The basic premise of existentialism is false: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The basic premise of existentialism is false » The basic premise of existentialism is false

The basic premise of existentialism is false

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

The basic premise of existentialism is false

Crow
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Maine, USA
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 07/26/08 - 03:44 PM: Subject: The basic premise of existentialism is false	#1
"Existence precedes essence" is the basic premise of existentialism, and it is false. It follows that existentialism cannot be considered to be a completely valid philosophy. There are two types of existentialism: Christian theistic existentialism and atheistic existentialism. I think theistic existentialism also has definite problems regarding its validity, but I will be discussing only atheistic existentialism in this post. Sartre discusses " existence precedes essence" by considering the case of a paper cutter. Prior to its manufacture, a designer would have a definite concept of the paper cutter. The designer would know the essence of the paper cutter prior to its manufacture and subsequent existence. Likewise, if God created humans, God would know the essence of humans prior to His creation of humans and their existence. But in atheistic existentialism, there is no God to have a concept of human essence prior to human existence. A human being comes into existence without predetermined essence, so the person has the full responsibility and freedom to be the creator of his own essence. It may well be true that humans are not created by a God who has a preconceived notion of human essence. But it does not follow that humans must then come into existence without any essence at all. Perhaps there is another way a person could come into this world possessing an essential human nature not involving a previous conception by a designer/creator. In fact, Darwin and the string of evolutionary biologists that followed him have shown that descent with modification subject to natural selection does result in characteristics which constitute a human nature. A human being does not come into this world as a nothingness with total freedom to create himself any which way. Yet Sartre writes, "What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it."
The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know.

Doxa
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 03, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 07/27/08 - 08:55 AM:	#2
Crow wrote: In fact, Darwin and the string of evolutionary biologists that followed him have shown that descent with modification subject to natural selection does result in characteristics which constitute a human nature. But is there essence before a human can attribute it? I expect that Sartre is an idealist with regards to essences. It took a human to define human nature. Before that, we were a part of the natural order that simply just existed. Evolution would actually seem to argue against there being some real human nature, in the sense that there is an essential diferrence between all humans and non-humans. Descent with modification is descent with ever-so-slight modification. At what point does an organism become a human when at no point is an organism significantly different from its mother? The so-called "first human" would by definition have a "non-human" mother. That means that organism will have a lot more characteristics in kind with its mother than it would with "fellow humans".

kkiiji
Overcome

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 710

Posted 07/27/08 - 09:16 AM:	#3
Evolution doesn't point to a certain human essence I'd say, it's too messy to do that. All that is necessary for natural selection is that we don't get deselected, there are quite a lot of combinations that would result in not being deselected. Do all these combinations(of genes, traits) have to point towards a single goal? Of course not, they could have a lot of things not meant solely for a single purpose, ending up a giant mess that is the chemical bundle of a human being. Of course we aren't totally free like Sartre claims, but we surely do not have an essence. Biologically speaking we probably have so many essences that we're better off labeled as free.
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 244

Posted 07/27/08 - 10:15 AM:	#4
Maybe the problem is with the assumption there is even an essence at all. The problems of universals was a prevailing theme in medieval philosophy. For example that the word nature was subject to questions proposed by many thinkers like Abelard, Boethius, Erigena, Roscellinus, and others. Do we view nature in a purely nominalistic way; do we subject it to different modes of being, i.e., Avicenna’s formulations of the locus of universals; or do we use the term as Erigena did to denote everything and anything that is? Also, what was the essence of nature? The essence of tree? What made a tree a tree? There must be an airy catness to cats. Well, the problems in existentialism unfortunately are not freed from these erstwhile conceptions. Crow wrote: "Perhaps there is another way a person could come into this world possessing an essential human nature not involving a previous conception by a designer/creator. In fact, Darwin and the string of evolutionary biologists that followed him have shown that descent with modification subject to natural selection does result in characteristics which constitute a human nature. " Is there an “essential human nature?” No doubt humans are unique, but so many human characteristics are present in other animals. Not all of our characteristics manifest themselves in another single animal, but they are divided amongst animals. If anything we are a sort of combination of attributes. But what is “essentially” human? Our brain’s unique connectivity? Brain size? Allometric brain size? I wouldn’t go so far as saying evolution impinges on essences. Nor do I find your statement that biologists have shown “characteristics which constitute a human nature” as a fact. Of course I may be jumping the gun! It may be a fact if what you mean is nothing pretentious. If you mean biologists have simply found characteristics that humans possess, then alright. But if we are referring to essences, that is characteristics that make human’s human, then…that’s questionable because the line between human and animal has been profoundly blurred in the wake of cognitive science and comparative neuroanatomy.
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

Philopage
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 07/27/08 - 12:25 PM:	#5
Kelby wrote: But what is “essentially” human? Our brain’s unique connectivity? Brain size? Allometric brain size? Kelby, Humans have a intellgence that is unlike other animals. Wouldn't our intellect be an essential characteristic that is essentially human? Wouldn't brain size be unique? Don't we have the biggest brain size in relation to body size? Edited by Philopage on 07/27/08 - 12:30 PM

