This time, I will reflect on existentialist nihilism and Cartesian dualism. I will not undermine the postulates of nihilism because I respect philosophers opinions. Instead, I will speak in favor of Cartesian dualism argue that it is a more parsimonious explanation of reality than existentialist nihilism.
My argument is based on the conviction that God is power. He is the source of perfection, and perfection entails the existence. From this perspective, existence is about becoming closer to God and perfection by following His rules. In this way, existence and relation between God and human can be compared to a driver and a race car regardless of outstanding technical features, reaching the destination point is impossible without the involvement of a driver.
A similar approach to explaining reality is expressed by dualists. According to Descartes, there is a God who is all-powerful, and who created me, such as I am. From this perspective, it is evident that He should have designed the rules for us to follow because he created me and the environment to live in, and gave me mind to perceive this. Because people are more than just a body and they have the ability to think about the world they live in, as well as question or deny their senses, it points to the existence of something bigger than biology a soul. Because thinking is another attribute of the soul, it proves that there should be a higher being God.
On the other hand, Sartre does not believe in God. Instead, he claims that existence precedes essence. A human has no creator and no blueprint or design. It means that it is the choices people make that determine who they really are, not the higher authority that made them the way they are. Moreover, Sartre denies the concept of perfection of people. He states that ideas or universal truths can be perfect, but persons, including God, cannot. More than that, because God does not exist, He is the impossible that returns us to the idea that people themselves determine who they are. But why there is no God? God does not exist because it would take away humans freedom. Therefore, if people are free, there is no God.
In my belief, the idea that there is no God because His existence means the absence of freedom is not right. The same is true about Sartres claim that people are imperfect. Even though Descartes recognizes imperfection of a self-being, he states that no machine ever created by a human is as perfect as a human body created by God. Moreover, machines perfection in completing technical tasks cannot help them outperform people because we act from knowledge, not a code or the disposition of our organs. Still, there is something higher to lead us, even though it might limit our choices. Let us return to the example of a driver and a race car. Machines cannot determine the direction to move in even the most advanced autopilot technologies require the involvement of a human. In this way, a race car needs a driver to reach the final destination. If people were machines, they would either remain immobile or act in accordance with their inner code or the disposition of their organs. Even though it may be similar to freedom (the freedom of choice as stated as Sartre), the higher authority is still needed at least, to switch it on. So, just like a race car is brought into action and directed by a driver, human life is given and ruled by God.
Peoples sense of self-identity can be described as the characteristic that makes them certain that they are the same individuals, either today or any other time. The sense of self-identity is a common characteristic of individuals. It contributes to the human nature that is universal to all human beings. This characteristic enables people to maintain the same character and personality while allowing them to adapt to their environment. Self-identity is one of the factors that differentiate human beings from other species.
The personal sense of self-identity is a product of many other factors. It ensures that the uniformity of thoughts is maintained throughout the various stages of life. The largest contributor to the personal sense of self-identity is self-consciousness and memory as Descartes and Locke reveal (Myers 43).
The personal self-consciousness allows the maintenance of a uniform personality or character. The sense of self-identity has personally been an important guide in the various spheres of life-based on how it allows the maintenance of relevant personality and performance of peoples daily activities.
As Descartes and Locke confirm, self-consciousness allows personal adaptation to all changes that take place daily, thus paving the way for a positive transformation. Memory is an important part of this sense. It forms the main basis of the self-identity. The development of the personal sense of self-identity takes place through the experience of several events and changes that occur in life.
This memory becomes part of the personal self-identity, which enhances the development of ones character. Apart from Descartes and Lockes self-consciousness and memory, another personal way that the sense of self-identity has developed is through choice and commitment as portrayed by Sartre.
A personal belief is that the sense of self-identity develops from choice and commitment that have grown over time. It is only through commitment that some of the basic characteristics of this sense have developed. Dedication contributes to persistence, which ensures that the sense of self-identity is retained originally. Sartre is one of the individuals who propose the creations of self-identity through choice and commitment. According to this individual, self-identity can only be established through the two characters.
Most people believe that authentic selfhood requires breaking away from conformism while other people believe that conformity can supply a ready-made self-satisfactory self-identity (Myers 17). While the two beliefs are justified, the personal belief is that authentic selfhood requires breaking away from conformism. It is only after individuals break away after conformism that they can establish self-identity and influence conformism to work to their advantage.
Most of the great people in the world were able to achieve great things and overcome major challenges through evading conformism and adopting authentic selfhood. Through this kind of self-identity, people were able to influence the world. As a result, they were able to change to the current values and beliefs.
A personal view is that conformism is a barrier to personal achievement. For the set goals to be achieved, there is a need to decline conformism and implement a personal sense of authentic selfhood. This choice will ensure that the challenges that emerge are tackled adequately. The other reason for adopting such a view is that most of the other people who have adopted a different view have ended up not succeeding in their activities.
Body-Soul Dualism
Body-soul dualism is common in the western cultural tradition. Different authors have produced many articles that analyze the same issue. Most religions have a definition of this concept. However, Judeo-Christian religious tradition has the most outspoken beliefs. A personal belief is that body-soul dualism is a real characteristic of all human beings. Another belief is that all human beings have a soul that is in constant opposition with the body and that the tag between the two determines the eventual fate after death.
The Judeo-Christian religious tradition insists that it is necessary for the soul to be viewed as being in a constant fight with the body in an attempt to transcend the temptations of the flesh (Kaufmann 43).
However, secular belief on body-soul dualism is that one can become more at peace with the material aspect of our being, thus enjoying the bodily pleasures without any shame or guilt (Myers 47). The latter belief that was advocated by the sexual revolution oversaw the increase in the number of cases that could be labeled as immoral by the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.
Based on the two beliefs, it is a personal opinion that the Judeo-Christian religious tradition is the right concerning this argument. This inference not only relies on the personal belief and allegiance to this religion but also on the evidence provided in support of the same. The belief is that there is a future where the soul will survive after death.
This future provides a sanctuary for eternal life. The belief that is propagated by the sexual revolution is meant to fulfill the desires of the responsible individuals. It justifies the actions that they think are unacceptable in their culture.
