Jump to content
xisto Community
Sign in to follow this  

An Ambiguous Contrast Of Freedom Clash between Kant and Sartre, and myself of course

Recommended Posts

An Ambiguous Contrast of Freedom Freedom is an abstract word with a lot of meanings, one of them is usually used as the condition of being free of restraints (the free dictionary), but it?s definitely depending on the way you look at it. Through the pass of time a lot of philosophers have discussed this topic, but of course every and each one of them at a very personal point of view. Even though some theories are similar, they all have different meanings. Two of the philosophers that talked about freedom were the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, but the one that I mostly agree with is Kant. I?m in favor with the theory of Kant in three points: his view of Compatibilism, his theory of categorical imperatives and in his consideration to intentions at the time to judge. Compatibilism consists in the fact that our destiny is already written, but we also make decisions and can change it. I agree because it is better having options instead of an established destiny. For example, you can choose any religion you want, but according to it your actions change and your destiny also changes. This gives you freedom because you have the power to decide over your life. In addition, categorical imperatives are a solution to the problem of the different morals of people. In order to have a better society, I think we should manage freedom wisely, implementing some values which can be used to guide us without taking out our freedom. Those are values that we follow not only in our benefit, but also as universal rules could create a more civilized world, as he says ?live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law? (Brainy Quote). I also agree with his theory because he considered intentions, not only the results, to judge an action. In terms of freedom this is important because you can adapt the law to every situation, not only as it is written, but also according to the context of every situation. His theory is very interesting and has a lot of similarity on my way of thinking. On the other hand, Jean Paul Sartre is against my beliefs on faith, freedom and God. First of all, he did not believe in faith; in fact, he called it ?bad faith?. I don?t agree because sometimes you need faith to see, instead of seeing to have faith. This is related to freedom because in knowledge is part of your freedom. In this case he says that you cannot believe in something only by faith, but I think that we are free to believe everything we want, even when not having evidence on every belief. A problem with his theory is that faith pushes you to do something greater, and according to his ideas this is not acceptable. Also, in his famous quote ?man is condemned to be free? he saw freedom as a negative thing. In my opinion, freedom is more than just having to make your own decisions, but also having the right to be what you want to be, to think what you want to think and to express yourself without having to follow others limitations. In his theory, he says that it?s easier if something else tells you what to believe and what to do. This may be true, but if we all were restricted to external limitations, how could we make a change on humanity? For him, there is no superior being but the mastermind of a human and the search of the truth. In his statement ?man is abandoned because there is no God? he doesn?t let people to believe in God, which also contradicts himself because he is imposing that idea, although he says we are free to believe in anything we want. I have to say that Jean Paul Sartre has a very strict way of thinking towards every topic that is linked to freedom. Both Kant and Sartre discussed some part of their theory about the topic of freedom. However, their points of view do not get along together. On one side, Kant?s theory is more flexible to every interpretation and more adaptable to every situation. On the other side, Sartre?s is more limited to a restricted understanding that does not goes beyond to what you can perceive with your senses. If we compare both ideas we can see that both philosophers saw life in opposite ways. The theory of Kant is the one that most appeals to me and the way he structures it is similar to my personal view of life. On my interpretation, I think Kant had a very successful life since he had faith in God and universal values, while Sartre was a bit more pessimistic because he felt abandoned and independent from God and all traditional beliefs. That way I can assume that following Kant?s ideas can lead to a successful life. Moreover, I have similar ideas to him, and those ideas had made me who I am and gave me my unique personality. Who do you agree with?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.