And the worst feeling in the world?

When you know you’ve drank too much alcohol and there’s nothing you can do to change it

1. If you are given your purchases at a coffee shop on a tray, keep the tray. Don’t give it back to the people that work there. Keep it. Think about it, if you need a tray to carry it to your table, aren’t the people who work there going to need the tray to carry it all back? It’s quite simple logic really. You just need to think about it.

2. Don’t stuff things into your empty cups. You know the stuff, empty sugar packets, used napkins, bits of rubbish you’ve brought from home, anything, just don’t put it in your empty cup. Again logic will tell us that someone has to pull it out of the cup. If you blow your nose on a napkin it’s gross enough that someone like me will have to throw it away, but don’t make me pull it out of your used coffee cup too. So gross.

3. When you give someone your money, give it them in their hand. Don’t put it down on the counter. If I hold my hand out to you when I need the money, give it me, don’t put it down so I have to pick it up again. What’s the point? You’d be annoyed and think I was rude if I put your change down on the counter right next to your open waiting hand, so don’t do it to me.

4. This one’s a biggie. Always ensure your child has a nappy on if they are not toilet trained. Do not come over and tell me you forgot to put a nappy on her, and certainly do not leave me with the soiled high chair to clean. As previous experience has shown, I will not clean the high chair. It just won’t happen.

5. Don’t make stupid pointless jokes. When I ask is there anything else, don’t say ‘yeah a cheap mortgage if you’ve got one!’, I won’t appreciate it. Another one was a man coming in saying ‘I only came in because I heard you were offering a free cake with every coffee.’ ‘…no, no we aren’t.’ ‘Oh.’ ‘Who told you that?’ The man laughs at this point, ‘I’m only joking.’ He tells me what coffees he wants, I ask if there’s anything else, ‘yeah two free cakes please!’ Fuck off

6. Don’t ‘just use up your change’ or ‘empty your purse/pocket’. Give me some pound coins, give me a note, do not give me 50 pieces of copper and silver. Also, once I’ve put it all through the till and am getting you your change, don’t say ‘can I give you the 10p?’ No you can’t, you’re too late, the till has already processed the transaction.

7. If you come into a coffee shop when it is closed, you will not get served due to the aforementioned fact that they are closed. Once a place closes, you cannot continue buying things, so once a coffee shop closes you cannot just quickly have a coffee. It’s closed. No matter how you ask or what you threaten me with (usually a manager or a complaint) I will not serve you, eventually it will become a matter of principle that I just don’t want to serve you because you’re a twat.

8. Don’t argue with the people who work in a coffee shop. Why would they lie to you? Don’t try to prove them wrong, they aren’t wrong. If I tell you your loyalty card will get you you’re seventh coffee free not this sixth one don’t try to convince me otherwise. I work here, I know when you get a free drink. It’s not now.

9. Don’t rearrange my furniture. The tables and chairs are set out so that it is most convenient for all customers, don’t come to a tiny coffee shop in the corner of a department store with 13 of your closest friends or relatives. Stay at home, go to a restaurant, just stay the fuck out of my coffee shop. You never put the furniture back to where it was do you? Oh no! Wankers.

10. Don’t be moody with me I’m giving you food and drinks. It isn’t a good idea. If you give me shit what do you think you’ll get in return?

Basically don’t do things you wouldn’t at home. Just because you don’t have to deal with it all doesn’t mean no one does. Arsehole.

            The first time that Sartre directly addresses the issue of God and faith comes near the start of the text. Sartre starts to discuss God by giving an account of the creator of a paper knife to try and illustrate his point that existence comes before essence. He argues that if we take a paper knife, we know there was a conception of it before it physically existed; this conception existed in the creator’s mind. So in this instance, essence preceded existence. Sartre argues, rather half-heartedly, that as we cannot prove empirically or rationally that God exists, we must accept that the existence of mankind preceded his essence. In other words, Sartre is saying that as we cannot know that we, as humans, have a creator we must have existed before any concept of mankind was present. So man existed and then he made his own essence. It is because of this belief system that Sartre argued there is no such thing as human nature. However if we take on Kierkegaard’s idea on the leap of faith (that belief in God can only be gained by taking a blind trust in our faith) how can Sartre argue with him? Sartre argued nonetheless that we must make our own essence/human reality, as there was no objective creator to decide our lives for us. He states, “…there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is…Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.” The first implication of atheism from Existentialism and Humanism appears to be, therefore, that without a God (and consequently no objective laws/morals) we are completely free. If we do not have a creator/higher power to answer to and there are no set boundaries we must act within, surely atheism brings with it a type of negative freedom (being free from certain constraints). The debate on whether this is negative freedom or anarchism becomes apparent in Sartre’s text.

