Varoluşçuluk: Revizyonlar arasındaki fark
| [kontrol edilmiş revizyon] | [kontrol edilmiş revizyon] |
İçerik silindi İçerik eklendi
56. satır:
Anlamsızlığın insan yaşamındaki yıkıcı etkileri, "anlamsızlık" sorunu ile paralel olacaktır. Nitekim Albert Camus, yaşamın temel sorununu intihar olarak göstererek [[Sisifos Söyleni (kitap)|Sisifos Söyleni]] adlı yapıtında: "Felsefenin gerçekten ciddi olan yegâne sorunu intihardır." demiştir. Bu düşünceye karşı olarak, insan yaşamında rastlanılan yıkıcı sonuçların birçok biçimiyle yüzleşmesi intihar ile ilişkilendirilir. Varoluşçu düşünürlerin birçoğu "anlamlılık" kavramının yıkıldığı ve bu durumda her şeyin tehlikeli bir korku hâline geldiğini savunmuştur. Böylece varoluşçu düşüncenin temellerinde var olan anlamsızlık yani absürt yapı ortaya çıkmıştır. The possibility of having everything meaningful break down poses a threat of [[quietism]], which is inherently against the existentialist philosophy.<ref>{{Web kaynağı|author=Jean-Paul Sartre |url=http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm |title=Existentialism is a Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre 1946 |publisher=Marxists.org |date= |accessdate=2010-03-08}}</ref> It has been said that the possibility of suicide makes all humans existentialists.<ref>{{Cite document|title=Suicide and Self-Deception|author=E Keen|publisher=Psychoanalytic Review|date=1973|url=http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=PSAR.060.0575A|postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->}}</ref>
===
{{ana|Facticity}}
Olgusal gerçeklik Sartre'nin "Varlık ve Hiçlik" olarak tanımladığı bir kavramdır. Ancak bu kavramın içine insanın kendi öz varlığı dâhil değildir. Geçmişin bir çok zamansal boyutu dikkate alındığında bu kavram daha kolay anlamlandırılabilmektedir.
Facticity is a concept defined by Sartre in ''[[Being and Nothingness]]'' as that "[[being-in-itself|in-itself]]" of which humans are in the mode of not being. This can be more easily understood when considering it in relation to the temporal dimension of past: One's past is what one is in the sense that it co-constitutes oneself. However, to say that one is only one's past would be to ignore a large part of reality (the present and the future), while saying that one's past is only what one was would entirely detach it from them now. A denial of one's own concrete past constitutes an inauthentic lifestyle, and the same goes for all other kinds of facticity (having a body (e.g. one that doesn't allow a person to run faster than the speed of sound), identity, values, etc.).▼
▲
Facticity is both a limitation and a condition of freedom. It is a limitation in that a large part of one's facticity consists of things one couldn't have chosen (birthplace, etc.), but a condition in the sense that one's values most likely will depend on it. However, even though one's facticity is "set in stone" (as being past, for instance), it cannot determine a person: The value ascribed to one's facticity is still ascribed to it freely by that person. As an example, consider two men, one of whom has no memory of his past and the other remembers everything. They have both committed many crimes, but the first man, knowing nothing about this, leads a rather normal life while the second man, feeling trapped by his own past, continues a life of crime, blaming his own past for "trapping" him in this life. There is nothing essential about his committing crimes, but he ascribes this meaning to his past.
| |||