Mind-body dualism is thought to give rise to mind-body problems (Kaufmann 45). The question of whether this claim is justifiable arises. A personal conviction is that the attempts made to overcome the dualism are not justifiable. Some of the attempts include materialism, idealism, identity theory, and the view of the existence of the mind-body unity before the division between the two (Kaufmann 48).
Different individuals base these theories and beliefs on the desire to develop different practices that can suit them also. Various religious writers have also discredited most of these theories. Researchers have also demonstrated the utility of this dualism.
The attempts to overcome dualism present a chance for the proponents to develop justification for the actions and characters that are often non-human in origin. Different religious doctrines regard these elements as unnecessary. These attempts are also a means of justifying evils in society. The result is a degradation of the initially held morals. Therefore, a personal belief is that body-soul dualism is not only a component of Judeo-Christian religious tradition but also a truth that was meant to protect and preserve humanity.
One reason for holding this view is that the origin is religious. Scientific proof shows an essence for the same view. Mysteries that surround the origin and propagation of life provide evidence that there are natural forces that should be respected. Body-soul dualism is one of the forces. Scientists and secularists are some of the people who have failed to explain some of the mysteries that encircle body-soul dualism. Therefore, they should not be allowed to develop baseless theories to overcome this dualism.
Free Will
Free will is a concept that different individuals view as being a component of human nature. It is respected in most nations of the world. There are many versions of this concept all over the world, with different societies having perceptions that differ. Unlike other parts of nature that are determined by the causal law, it is a personal belief that human beings have the characteristic of possessing free will.
Free will allows the determination of different aspects of peoples daily life, including the moral values that are held by an individual. Personal reasons for the belief in possession of free will include the ability to determine the direction that life has to follow.
The personal ability to carry out free will allows a change of the conditions within the society and the environment. Personal ability has made man superior to other parts of nature. Therefore, this aspect is a beneficial personal characteristic. Free will can be defined as the ability to make individual decisions that are not based on particular laws, but that is decided personally after evaluation of some factors and interests (Kaufmann 14).
On the other hand, determinism is a concept in philosophy where certain events result from or are determined by other directly related events (Myers 27). From a determinist perspective, human actions are determined by predestined events.
The assumptions made in free will that differentiate it from determinism include the fact that choices and human actions are not determined by any events or factors (Kaufmann 34). However, a central concept in the determinist viewpoint is that events and human actions are determined by some special factors, events, and conditions. Determinism allows the creation of special beliefs in individuals and societies. Scientists and other researchers have debated the possibility of free will to lead to determinism on various circles.
The advances in natural science tend to undermine the belief in free will, which seems to be essential in terms of holding people responsible for their behavior as religion, morality, and criminal law contend. The advances in natural science continue to undermine the belief in free will through several ways.
Natural science creates special laws that are contrary to the basic belief of free will. It requires individuals to conform to these laws, thereby limiting their expression of free will. A cogent middle position between the two extremes allows individuals to hold the contrary beliefs of free will and the laws of natural science.
The middle position described above allows divergent views about freedom and necessity. This middle ground is a characteristic of the different positions that are held by different individuals. It allows room for people to be influenced by the free will and the different laws in existence. The reason for this belief is that throughout history, human beings have continued to be influenced by laws that exist based on science and those that have been passed from one generation to the next.
However, they have not lost the desire and ability to express free will, which is the main reason for the differences from other species. Free will also work best in an environment where there are laws that people can avoid since such laws act as determinants.
Dostoevsky and Sartres Radical Views on Freedom
Dostoevsky and Sartre advocate for radical views on freedom, with absolute freedom being the main determinant of the existence of free will (Kaufmann 29). According to these philosophers, absolute freedom of choice is the only true freedom. They advocate for people to observe this freedom (Kaufmann 25). The adoption of this notion of absolute freedom is a rebellion against necessity. However, several other researchers have countered it to retain necessity as the main concept in this philosophy.
Human beings are inclined to the notion that they are free beings. This ideology differentiates them from other natural creations. Most authors assert that human beings desperately hold onto the notion that they are free beings, with several reasons being provided in support of this claim. One of the main reasons as to why human beings proclaim to be free, unlike other creatures and nature is so that they can maintain their supremacy and dominance over all other species.
Man has always had a desire to control the environment around him, including everything that is contained in it. According to Myers, mans desire to be free has led to the different inventions and developments in his world, most of which are aimed at establishing total control over the other species and over the environment (97).
Human beings are described as willing to go as far as being nasty and self-destructive to prove that they are free beings. This situation is driven by the factors above. The stakes for freedom include the ability to survive in the environment by striking a balance between human desires and the available resources. A personal belief is in line with the global human emphasis on absolute freedom.
Although natural science indicates that the human belief on freedom is absurd, it is also a personal opinion that this belief should be maintained. Human beings should maintain their belief in freedom to dominate over all the other species for a chance of survival.
The belief in personal responsibility goes at par with that of free will. The practice of punishing people for the serious crimes that they commit is a demonstration that the belief in free will is related to that of personal responsibility. Human beings have the opportunity to demonstrate this personal responsibility by practicing what is considered legal, despite the existence of a conviction in free will.
Personal responsibility allows a chance for people to exercise free will while at the same time keeping within the limits that are granted by society (Kaufmann 37). This situation paves the way for the standardization of some of the practices by different individuals in a particular society.
The reasons for the above views include the fact that society cannot exist as a vacuum without laws to govern it. There is a high probability that different people who practice absolute free will influence the free will of others. The results of this influence include the development of harmful activities and cultures. However, the existence of a free will and personal responsibility allows individuals to keep their practices in check while at the same time, limiting their expression of free will.
Some philosophers have stated that free will determines the changes that are present in the environment where people live. The other reason for holding this belief is that throughout history, human beings have demonstrated the ability to influence others, with the result being a change in the local cultures.
Morality
Morality is an important part of any culture. Different individuals have different views on the same. Several beliefs have been developed on morality, with most of them being subject to several factors. As a personal opinion, morality can be considered both universal and relative to the place, time, culture, and the situation in which an individual is located. There is an absolute and objective standard of morality from which people can judge other societys moral values or codes of being right or wrong, or perhaps progressive or backward.
