Existentialism was born against the Age of Reason in order to reject abstract thinking and the absoluteness of reason. Existentialists have claims and evidence to support their idea. They are trying to find absolute truth without absolute thinking because of this they will look for the truth all eternity. In this essay, I will point out the existentialists? claims in terms of denying absolute reason. First of all, the reason is the highest creation of the mind and people have the ability to think what they want. They use their minds to reach knowledge and provide the capability to solve problems. The first claim is that reason is a part of human nature that is limited therefore reason is limited, too. People consider that science is an objective way to solve problems and reflect reality in society.
Existentialists claim that science has this power from its strict limitations. Beyond this reality, different scientific results are called absolute but this is impossible to call them absolute at the same time. There should be one truth and one absolute. Science has a judge to find truth and when it errs it has a judge to change the truth. The old truth isn’t the truth anymore. Our experiences and intentions are hidden by our subconscious. If our subconscious is slight, they will be brought to the surface of our actions and thoughts. Our conscious has limitations so does reason but the subconscious doesn’t have limitations. Because of this, existentialists think that reason cannot be absolute.
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $11
Prices start at $10
Cause and effect relationship is concerned as determinism and it is approved when the scientist is in the state of being impersonal observation and experiment. As existentialists state, being impersonal cannot deal with personal experience. In addition to this responsibility is one of our basic experiences. ? Existentialism will teach us that we have to admit experience as evidence.?(Roubiczek, 1-17) If we don’t admit we cannot understand what we feel and we don’t feel responsible for our actions. Without our experience we think only in an objective way and being impersonal doesn’t help us to deal with our feelings. Existentialists show these statements as their claims but I cannot find any relationship between these claims and absolute thinking. They are mentioning another subject.
Age of Reason is against theology because theology starts with an accepted truth. According to my, the truth is believing in God. On the other hand, philosophy starts with presuppositions to find the truth by using an unlimited mind. Roubiczek claims that in this material world we should accept given facts and these facts should be our starting points. I think this kind of belief is limited to our asking questions about our existence. One who believes in God accepted that God created everything but cannot ask how god exists. It seems to me that everyone asks whatever he/she wants to. While one is asking, he will discover the absolute truth and reason. Moreover, Kierkegaard defends his faith on behalf of morality and religion. According to him surrendering our inner voice is taking risks. He believed that when we give up rational thinking and reasoning, our minds transcend bars.
However, he thought that Christianity is an absurd religion he believed in this religion. I don’t understand how can man believe something, which is absolutely absurd for him. It seems to me his claim is dependent on absurdity and he called this like taking risks. Finally, I mentioned the points of Existentialists and their claims. Human beings can reach absolute thinking; there is nothing to limit them. Existentialists? justification for their claims is just accepting god’s existence without asking any questions. The reason is an absolute way to reach the truth; nobody should have starting points for their lives and beliefs. When they find answers to their questions they will exist and they cannot do this without thinking in an absolute way. Absolute reason and thinking are reasons for our existence.