unfortunately a mystery at the heart of theory that makes his account slightly Schopenhauer’s weaker. Contrary to assertion that existence must possess essence, Schopenhauer’s Sartre’s philosophy rests on the claim that existence essence, and it is not necessary for the precedes choice of fundamental project to take place outside of time external to the empirical world. It is worth pointing out, however, that the idea of someone existing without an essence contains an element of mystery itself. Schopenhauer points out that freedom of the will means an existentia without essentia; this is equivalent to …the saying that something is and yet at the same time is nothing, which again means that it is not and thus is a contradiction. So both accounts suffer from an element of mystery or paradox in their position with regard to the original choice of character or project. position is mysterious because it is Schopenhauer’s impossible to conceive of a choice taking place outside of time, and for Sartre, a person must both exist and yet have no essence, which Schopenhauer points out is to say that a person both exists and yet is nothing, which suggests a contradiction. The position of the two authors with respect to existence and essence also accounts for the differences in their views with respect to the alterability of the character or project. Since for Schopenhauer a essence is determined before she is born, her essence must be constant person’s through her entire life, for it is not possible to make another choice of essence outside of time. Because Sartre asserts that a essence is not determined until after she has been born and person’s that one chooses a project within the empirical world, it is possible to change her essence and her project. This difference can be summed up in a quote from each author: what we do, we recognize what we “…in are…” is also what one “…one does.”
unfortunately a mystery at the heart of Schopenhauer’s theory that makes his account slightly weaker. Contrary to Schopenhauer’s assertion that existence must possess essence, Sartre’s philosophy rests on the claim that existence precedes essence, and it is not necessary for the choice of fundamental project to take place outside of time external to the empirical world. It is worth pointing out, however, that the idea of someone existing without an essence contains an element of mystery itself. Schopenhauer points out that …the freedom of the will means an existentia without essentia; this is equivalent to saying that something is and yet at the same time is nothing, which again means that it is not and thus is a contradiction. So both accounts suffer from an element of mystery or paradox in their position with regard to the original choice of character or project. Schopenhauer’s position is mysterious because it is impossible to conceive of a choice taking place outside of time, and for Sartre, a person must both exist and yet have no essence, which Schopenhauer points out is to say that a person both exists and yet is nothing, which suggests a contradiction. The position of the two authors with respect to existence and essence also accounts for the differences in their views with respect to the alterability of the character or project. Since for Schopenhauer a person’s essence is determined before she is born, her essence must be constant through her entire life, for it is not possible to make another choice of essence outside of time. Because Sartre asserts that a person’s essence is not determined until after she has been born and that one chooses a project within the empirical world, it is possible to change her essence and her project. This difference can be summed up in a quote from each author: “…in what we do, we recognize what we are…” “…one is also what one does.”
Idealistic%20Studies%20manuscript.docx