             After arguing this point Sartre begins to develop his idea of man without the existence of God. He states that man lives in three conditions: anguish, abandonment and despair. Before anything else is developed Sartre attempts to define these terms in his philosophical sense. He begins with anguish. He identifies anguish as the overwhelming responsibility that comes with every decision we make. Sartre argues that we are condemned to choose and no matter what we do in life (even if we do not act), we are choosing to do so. He also highlights that we must freely make the choice, without outside influences or moral principles as this would be acting in bad faith. Sartre is against acting in what he calls bad faith as he sees it as a form of self-deception to use pre-existing moral codes to make our decisions. He believes that we should completely freely make our decisions, separately from anything else we may believe. Sartre likens anguish to the trouble leaders would have in making their important political decisions, for example in passing laws or in the judiciary department.

            Sartre believes we feel this anguish due to our abandonment in the world. By abandonment Sartre simply means that we alone in the world, as no God exists. He argues that “…God is a useless and costly hypothesis…” and that when we make a decision for our self, it represents how we think the rest of mankind should act. In other words, we make a decision based on what we think is fundamentally right/just. So this being the case, Sartre argues we would want the rest of mankind to act the same way we did if they were ever placed in our situation. So the second implication of atheism we are presented with is concerning morality. The implication is that we cannot use the objective morals that were laid down by God (as He does not exist so to use these morals would be to act in bad faith/self-deception) and we cannot simply replace these morals with a kind of secular morality, so a new morality and a different understanding of man must be made. In other words, we need to amend all existing morals/beliefs we have in order to fix the gap that is left from the absence of God and His objective morality. A criticism of this argument could be found in the Roman Catholic Church. There has always been a debate on whether law informs morality or if morality informs the law. In other words, do we gain our morals from the laws of our country or do society’s morals create the country’s laws. The Catholic Church would say that God created our objective morals by which we should all try to live by, and from these commandments we created our laws on government. It is extremely hard to separate morals from laws, so if we get rid of the moral commandment of God that we shall not kill, do we likewise get rid of the law that prohibits such an act? In this circumstance obviously not, but abolishing all moral/religious codes could prove tricky for Sartre as it is not an area that is black and white; he will experience shades of grey along the path. Sartre is against any kind of objective morals; he believes our decisions should be made from within one’s individual self.

Sartre is implying that morals should be subjective (down to the individual) and that no one can tell another individual how to live their life. However this seems to act as a contradiction in terms from Sartre. If we are representing all of mankind when we make a decision, we are indirectly saying that all others should act in this particular fashion. Is this not an unofficial type of objective morality that is quietly portrayed by each individual? Would we not then, end up judging people if they do not act as we do? Judging the actions of another is something that Sartre says we cannot do; we can only judge whether or not people are acting in bad faith. Also, how is a child to determine that they do not have to live as their parents do? It seems, no matter how hard Sartre tries to escape it, we will always be under some kind of objective morality, whether it be a religious morality or the authority of the state or a parent. He uses the example of a troubled student to show how we must always do what we feel is right.

            A student came to Sartre and asked him for advice on whether he should go away to war or stay and take care of his otherwise alone mother. Sartre argued that he could not use existing moral codes as this would be acting in bad faith, he also noted that there was no objective morality to tell the student how to act, as there is no God (for Sartre). Bad faith is an issue that Sartre deals with often in Existentialism and Humanism and he states that unless we make decisions based purely on our individual beliefs we are acting in bad faith. He also calls it acting in self-deception. He argues this is wrong as we are allowing ourselves to live in despair if we use pre-existing principles to determine our actions (it would lower our individual freedoms to have to abide by certain set codes/laws). Sartre comes to explain his attitude towards the term despair by stating that because we do not know what is going to happen in our lives, we cannot be in complete control of it. Sartre opts to believe that man does not have absolute control over his life in this way and no matter how hard he tries, his actions will not have any affect on how his life ‘plays out’.

