Post TWO substantive responses to other students’ posts. The response posts must be between 100 and 150 words each. NOTE: The goal of the discussion board is not simply to say “I agree with you” and add a short sentence or two, but rather to carry the discussion forward by asking follow up questions or expanding on key course concepts so as to engage in a meaningful and constructive dialogue with fellow students.
Please reply the two answers below.
6. Do you agree that if “God does not exist, everything is permitted?” Why or why not?
I agree that if God were not to exist, everything would be permitted because as Jean-Paul Sartre mentions in his lecture, “man [would be] forlorn because he’d have [nothing] to cling [on] to” (Sartre, 1945). What is meant by this is that when God is accounted for in the morals and values of man (including myself), they use Him as a basis for forgiveness, punishment, and decisions; leaving Him responsible for our actions and our consciousness. If God were not be in the picture, he would not be responsible for us in any way that we once held him accountable for. This then means that there really wouldn’t anyone besides ourselves to tell us what is permitted and what is not permitted; meaning virtually everything is permitted if we choose so. Sartre later mentions that “[man] can’t start making excuses for [them]selves”, meaning that man is responsible for what they do, because God wouldn’t exist to uphold those standards. This however does not mean that I believe God doesn’t exist like Sartre does, I simply understand that from his vision, God not existing would mean that man is free to choose what they want, meaning everything is allowed. However, because in my reality God does exist, I am acknowledging that his will, judgement and consciousness within me guides ME into choosing what I do. To an existentialist, they don’t have that same will, judgement and consequence that I do, so to THEM everything would be permitted. Ch 9 Question and Answer
4. Who exactly is the “mass man” and how does he relate to the “select minority” both now and in the past? Do you agree with Ortega’s division of humanity into these two types? Why or why not?
According to Ortega, the “mass man” is basically one who is satisfied with themselves having no sort of special qualifications, aspirations, or growth, and simply chooses to go with the flow without making any effort in bettering their mediocracy. In relation to the “select minority”, they do have special qualifications/talents, have disciplined minds and souls, are outstanding and intellectual, and always have room for growth (Ortega, 1932). I agree with Ortega’s division of humanity because it is visible even now, in 2021, even though this was written in 1932, and i’ve witnessed it first hand. I know people who take and continue to live off of what was already handed to them, without striving to be better. I understand that there are external factors that can keep one in a specific situation, but those external factors are not what make them the mass man. What makes them the masses is their outlook on themselves as a person and their situation. If they continue to believe “this world sucks, i’m not good, smart, rich or talented enough to do anything” then they are okay with living in mediocracy and are in no way choosing to be better or strive for more. However, there are people (for example, my parents) who didn’t give up no matter how poor their living situation was and continued to have those goals, aspirations, and the urge to expand their mind and learn more about life. Those people know theres always room for growth and are not okay with living in mediocracy, that mentality makes them the minority.