Samhain

WJ,

When he discusses 'pre-established patterns for human nature' he is basically referring to his argument for free-will. We are born as individuals, we are unique, no one person has the same experience, thought-process, existence, or essence of another, we are all different, even if it may only be to varying degrees. Thus since the title "human" only binds us to one another us in the vaguest and most primitive of terms (due to consciousness, sentience, etc.), there can be no 'pre-established pattern for human nature' or, basically, human nature is what we make of it, what we interpret it as, and no one can contest that in any way, since we all are 'humans' capable of making our own decisions based on logic or emotion or our most primitive of instincts, and we all have free-will. This is basically why the movement would largely reject social and psychological sciences, since they do not appeal to the idea that we are unique or to the idea that we make our own existence.

Close, but not quite. He referred to this as anguish and perhaps absurdity, not nothingness, but there are some subtle, yet quite distinct differences between absurdity and anguish as well. Nothingness is a little bit different of a concept, first of all. Absurdity deals with the idea of existence, not particularly essence, essence deals with other ideas. I'll expound on essence for Sartre in a moment, but first, I'd like to clear up a bit on absurdity and anguish.

Absurdity deals with the idea that existence is meaningless, due to the fact that, in regards to the universe, our actions mean nothing, literally. "Man's existence is absurd because his contingency finds no external justification. His projects are absurd because hey are directed toward an unattainable goal (the 'desire to become God'...)" (Being and Nothingness).

Anguish is a tad bit different concept. Anguish deals more with what you're discussing, the pain from the idea of absurdity. For Sartre, anguish dealt with the idea that mankinds past (what you would name as our 'essence' or what I might call our 'universal essences') could neither confirm or deny the validity (or morality in some cases) of our actions or values which we choose. 'Human nature' is an absurd concept due to the fact that we have free-will to choose our actions, thus all is relative to our own individual existence, as far as our actions are concerned. This, along with bad faith, is part of the root where his statement "We are condemned to be free" gains a bit more meaning.

Now, essences for Sartre were a entirely different thing altogether than what you have stated. Our essences are based off of our actions, actions effecting us, and everything that we have established from the time of our birth. It is the 'base' of the pillar, if you will, even though Sartre would state that existence preceeds the 'base' of essence. Our essences deal with some things that are beyond our control, and some things which we may have control over. Mainly, when Sartre discussed essence, though, he dealt with things which are beyond our control and things that we cannot change about ourselves. I cannot change the fact that I was born as a white male, it is part of my 'essence', no matter what I do, that part of my past can never be changed. I cannot help that I grew up in a middle class family, that, being part of my past, is also a part of my 'essence'. The knowledge that I have gained through the years is part of my 'essence' as well, my actions become part of my 'essence' once they are in the past, etc. etc. I hope this helps to clear up the problems that you have with understanding Sartre's definition of 'essence', if you have more questions feel free to ask.

For me, existence itself needs no meaning, it is meaningful in-itself. Further than that I make meaning which suits me, though it may not really be 'meaning' but my own individual 'human nature'.

I doubt it, but you must understand that is not the purpose of the existentialist movement. It actually would be kind of ironic for the two to meld into one philosophy. The stress on existentialism is existence not the origins of existence. We are here, we've been given this life, we cannot change that fact, we must deal with it in our own, individual way, nothing else matters. It is a philosophy, it is not science. We've been given what we've been given, existence, and with it, everything that it contains, we cannot change what we've been given, and it doesn't really matter, we have it, we must deal with it, origins don't really matter in that regard.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

WJ

Hi Sam!

Just some more thoughts...you said:

This is basically why the movement would largely reject social and psychological sciences, since they do not appeal to the idea that we are unique or to the idea that we make our own existence."

I think you are right about the rejection of certain elements of social sciences, but are incorrect about psychology. Psychology, being a science of the mind, is an empirical one. It studies things like why people think the way they think. 'Pre-established patterns' I take it then, as you describe, relate to what one ought to do with their ability or freedom to make choices. And when one talks about what one ought to do with that freedom, do we not measure them against social norms?