This seems again rather contradictory with Sartre’s basic principles (that man defines his own world through his choices and actions). If we have no affect on our lives why do we need to make decisions in good faith and then take responsibility for the consequences of our decisions? Another problem arises form the very idea of man being in despair. It is possible to relate the idea Sartre is putting forward with a psychological theory known as Learned Helplessness. This is a theory that states that if we learn that we cannot improve our situation we will not bother to try. In other words, human beings have learnt that when we are in a situation where our action will have no effect on the outcome there is no point in trying so we do not act. So this proven theory shows how we act under this circumstance (of our actions having no effective outcome in our life). Could this be a type of human nature? It if is (which it appears to be), it invalidates Sartre’s argument that no human nature exists. All these contradictions and counter arguments further weaken Sartre’s overall credibility when it comes to Existentialism and Humanism.

            However, Sartre continues and asks whether or not this helplessness of the human situation means we should fall into quietism (the view that you as an individual cannot or will not act because somebody else will do it for you, for example, voting in the general election; if we do not vote it does not matter as somebody else will vote/one vote does not make a difference anyway). Sartre argues we cannot fall into this pattern, as man is what he makes of himself (as God does not exist to determine our life for us). So all we have is the ability to act and make our own choices, for Sartre, this is what it means to be an atheistic existentialist. Developing his point it is argued that ‘I could have…’ is not acceptable to an existentialist as it is a flight from the present, and man should always stay and create his own world. Sartre argues that if a man is called a coward it is because he chooses to act in a cowardly manner and the same is true of heroes. The next implication of atheism is that “…the destiny of man is placed within himself…” and that when we talk of existentialism what “…we are considering is an ethic of action and self-commitment, the implication is against determinism and the idea that God has set out our life for us.” In other words, Sartre’s interpretation of atheism dismisses any kind of religious or biological determinism as to how we are going to act/how our life will ‘play out’. Sartre argues that as there is no God we must be the sole component to creating our life as we know it.

            Whilst considering the idea of being the sole component to life, Sartre comes across the problem of solipsism; how can an atheist escape the idea that we are completely alone in the physical world and only our individual mind exists as a thinking thing? Descartes gave an argument that implies you are in need of God to escape the trap posed by the cogito [ergo sum]. Descartes believed that God was not a deceiver, so when he felt the strong inclination that the physical world existed (through his senses and feelings of sensation), God would not have allowed him to be deceived in such a way; therefore the physical world and other individuals must exist. Descartes’ view on how to escape solipsism is known as subjectivity. His starting point is the cogito, he states the fact that he exists as a thinking thing is self-evidently true. Following this, his argument is traced back to God as he proves God exists by definition (as He is a perfect being and it is more perfect to exist than not exist, therefore God is proven as true). After proving God, Descartes argues that all things that are self-evident can be seemed certain and true. Therefore God must exist and since He is no deceiver we must be correct when we feel the inclination that the physical world exists.

Sartre however, argued that we can know the physical world exists through our own consciousness and engagement with others; Sartre’s argument does not include the existence of God. Self-awareness brings about interaction with the outside world and so we can make a distinction between a material world and ourselves. He believed that self-understanding is created through engaging with other people. For Sartre this is because “I cannot obtain any truth whatsoever about myself, except through the mediation of another”. In other words, we cannot feel any emotion or physical sensation without the existence of the material world or another person. This is what is known as inter-subjectivity.

            After considering how we know other people, Sartre comes to consider what we essentially are and introduces an idea seemingly to replace human nature. He names it the human universality of condition, and he argues we all possess this, unlike a human nature. This condition is the theory that every human can understand another; we can all empathise using our emotions. “There is always some way of understanding an idiot, a child, a primitive man or a foreigner if one has sufficient information.” In other words, part of being human is being able to communicate with others, by any means, whether it be body language, verbal communication or a type of sign language. This is developing the idea that there is a universal human language by which we can all communicate. He is stating that we can overcome any cultural or language barriers we may face in order to understand another person. This is correct to a certain extent, for most individuals would be able to sense if a child or a foreigner was hurt and in pain purely from their actions or their body language. However, Sartre argues this is not a human nature trait. Is he right in saying so? If we can all empathise surely this is a pattern that can be attributed to a universal human nature, along with Learned Helplessness. This could be a further implication of Sartre’s atheism; that although we do not have a human nature, we do have a human condition. In other words, we can all be placed in the same situation but we can all react differently to it; we can also use our emotions to communicate with any other human being. This is the meaning of Sartre’s human condition (which is extremely close to a description of human nature).