The above view of the universal nature of morality is restricted to certain parts of it, especially the conviction and practices that are thought to be beneficial and harmful to human life. Some of the universally accepted standards on morality include those that deal with things such as murder and human health. These standards are important in the discussion of the beliefs that different societies hold. Although societies may have different beliefs, they tend to have a common notion that some of the practices are immoral.
Despite the above personal belief that some aspects of morality are universal, morality is relative to time, place, culture, and the situation in which an individual is situated. The individual can conform to moral values based on the above variables. Morality can also be judged differently based on the period within which an individual lives. The place within which this individual exists is also a major determinant of morality. Different areas have different moral values that are relevant to this place.
In the case of women and culture, the above personal beliefs on morality are evident. A moral issue that is universally common is that women are inferior to men in a number of ways. Different cultures have different versions of the same.
In the contemporary world, the belief of the second-class position has changed in most civilized societies, with this situation demonstrating the influence of time on morality (Kaufmann 320). Different places such as Africa and the Westernized nations hold diverse beliefs and moral values about women. This observation is equivalent to the variation of morality based on the place and situation of individuals.
The belief that some practices are moral in one society or a given situation and period in time does not mean that these practices are acceptable. The issue of clitoral circumcision is condemned by westerners and other civilized societies. However, the communities that uphold this practice consider it moral.
There is justification for the condemnation of the practices since they not only lead to the lifelong harm of the affected women but also often lead to their death and disability. Morality is also subject to influence from research. Evidence is currently being used to counter some of the issues that relate to morality. A universal agreement between societies and individuals also has the power to influence the moral values of individuals since most of the morals were formed through consensus and experience in the first place.
Therefore, it is important to note that when morals such as clitoral circumcision are considered unacceptable through a universal agreement, other beliefs on the same have to conform to the adopted one (Kaufmann 322). This inference means that through consensus, societies that practice clitoral circumcision should be discouraged from upholding this practice.
Works Cited
Kaufmann, Walter. Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, revised and Expanded Edition. New York, NY: American Library, 1975. Print.
Myers, David. Psychology. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2004. Print.
This was a philosophy that relates to the existence of human beings in regard to how life means to them. The term was invented by a French philosopher by the name Gabriel Marcel in 1943. Jean Paul later widely used the word when he wrote a book on the same. At this time, such philosophers were referred to as existentialists and during the 2nd world war, the movement gained more fame (Flynn, p. 16). Some of these philosophers like Friedrich and Kierkegaard were concerned with knowing the reason behind the existence of human beings and the value of life itself. According to them, human beings are passionate other than rational beings. They argued that human beings are actors in the world and hence are aware of what is in it unlike the trees and stones that just exist. To them, this means that our todays actions and choices determine how our future will be (Tanzer, p. 52). A writer by the name Professor Wildman believes that existentialism is a new version of the nineteenth-century romanticism. He says that both movements have something in common in that they all assert that meaning of life has to be taken into account through our acts and deeds. He also points out a difference in the two saying that existentialism mostly centered on individual human beings whereas romanticism centered on the nature as a whole and only regarded human as part of other nature (Bramann).
According to Irvine, Soren Kierkegaard is considered the father of existentialism and he described three stages of human development. The first stage is the aesthetic stage which he argued that it was only interested in pleasure. The second stage is the ethical stage where he says that an individual at this stage finds existence boring and this leads to suicide and hence a desire to move from one life to another. Ethical in this case is a common goal that demands one to reunite himself with the universe. The third one is the religious stage in which he says that for one to move from the ethical stage to religious one is hard since ethical involves reconciliation (Irvine).According to Soren, the religious stage involves surrendering to Gods will through faith. He gives the example where Abraham is demanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac and he does this since he has faith (Flynn, p. 19).
Another philosopher associated with the movement is Jean-Paul Sartre. He was a writer of both plays and novels and in 1946; he published an essay Existentialism is Humanism in which he strongly defended existentialism from the many critics it had faced. Here, he reiterated the theme of Existence precedes Essence saying that existentialists believe that there must be existence before essence (Bramann). Sartre explains essence as inherent purpose for which something is made. He gives an example of the man made things in which there purpose or use is first foreseen before it is made and eventually comes into existence. On the other hand, in human beings, its the reverse in that they first exist and later define the purpose of their existence through the choices that they make in life.
We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world-and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself (Bramann).
Irvine outlines some themes that are important in existentialist which include a) Importance of an individual or humanism this philosophy is person centered and although it does not oppose science, it mainly deals on individuals track down on their real identity. The question here is what it means for one to be a human being. It leads to pursuit of what is viewed as right or wrong in a world full of confusion in morals. There is the concern on what a meaningful life entails and an understanding that experience counts in ones life. The other one is b) the importance of choice where they argue that it is a persons decision to be for or against God. That our decisions make who we are and we cannot consider the set laws as directing the choices that we make in life but rather as personal decisions, i.e. that people have choices to make and are not prearranged like animals but have alternatives to choose from (Bramann). Sartre therefore believes that beings live in a different way from objects or animals since the kind of environment or culture they live in tends to determine who they really are. c) Existence precedes essence, here they say that what one is, is a result of the choices one makes. Tanzer (p. 64) adds to this by saying that essence in this case is not destiny so one becomes what they make themselves to be. d) Time is of the essence in this case, we are bound by time and our past, present and future all differs in meaning and value. e) Freedom and responsibility. This philosophy is based on freedom in that one can stand and reflect back on their lives. According to Bramann, existentialists in this case believe that many people make mistakes by denying themselves freedom. For instance someone who is brought up in a certain culture and grows up following its believes and practices without questioning is presumed to be living like an animal since they have betrayed their freedom, a way of life that Sartre calls bad faith . Therefore, someone should not make an excuse for their actions that it was due to their background since this would be a sign of escapism as well. f) Ethical consideration is paramount. Here they argue that though one has freedom in their own way, it is essential that one looks deeply on the validity of their existence and that of the society.
In conclusion, existentialism can be said to have focused on human life and the meaning behind their existence. They feel hat some people do not live a real life since they do not understand whom they are and mostly tend to blindly follow the laws of their culture. The movement gained more fame after the Second World War although it had been present in the previous decades. Most of the philosophers associated with the movement have had different thoughts concerning the real definition of the movement hence no unified school of thought that has been found. Some of these are Christians and others are atheists hence it has been hard to find a single doctrine that they all agree with.
