A New Philosophy

The author a writer himself gives and defends his complex views to his distractors on his belief system of existentialism is a humanism. He wants to avidly respond several reproaches that have been made against his belief system, but I feel he has still a long way to go to fully convince has audience. He feels his views allows people to dwell in despair. Actually his new wave of thinking is both difficult to understand and often leaves you perplexed on the points he is desperately trying to achieve. His views often have no basis and are highly philosophical in nature. It is like asking the perrenial question of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Intact his views when it comes to how we came to exist, in effect who created us seem arbitory to what follows in our lives after we are born. Further more his questioning the existence of god is blasphemous to any god fearing non athiest. After all religion is based on blind faith and not scientific proof. The question remains whether we believe in god as our creator or not,we are created, and to we enter this world with a genetic coding that determines our nature and fate or do the experiences we go through and the circumstances we are subjected to determine our essence of being? This brings the point of existence versus essence. Also as human beings are we really given true freedom of choice or are we hampered by others and commitments that determine our choices at a localized level. Then really our choices are never ours but sacrificial decisions. If a woman gives up her career after having a baby is it her free will or was the choice made for her. On a broader level does our choices set an example for man kind and humanity at large? Do we always have to make the moral decision. This was given in the example in the writing of a young man who had to make the decision to stay with his mother or go to war and revenge his brothers death? Surely there is no real right or wrong or moral choice here it is purely subjective. However, on making a decision is this decision purely of his own free will or is he hampered by the commitments of loyalty and guilt? But if we for a second believe there is no god then why do we need to take the selfless moral path? Surely we all need to hold on to some anchor of belief and restraint that can show us the path of righteousness. The author argues that some people view existentialism is a gloomy view of the world and this promotes pessimism. However the author argues that the reverse is true and that his views are in fact optimism. He explains that "we mean that man first of all exists encounters himself surges up in the world and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus there is no human nature...man simply is "I agree that we become the person we are through our upbringing and experiences but I also strongly believe in god and science that does create an unbuilt human nature, such as a person may have a bad temper and another may not. After all even Darwin has stated that we all have inherent traits but we adapt and change due to our environment. The author has given a over simplistic one dimensional view of the world and I would prefer to take a broader perspective than listen to his preaching.