Sartre, in his philosophical piece "Existentialism and Human Emotions," defines existentialism and the describes the ways which it interacts with other ideals and cultures. For one, he says that the basis of existentialims in "existence precedes essence," meaning one must be before they realize themselve or define themselve. It is opposing to the ideal "I think therefore I am," in that the latter says one must be conscious first, and then they exist.
             By this definition, Sartre deduces that one is defined from his actions; that his actions and experiences are the sum of his life. His dreams, hopes, and goals do not reflect upon him in any way; it is only what he has done and produced which matters. But I feel that this is a very demanding statement. One's goals, and hopes, and ideas are what drive one to acting; they force a man to get a job or encounter others. Without these ideas in our head, we are nothing, and will not perform the actions which consequently define our lives. And so, I feel the ideas in ones head must be vaild in some sort of defining moment; and perhaps, Sartre does give way to letting these words and ideas count, when one writes a play, or makes a painting.
             But I do still believe that ideas that one has should count for something; they are the building blocks of our actions. And even though they do not let others define us by their presence, the human mind undoubtedly defines itself by their presence. If you think of violence or murder or pornography in your head constantly, will you not call yourself disgusting? We create our own self-images through our thoughts, and therefore we act accordingly, in a way using our thoughts to control all of our actions.
             ...