8/13/08

Facticity and Transcendence

I will continue my discussion of existentialism and in particular the explanation of the terms 'facticity' and 'transcendence'.

First of all, existentialists believe that there are two attitudes I can take towards myself:
1. The third person perspective
2. The first person perspective

Facticity is the third person perspective that any other person can take. These facts include biological facts about my height, weight, race, gender, skin color, eye color, etc. However, these facts also include social and economic, psychological and historical facts as well. Initially, I am unaware of my facticity as a child but I gradually learn over time that I have the capability to assume the third person or "I" perspective. With this gradual realization, I may come to assume that these factitious properties define who I am as an individual.

However, these properties and the fact that I possess them cannot define me as an individual because of the type of being that I am. This is true because the existence of a human being is defined by the perspective a human being takes on their factitious properties. Existentialist refer to this phenomena as transcendence.

Transcendence is the first person perspective of a human being. With transcendence, human beings can "transcend" their facticity and become something more than they are or seem to be. This "something" they can become is a result of that human beings individual choices or decisions. For the sake of argument, assume that the power suddenly goes out and I am unable to finish typing this particular paragraph. My reaction to this situation depends on beliefs about the situation itself. In other words, I can simply get angry and break the computer or can see this chance situation as an opportunity rather than a burden. The point is that we can determine our behavior in relation to a given situation or state of affairs. How I interpret my facticity will determine my reaction to these states of affairs. This also shows that even though we find ourselves in existence with certain innate dispositions, we are able to transcend them because our beliefs about those dispositions effect how we react to particular states of affairs.

Critics of existentialism are weary of the term “choice” because there are times when an individual does not even deliberate prior to a particular action. For example, if you just witnessed someone viciously murder your mother, you will not stand there and contemplate whether you should act or not. The question then is, “was this actually a choice?” Is this action reducible to the fact that I chose to feel anger towards my mother’s attacker? What this actually implies is that, I being the active "first person perceiver" cannot conceive of myself as determined by anything other than the third person perspective.

Existentialist believe that this is false and that facticity and transcendence are irreducible to one another. If this is true, then the Cartesian account of “being-in-the world” cannot be true. It is only through transcendence that the world is revealed and gives us meaning. Transcendence or “projects” can be factiously embedded in the world that is not of my own choosing. These projects are who I am as an engaged agent in the world.

No comments: