1. Sartre vs. Adler No such thing as human nature vs. there is a common human nature

2. Sartre’s Existentialism “EXISTENCE PRECEDES ESSENCE” 1 ST Principle of Existentialism 1. we exist 2. we define ourselves via our choices

3. Humans have no predermined nature Our actions create our nature We are free to choose how to act (we must choose) “we are condemned to be free” Since we choose our actions  RESPONSIBLE

4. My choices Shape who I become I am responsible for that & what I choose AND also for EVERYONE!

5. Sartre’s Bottom Line No specific human nature We are alone. We are responsible for what we do.

6. Mortimer Adler Concerned about the denial of human nature Observing most animals  REMARKABLE SIMILARITY Observing humans  DIFFERENCES !!! In spite of common biological traits

7. Differences Like: Languages Languages Adornments Adornments Customs Customs Manners Manners Societal institutions Societal institutions Beliefs Beliefs Standards of conduct Standards of conduct May lead to concluding: NO SPECIFIC HUMAN NATURE

8. But “That is not to admit that humans have no specific human nature whatsoever”

9. According to Adler The common nature of humans: POTENTIALITIES (expressed in different actualities, POTENTIALITIES (expressed in different actualities, e.g., syntactical speech)

10. Humans are self- made creatures We freely choose the potentialities we develop

11. Humans have some genetic pre- determinism Differences: due to acculturation & nurtural differences Confusing nature with nurture a philosophical mistake which leads to a denial of human nature