Jean Paul Sartre, French
existentialist philosopher and writer, was arguably the most influential
existentialist figures in the 20th century. In Sartre’s 1946
writing, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” he sets out to clear the air about
what exactly existentialism is. Acknowledging the generally pessimistic view of
existentialism by the population, he gives his reasons for being a proponent of
the philosophy.
One of the
points he makes pertains to the age-old dilemma of essence and existence.
Essence is defined by Dictionary.com as "
However, what reasoning does this leave for our own existence. Had we not been created, thus, by a Creator, for some purpose, why do we exist? Granted, this is a complex question; there are biological theories for why humans exist, but there must be some sort of underlying reason for life. Using Sartre's "existence precedes essence" definition, we exist merely by chance. Therefore, from Sartre's point of view, we are not born with a reason for living. In addition, although we never achieve a purpose for life, we ascertain an essence, which is likely the most similar idea.
On the contrary, I believe that there is a Creator, and that he has willed us to discover our essence during our lifetime. I believe that Sartre never considered the idea that we were born with an essence, but we do not become conscious of it until we reach proper maturation through both actions and probability. This theory as it pertains to essence is not overly contrastive to Sartre's existentialist point of view, and yet, the mere addition of a God makes a great distinction. As does Sartre, I believe that we have an essence, and that it is expressed by our existence; however, I believe that this essence is present and determined prior to birth, and is unveiled over the course of our existence.
Based on our reading, Satre has considered your position, and would classify it as one of the Christian Existentialist’s (20).
ReplyDeleteAccording to Satre, it is a kind of existentialism, just a bit more inconsistent than an Atheist Existentialist’s position. This is because in a Christian’s case, God has to produce humans like a human would produce tools, with functional essence in mind. We are born with our essence, we don’t know what it is, and we just have to realize it by living our lives. This seems rather gloomy. There is no freedom. I am just someone else’s tool that doesn’t have a say to what my function is. Sartre does think people can have essence. However this essence is not functionally pre-existence in the way a tool is. The essence of a human being, apart from the facticity, is undefined at the beginning of her experience.
Furthermore, not knowing the reason to live doesn’t seem much different than not having the reason to live. Does the knowledge of my pre-existential essence give me any more reason to live than my ignorance of such an essence? No. I have a choice to stop living either I have a pre-existential essence or not. God’s commend does not necessitate my choice of continuing my living experience. Not to say that a Christian existentialism is not good; it is inconsistent, but it does work very well to motivate people, allow them to interpret signs in positive ways and cope with anxiety, as is confirmed in many psychological studies such as the one in the link. Although lots of people are just fine being Christian existentialists, some people just can’t do it, and they happen to find existentialism more congenial. They are what Sartre would call certain “ specialists and philosophers” (20). These people, maybe, are just too obsessed with consistency so that their minds cannot allow for an inconsistence belief system/way to live. *laugh
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200004)56:4%3C519::AID-JCLP6%3E3.0.CO;2-1/abstract
Will, I thought you did a pretty good job of considering both sides, while coming to a logical conclusion. I agree with you in that there is a creator, and the essence is essentially predetermined before we are even born. There is something inside of me that just can't accept that we are here by chance. However, I do believe that our actions determine who we are as a person, if we perform morally just actions, then we become morally just, and vice versa. I also believe that people can change. If you believe that all of your actions are are predetermined, then eliminate the option to exercise your free will For instance, I believe that a convict can be reformed, thus essentially becoming good.At one point in his/her life they were bad, but now they are essentially good. Is it possible that the convict was predetermined to be bad, only to turn good later in his or her life? I think that is a question for Dr. J to answer. So I guess I am a Existentialist to a certain extent, however I definitely do not agree with most of Satre's opinions.
ReplyDelete