            Following this problem faced by Sartre, he goes on to describe three common charges against existentialism that he wishes to respond to. These charges are: that too much focus is given to the individual and if taken too far you could have anarchy, you cannot judge/punish others because this would require an objective criteria of morals/laws, and finally that the values of existentialism are not serious values as you can choose them to suit yourself. To the first charge, Sartre responds by saying that our own morals determine our choices and eventually we could all find a way of living to suit both others and ourselves. Being truly free means to have no moral codes by which to live by for Sartre, so by choosing to focus on the individual to choose their own morals, man is effectively free (although many would argue that this is anarchism). This is different to anarchy for Sartre as the freedom we experience is a positive thing. However it can be debated where the difference lies when it comes to the aforementioned problem of negative freedom and anarchy. If we are completely free from objective morals as Sartre suggests we are/should be, how can we live in a prosperous society and be free from anarchy? If society was free enough to experience anarchy, it would not matter whether we were acting in bad faith or not, as nobody can judge if there are absolutely no standards by which to measure another individual’s actions/decisions by.

            To the second charge it is stated that we cannot judge anybody’s decision, we can only judge if he is acting under self-deception or bad faith (acting according to existing/objective moral principles). We cannot judge other people’s actions, as we do not have the right to interfere with other people’s lives/affairs. To this, John Stuart Mill would disagree; bringing the Harm Principle into this context would mean that we could judge/interfere in others’ actions if it directly harmed or had the definite potential to harm another individual. The Harm Principle states that if an action causes direct physical harm to another individual or if it infringes on another individual’s rights based interests then that action should be stopped. In other words, anything that causes or incites harm or violence should be prevented in public in order to keep a peaceful society and to achieve the greatest happiness for the people. This is applicable to Sartre’s view that we cannot judge other people’s actions, as by allowing others to live freely, harm could be caused to the rights based interests of others since Sartre’s ideal world can easily descend into anarchy.

            To the third and final charge, Sartre argues that after he has excluded God, what other morals can you hold apart from your own personal ones? If we all lived according to one man’s morals, then who decides which man? Who says his morals are ‘better’ than mine? All of these questions shows that it is much easier, in Sartre’s eyes, to simply make morals a subjective thought in everyone’s mind: “Life is nothing until it is lived…there is a possibility of creating a human community…” Sartre could be interpreted as implying that by making morality subjective (and making decisions based on how we would like fellow man to act) we will eventually create a peaceful and harmonious society. A major contemporary criticism of this would be in the evident existence of vastly different religions. Even within these religions there are extremists that could never peacefully live with less extreme believers from their religion, let alone people of another faith. Without an objective law set out by the state it could be argued that society would be, to quote Thomas Hobbes, a war of all against all. So Sartre’s idea that a harmonious society would develop is incorrect, as the vastly different opinions on the general public do not always coincide easily.

            So perhaps the most vital of all the implications of atheism from this text, is the idea that man is responsible for himself and his actions, nothing else. The overwhelming responsibility that was mentioned earlier shows that without a God we must all contemplate our actions with caution as when we choose we are representing the rest of mankind. The implication of atheism for Sartre is that existentialism is the logical outcome of being an atheist, which he assumes we should all be, since we cannot prove God’s existence. This contradicts Descartes who claims to have proved God’s existence primarily through the Trademark Argument. This argument described how God leaves an imprint or ‘trademark’ in our minds. Descartes argued that an idea cannot come from nothing and that when considering ideas, the cause must at least as great, if not greater than, the effect. In other words the concept of God cannot be as great as the cause, and seen as God is by definition perfect we (imperfect beings) cannot have created this concept. Therefore God must exist to have created the idea of God. So if we take on Descartes’ view that God can be proven, Sartre’s entire thesis is invalidated as it all relies on the one assumption that God does not exist. This is a big assumption to make as just because we have never experienced something does not mean it does not exist. For example, to say you have never empirically experienced a black swan does not mean that no black swans exist. So Sartre could be considered wrong for not disproving God, instead opting to ignorantly deny His existence. To Descartes’ argument on the proof of God’s existence Sartre would most likely rely upon the Cartesian Circle argument that states this proof of God relies on God. You cannot prove something if you rely on it; you cannot prove God with the definition of God. So even though this counter argument can invalidate Sartre’s claims that God cannot be proven, Sartre seems content that no existing proof of God’s existence was available. As a result of this Sartre continues to develop his ideas on atheism.

