Existentialism question ...?

Question

that man is (1) defined only in so far as he acts and (2) that he is responsible for his actions. To clarify, it can be said that a man who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel man and in that same instance, he (as opposed to his genes, for instance) is defined as being responsible for being this cruel man.

So: does the above, in effect, mean that (existentially speaking) neither nature nor nurture affect one's actions

OR

is that to say that both nature and nurture affect one's actions, but ultimately, you are the only one responsible?

Thanks!

Answer 1

Our existential task is to evolve beyond our natures, and to transcend the conditioning of nurturing, and other conditioning factors. We are the sole agents responsible for our development, and for the freedom de-conditioning, and self development gives us.

Answer 2

First of all, I'm very pleased to answer an actual philosophy question.  The question you're asking requires dealing with the possibility of determinism, which is maybe a heavier idea than existentialism.  Basically, conclusion one is stating that neither nature nor nurture cause or partially cause one's actions.  Very few people would argue that, and none of them that I know of are existentialists.  So we can basically scratch that.

Conclusion two is far more likely to be accepted by an existentialist.  Existentialism is predicated on the idea of free will--however, man's freedom is restricted by the world he lives in, and the amount of freedom he has dictates the degree to which he is responsible.  As long as nature and/or nurture do not completely cause one's actions, an existentialist would say one still has the responsibility to choose one's own actions.

So... in short, the greater the freedom, the greater the responsibility.

Answer 3

i think...

existentialism (beyond Kierkegaard) was an attempt to make sense ,philosophically, of ethical questions after the second world war. To "frame" the chaos the idea of 'you are what you do" became a popular notion that seemed to fit the need for a philosophical agenda that, at the same time, criticized the notion of genocide (genetic cleansing) and  recognized acts of heroism, humanism and altruism.

i think subsequent philosophical endeavours regarding existentialism were little more than attempts to keep the idea alive.

Nature/nurture concepts were/are considered counter intuitive and the result was the emergence of holisticic genetic/psychological approaches to the questions that existentialism attempted to answer, i think.

therefore, i must conclude, that the concepts contained in most existential philosophies are less than workable answers to ethical discussions.

i don't think i'll mention Ken Wilbur or the annie randies here...sideways smilie thingie

Answer 4

There are few things in nature or nurture that FORCE you to do something.  There are many that PREDISPOSE you... but whether you give in to those inclinations or fight them is still up to you.  And it actually does make a difference to many people (not just existentialists) whether you go down fighting or just passively get sucked under.

Answer 5

Our consciousness proceeds from the fact, to the meaning, and then to the value.

It is not the act that we are ultimately judge for but the motive for acting.

Answer 6

  I've seen good men turn to evil ways, but very few return. One generally defines his own character by deeds and virtues. But alas...even the best of mankind is weak and of the flesh. Some fall to vain goals or addictions, making them different from their true self, others suffer from loss or lack of love, creating a different type of metamorphose, in which the soul is changed. Regardless...we are all responsible for our actions...we all have the capability to be good or bad...freedom of choice.

Answer 7

I'm no expert in Existentialism but I have read a good bit of Existentialists thinkers like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Camus, Becket & others.  If I understand "The Stranger" correctly Meursault, who eventually kills an Arab man in Algiers is not responsible for his crime but rather the oppressive heat made him do it.  Crazy as that sounds that was Meursault's reality.  I do not believe that Camus thought of his lead character as a cruel man and I don't think he ever defined him.  Meursault was not a man driven by conviction or malevolence.  He was simply a man living his life.  Incomprehensible to some but not capable of definition by virtue of the fact he was a man.

What is it to be an Existentialist?  I think it is to believe that "meaning" is something we as humans give to each other's actions and to life but is not something that exists outside of us, the creators of it.  Therefore, nothing has inherent meaning but the present moment of life, however it appears to others.

So given my incomprehension of the premise of your question I can't well answer the dilemma you pose.  

Answer 8

It is totally nurture, people can be changed by influence and nature, Like for instance...nature is to find love, though depending or nurture makes it change the perspective overall changing behavior.

Saying that what I have done leaves me completely responsible Can be true, though to all truth rules can be broken, like in this story i am reading, some people rely on other (altruistically) because not everyone is the same, no for instance what I think you may be saying is that men completely think for themselves(egotism)...

It is like harry harlow, and the isolation monkeys, It is not there fault they were keept in a cage for so long, though nature tends to take control.