Bad Faith Definition and Meaning - Admission/Application Essay Example

? Bad Faith Existentialist Philosophers came up with the issue of well being, with the perception that existence comes first before essence. In constructing theories centered on being, such philosophers went further by setting a premise for the ideas. Individuals lose direction on the way and deny their lives. This results in dealing with whatever is the “they” and the way or the reason that individuals deny their being. Sartre developed the bad faith notion, while Martin Heidegger came up with the concept of in authenticity, both of which share much in common and tend to work hand in hand. Sartre’s definition of the term “By Faith” In his view of existentialism philosophy, Jean-Paul Sartre finds a way to address fundamental freedom in the life of man. To him, one must be responsible for the choices he makes in life, when there is no preset human nature or total, outward standards. When Sartre realized that such freedom was in excessive for individuals to handle, he suggested that they respond to this situation by using the same freedom to deny that it really exists. This is when he came up with a concept to illustrate the whole issue; Bad Faith. Sartre uses the concept of Bad Faith when talking about individuality, authenticity, and self-realization. He focuses upon the essential freedom that is experienced by every human being. He used the concept to mean any kind of self-deception than deny freedom of humanity. To him, it happens when a person attempts to rationalize his or her actions or existence using science, religion, or any other belief system that has a meaning or reason on a living man (Santoni 156). To Sartre, Bad faith is identified with falsehood. It is a lie to one’s self basing on the condition that a person distinguishes the lie to him or herself from lying in general. He views lying as a negative thought, but bad faith does not regard consciousness itself, rather seeks solely for the transcendent. An individual who practices bad faith hides displeasing reality or presents untruth as a pleasing truth. It implies in essence, the harmony of one consciousness. Bad faith is not a state, thus a person is not infected with it, and neither can he undergo it. There must be a rationale behind this act; this rationale implies an understanding of the act and a pre-reflective anxiety of consciousness as affecting itself with bad faith. People fail to truly be the authors of their own lives, yet they are conscious of their bad faith. However, one can exist in bad faith, a fact that does not mean that he lacks abrupt awakenings to good faith or cynicism, rather implying a stable and specific style of life. Such a person is embarrassed when the act is at its extremes, and he cannot understand nor reject bad faith. The motive behind self-deception, according to Sartre People use bad faith to try to avoid trouble that comes along with the recognition that their existence has no rationality except for what they themselves create. Bad faith therefore comes from the inner self of a person and is a choice on its own. Individuals use their freedom to keep away from dealing with the consequences brought about by that freedom due to the respective responsibilities entailed by those consequences. However, in some instances, an individual will shun from being responsible by attempting to choose consciously. Through holding on to easy, safe, false choices, and disregarding the mass of other choices accessible to him, an individual puts himself at the mercy of the conditions in which he finds himself in. Therefore, such an individual is more like an object than a conscious being. People tend to pretend to themselves that they lack the freedom to choose by following pragmatic ideas and assuming responsibilities and value systems that are unfamiliar to their nature as conscious people. Self-deception can also be intentional, based on the dynamic paradox. A person may develop bad faith as a result of believing that it tends impossible to intend to get himself to believe what he presents or perceives as true or false (Santoni 160). For such a person to deceive himself, he must know what he is doing. Intentionalists accept the fact that they deceive themselves intentionally; though they get confused over whether it needs sticking to contradictory beliefs, therefore, over the particular content of the supposed intention, get involved in self-deception. Most intentionalists initiate psychological or temporal divisions that help them to protect self-deceivers from the knowledge of their deceptive techniques. Heidegger’s definition of inauthenticity Heidegger believed that people tend to permit themselves to lose direction in current concerns, an impact of which is that they become estranged from themselves and their actions. They view themselves externally and as it is like they do not really decide in their lives but merely swept along by the conditions at hand. Heidegger refers to this state as “fallenness.” To him, ambiguity, gossip, and curiosity are terms linked to their traditional meanings but are never used specifically. For instance, the word gossip is often used to mean all the shallow dialogues where a person repeats recognized “wisdom,” restates words, and otherwise do not communicate any significant idea. In this context, gossip is a way of shunning authentic dialogue or learning by concentrating on what is at hand at the expense of likely futures. Just like the gossip, curiosity drives individuals to look for momentary times that lack significance in the quest for becoming, rather they serve to sidetrack from the current and from dealing with their own choices and lives. A person who is inauthentic about his life and who does no really live his life has given up on developing himself and forming a life out of the situations he gets himself. He allows himself to be distracted by the circumstance, he only repeats whatever he is told, is alienated form producing meaning and value. He is so fallen into “bad faith” that he no longer rearranges or acknowledge his own freedom (Santoni 161). Heidegger analyses the way he views death basing on the existential importance, which this sure “yet-to-come” death brings to humanity, that is, Dasein’s existence in the world. In the daily life of a human being, Dasein explains the death phenomenon as an occurrence that comes constantly and can happen to others. The overall remark is, “One of this days any person will face death, but right now, death has nothing to do with us.” Such a phrase shows that dying remains with no links with the “I,” but “they.” Dasein cannot face its own death. In its existence, it is not accomplished, meaning, there are still a number of outstanding possibilities. With this, Heidegger means that people deceive themselves about the existence of death and seem to run away from reality, yet it must happen to each one. Motives behind inauthenticity Being inauthentic or falling is something that cannot be avoided. For instance, Dasein is part of the world as well as part of Das Man. People who are inauthentic are always part of something; whether they are at work or in school, they are aware of what ought to be done. The society set or dictates norms for people to follow, and they thus have no option but to live to those norms. One can become anxious, even when he is not familiar with the anxiety itself. Bad faith is similar to ordinary acts of deception. We are condemned to freedom, which calls for essential duty for our being-for-itself. Nonetheless, we make choices in the framework of our ontological truth. Therefore, our choices are impacted by a setting that is inauthentic or deficient. In a state of anguish, an individual realizes that the self-deceptions have consequences not to him alone, but also on others. It is from here that he knows that he is accountable to other people and to himself. Through such a sense, we get exposure of how we live in the world. In rejecting responsibility and in bad faith, a person can either refute his or other people’s freedom or deceive himself regarding his own freedom. In deciding precisely in good faith, a choice must be made in value interest. Our beings constantly evolve basing on the steps we make, so Sartre suggests that choices and sound decisions are significant as long as man exists. The notion of inauthenticity is different from ordinary acts of self-deception. It is quite logical that human beings are already inauthentic. In a way, this meticulously theory was developed to deal with life. It alienates people from their experience of being and existing. However, this cannot be applied to each person. There are those who respond to consciousness that restores them to personal they-self and cause them to realize how they were deceiving themselves. In whichever case, the manner in which we imitatively experience this world is through ambiguity, curiosity, and gossip. The three channels form our relationships with each other, yet they symbolize fallenness of a being. On the contrary, inauthentic being views them as the truth. Work Cited Santoni, Ronald. Bad Faith, God faith, and Authenticity in Sartre’s Early Philosophy. New York: Temple University, 1995. Read More