Works Cited
Bramann, Jorn. Sartre: Existentialism and the Modern World. Frostburg State University, n.d.
Heidegger is considered to be the father of existentialism but his ideas are drawn from the 19th-century writers Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Kierkegaards writing is developed in the context of his approach to Christianity, while Nietzsches thesis lies in the death of God. Both believed that singularity ( me ) is not seen through the traditional philosophy and that the emphasis should be either on what follows natural objectivity or what conforms to the accepted principles of moral reasoning.
Main body
Kierkegaards comparative study covers the conflict between ethics and religious faith. For example, it is the personal sense of following the will of God and it will bring meaning into life. In his book Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard wrote that life becomes meaningful only when the person raises himself to the universal through bringing the natural desires under the law of morality (Copleston 1993). Thus, individuality is lost because the laws are the same for all, but life becomes meaningful in the sense of understanding. Kierkegaard has raised the important philosophical question: if there is the dimension to being which is meaningful and not governed at the same time, by what standard is it governed then? He has provided the answer to this question: subjectivity is the truth. This idea serves as the prototype of the existential concept of reliability.
Nietzsche sought to understand the results of Gods death and the break-up of theistic support for moral norms. He lived in the period when the basic readings of the Bible were eroded and Darwinisms influence was increasing. For Nietzsche, existence is the philosophical problem which deals with the distinction between moral autonomy (following the moral laws) and autonomy beyond good and evil. If the existence is meaningful, then there has to be the standard by which success or failure is measured (Copleston, 1993). For example, saying that the piece of art has style means applying the standard for judging it. Thus, existence is measured with some style as well: creating the meaning in the world from which all superior supports fall away and giving the authentic shape to a persons passions.
Both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard sought to analyze the meaning of life. If Kierkegaard perceived existence through thinking about the presence of God in life, Nietzsche assumed that God was dead (nihilism). Nevertheless, Kierkegaard as well as Nietzsche tried to describe aspects of being (existence) that cannot be understood either in terms of immediate inclinations or in terms of universal laws of morality. Thus, existence is not measured in terms of what the person is, but in terms of way of being (Copleston, 1993). Nietzsche and Kierkegaard failed to develop a systematic way to explain their ideas.
Kierkegaards perception of the crowd is worthy of closer examination: he wrote that the crowd was untruth. For him, crowd meant public opinion or the ideas which are perceived as granted, as accepted way of behavior. He noted that the crowd insinuates an individuals sense of who he is and he loses the identity. For example, if everybody in the community is Christian, there is no need for the person to become a Christian because it is assumed that everybody is already a Christian (the moral norm). Nietzsche, similar to Kierkegaard, introduced the idea of overman the existence which is the opposite of moralized man living in the community.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the lack of structural studies makes the research on existentialism limited to the writings of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. They have expressed similar ideas about the meaning of existence and the importance of universal moral laws of behavior. The key difference in their philosophies is that Kierkegaard based his argument on religion, while Nietzsche denied the notion of living God.
References
Copleston, F. (1993). History of Philosophy. Image Publication.
Existentialism is based on the assumption that traditional philosophy is remote from the concerns of real life while the true philosophy should focus on the individual confrontation with the world. World is irrational and absurd, it is impossible to find the true reasons and explanations of events, and humans confront the world only to be able to choose how to live within this world. Phenomenology, similar to existentialism, is the product of earlier philosophers as well as artists and writers. It is based on the assumption that knowledge of truth can be obtained only through considering the entire experience at the moment and supposing that there is a second world lying beyond this experience. Both existentialism and phenomenology developed in the respond to Hegelian idealism and questioned the philosophical assumptions of nineteenth century.
Existentialism
Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre are the most influential Continental philosophers of twenties century. Prominent existentialists Kierkegaard and Nietzsche strongly disagreed with optimistic Hegelian idealism and metaphysics in general (Moore-Bruder, 2005). They believed that without confrontation of human existence problems, life could only deteriorate. Kierkegaard disliked the system proposed by Hegel in which humans dissolved into abstract unreality. On the contrary, he emphasized that human are capable of making important choices. He was especially concerned with the causes why and how people make choices. The major theme of existentialism is irrationality of the world in opposition to Hegels rationality.
Nietzsche widened the writings of Kierkegaard to include the themes of emptiness and decadence. He was concerned with the each persons disdain for meaningless systems, thoughts, and denial of rationality (Moore-Bruder, 2005). Nietzsche believed that humans strive to find the reason of existence only because they want to avoid entire despair. Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre wrote that people live and die without realizing their true essence and seeing things as they really are. Unlike Hegelian optimism, existentialism is pessimistic. Camus noted that people waste their lives in self-confidence instead of realizing the tragic nature of life. He completely rejected Hegels idealism and labeled it as forced optimism. Camus wrote that optimism is self-deception which dominates the mode of being (Moore-Bruder, 2005). Life is absurd and there is not ultimate reason why things are the way they are. Thus, humans are strangers to themselves and are unable to meet the fundamental needs (need for understanding and need for social contact).
Unlike Camus who was agnostic, Sartre was atheistic and had a strong belief that God does not exists. The main theme of his philosophy and existentialism in general is abandonment of man. Sartre held that there is no God and therefore, there is no divine conception of man. Thus, there is no such thing as human nature and there is no essence that defines what it is to be a human (Moore-Bruder, 2005). Earlier philosophers assumed that human existence has a definite essence, while for Sartre existence precedes essence and humans are what they make of themselves. Sartre rejected determinism and stated that if there is no God, there is no plan that determines what must happen and humans are free, nobody and nothing forces them to do what they do. Therefore, humans are responsible to live authentically and have to make intentional choices.
Phenomenology
Phenomenology, similar to existentialism, is rooted in the essential structures of conscious experience. The structures of phenomena manifest themselves independently from scientific assumptions. Edmund Husserl, the first phenomenologist, rekindles Hegels faith in possibility of certainty. The purpose of his work was to investigate the phenomena without making any assumptions about the world, to examine the meaning produced by pure consciousness (Moore-Bruder, 2005). He strived to find the meaning of real life in term of essences shared by all humans. Heidegger continued the work of Husserl and supported the claim that to be able to understand the reality it is necessary to look at the things without presuppositions. Unlike Husserl who focus on phenomena, Heidegger saw Being as the ultimate source. He noted that the assumption that humans are masters of nature is arrogant and humans do not have absolute power.
