Jean-paul Sartre?

This is the essay question, can u please help me with view pointers of where i should go?





"Absolute freedom and negation are the foundations of human experience, according to Sartre. How do these ideas lead to the possibility of being in bad faith? How does this change our being with others?"





it is 1800 words long|||Hello:





Absolute freedom: humans are totally free. if we wanted we could curl up and lie there until we die (see a story by Herman Melville called Bartleby the Scrivener) or try any task we wish to attempt (a human could at least attempt to fly). We are totally free to choose anything we will.





Really it is with having to interact with others that we are forced into whatever roles that we feel the need to assume (see his play No Exit where the point that "hell is other people" is made). It is only when parents are with their children that they have to act like patents...Each of us is a different person to different people: Parent, child, employee, boss, citizen, police office and so on...





The Look: When we are in the presence of these people (or even when we simply think of them) we become shrink ourselves from the total person we are into whatever role they expect of us.





The waiter: Sartre had an example of a waiter that was too eager to fill the water glass...was a little too concerned if everything was ok...his point was that the waiter was transforming himself into the role of waiter. This itself is an example of bad faith.





To sum up: pretty much existing with others results in us slipping into different roles constantly...each time we willingly negate our own freedom to be the thing they want us to be we are at risk of being in bad faith. I would not say it changes our relationships to others (as a foundation...by definition it would form the base of our interaction with others rather than effect it) but with it at our foundation we run the risk of every time we interact with another person...or to a certain extent...a good pet owner...a person that takes care of his car/tools/yard...of denying ourselves (our absolute freedom) and trying (failing because we can never become a thing) to become a thing...A good employee, a good father, ect.





Pretty much make sure that you fully explain each term that you plan on using...use as many examples as necessary to make your point and/or to pad the length requirement...and I would say to give each term its own paragraph and to make one lead into another. On top of that if the above is how your professor worded the question then either correct it as I did, or if they are a dick then maybe mention it to them and make sure they agree with me. I think it would allow you to both look smart to him/her for pointing it out and if its in the paper then explaining the difference will also eat up the space.





I hope this helps and was the best answer.





also if you need better wording for the terms just use the included link for an online dictionary of philosophy.





Rev Phil