I will begin with a discussion of the work of Jean Paul Sartre. He begins by claiming that if God does not exist, then there is at least one being whose existence precedes his essence, namely human beings. When Sartre makes that claim that "existence precedes essence," he is simply saying that humans simply appear in this universe and initially humans are nothing but a "tabula rosa." In other words, human beings find themselves in existence and only later do they define themselves into something.
According to Sartre, the definition of what is means to exist as a human being is not predetermined because God does not exist. If God does not exist, then a higher consciousness which can conceive of a "human nature" does not exist either. Therefore, only human beings can define themselves through their will.
Clearly, then, man is simply what he wills himself to be. Critics of existentialism usually take this to mean that "everything is subjective." Sartre, on the other hand, believes that he is making the assertion that human beings have a greater dignity than simple, mundane objects (i.e rocks, mold,etc). Human beings are conscious of their existence in the universe and this is what distinguishes humans beings from these other objects. In other words, human beings can consciously plan what they want to be at some future point in time. Thus, like other mundane objects in the world, human beings are initially nothing but what distinguishes human beings from these other objects is that human beings can choose to become what they plan to be.
If existence really does precede essence, then each individual human being is responsible for who they are. This is an important feature of existentialism. The job of the existentialist, then, is to make other human beings aware of who they are and that they are responsible for who they are and have become. Furthermore, when the existentialist claims that all human beings are responsible for their own particular individuality, they are also claiming that each individual is also responsible for all of humanity.
Critics usually claim that existentialism is "purely subjective." However, the term 'subjective' carries two different meanings. In other words, the term 'subjective' can mean that human beings are free to choose who they want to be. On the other hand, the term 'subjective' can also mean that human beings are incapable of transcending their own subjectivity. The existentialist will point to the latter in response to such criticism.
The existentialist is making the claim that all human beings are unable to transcend their subjectivity. When an individual human being is making a choice, that individual is choosing all human beings. Every action we choose is simultaneously implying that we believe every human should pursue this course of action. When we are choosing, we are also choosing what we believe every human being ought to be.
When we make choices, we simultaneously affirm the value of these choices. This must be true if human nature does not exist. If human nature does not exist, then human beings cannot make wrong choices. Human beings will always choose the greatest good, and nothing is good for us, unless it is also good for everyone else.
Sartre makes the claim that "man is anguish." What he means by this is that individuals who involve themselves and are conscious of their choices, should feel a deep feeling of responsibility. This feeling of responsibility is inescapable because "man is condemned to be free." Even when an individual is not choosing, that in itself is actually a choice. Those individuals who claim to be unanxious are simply lying.
For the most part, human beings believe that when they are making a particular choice that it will only effect their own particular circumstances. However, existentialist believe that human beings should instead ask themselves, "what if everyone did this?" If everyone thought in this way is an inescapable fact. In response, most human beings will claim that "not everyone does this." But, by making this claim your act of lying implies that a universal value is conferred through a lie.
This anguish is present even when concealed. For example, many individuals will claim to have spoken with God or an angel. The problem with claims of this nature, is what proof or evidence do they have of this? How can the individual "know" they are speaking to God and not the devil? How can the individual "know" whether they are simply dreaming or hallucinating? The answer is that human beings will never have objective proof of these occurrences. Therefore, it is up to the individual to decide whether the voice they hear is coming from God or the devil or whether they are speaking to an angel or a demon. Whether the act is good or evil is up to the individual.
The individual must ask themselves, "if they have the right to act in such a way that humanity might guide itself through my actions?" If an individual does not ask themselves that question, then they are denying their anguish.
Sartre believes that because God does not exist and human beings are solely responsible for their actions, then a priori guidelines do not exist. In other words, if God does not exist, then human nature and morality do not exist as well. This is troubling for the existentialist because there is not a moral compass to guide our actions. In other words, there is nothing in the universe that tells us not to lie, steal, cheat or murder. Therefore, every action a human can perform is permissible. This only enhances the claim that "man is condemned to be free." If God (and thus, morality) do not exist, then human beings are solely responsible for their actions. If this is true then moral guidance does not exist and human beings are left without excuses for their actions.
If things are as man has willed them to be, does that mean that I should simply refrain from active participation in society? No, because I should involve myself and remember that nothing can be experienced without "doing." Human beings should do everything in their power when choosing. For instance, questions such as "will human beings ever stop mindlessly killing each other in wars?" or "will there ever be universal healthcare?" should not negate an individuals' pursuit to correct these states of affairs. To put another way, this means that an individual is simply a sum of his or her actions. In all probability, war, as we currently understand it, will probably not end in our lifetime. However, knowing this should not prevent an individual from doing all he or she can to end war. The point is that action is everything, even when an individual is choosing not to choose.
1 comment:
Post a Comment