Heidegger rejected the assumption that humans have power over nature and, as the result, they have no power to make decisions. Thus, phenomenological vision of essence is in opposition to existentialistic assumption about human ability to choose and decide. Emmanuel Levinas, Heideggers follower, tried to establish a philosophy rooted in radical otherness (Moore-Bruder, 2005). He assumed that time, language, and existence are other and God is an Absolute Otherness. According to his writings, understanding of true meaning can be reached only by a meeting with the radical other. Unlike Sartre who rejected existence of God, Levinas argument is founded on the assumption that God is the only unachievable Absolute Otherness.
In conclusion, both existentialism and phenomenology evolved in response to Hegels idealism, however, these two philosophical thoughts have developed in opposition to each other. Existentialism supports the assumption that humans are free and, therefore, build reality by themselves and have responsibility for their choices. Phenomenology, on the contrary, rejects the reality of essence and human power. Phenomenology assumes that ultimate reality exists, however, it is not achievable. Existentialism and phenomenology deal with the questions of essence, human power, and vision of the world, and even though both philosophies evolved in response to Hegels idealism, they promote opposite views on human existence.
References
Moore-Bruder. (2005). Metaphysics and Epistemology: Existence and Knowledge (Ch. 8). Philosophy: The Power of Ideas (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Companies.
In Tolstoys The Death of Ivan Ilych, Peter Ivanovich experiences a chilling moment as he contemplates his own mortality in light of the long and painful period of torture and agony that befell his colleague Ivan Ilych before his eventual demise. Three days of frightful suffering and the death! Why, that might suddenly, at any time, happen to me, he thought, and for a moment felt terrified.
But he did not himself know how the customary reflection at once occurred to him that this had happened to Ivan Ilych and not to him, and that it should not and could not happen to him, and that to think that it could would be yielding to depression which he ought not to do&After which reflection Peter Ivanovich felt reassured, and began to ask with interest about the details of Ivan Ilychs death, as though death was an accident natural to Ivan Ilych but certainly not to himself (Tolstoy 24).
In this passage Tolstoy illuminates a dilemma central to the experience of being human how to live with the understanding that death can happen at any moment. The answer, for many people, is to do as Peter Ivanovich has done here: repress it. The reality of death and the yin yang relationship it holds with life is rarely viewed as such. Rather, the perspective on death is as an unfortunate circumstance that befalls others.
The individuals experience of death as somehow unexpected, accidental or independent of his or her life affects the quality of life, since the repression requires so much effort to maintain. This essay examines the treatment of death in most Western cultures and highlights some of the means in which it is denied, hidden, sanitized, covered up, and, most importantly, deprived of its existential import.
As evidenced by the reaction of Peter Ivanovich, awareness of mortality comes in flashes which manifest as moments of sheer, unadulterated terror, quickly rationalized and then suppressed again with renewed vigor. Among the Western cultures death remains denied and camouflaged by numerous secular contemporary practices including plastic surgery, euthanasia, homes for seniors, funeral homes and life insurance commercials that tout the advantages of leaving money to loved ones if the unexpected happens.
This essay takes as its main thesis the idea put forth by Heidegger in Being and Time that even the person who is dying cannot experience death, because he cannot view it in its proper context i.e. as part of life. In Heideggers words, when Dasein reaches its wholeness in death, it simultaneously loses the Being of its there . By its transition to no-longer-Dasein &it gets lifted right out of the possibility of experiencing this transition and of understanding it as something experienced.
Surely this sort of thing is denied to any particular Dasein in relation to itself. But this makes the death of Others more impressive. In this way a termination&of Dasein becomes Objectively accessible. Dasein can thus gain an experience of death, all the more so because Dasein is essentially Being with Others. In that case, the fact that death has been thus Objectively given must make possible an ontological delimitation of Daseins totality (Heidegger 281).
This opportunity that Heidegger points to however is rarely grasped. Rather, like Peter Ivanovich, the living ignore the elephant in the room, completely repress their fear of death and continue on as though death will somehow affect everyone else except them.
In his Pulitzer Prize winning work The Denial of Death, Ernest Becker details the important function repression serves in the psyche of the Western cultural mind. Repression takes care of the complex of the complex symbol of death for most people. But its disappearance doesnt mean that the fear was never there (Becker 20).
Strategies to keep death unwitnessed and denied include plastic surgery, the persistent erroneous language applied to death as accidental, and, in Beckers understanding, the large dimension in which the complex symbol of death is transmuted and transcended&[is] belief in immortality, the extension of ones being into eternity (Becker 24). Essentially, deaths removal from everyday life makes it too difficult to reintegrate. If the fear of death were conscious, Becker argues, human beings would be unable to function normally.
It must be properly repressed to keep us living with any modicum of comfort. We know very well that to repress means more than to put away and forget that which was put away and the place where we put it. It means also to maintain a constant psychological effort to keep the lid on and inwardly never relax our watchfulness (Becker 17).
What this leads to is a dimmer, numbed experience of life. Every time a person dies unwitnessed, a life affirming opportunity is lost. The opportunity that a mindful and conscious witnessing of the death of another human being, as Heidegger argues, that might honor the existential importance of death, specifically the transition from Being, most people are simply too afraid to accept.
Heidegger asserts that when someone has died, his Being-no-longer-in-the-world&is still a Being, but in the sense of the Being-just-present-at-hand-and-no-more of a corporeal Thing that we encounter.
In the dying of the Other we can experience that remarkable phenomenon of Being which may be defined as the change-over of an entity from Daseins kind of Being&or life&to no-longer-Dasein. The end of the entity qua Dasein is the beginning of the same entity qua something present-at-hand (Heidegger 281). A true understanding of deaths proper place as the partner of life rather than lifes enemy would naturally lead to richer experience of living.
The elephant in the room of life is death. Like birth, it is a universal human experience, however as the former continues to be celebrated, the latter continues to be shunned in the majority of Western cultures.
