Existentialist Themes Of Anxiety And Absurdity Essay -- Philosophy Phi

Existentialist Themes of Anxiety and AbsurdityIn a world with such a vast amount of people there exists virtuallyevery distinct belief, thought, and ideology. This means that for every strain and every disagreement that their exists 2 sides of relative equalstrength. It is through these disagreements that arguments are formed.Arguments are the building blocks in which philosophers use to analyzesituations and determine theories of life. For the purpose of this paper I forgettry and argue my personal beliefs on a specific argument. This argument ispresented in a form of a question and upon examination of the content of thisquestion, several different and unique questions arise. In order to support my possible action as to the dissolvent to this question I result attempt to perform the threesubquestions which deal less with the content of the question itself and morewith the reception to reading the question. Also key to the support of my hypothesisis the concept of existenti alism. I will go into the foundations of this good system throughout the remainder of this paper. Subquestion one, E --C, simple asks whether it is true or false that if you stand an ethical theory and thence does it have to be consistent. Subquestion deuce, (?) -- H, poses theidea of what makes up the essence of being a human being. Subquestion three, E-- (H -- M), asks whether it is true or false that it is ethical to assumethat humans should be given example priority over animals.I order to support my interpretation and answer the topic question, Iwill try to explain my personal ethical theory. We were given several differenttheories in which to emulate or charge pieces of in order to make such wordswhich have different meanings to different people. For such vague words such asright and wrong, the consideration in which they are presented are vital pieces inorder to define them. It is my belief, and a necessary requirement of thispaper to somehow define these two words. I t is obvious that these two wordsmust be opposites of each other. Therefore, the apprehension of one willeasily lead to the understanding of its opposite. However, the words themselveswill never be anything more than five letters grouped together. This is becauseyour ethical theory and someone elses ethical theory could possible conflictcausing for a discrepan... ...kill as a means of survival. At thispoint in time it is only necessary to kill certain animals as a form of foodsource and for other luxury items. There have been times when it was necessaryfor humans to kill an animal for food. I oddity if a person who did not eatmeat would starve to decease if the only thing to eat was meat? And as long as wedo not over kill a certain species then they will underwrite to reproduce and thefood chain will continue to work. Being descendants of other living things,humans must reassure that nature is let to work on it own, continuing to do whatit has do for many years.In response to subquestion one, I do not tincture that it is possible toremain consistent in any ethical theory in which you live by. This is mainlybecause every ethical theory that I now of is entirely too focused and usuallynot wholly relevant to every circumstance. The more broad your definitionor theory is then the closer you come to the only one that will invariably work.The less you say what you can and cant do, the closer you come to reflection nothing.Once you have generalized your theory so much that you eliminated everythingthen you are stuck with