Sartre wrote that if God does not exist, then "Man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. … At first he is nothing. Only afterward does he become something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. … Man is nothing but what he makes himself.
Sartre did say all that, but he was a philosopher, not a biologist. So in context, he was clearly talking about morality, spirituality, etc.. He wasn't talking about physical realities.
Otherwise, you're accusing him of believing that a puppy raised by a pig is in fact a pig just because it thinks it is. There's zero evidence of that, and I don't believe there's any evidence that Sartre viewed biological realities as simply a matter of choice/volition, in the same sense as mental/spiritual realities.
I’m trying to
Rid myself of
Arguments of this
Sort...
I am Corrupt.
Re: “Sartre did say all that, but he was a philosopher, not a biologist. So in context, he was clearly talking about morality, spirituality, etc.. He wasn’t talking about physical realities.”
I’m sure you’re probably right that Sartre was not including human biology in these quotes. However, I think his premise that “if there is no God, there is no human nature, etc.” - my question would be why not apply it to human biology?
If there is no human nature, if there is no purpose, if there is no intentionality, and man “defines” what he will be - why not define one’s own sexuality?
Just a thought.
Postmodernism is more responsible for today’s insanities than existentialism, though the two are related.
FWIW if there is no God, then philosophy is biology. Man is nothing but a rock that thinks it has meaning. Thinking is merely biological and biology is nothing more than random molecules in motion.