As a whole death remains denied, hidden, sanitized, covered up, and, most importantly, deprived of its existential import, because it continues to be kept apart from living, instead of shared as part of the human experience.
In Tolstoys The Death of Ivan Ilych, Peter Ivanovich represents the common reaction to mortality terror quickly repressed, and culturally camouflaged by numerous practices including plastic surgery, euthanasia, homes for seniors, funeral homes and language that consistently labels death as the unexpected happens.
As Heidegger aptly points out in Being and Time, in this repression, an opportunity becomes lost, as even the individual who is dying cannot experience death, because he cannot view it in its proper context, namely, a part of life of life to be witnessed, appreciated and accepted.
Works Cited
Becker, Ernest. The Denial of Death. New York: Simon and Shuster, 1997. Print.
Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1962. Print.
Tolstoy, Leo Nikolayevich. The Death of Ivan Ilyich. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Print.
From time immemorial man has always looked for all possible ways and means of understanding and explaining different concepts concerning existence and purpose of life and the human nature. The philosophy of existentialism dates back to 18th century whereby several philosophers in their thirst to understand human nature formulated thoughts and ideas that we currently study as existentialism.
The philosophy of existentialism though difficult and abstract gives explanation to most of the questions that we ask ourselves as we go through life. Understanding this philosophy is significant as it helps one to make wise decisions on issues touching on life among other things. This paper discusses the different elements behind the philosophy of existentialism and how they relate to lying and deception.
Existentialism
Davis defines existentialism as a philosophical stance that emerged out of the attempt to find meaning in life without acknowledging the existence of God (Davis 1). Different philosophers have different interpretations and thoughts on ideologies behind the concept of existentialism though all of them have their thoughts built up on theories of existence of mankind, life and its meaning, personal freedom, and the element of self-awareness.
Existentialism is actually based mainly on two beliefs, everything is subjective and existence precedes essence. It is important to note that existentialism sources its explanations about life and existence from a natural view and thus can be seen as an atheistic theory (Davis 1). The philosophy of existentialism explains some of the basic aspects of natural existence such as element of being, life and death, angst, absurdity, autonomy, freedom, existence before essence, fulfillment, and forlornness among others.
Element of being
According to Davis The human beings essence lies in his existence. An individual is free to choose different kinds of being for himself (Davis 1). The element of being is characterized by concern existence and moods.
This implies that human beings have no predetermined course of nature and thus we have the freedom to choose the path of our destiny by configuring our actions in life. In short we have no preprogrammed life. It is also argued that by the element of being human beings have the freedom to act and behave independently without external influences. From this concept we then make up our own values depending on the various choices that we make which eventually determines our human nature (Banach 1).
Anxiety
Perhaps one of the reasons existentialists would give for lying is the fear of the unknown. Mans knowledge is very limited and absolutely no any external source of value. A report by Banach was quoted claiming that:
We are faced with the lack of any external source of value and determination. We are faced with the responsibility of choosing our own nature and values, and, in doing so, we are faced we must face the awesome responsibility of choosing human nature and values for all men in our free choices. (Banach 1)
It can thus be argued that the presence of anxiety in human nature could be one of the primary causes of lying as we try to alienate ourselves from situations which are likely to trigger anxiety in us.
Existentialism views about lying and deception
It is without doubt that it is difficult to have a clear cut difference between deception and lying especially when talking in philosophical terms. Is lying deception or is the converse true? What is the relationship between the two? Is there any moral connection and how are the two related to our human nature. A report by Solaman has it that
The essence of the lie implies in fact that the liar actually is in complete possession of the truth which he is hiding. A man does not lie about what he is ignorant of; he does not lie when he spreads an error of which he himself is the dupe; he does not lie when he is mistaken (Solaman 1).
The philosophy of Existentialism views lying as deviation from the freedom nature of mankind which is usually seen as bad faith. Existentialists view deception as an element of bad faith. Procrastination is one of the ways of self-deception whereby we alienate ourselves from the absolute truth.
This, according to existentialists arises from the fact that we have the freedom of choice as we take the journey through life and that at times we are bound to be faced with a difficult situation or condition that has the potential of causing us pain and agony and as such try to avoid the responsibility by escaping from our degree of freedom; in doing that, we deceive ourselves.
It is claimed that Self-deception has many forms including taking on the roles and duties from which we base all our actions, excusing ourselves from choice by saying that we have no other choice (Pychyl 1). Pychil still goes on to claim that the existentialist understanding of this self-deception is living in Bad Faith. It is an inauthentic way of living, as we deny responsibility for our own lives, our own choices (Pychyl 1).
Fulfillment
The existentialists believe that man is responsible for his own fulfillment and as such he has the freewill to determine personal fulfillment by doing what he thinks is best for his fulfillment. Lying and deception can then be argued to be caused by the need of personal fulfillment whereby people do actions that either qualifies as a lie or deception in the endeavor of personal fulfillment. Davis claims that man makes his own fulfillment. He can create whatever he likes, and in so doing will determine for himself what is fulfilling (Davis 1).
Conclusion
The philosophy of existentialism is one of the most difficult to understand especially given that it is based not on any empirical evidence but in the thoughts of the thinkers who are bound to think in different perspectives. The philosophy is based on the idea that existence precedes essence. Existentialism sources its explanations about life and existence from a natural view and thus can be seen as an atheistic theory. Existentialists view deception as an element of bad faith.
Procrastination is one of the ways of self-deception whereby we alienate ourselves from the absolute truth. It can thus be argued that the presence of anxiety in human nature could be one of the primary causes of lying as we try to alienate ourselves from situations which are likely to trigger anxiety in us. Lying and deception can then be argued to be caused by the need of personal fulfillment whereby people do actions that either qualifies as a lie or deception in the endeavor of personal fulfillment.
Existentialism is philosophical theory that dismisses abstract theories especially the theories that attempt to disguise the untidiness of the values that dictate human lives. Some of the values that go hand in hand with this philosophical theory include passion, immediacy, intensity, integrity, and responsibility. The aforementioned terms stress on the emotive qualities but existentialists tend to insist on a special understanding of the truth. Some of the extreme existentialists who have a unique understanding of the truth include Emerson who claimed that nothing is static and no fact can be considered sacred because the truth can only be gotten through experiments without relying on the past.