The final implication of atheism is that because God does not exist, we are all forever in despair. Sartre argues we are all in despair (the idea that we cannot have complete control over our lives and that our actions have no effect on our life) as this is what it means to be fully human; it gives meaning to life. He also argues that it is the Christians who are in true despair as they live in bad faith/self-deception. He says this because he assumes that all who believe in a Christian God must abide, to the letter, by the rules set out in the Bible/by the Church. However it can be argued that this is incorrect. Kierkegaard argued that each individual must choose his own actions in life and that a personal relationship with God must be made that supersedes all prescribed moralities, social structures and communal norms. It could be argued that this Christian way of thinking states that the true meaning of life is to please God in whatever personal way you see fit. It seems to say that we should ignore what the Church tells us to do and act as we see fit. So it appears that Kierkegaard is advocating the same kind of free choice that Sartre is, Kierkegaard just also believes in God. He does not follow all the general expectations of a ‘normal’ Christian, this is perhaps most strongly showed by the fact that whilst Kierkegaard was in hospital he refused to be given communion from a pastor as he did not see him as a true servant of God. So it appears that even Christian thinkers can still be free, working against Sartre’s arguments.

Sartre shared many of his ideas of existentialism from Albert Camus, another French philosopher writing in the 1900s. Camus believed that the world was full of injustice and that the public should have rebelled against the tyranny of the authority system in place. It could be said that these ideas of Camus’ coincide with Sartre’s belief that we should all make of our life what we wish (we should make our own world through the choices we make). Another philosopher who influenced existentialism was Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was an example of a theistic existentialist, who believed that we should take responsibility for our choices (as states the basic ideology of existentialism); he also believed that we could have an authentic existence through religious faith. Kierkegaard argued that, as God cannot be empirically proven we must use our faith to find religious certainty. He argued that a blind trust in God can bring about enlightenment for us, and that a Christian lifestyle can bring about an authentic existence. If we rely entirely on faith then any counter arguments are unfounded as it could be argued that faith is stronger than any other rational ‘proofs’ that God does not exist. This differs with the view held by Sartre who believed that his existentialism was the logical outcome of atheism and that no other option should be taken (from a rational and logical viewpoint). These different strands of existentialism include the Theistic and Atheistic types of existentialists; Sartre identifies the Theistic existentialists as the Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel, whilst naming Heidegger and himself as Atheistic existentialists. However it must be noted that Sartre gives a somewhat contradictory statement at the end of Existentialism and Humanism when he argues that it does not matter whether or not God exists.

 Also, what if you did not believe in God but you did, coincidently, believe in all the morals described by the Church, does this make you a self-deceiver?  Does it make you less free? You are after all choosing your own beliefs, they just coincide with another group’s views. It is hard to see how this would make you less free as you are choosing your own beliefs. What it you, again coincidently, believed in the same morals as the Church, but you also believed in God or a higher power? Does this make you less free too? It is hard to see how a religious faith can change matters so greatly, but it appears to for Sartre. However, as also stated by Sartre, it is irrelevant whether or not we believe in God. He declared that “…even if God existed that would make no difference…” from the point of view of an existentialist. How can Sartre base his entire argument in Existentialism and Humanism on atheism to then later say that faith is not an important factor? This is one of the larger contradictions in Sartre’s works that greatly weakens his argument to say that we should all assume the position of an atheistic existentialist.

