Absolute Freedom

After reading an excerpt about Absolute Freedom by Jean-Paul Sartre multiple times, I was still confused by some of what he said. However, what I was able to understand is very insightful. Sartre's main point seems to be that a person is fully responsible for any situation that involves them in any way. One major reason for this is that "nothing foreign has decided what we feel, what we live, or what we are" (Sartre 447). He further explains his beliefs with references to war.

Sartre states that “What happens to me happens through me, and I can neither affect myself with it nor revolt against it nor resign myself to it. Moreover everything which happens to me is mine” (447). I believe he means that when any event happens to me it becomes a part of me. Furthermore, each event that happens to and through me becomes my responsibility entirely. Also, he explains that every situation is human in some way. “Only through fear, flight and recourse…shall [I] decide on the non-human, but this decision is human” (Sartre 448). The decision, situation, and everything connected to it all belong to me because the decision was my free choice and it “represents me and symbolizes me” (Sartre 448).

Sartre takes the idea of war to a new level. If a person is at all involved in a war, it becomes their war. There is always a way to get out of it, but anyone who chooses not to deserves any consequences of the war, according to Sartre. “I could always get out of it by suicide or by desertion” (Sartre 448). The choice may be based on fear of the public repercussions, out of a need to uphold personal values, or to defend one’s honor. Regardless, because I chose to stay I remain responsible for my choice and the war that I am a part of. Each time I choose to perform something related to war I am continuing to take responsibility for the war. “Therefore we must agree with the statement by J. Romains, ‘In war there are no innocent victims’” (Sartre 448). Though I may not have declared the war, this does not exempt me from responsibility for it. This attempt at exemption only holds up in a legal sense.

The war is also mine because “it arises in a situation which I cause to be and that I can discover it there only by engaging myself for or against it” (Sartre 448). Any of my choices about myself in the war are no different from my choices about the war itself. However, it is also pointless to consider what my life would be like if the war never took place. I made decisions that led me to partake in the war. Without the war, there would be a contradiction. The part of my life that came before only makes sense if I am in the war. I chose to be in the war, which makes me as responsible for it as I had declared the war. It is part of me. I cannot “live without integrating it in my situation, engaging myself in it wholly… I must be without remorse or regrets as I am without excuse” (Sartre 449).

Works Cited

Sartre, Jean-Paul. “On ‘Absolute Freedom.’” Introducing Philosophy. Robert C. Solomon. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.
Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.

The Bogeymen

The bogeymen are somewhat odd, yet still interesting. They are agents who compete against us in an effort to eventually control our bodies. Their thoughts are separate from ours. Reactions triggered by anxiety are “like finding yourself in the clutches of…” (Dennett 406). The bogeymen I will examine include the Invisible Jailer, The Nefarious Neurosurgeon, and the Malevolent Mindreader.

The Invisible Jailer may imprison someone without their knowledge of having been imprisoned. Everyone understands the dreadfulness of prisons. But perhaps a person who believes they are free simply hasn’t realized they are imprisoned. Visual illusions could make a small jail cell seem much larger to the unknowing prisoner. Bars on windows may be disguised and fake doors may be placed on the wall. The true exits may also be removed or concealed. Someone may also argue that if the edge of an enclosure is beyond the farthest point they wish to travel to, then they are not really imprisoned. The majority of people could argue that they are imprisoned on Earth. However without a jailer, there is no jail. If an undesirable place is not overseen by a particular person, the people residing in that place are not imprisoned (Dennett 407).

The Nefarious Neurosurgeon is able to “strap you down and insert electrodes in your brain, and then control your every thought and deed by pushing buttons on the ‘master’ console” (Dennett 407). The person wouldn’t be able to realize that every part of them, both physical and mental, were no longer under their own control. Such an existence could be compared to having a brain complication such as a tumor. At first glance they may appear to be the same, but there is at least one major difference. The complication may cause unintentional occurrences, but the occurrences would be random. Rather than causing random complication, the Neurosurgeon controls the brain, forcing it to do what he wants. “Variations on the Nefarious Neurosurgeon are the Hideous Hypnotist and the Peremptory Puppeteer” (Dennett 407).

The Malevolent Mindreader is simply an unbeatable opponent. As the name suggests, the Malevolent Mindreader has no real control over a person. Instead, the Mindreader is able to prepare for a person’s move before it occurs by reading their mind. “Playing ‘rock, paper, or scissors’ against this fellow is hopeless…[because] he can see in advance which move you intend to make and always counters successfully” (Dennett 407). However if a prediction is posed as a possibility rather than a final decision, one may be able to beat the Mindreader (Solomon 407, 408). In my opinion, if someone wishes to defeat the Malevolent Mindreader in a game, that person should select a game of pure chance. For example, if a coin is flipped, both the player and the Mindreader have an equal chance of winning. The power of the Mindreader is negated, leaving it on equal ground with the player. The Malevolent Mindreader is a difficult opponent, but it can be beaten.

Works Cited

Dennett, Daniel. “Elbow Room.” Introducing Philosophy. Robert C. Solomon. New York:
Oxford UP, 2008.
Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.

Self Identity

When examined from a philosophical point of view, self-identity can be a confusing topic. When defining the term self-identity there are some variations on the same basic definition. In the words of Robert C. Solomon, “Your self-identity is the way you characterize yourself as an individual” (286). One of the main variations of this definition examines the relationship between self-identity and the concept of people changing over time. The other variation that is discussed examines what allows us to be individual.

In philosophy, self-identity is determined by specific characteristics. Identifying self-identity could be as simple as looking at a person’s status in the world or as challenging as finding what makes that person unique. When identifying their self-identity a person could see themselves as just a middle-class citizen of the United States. For another example, an engineer could see themselves as a person with mathematical skills who relies on their ability to retain details.

An important variation of self-identity narrows a person’s self-identity down to qualities that are retained even as time goes by in their life. In this sense, a person could not base their self-identity on certain aspects of their life such as their favorite movie genre or their religious beliefs. If a person based their self-identity on their religious beliefs what would happen if they chose to convert to another religion? Philosophically, an argument could be formed that stated that the person lost their identity. However, in this sense, a person could lose their self-identity even after relying on a concrete quality. Solomon provided some interesting examples pertaining to this subject. One example asks whether a person would lose their self-identity if they had a sex-change operation. An even more fascinating example examines whether complete memory loss would strip a person of their self-identity (Solomon 286). Finding a self-identity that can weather even the strongest influences would be very challenging.

Another variation on the definition of self-identity discusses what allows people to be individual. The most common aspect of this discussion pertains to consciousness. Consciousness can be described as “having thoughts and feelings” (Solomon 286). If a person dislikes their self-identity they can often change it somehow. Zig Ziglar, an incredibly successful businessman, once said, “If you don’t like who you are and where you are, don’t worry about it because you’re not stuck either with who you are or where you are. You can grow. You can change. You can be more than you are” (22). The main point is that if someone dislikes their self-identity enough there is often a way to change it.

Works Cited

Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.
Ziglar, Zig. Zig Ziglar’s Little Book of Big Quotes. Zig Ziglar Corporation, 2004