Reconciling Subjectivity and Objectivity: A Comparative Analysis of Sartre's Existentialism and Philosophical Realism in Understanding Human Perception and their Ethical Implications critically examines Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialism in contrast to philosophical realism, exploring their distinct views on human nature and perception. Sartre's existentialism, encapsulated by the concept "existence precedes essence," advocates for individual freedom and the subjective construction of meaning, asserting that humans craft their identities through choices in a value-neutral universe. Conversely, realism argues for an objective reality with inherent essences that exist independently of human perception, allowing for truths about the world to be objectively discovered through rational inquiry.

Reconciling Subjectivity and Objectivity furthers this examination through comparing how each philosophy approaches mental relations to the world. It argues that while existentialism emphasizes autonomy, it overlooks the inherent truths acknowledged by realism. Consequently, realism provides a stable foundation for ethical reasoning and scientific pursuit, addressing the limitations inherent in existentialism. This analysis demonstrates that realism offers a more coherent and practical framework for understanding human nature and our ethical interactions with the world.

The significance of this project lies in its original contribution to the discipline by systematically evaluating and contrasting these two influential philosophical positions. It highlights realism's advantages in offering a grounded approach to ethical and empirical investigations, suggesting a more coherent framework for philosophical inquiry and practical application. This paper advances the discourse by articulating the practical implications of adopting a realist stance over existentialism, emphasizing the importance of objective realities in ethical and philosophical reasoning.