The other extreme existentialist is Nietzche who claims that the postulation that all truth is simple is a pure lie. These attitudes displayed by Emerson and his gang of extreme existentialists are at odds with the traditional western views and these views provide a spiritual and psychological background for the various emotive qualities that are prized by existentialism. These emotive qualities which include passion, immediacy, intensity and responsibility are the basis of existentialism and rejection of these qualities by the extreme existentialists who insist on a unique understanding of the truth puts them on a head on collision course with the traditional western view. These qualities are abeted by the attitudes displayed by Emerson and his ilk because there is an emphasis on every person finding their own way in life especially where it concerns making choices on the emotive qualities they would like to prescribe to and in particular, choices about all serious and momentous life situations.
Each person should be able to make life choices depending on what they value or deem fit without relying on outer standards and practices. The attitudes expressed by Emerson and Nietzche tend to effectively deny that there is a common and acceptable basis that guides the moral process of making decisions and they diverge significantly from the conventional faith related standards which all emotive qualities of existentialism conform to (Barret,1964). Although acceptance of moral values can provide an unbiased avenue for making choices, the belief about the unique qualities of the truth fronted by the extreme existentialists tends to deny the fact that moral standards exist. This is erroneous because the grounds that people use to make choices must be valid and some of the situations that force people to make their choices are subjectively valid. An observer who is not passionate may raise questions about this engagement (Kaufman, 1988). Both agree that human life cannot be complete and cannot satisfy fully because there people suffer and incur losses due to lack of perfection and also people do not have power and control over the situations in their lives.
Though there is no satisfaction, life still maintains its meaning and this is why existentialism is a life long journey that aims at establishing the true meaning of peoples lives.According to Nietzche, simpler situations are always true and the problem is that people tend to complicate standards by engaging the emotive qualities of existentialism instead of focusing on the simple tenets of the truth (Barret, 1962). According to him, simplicity tends to work in almost all things and nature tends to look for the simples and the most efficient ways of doing things and he illustrated his point using the example of the universe, a large body which is controlled by only four forces which are gravity, electromagnetism string and weak.According to extreme existentialists, the truth is as simple as these four forces which control everything around us. However, his postulation is disputed by another existentialist called Mencken who claims that for every complex problem, there is an answer which is vivid, simple and sometimes wrong which implies that passion, immediacy, intensity , integrity and al other emotive qualities of existentialism may be complex but they are sacred, true and always right.
The extreme existentialist attitudes held by Emerson and Nietzsche and their supporters tend to blatantly deny that there is a common and acceptable basis that guides the moral process of making decisions and they diverge significantly from the conventional faith related standards which all emotive qualities of existentialism conform to. These emotive qualities provide the basis for traditional western understanding which is on a head on collision course with the attitudes expressed by extreme existentialists like Emerson and Nietzche. Their denial of the emotive qualities of existentialism by preferring the unique qualities of the truth does not affect the moral standards that govern the choices that people make. Their attitudes are incited by their preference for simplicity and not their concern for the moral standards the qualities and the standards that make up the truth. All in all, their denial does not have any solid ground and it does not affect the validity of the emotive qualities of existentialism. The traditional western existentialism remains valid and relevant despite these extreme objections.
References
Barrett, W. (1962).Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy. New York: Anchor Books.
Barrett, W. (1964). Existentialism. New York: Penguin Books.
Kaufmann, W. (1988).Existentialism: from Dostoevsky to Sartre. New York: Penguin Books.
It is not simply by a pure accident that the 20th century is now being strongly associated with the initial rise of existentialism, as an entirely new branch of Western philosophic thought, which is concerned with the matters of ones existence, as opposed to the matters of gnoseology, epistemology, and metaphysics by the beginning of 20th century, many Western intellectuals had realized the fact that it does not make much of a sense to contemplate on the subjects of classical philosophy, without understanding the phenomenological nature of individuals existence.
This is the reason why such existentialist philosophers as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Camus, Heidegger, and Sartre, strived to discover the meaning of life as such correspond to particularities of ones psyche. In other words, the rise of existentialism in the 20th century reflected the fact that, by this time, the development of Western philosophical thought had reached a qualitatively new level, which is why existentialist philosophers of the era had embarked on creating a conceptually new philosophical methodology, meant to be applied within a context of analyzing the integral components of individuals longing towards existential sovereignty . In this paper, we will aim at exploring this thesis to a further extent and also at revealing the classical trademarks of existentialist perception of the surrounding reality.
The methodological apparatus of existentialism differs from traditional philosophical methods that idealize rationale, as the only pathway to discovering higher truth . For example, Nietzsche and Heidegger address ones existence as something that defines its quintessence. According to both philosophers, the meaning of every ontological idea varies, in its relation to every particular individual. This is because the emotional subtleties of a persons character are the ones that affect his destiny more than anything else does. Unlike positivists, like Rene Descartes, who used to say: I can think, therefore I am , existentialists say: Even though that I might exist in the physical sense of this word, my existence can only be thought of in terms of objectivity, for as long as it derives out of emotional depths of my psyche .
This is why, for existentialists, the notions of passion, immediacy, intensity, integrity, responsibility represent foremost importance, as such that defines the essence of the existential mode of every human being. According to existentialists, it is not logical reasoning that motivates our actions but a passion. The life of every individual is limited in the space-time continuum, even though its flow is directed towards infinity. Therefore, existentialists perceive peoples existence as being absurdist in principle. Our subconscious strive towards immortality is not the product of our logical considerations it is being motivated by irrational factors alone.
For example, existentialisms ideological precursor, Friedrich Nietzsche, promoted the idea that it is a blind will to power that encourages people to go on with their daily routine because, for many of them, their lives would lose meaning, if they only thought of existence from purely rationalist perspective. In his famous work On the Genealogy of Morality , Nietzsche refers to will as ones subconscious longing to shape surrounding reality according to its wishes, which can be rationalized to legitimize strong-willed individuals existential superiority: Man who has become free, who has the right to make promises, this master of free will, this sovereignhow can he not realize the superiority he enjoys over everyone who does not have the right to make a promise and make pledges on his behalf? (Nietzsche, Second Essay, 2).
