were as strict with our promises as Kant would like us to be, outside factors can always intervene. I especially agree with de Beauvoir’s conclusion that we should rejoice in our freedom because to live and to succeed is so much better when you could have lost. Like many have said, you can’t have light without
Arendt disagrees with ideas such as Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’ which suggest that everything lives outside of reality. She thinks that there has been too much emphasis on the contemplative life and suggests that the two lifestyles are equal. She makes a case for the forgotten active life by breaking it down into three fundamental human activities. The first is labor which equates to biological process, then comes work which transcends life by creating products that outlive their makers. Last is action, which she puts most emphasis on as action is what allows us to act out our humaness. Action is interaction among people and it creates a plurality. The plurality is that we have both equality because we’re all born human. Despite this, we are all one of a kind which creates distinction. Only through this action and then plurality are we able to disclose ourselves. Action’s boundless and unpredictable nature creates a problem. To resolve it, we need forgiveness to allow someone to be free from their past deeds. This grants them the ability to continue anew and act freely. We also need promises to fix the unpredictable and chaotic future. Arendt believes promises are necessary in interacting and politics because they create certainty for the future and bind …show more content…
To me, de Beauvoir was more convincing because she embraced human unpredictability fully. I find Arendt’s account of human conditions too constricting and yet vague. How can promises help determine the future when promises are so easily broken? Even if we all were as strict with our promises as Kant would like us to be, outside factors can always intervene. I especially agree with de Beauvoir’s conclusion that we should rejoice in our freedom because to live and to succeed is so much better when you could have lost. Like many have said, you can’t have light without