Existentialism and Humanism teaches us that a rejection of God brings us to atheism, which must lead us to existentialism, and somewhere in the process we must naturally reject Marxism. To sum up Sartre’s view on existentialism and atheism we can quote him as saying “…existentialism is optimistic, it is a doctrine of action…”

The problem of evil is the term given to the question atheists pose to thiests: if God exists, why does he allow evil to exist is the world? Some theistic answers I have heard include ‘because without evil there is no good’ and that ‘I cannot understand God and His will and I cannot question it, I just have to accept it and have faith in His plan’. Beg your pardon? What kind of Godly plan involves evil? Surely that’s a pretty big contradiction in terms? Take Descartes’ ‘proof’ of God. Simply put, he states God had perfection as an innate quality; it is essential to His nature. Perfection is an existence; there is more perfection in existing that not existing. Therefore, God exists. Now then, God is also by definition all-loving. An all loving God would not allow evil to exist in the world. So…by this definition (and slight manipulation of an age old theory) God can’t exist.

How can you ever get over this criticism? God is an all-loving being. Evil exists in the world. God caused the world. God caused the evil. God is evil; this cannot be so since God is by definition and all-loving being. Therefore God cannot exist.

Right?

Sorry Descartes, your argument is slightly flawed (and open to manipulation by atheists!)

Some of the systems of examinations are ridiculous. I begin my four hour philosophy synoptic paper exam for my A Levels on Monday and this system is one of the ridiculous examples. I got given my question about…five weeks ago? Maybe four, I’m not sure. After this I was told I had to write 3000-4000 words for my answer (which is a lie in itself as I wrote 4342 in my final draft and the teacher said they didn’t care about the word count…why bother giving me one then?). Anyway, I did a plan. I wrote the essay and then gave it to a teacher to check, I made all the amendments and now have my finished version that I think is perfect. Now I have to condense it down to 1000 words of “rough notes” to take into my four hour exam to work from as i re-write the perfect answer I have already slaved over constructing. Point being? Why can’t I just submit it as coursework? I have over 17 hours of A Level exams coming up. There is an unbearable amount of information to learn. We are not being taught to know, we are being taught to pass exams. Of course I am only moaning selfishly about the exact same thing millions of 17 and 18 year olds are experiencing as I type, I just feel it should be highlighted. I highly doubt any credible publication will ever side with the students.

I challenge anyone to take philosophy, psychology and history at A Level and not get serious stress.+

Try not to break down and cry. At college we talk about who had their breakdown the night before, we discuss who has and hasn’t had theirs yet, we compare the length of the trauma.

A 17 year old should not know this much stress, it’s too much to handle.

Think you lose sleep? Try my life.

I beg your pardon?

What?

That’s a lovely slap in the face to any women that has had a miscarriage or felt the turmoil of facing an abortion. Then of course there’s the millions of couples that want more than anything to become parents but can’t. How dare this dipshit take human life into her own hands and treat it so mildly?! I’m not against abortion by any means, if it is the best option for the parents and/or the child in question (for example if the child would have a bad standard of life or if the mother was raped) then so be it, but that doesn’t mean we can ‘get rid of’ babies on a whim. This is not art it’s fucking disgusting! If she did do what she claims I really hope she has damaged her body so badly she is unable to have children, a woman who cares so little for a baby’s life does not deserve to be a mother. She would be a terrible mother!  This ‘art’ student is quoted as saying:

“Just as it is a myth that women are “meant” to be feminine and men masculine, that penises and vaginas are “meant” for penetrative heterosexual sex (or that mouths, anuses, breasts, feet or leather, silicone, vinyl, rubber, or metal implements are not “meant” for sex at all), it is a myth that ovaries and a uterus are “meant” to birth a child.”

Bollocks.

Of course ovaries and a uterus are meant to birth children, what else do we use them for? Twat.

If she was an accepting and diverse member of society she would realise that these myths she poses to us are not present in society. Not mine anyway. Gay or straight, it makes no difference, it’s who you are as a person that determines what people think. I know a guy that is a million times more feminine than me and that’s half the reason I love him so much if I’m perfectly honest. Women come as butch as men, everyone knows that, no one can change it, You can’t change who you are,

Clearly this woman is a fucktard.

And we can’t change that! It’s just who she is!

Is it fair to put this much stress on a 17 year old? I’m not legally classes as an adult yet, let me live my childhood. Stop setting the bar too high and acting disgraced when I make a mistake.

I’m only human, I’m only a ‘child’.

Right?