Of course I know how to write a research paper; the difference is that this is the first time I’ve been given the opportunity to choose what I’ll research instead of a relatively stupid (in my opinion) topic like pollution, gobal warming etc.

Originally before this post I was thinking of the incompatability of existentialism and hard determinism. These are ideas that do wrap around my head easy along with propisitional and predicate logic.

Definitely I agree that things I cannot understand will cause me to lose interest in even completing the assignment, however I still want to show teachers and my friends alike the importance, depth, and compatability philosophy has in our practical side of reaility.

Edit: Lol you think Donald Trump is a criminal? Not yet proven so it’ll be quite a tremendous leap.

Jeez, I don't even have the slightest clue in the understanding of mathematical logic... although if it takes relatively little time to go over an introduction to mathematical logic book, then I am surely willing to do this.

Also, any viable sources you can point to me (since I can’t cite the “gold” from here)?

My dual enrollment teacher which I have no idea what it is about
I just got the class this semester

Oooo, yes yes that is a good idea; keep 'em coming hehe

I am in the US. It was not meant for any specific class
No, I have not studied any of this in school. Through my interest in mathematics I learned of Archimedes and it led to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle which got me interested in philosophy. Ever since then I have been reading other philosophers here and there.

It is a school wide paper meaning I can pretty much do it on whatever I want it to be. The topic is philosophy of course, and it explains why I am here :D

Most likely, since the influence part that came from me is actually from “abandonment” in which he defends after. Got carried away... thanks!

Oh my... could it have been that simple?

I made this so complicated for myself for no reason if that is the case... I’m really stupid

it can refer to any morally dubious action — Terrapin Station

I'm in a pit of confusion now; I read ahead without caring much of this argument, but now I present to you the current logic, speaking about abandonment I think... (I write this after P.S.)

Certainly, many believe that their actions involve no one but themselves

I'm having an issue understanding this because I can deconstruct it in two ways:
1) Actions are not INFLUENCED by subjective forces like belief
or 2) Actions are not INFLUENCING other people; he promotes the entirety of mankind
Fine, I can continue still using both ideas...

and were we to ask them, “But what if everyone acted that way?

So I attempt 1) with the logic being:

"If everyone is confronted by a moral question and actions are not INFLUENCED by subjective forces." Results in an answer created only by the free will.
This makes the most sense for if I attempt 2) then I will get the answer:

"If everyone is confronted by a moral question and actions are not INFLUENCING other people." then the answer will be quite odd... that being that the answer does not matter, since the action does affect another.

I conclude that "Actions are not INFLUENCED by subjective forces like belief" is what he was talking about when referring to the "many".

Maybe that is so...

Do you think everyone poor and bourgeois is free? How about people with serious illnesses, mental retardation, inbreeding, slaves, etc? Are there degrees of existential freedom? — bloodninja

Surely such things do limit one's ability to freely decide who they want to be.
And thanks for the info, I'll most likely read Heidegger after this transcript because I see the clear inspiration etc from him to Sartre.

how do "we" know that people are pretty much all anguished, even though they don't look like it? — Bitter Crank

It is a claim that Sartre makes, along with other existentialists (explains the "we"), when speaking of anguish.

"Oh, you are happy? You must be in denial."

Maybe what Sartre has to say here is hogwash? — Bitter Crank

Surely not when he pushes this claim afterwards. See, anguish is not an emotion that you can plaster a specific face on. It is just a realization that one is free, and that we contribute to the definition of mankind. And to mention the guy above, Sartre was surely happy when he was getting it on ;) although still in anguish.

Another thing we learnt from what you said is that his actions were the result of his free will. You can curse Hitler, Sartre and the Devil, but whatever damage you think they have done is done. So far, even his own philosophy "justifies" what he did according to you. Please elaborate on how his philosophical ideas are bullshit! Not defending him but just want to get closer to Truth if there is such a thing :)

No one of your favorite philosophers is Heidegger! How did Heidegger go about the moral philosophy compared to Sartre's rip off of Kant?

You are absolutely right: and he proceeds to mention how a bad faith can be cause for such evasion. The thing is however, that I have no idea in what direction Sartre is going when he refutes their ideas.
Previous to the text I quoted (some background):

Existentialists like to say that man is in anguish. This is what they mean: a man who commits himself, and who realizes that he is not only the individual that he chooses to be, but also a legislator choosing at the same time what humanity as a whole should be, cannot help but be aware of his own full and profound responsibility.

The way I understand anguish from this piece is the realization of will and being part of a bigger picture than they can think - being a "legislator" as in a part of the whole in the definition of mankind. Still I have yet to understand...

Perhaps that the questionative figure one has is equivalent to that of a metaphysician which thinks of the most abstract concepts the world will ever deal with.