Existentialist Themes of Anxiety and Absurdity
Existentialist Themes of Anxiety and Absurdity
In a world with such a vast amount of people their exists virtually every different belief, thought, and ideology. This means that for every argument and every disagreement that their exists two sides of relative equal strength. It is through these disagreements that arguments are formed.
Arguments are the building blocks in which philosophers use to analyze situations and determine theories of life. For the purpose of this paper I will try and argue my personal beliefs on a specific argument. This argument is presented in a form of a question and upon examination of the contents of this question, several different and unique questions arise. In order to support my theory as to the answer to this question I will attempt to answer the three subquestions which deal less with the content of the question itself and more with the reaction to reading the question. Also key to the support of my theory is the concept of existentialism. I will go into the foundations of this ethical theory throughout the remainder of this paper. Subquestion one, "E -->
C", simple asks whether it is true or false that if you have an ethical theory then does it have to be consistent. Subquestion two, "(?) --> H", poses the idea of what makes up the essence of being a human being. Subquestion three, "E
--> (H --> M)", asks whether it is true or false that it is ethical to assume that humans should be given moral priority over animals. I order to support my interpretation and answer the topic question, I will try to explain my personal ethical theory. We were given several different theories in which to emulate or pick pieces of in order to define such words which have different meanings to different people. For such vague words such as
`right' and `wrong', the context in which they are presented are vital pieces in order to define them. It is my belief, and a necessary requirement of this paper to somehow define
In a world with such a vast amount of people their exists virtually every different belief, thought, and ideology. This means that for every argument and every disagreement that their exists two sides of relative equal strength. It is through these disagreements that arguments are formed.
Arguments are the building blocks in which philosophers use to analyze situations and determine theories of life. For the purpose of this paper I will try and argue my personal beliefs on a specific argument. This argument is presented in a form of a question and upon examination of the contents of this question, several different and unique questions arise. In order to support my theory as to the answer to this question I will attempt to answer the three subquestions which deal less with the content of the question itself and more with the reaction to reading the question. Also key to the support of my theory is the concept of existentialism. I will go into the foundations of this ethical theory throughout the remainder of this paper. Subquestion one, "E -->
C", simple asks whether it is true or false that if you have an ethical theory then does it have to be consistent. Subquestion two, "(?) --> H", poses the idea of what makes up the essence of being a human being. Subquestion three, "E
--> (H --> M)", asks whether it is true or false that it is ethical to assume that humans should be given moral priority over animals. I order to support my interpretation and answer the topic question, I will try to explain my personal ethical theory. We were given several different theories in which to emulate or pick pieces of in order to define such words which have different meanings to different people. For such vague words such as
`right' and `wrong', the context in which they are presented are vital pieces in order to define them. It is my belief, and a necessary requirement of this paper to somehow define