However, it was not up until the beginning of the fifties that the philosophy of existentialism had evolved to consider passion as a sublimation of ones will, with the concepts of immediacy and intensity being incorporated in its methodological apparatus. The notion of immediacy corresponds to our desire for instant gratification. In addition, it also corresponds to the fact that people tend to view their lives as extrapolations of their psychological anxieties. For example, for us to be able to think of our existence as something that makes sense, our memory associates it with the moments that we think are representative.
However, there is no rational reason for us to consider some of these moments as representative and others as such that has nothing to do with the actual essence of our beings, which serves as another proof as to the absurdist nature of peoples existence. In its turn, this brings existentialists to the conclusion that some peoples lives are less real than the lives of others because they are less intense. This is why individuals can only appreciate the wholesomeness of existence when their lives are being endangered. For example, it is namely soldiers at the front line, during the time of war, which enjoy their lives to their fullest, simply because they are well aware of the fact that they might be getting killed at any moment. This explains why many people seek an adrenaline rush they simply want to add meaning to their lives by taking a walk on the edge of death.
Albert Camus refers to the extreme states of our existence as enlightenment through fear . In his famous book The Myth of Sisyphus , Camus suggests that it is only through exploring different aspects of our unconscious psyche, by subjecting it to different sets of extreme circumstances, which can raise our value as individuals: I dont know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I cannot know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I want to know whether I can live with what I know and with that alone (Camus 51).
According to existentialist philosophy, existence precedes essence. Therefore, the essence is a subjective category and there can be no things in itself , as suggested by metaphysics. This is why existentialists use terms from the vocabulary of ethics when it comes to assessing surrounding reality. One of such terms is integrity. Integrity is our ability to adjust the way we act to our beliefs because only this allows us to achieve psychological comfort.
The concept of psychological comfort is what existentialist thought revolves around. We cannot become psychologically satisfied by discovering the universal meaning of life, because the principle of universality simply does not apply to the existential mode of homo sapiens. The positivist notions of duty, responsibility and ethical imperative have a subjective nature because they derive out of our understanding of morality. Thus, we evaluate our lives by assessing them through the lenses of subjectivism, to achieve psychological comfort, which in its turn; our subconsciousness considers as being an objective category.
Therefore, existentialists talk about the absurd as a truly universal principle that defines peoples existence. Jean Sartre used to say that people strive to conceal the absurdist nature of their lives even from themselves by suggesting that there is a higher cause for everything; however, on a subconscious level, these people know perfectly well that such their tendency can never allow them to attain happiness. This is why, in post-industrial society, where the influence of the Church continues to rapidly decline; existentialist worldview comes as something natural to many people, as it encourages them to focus on their own emotional experiences as such that might provide them with an insight onto the purpose of their lives. In the post-industrial world, the actual meaning of peoples political or religious beliefs is of very little importance.
All that matters is whether the people that profess these beliefs are willing to actively impose them on others or not. According to Camus, the person suffers the most from the fact that others cannot understand the full scope of his or her individuality, and it is only the aggressive manifestation of such individuality, which represents the pathway to achieving psychological comfort, on the part of religiously and politically disillusioned citizens.
Nowadays, there are many indications as to the fact that the popularity of existentialism will continue to increase, as time goes by, simply because the existentialist outlook on socio-political processes provides people with the clue on how to avoid being affected by existential alienation , within the context of addressing the realities of post-industrial living. Only the individuals capable of affecting the lives of others, by turning their existence into political or cultural statements, can achieve immortality, in the existentialist sense of this word.
Whereas, the realities 20th century have been marked by strongly defined political tensions between states, the realities of the 21st century will be marked by ever-increased tensions between organizations and states, on one hand, and communities and existentialist individuals , on the other. For example, the group Hamas (single existentialist community), with the membership of fewer than 1000 men, has been keeping the whole region of the Middle East (and consequentially, the whole world) in the state of permanent political tension, for the duration of last 10 years, even though it does not even exist officially.
Osama bin Laden (single existentialist individual) has declared a war on the U.S. in 2001, which continues even today, whereas it has only taken four years for America to defeat both: Germany and Japan, during WW2. George Soros (single existentialist individual) has been dictating the governments of many sovereign countries in Eastern Europe how to pursue with designing these countries social and political policies, etc. Therefore, it will not be an exaggeration, on our part, to suggest that despite existentialisms absurdist overtones, it can be referred to as the dominant philosophy of not too distant future.
Bibliography
Camus, Albert The Myth of Sisyphus . NY: Penguin. 1975.
Sartre, Jean-Paul The Transcendence of the Ego . London: Routledge. 2004.
Nietzsche, Friedrich On the Genealogy of Morality . [1887] 2001. IT Department. University of Helsinki. Web.
Modern secular thinkers do not provide sufficient metaphysical arguments for continually improving life-conditions, which leaves room for alternative approaches. Professor of Biblical Studies Edward Meadors wrote a review of a book written by James Smith called On the Road with Saint Augustine: A Real-World Spirituality for Restless Hearts (2020). The author is wondering what is the purpose of contemporary science that does not consider philosophy. Meadors central thesis is that postmodern existentialists believe that existence is meaningless, rendering scientific improvement unnecessary.
The road, referred to in the title of the book, is connected to humans idea that they are the prodigal son. The author argues that like the Prodigal, human journeys always prove restless until the traveler comes to know the Fathers embrace (Meadors, 2020, p. 120). Thus, the postmodern and existential world cannot provide self-realization, only the illusion of a self-sufficient life. Ultimately, through conversation with St. Augustine, the author finds their path through the grace of God.
The text presents the secular world as striving for meaning but never capable of satisfying a humans desires for self-realization. In contrast, the author states, On the Road with Augustine is a timely message for restless hearts whose self-charted courses have sputtered into despair (Meadors, 2020, p. 121). This idea is extended to the realm of science, where the author argues that discoveries that may improve our lives are aimless if people do not see any point in living. Claiming that spirituality in general and St. Augustine, in particular, can overcome the existentialism of modern philosophy is a direct refutation to the ideas of the postmodernists. Lastly, the author is raising a question of what is the end goal of science. In particular, Meadors brings up the thought that existentialism, as a philosophy, is a hindrance to science.