RE: anxiety/angst. Now, since you are apparently taking on an advocate role in Sarterian existentialism, shall we debate? You said: "Man's existence is absurd because his contingency finds no external justification. His projects are absurd because hey are directed toward an unattainable goal (the 'desire to become God'...)" (Being and Nothingness).

Are you saying we all want to be God? Indeed that would comprise absurdity, but in who's mind? I don't know anyone who wants to be God except that their own anxieties about finitude may make them wish they were. Please comment.

Then you said: "This, along with bad faith, is part of the root where his statement "We are condemned to be free" gains a bit more meaning."

Is this what you mean by Sartreian anxiety? In trying to provide a scenario, how would you link the concept of bad faith to volitional existence in order to clarify your point/distinction? I think what we might find, is that Sartre was a bit more of a rationalist than he cared to admit. (And that interpretation does not only come from me.) Anyway, could we explore that whole notion about bad faith and anxiety a bit?

Then you said Re: essences: "I cannot change the fact that I was born as a white male, it is part of my 'essence', no matter what I do, that part of my past can never be changed."

First, I fully understand the Sartreian version of essences, but again, his atheism precluded a deeper look into the intrinsic nature of man viz. good and 'evil'/finitude. The furtherest he would travel is the acknowledgement that the concept of god, because its essential argument is beyond human reason, trancsends the laws of logic from a Thomistic view of essences. And that of course coincided with Platonic essences. So we agree to that point. Essences are not known, but exist thru cosmological finitude, ignorance, or brute facts of mystery.

But, to demonstrate, using your comment about human existence/essence, that the thought process needs to go deeper, you merely describe existence of a thing, in this case, you being male. The problem you'll/he encounters is the existence of your consciousness as a male. I'm told that Sartre was a dualist and thought that consciousness transended a thing in itself, but transended to nothingness. Check your sources, but if that is true (which is more than likely because of the basic notion of existentialism itself) the question must be why have consciousness at all? Why Being? I'm told he never bothered going any further. Again, atheism provided the false justification for that element of his philosophy behind conscious existence. Did he understand the concept that mystery exists?


....to be continued

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Samhain

WJ,

I will concur that the majority of us do, and will. However, the problem lies within the social norms themselves, not the individual. Society rejects the 'deviant', does this make him any less human, does this make his existence any less pure? This was part of the empowerment of the atheist existentialist movement. Existence reigns supreme, really, and according to moral relativism, our existences are all equal, and cannot be measured by any objective standard. Once again "We are condemned to be free".

Further, I'm not exactly sure how willing I am to agree that theories of psychology were accepted by existentialists. Psychology is not really an 'exact' science, and it would seem to assert more than it would 'discover' as well. These are a general reason why I'd believe that the norm of existentialists would have rejected the school of psychology.

Not exactly, that was an excerpt from Being and Nothingness, so you'll have to live with my interpretation as opposed to a surefire truth about what is being discussed with this particular excerpt.

I don't think that is what is being said, so I'll give you my best interpretation based off of what I know. Of course, it it would seem quite obvious that this is not to be taken in a literal sense. Metaphorically speaking, I think Sartre would assert that we all have a desire to become 'God' or become god-like. It deals with a vague concept of transcendence, we all have a desire to better our own existence, and to prolong it as far as possible, in the end, we would all desire to become 'God', in a sense that we would wish to achieve the most knowledge, power, and existence as is naturally possible.

The absurdity of Being vs. Nothingness would be compromised, if death is wiped off of the picture. Of course, I would not exactly say that Sartre finds eternal natural existence possible, but it is the concept that makes the point here, in a metaphorical sense, not a literal one.

How would you like me to link them? Perhaps it's just that I've dealt with existentialism and Sartre so long that I find it obvious where others might not. Elaborate, I will try the best I can to come up with an answer to your query. Regardless, I will try and clarify.

