Man is Condemned to Be Free Essays

Man is Condemned to Be Free Essays Man is Condemned to Be Free Paper Man is Condemned to Be Free Paper Explain what Jean-Paul Sartre meant by the statement â€Å"Man is condemned to be free† Jean-Paul Sartre was a Gallic existential philosopher philosopher and was one of the taking figures in twentieth century Gallic doctrine. His major philosophical work. â€Å"Being and Nothingness† and his celebrated talk. â€Å"Existentialism is a Humanism† . is where he emphasised the statement â€Å"Man is condemned to be free† . The statement appears to be a apposition of linguistic communication because ‘freedom’ frequently has positive intensions while ‘condemned’ provides the opposite feeling. Sartre used the term ‘condemned’ as he believed we have no pick in the affair of being free. and being free ( even if against our will ) means we are responsible for all our actions. Bing responsible for our actions – without holding a pick about being free to take – is a signifier of disapprobation. Us holding to accept full duty for our actions includes us non being able to fault those around us – such as h ousehold. instructors and the authorities – for our state of affairs. In drumhead. adult male is condemned because â€Å"he did non make himself. yet is however at autonomy. and from the minute that he is thrown into this universe he is responsible for everything he does† ( Kaufmann ) . In the face of this duty. many worlds turn to religion. This allows us to experience answerable to a higher being. However. Sartre was non a truster in God ; this could be because of the atrociousnesss he witnessed first-hand during the Second World War while functioning in the Gallic ground forces. His experiences taught him that â€Å"God is soundless in the face of absurdness and horror. Because of this we are condemned to confront life entirely and with this comes absolute freedom and the cooling duty that comes with it. † If God genuinely doesn’t exist so our actions aren’t truly limited by His prognostications. commandments and ethical motives ; God can non legalize our behavior. or warrant it. or do it. We are finally responsible for o ur actions with no 1 to reply because we have chosen them on our ain. out of our freedom. Traditionally. freedom is seen as ‘good’ . Sartre on the other manus describes freedom to be a sort of load because as God does non be we are â€Å"without excuse† and we â€Å"can’t happen anything to depend on† . Sartre illustrates his belief utilizing the illustration of the paper cutter. When sing a paper cutter. we would presume that the Godhead had a program ( an kernel ) for it. Due to there being no Godhead of worlds. we have no kernel. This means that our actions and behaviors can non be explained by citing human nature. alternatively we are needfully to the full responsible for our actions. The kernel or nature of a paper cutter is to cut paper ; this is the intent the shaper of it had in head. However. there was no shaper or Godhead of human existences so we can’t mention to what we are meant to make. There is merely what we choose to make. â€Å"We are left entirely. without alibi. † To make up ones mind whether we are or are non â€Å"condemned to be free† it makes sense to make up ones mind whether our actions are genuinely free or if they may in fact be determined. Psychologists such as Sigmund Freud believe our early old ages have an impact on our future actions. Freud claimed that our moral actions are frequently caused by pent-up or subconscious memories or feelings stemming from childhood. Besides. B. F. Skinner said that we can non be held morally responsible for behavior determined by our psychological make-up because we could non hold chosen to act otherwise. Other minds. including Thomas Sowell. argue that our actions are in line with our societal conditioning. We so follow a sociologically determined way set by our upbringing. instruction and societal groups etc. Libertarianism has the major defect of non taking into history our experiences when doing determinations and when organizing our morality. For case. it is arguable that Sartre believed what he did because of the experiences he had during the war. non because of his freedom. Another valid statement is that genetic sciences determine physical and behavioral facets of humanity. All of these point of views province that worlds are non free to take and our lives and personalities are already determined ( by our past experiences. psychological make-up. socialization and genetic sciences ) . There is truth in these theories and so they take recognition off from Sartre’s belief that â€Å"man is condemned to be free† because they show that there are facets of our lives where we aren’t free to take. This means. in add-on. that our duty is lessened slightly as some of our actions are already determined for us. On the other manus. Sartre’s thoughts are potentially believable. We have all had experiences where the demand to take between multiple actions has caused us emotional convulsion. It is improbabl e that in these state of affairss we can avoid holding to come to a determination. Although we are free to do this pick. we are in a manner forced to do it. So. Sartre’s claim of worlds being condemned or damned to be free does non look so farcical. Even when we ask person for aid with an ethical quandary it is non their reply that determines our solution and attendant action. It is our pick to inquire them in the first topographic point and normally we already know what they are traveling to state ; we so make up ones mind whether to follow their advice. This once more shows the extent of our freedom of pick and the deficiency of finding factors to stamp down this ‘condemning’ freedom. In decision. Sartre examined the dashing nature of determination devising and limitless freedom. The moral duty we have in the instance of absolute freedom is stultifying and causes great desperation. However. this attack could be wrong because there are facets of our lives and make-up that act upon our behavior. If an action is determined by factors outside our control. we may non hold the moral duty for it. From this point of view we are non condemned to freedom but it alternatively allows us some input into our behavior and hence our lives.

