‘Existentialism’ stems from the example given by Sartre of the paper-knife, but discards the example of a tree because of lack of proof for a maker. Sartre went further in his explanation. He excluded the existence of a ‘maker’ for the paper-knife to find himself only with the ‘paper-knife’, existing on its own, a self-made object, as the basis for his assumption. And hence, the ‘paper- knife’, according to the Sartrian logic, has never had a ‘maker’, and comparatively, so is the world. The logic that the absurdity of being, becomes, at this point, itself absurd. Sartre accepts the presence of the paper-knife but denies the need for a maker-artisan of the paper-knife. He does not explain ‘how’ the paper-cutter came about. This absurdity is precisely the purpose of Sartre’s philosophy of existentialism. In this way man’s existence, according to Sartre, does not need a maker movement, as a ‘necessity of reason’ proclaimed by L’existence and hence does not need a creator-cause, and hence it becomes absurd in presence, in origin and finality. By rendering the world absurd Sartre, by begging his own question, considers it as absurd. The counter question, following his logic, is: how can the paper-knife exist without an artisan conceiving it?
‘The essence’, according to Sartre, does not precede ‘existence’. It is quite the opposite; it is the ‘existence’ that precedes the ‘essence’. This logic is used by Sartre to legitimize his presumption for the absence of a creator cause for the world. By discarding an artisan for the paper-knife he discards a designer for the world.
An easy way, absurd as it is, to do away with a ‘maker’ for the universe is imposed by scientific empiricism, above all the non necessity of such a
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24