Beginning with the assertion that we have free-will (we will allow this point in it's entirety for sake of argument), at the same time we must try to keep in good faith with our free-will. We must realize that our actions, and our existence (mind you, not our essence) is totally dependent on ourselves as individuals. We choose to exist, and we choose to exist in the manner that we exist. Our existence in the present is totally dependent on ourselves as individuals. An example in Being and Nothingness was one of a soldier. If you are a soldier and you are sent to war, you must realize that the war you are fighting is your war completely. You chose this war, it is your war in every aspect, to fool yourself into thinking that the fact that you are in this war is beyond your control is bad faith (mauvaise foi). You are always in control of your existence, and you always choose your own actions, no one chooses them for you. You have several alternatives in such a case, and thus you still have free-will. Death is always an option, desertion is another. So, as you will see, you chose the war for yourself the minute you set foot on the battleground, you must realize that it is your war, and that you have chosen to be a part of it. I have a feeling that this doesn't address your point, so feel free to correct me if I've addressed the wrong point.

Clarify your point here. Why should he have a need to expound on that point? What purpose would that point, if addressed, serve other than than to satisfy curious knowledge. Is this point essential?

Why is it a false justification, WJ? I cannot understand this argument that so many theists, like yourself, hold onto. Existence is existence, period, it needs no further explanation, why do you have the need to violate Ockham's razor by complicating existence with your need for a higher purpose or a creator? There is no need to explain such a point, it is an explanation in-itself, but your need to over-complicate existence does not provide the rationalization that you are looking for. That is your epistemological problem, not mine, and not Sartre's.

Caelestis Impius

What ever happend to poor ol' Decartes????

Samhain

You mean Descartes? What about him? We certainly haven't forgotten "Cogito ergo sum" yet, that is already presumed when dealing with existential philosophy.

hinduwoman

In a nutshell, the basic idea is that:
Existence precedes esence; indeed there is no such thing as essence at all, for humans.

Existence meaning freedom to make choices are only for humans. Rocks, animals and even God does not have it. But man has responsibility, because he can choose his action.

All human beings are limited.

The existence of world and ourselves is without reason and so absurd. From this arises dread and anguish.

Samhain

I'm curious as to the sources that state that essences do not exist for humans. I'd sure like to see citations if possible, preferably from Sartre, as I have not seen anything to suggest such.

The Dionysian

"I'm curious as to the sources that state that essences do not exist for humans. I'd sure like to see citations if possible, preferably from Sartre, as I have not seen anything to suggest such."

Have you read Sartre's 1946 lecture "Existentialism is a Humanism"?

<a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm" target="_blank">http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm</a>

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: TPaine ]

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: TPaine ]</p>

Samhain

Yes, I have, if I remember correctly he dicussed the idea of existence preceeding essence very briefly in comparison to the whole itself, though a moderate portion was based upon that idea, correct? If I remember correctly he compared essence to some kind of pre-determined design, and pitted the idea of existence preceeding essence against the idea of "human nature" while further elaborating on the ideas of subjectivity and objectivity in morality. I don't recall him saying that essences are unknown or nonexistent, but, much like in Being and Nothingness, stated that they do not present themselves (at least this is the assertion for the atheist-existentialist) beyond what existence provides (i.e. there is no a priori standard for existence, individually or universally - "human nature"). Once again, basically stating that each man makes his own essence as he lives, he is nothing but what he makes of himself, correct? These being the primary reasons why the individual cannot be defined or predicted.

Edited to add: Or should I re-read it?

Edited again to add: Sorry, perhaps I stated my objection a bit too vaguely the first time. I did not mean to suggest that essences are existent as "human nature", but, rather, that while existence preceeds essence, essences are (in Sartre's definition of essences) made as we exist. Essences are contigent upon existence, existence is the determining factor in essences, but that essences are known and made as we exist (i.e. due to our inability to change the past). Sorry for the confusion.

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

Bill

I guess I could adopt the position that all existentialists are merely figments of their own imaginations, and thus they do not actually exist. Accordingly, there are no TRUE existentialists here!

== Bill