How to Use the Rack Application in Ruby

How to Use the Rack Application in Ruby In the previous article, you learned what Rack is. Now, it’s time to start using Rack and serve up some pages. Hello World First, let’s start with a â€Å"Hello world† application. This application will, no matter what type of request it’s given, return ​with a status code of 200 (which is HTTP-speak for â€Å"OK†) and the string †Hello world† as the body. Before examining the following code, consider again the requirements that any Rack application must meet. A Rack application is any Ruby object that responds to the call method, takes a single hash parameter and returns an array containing the response status code, HTTP response headers and the response body as an array of strings. class HelloWorlddef call(env)return [200, {}, [Hello world!]]endend As you can see, an object of the type HelloWorld will meet all of these requirements. It does so in a very minimal and not terribly useful way, but it does meet all of the requirements. WEBrick That’s pretty simple, now let’s plug it into WEBrick (the HTTP server that comes with Ruby). To do this, we use the Rack::Handler::WEBrick.run method, pass it an instance of HelloWorld and the port to run on. A WEBrick server will now be running, and Rack will be passing requests between the HTTP server and your application. Note, this isn’t an ideal way to launch things with Rack. Its only shown here to get something running before diving into another feature of Rack called Rackup, which is shown below. Using Rack::Handler in this way has a few problems. First, it’s not very configurable. Everything is hard-coded into the script. Second, as you’ll notice if you run the following script, you can’t kill the program. It won’t respond to Ctrl-C. If you run this command, simply close the terminal window and open a new one. #!/usr/bin/env rubyrequire rackclass HelloWorlddef call(env)return [200, {}, [Hello world!]]endendRack::Handler::WEBrick.run(HelloWorld.new,:Port 9000) Rackup While this is quite easy to do, it isn’t how Rack is normally used. Rack is normally used with a tool called rackup. Rackup does more or less what was in the bottom section of the code above, but in a more usable way. Rackup is run from the command-line, and is given a .ru â€Å"Rackup file.† This is just a Ruby script that, among other things, feeds an application to Rackup. A very basic Rackup file for the above would look something like this. class HelloWorlddef call(env)return [200,{Content-Type text/html},[Hello world!]]endendrun HelloWorld.new First, we had to make one tiny change to the HelloWorld class. Rackup is running a middleware app called Rack::Lint that sanity-checks responses. All HTTP responses should have a Content-Type header, so that was added. Then, the last line just creates an instance of the app and passes it to the run method. Ideally, your application shouldn’t be written entirely within the Rackup file, this file should require your application into it and create an instance of it that way. The Rackup file is just â€Å"glue,† no real application code should be there. If you run the command rackup helloworld.ru, it’ll start a server on port 9292. This is the default Rackup port. Rackup has some more useful features. First, things like the port can be changed on the command line, or in a special line in the script. On the command-line, simply pass in a -p port parameter. For example: rackup -p 1337 helloworld.ru. From the script itself, if the first line starts with #\, then it’s parsed just like the command line. So you can define options here as well. If you wanted to run on port 1337, the first line of the Rackup file could read #\ -p 1337.