This paper is going to discuss the differences between Hegel and Sartre. It is going to discuss the difference between the Idealists and the Existentialists. It will also tackle my own comprehension of the said authors, and will discuss who I find more compelling. Lastly, it is going to conclude. Hegel and Sartre are two very powerful and convincing authors. Their voices in their writings can be heard loud and clear. However, their views clash most of the time. There are also some points wherein they have the same idea, but they are opposite for the most part. This paper is going to discuss those differences, and point out the exactitude of why there is that difference.
Let us start with a brief history. Hegel was born in 1831. A time wherein …show more content…
Sartre believes that man only does things for man alone. There is no other “higher power” or reason to do things man fancy other than to please himself, or to please others who are important to him. Sartre believes that man is capable of making his own destiny. He believes that man does not need things such as religion and that people should rid of silly cliché’s like not resisting authority. He believes that everything that happens is just human nature. As have been said, both arguments are compelling. Out of the two, I find Hegel more convincing than Sartre. A part of it is due to my Christian belief. Despite this, however, questions still arises. Hegel argues that we don’t know what we would become, and only the higher power do. This idea follows the holy doctrine’s view, specifically the Bible. The Bible tells us that God made us for a reason. With this being said, How would we know what we don’t know if we don’t know it? How would we get to the realization of our potential if we don’t know what it …show more content…
It shows that this world is a man’s world, and that man is in control of it. Reality is, man is not in control of anything. Man is only capable of manipulating variables to get certain outcomes, which does not happen one hundred percent of the time. In short, man can only try. In conclusion, this paper has discussed the differences between the two philosophers. These differences are mainly about: Religion, principles, and of the higher power. It explains how Hegel’s idealistic approach clashes with Sartre’s existentialistic approach. It has also tackled issues with their ideology. This paper has also provided my opinion, and who I find more compelling. It has asked questions, in which Hegel was able to answer.
It has discussed that I found Hegel more compelling; not only due to religious biases, but his catch-all ideology seems to make clarity of the blur that is questions in which these two have inflicted upon reading their work. Despite the fact that I believe Hegel more, however, it does not stop me from questioning his beliefs. There is so much to explore and ask than one philosopher can answer. After all, a fool can ask more question than 5 learned men can
Let us start with a brief history. Hegel was born in 1831. A time wherein …show more content…
Sartre believes that man only does things for man alone. There is no other “higher power” or reason to do things man fancy other than to please himself, or to please others who are important to him. Sartre believes that man is capable of making his own destiny. He believes that man does not need things such as religion and that people should rid of silly cliché’s like not resisting authority. He believes that everything that happens is just human nature. As have been said, both arguments are compelling. Out of the two, I find Hegel more convincing than Sartre. A part of it is due to my Christian belief. Despite this, however, questions still arises. Hegel argues that we don’t know what we would become, and only the higher power do. This idea follows the holy doctrine’s view, specifically the Bible. The Bible tells us that God made us for a reason. With this being said, How would we know what we don’t know if we don’t know it? How would we get to the realization of our potential if we don’t know what it …show more content…
It shows that this world is a man’s world, and that man is in control of it. Reality is, man is not in control of anything. Man is only capable of manipulating variables to get certain outcomes, which does not happen one hundred percent of the time. In short, man can only try. In conclusion, this paper has discussed the differences between the two philosophers. These differences are mainly about: Religion, principles, and of the higher power. It explains how Hegel’s idealistic approach clashes with Sartre’s existentialistic approach. It has also tackled issues with their ideology. This paper has also provided my opinion, and who I find more compelling. It has asked questions, in which Hegel was able to answer.
It has discussed that I found Hegel more compelling; not only due to religious biases, but his catch-all ideology seems to make clarity of the blur that is questions in which these two have inflicted upon reading their work. Despite the fact that I believe Hegel more, however, it does not stop me from questioning his beliefs. There is so much to explore and ask than one philosopher can answer. After all, a fool can ask more question than 5 learned men can