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 244

Posted 07/27/08 - 12:47 PM:	#6
Philopage wrote: Kelby, Humans have a intellgence that is unlike other animals. Wouldn't our intellect be an essential characteristic that is essentially human? Wouldn't brain size be unique? Don't we have the biggest brain size in relation to body size? hey you Relative brain size is subsumed as important but it is not the arbiter of what intelligence is. The blue whale would be a genius if it was up to brain size! And it isn’t necessarily exclusively allometric either because certain species of mice have a bigger brain to body size ratio--roughly around 10% of their body weight is their brain while our is a “measly” 2%. It can get pretty technical when it comes to the details of what may be intelligence, ranging from the evolution of higher-functioning aspects, the emergence of ASPM and microcephalin and their relation to brain size, to the singular development of growing or shrinking sub-sections in brain regions such as the neocortex or frontal lobe. I would agree with you that we have a peculiar intelligence, but claiming that intelligence is an essence without understanding the neural correlates or the seemingly inimitable connectivity of such higher-level functions would be missing a huge chunk of what being human is all about. We may as well be content with the fact that when I have a heart attack I feel a sharp pain on my right or left arm, without truly understanding why.
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

Crow
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Maine, USA
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 07/28/08 - 07:18 AM:	#7
Doxa wrote: Evolution would actually seem to argue against there being some real human nature, in the sense that there is an essential diferrence between all humans and non-humans. I think you are correct. There are problems in assigning a fixed set of characteristics that would be common to all humans (including the first human). Because an essence for mankind is problematic, Sartre wants to claim that humans are fully free to create their own essence. I criticize Sartre because this total freedom to create one's own essence is never found at the level of individual persons. Each of us comes into this world with our particular genetic heritage. And each of us finds ourself imbedded in a specific societal context which subjects us to its conditioning. The specific individual does have freedom, but it is limited. The individual does not come into this world as a nothingness with the freedom to create himself any which way. If every possible individual man and woman is limited, it is false to claim that mankind has an unlimited freedom sufficient to create his own essense.
The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know.

Crow
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Maine, USA
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 07/28/08 - 07:49 AM:	#8
Kelby wrote: Nor do I find your statement that biologists have shown “characteristics which constitute a human nature” as a fact. Of course I may be jumping the gun! It may be a fact if what you mean is nothing pretentious. If you mean biologists have simply found characteristics that humans possess, then alright. But if we are referring to essences, that is characteristics that make human’s human, then…that’s questionable because the line between human and animal has been profoundly blurred in the wake of cognitive science and comparative neuroanatomy. Yes, I phrased that poorly. All I meant was that biologists have shown that human beings are not born into this world free of all characteristics. Each person finds himself in the world with some characteristics which cannot be changed and others which are very difficult to change. He is not a total freedom to choose whatever characteristics he might wish. Because evolution is generally gradual, it is unclear how we could say that there is a human essence. The issue of whether there is a set of characteristics which could be labeled "human essence" is interesting. But whatever the answer to that question, Sartre's claim that humans are fully free to create their own essence remains false.
The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know.

Berkeley's Ghost
Moonlighting Idealist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 101

Posted 07/28/08 - 10:58 AM:	#9
On a biological level crow is completely correct, but Sartre is point inward toward the vast battleground of the self. Within the realm of our own consciousness, away from all those petty externals we exist though idea and choice and in spite of all the influences which may compel man in one direction, the stark truth of the choice is still presented to us. And it is through the choices of ones consciousness that one creates ones own essence. The choices that are made synthesize and coalesce to build an essence not of humanity, but of a solitary self. A self made of values, thoughts and judgments. We return to the question of free will, that endless march of a debate. Yet the question has always seemed to be a pointless one to me, even if you could prove as absolutely as is possible for a limited man to do, that all we do is determined and no choices are freely made it would not help me with the illusionary choices that haunt me. What did Sartre mean when he said we are "condemned to be free"? Perhaps, if this consciousness plagued with the appearance of choice, is simply giving the illusion of freedom then we are condemned to act out a fake freedom like so many melancholy actors. Your self and your essence (from Sartre's point of view, my thoughts move always from him on many of these issues) is the sum creation of your choices, influenced choices thought they may be; even maybe, if they are determined choices, for if one is still under the weight of angst after making the fake choice then it may serve the same role.
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith.-Miguel de Unamuno Ceiling Cat is watching you post.

makerowner
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 109

Posted 07/28/08 - 11:06 AM:	#10
I think you guys are looking at "essence" the wrong way. If I understand it correctly, it's not about some kind of universal human nature, it's each individual pour-soi defining it's own essence. It just means that we're all responsible for what we are.
The grounding-attunement of the first beginning is deep wonder that beings are, that man himself is extant, extant in that which he is not.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.