[MD] Fw: Existentialism vs Essentialism - a debate proposal

[Ham Priday]

Hi John --


> Ok, before we launch into the formalities of debate-team politics
> (and btw, I don't even know what that looks like so forgive me for
> any formal, philosophical faux pax in advance, (and unfortunate
> tendency to weak rhetorical attempts..)) but as I was climbing I-80
> over Donner Summit, all cloudy after the rains, it was mostly Ham
> I was contemplating. ...

To be contemplated high on Donner Summit . . .What an honor!!

> Now, into it:
>
> Straight outta the Wiki:
>
> Existentialism was coined by Jean-Paul Sartre's statement that for human
> beings "existence precedes essence." In as much as "essence" is a
> cornerstone of all metaphysical philosophy and the grounding of 
> Rationalism,
> Sartre's statement was a refutation of the philosophical system that had
> come before him (and, in particular, that of Husserl, Hegel, and 
> Heidegger).
> Instead of "is-ness" generating "actuality," he argued that existence and
> actuality come first, and the essence is derived afterward. For 
> Kierkegaard,
> it is the individual person who is the supreme moral entity, and the
> personal, subjective aspects of human life that are the most important.
>
> So Ham, I guess I'm getting some insight into Essentialism through my
> adoption or realization of Existentialism.  Although what Kierkegaard is
> on about sounds an awful lot like you, and perhaps we have reason to
> think agreement might be found between us.
>
> But the heart of difference is found in:
> Existence is logically prior to Essence,
>
> Seems about as clear a definition of the boundary between the two sides
> as you could ask for.
> To me, anyway.
>
> What do you think?

Kierkegaard is an existentialist theologian, which means he adapted 
Heidegger's ontology to his belief in a divinity.  He is introspective and 
asks all the right questions, but I think you've got to read Jean-Paul 
Sartre for an understanding of the existentialist position.  I cut my wisdom 
teeth on Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", a heavy tome that mystified me 
with its strange psychoanalytical terminology.  I discuss this philosophy in 
the 'Reality' section of my online thesis along the following lines.

Basically, existentialists believe Being is the fundamental reality, and 
"essence" proceeds from it.
They reasoned that, since consciousness has no basis in substantive reality 
other than contributing to its outcome [facticity], the anomalous split 
between mind and matter could be skirted simply by defining all reality as 
"being" and the essence of a person or thing, what it be-comes in the 
physical world [Dasein].  The idea that "Existence precedes Essence" figures 
prominently in the atheistic theories of Sartre, who saw it as the reason 
that man is "condemned to freedom" in a deterministic universe without 
meaning.  As a free agent, man is "thrown into existence" without the 
predetermined nature of other animals and is forced to "create his own 
essence" through the exercise of free choice - a project that is completed 
by his demise.  Essence for the existentialist is the attribute(s) that 
makes an object or substance what it fundamentally is, which it has by 
necessity, and without which it loses its identity.  Popularized in plays 
and novels by the leading twentieth century existentialist and his 
successors, this pessimistic world-view fostered a collective society that 
would come to regard human freedom as a "dreadful burden" (angst) and the 
individual's essence as a posthumous object for others.

> I do see existence as fundamental.  My experience is my existence.  Your
> existence is yours.  The interesting parts to talk about are found in the
> commons - those instances of experience you discover in common with mine.
>
> Subjective in comparison, objective in person, that's my aim of choice, my
> self, my existence, my fundamental.
>
> You?  You seem to seek that uncreated source as your fundamental,
> the basis of your existence.  An Essentialist "worships", that is, takes 
> as
> highest value,  what "is".
>
> An Existentialist agrees, but claims that Existence IS what is.  Thus
> logically prior to Essence.
>
> Have I got that about right so far?

As a behavioral comparison, perhaps, but I have some problems with your 
analysis of the fundamental beliefs.  Existence is, of course, fundamental 
to the existentialist who is more interested in the "process" (i.e., 
evolution), what man makes of himself, than in ultimate reality.  I don't 
understand "subjective in comparison, objective in person", and what is 
"common" between your experience and mine is essentially empirical 
knowledge.  With respect to Essentialism, I dislike the term "worship" as it 
connotes obeisance to a divinity, whereas our response to value is innate 
and spontaneous.

Also, the meaning of "is" in the context of "value" is ambiguous.  To 
"exist" or "to be" is not the highest value.  Existence is what we 
valuistically perceive to "exist" in space and time.  It is what I call a 
"negated mode" of Essence in which there is no "prior" or "after".  (I'm 
curious to know what "essence" you believe is produced by existence.) 
Primary Reality (Essence) is the source of all value, but we can only 
realize value differentially as existents.  What is good, desirable, 
immoral, or unseemly is a subjective judgment that varies from one 
individual to another.

> If not, please correct me, if so, then have at it.  Explain how your
> Essentialism is gooder than my existence.  Give me a pragmatic reason
> to change my mind, and I will attempt to do the same for you.

Unless you are a utilitarian, pragmatic reasons are the wrong criteria by 
which to judge a philosophy.  I can only offer a reasonable metaphysical 
hypothesis (check out my website).  If that is not "useful" enough for you, 
then you will most likely remain an existentialist.

> Oh.
>
> That's what we've been doing, hasn't it?   Well that's ok too.
> An Existentialist's primary goal is not changing reality, his primary
> goal is recognizing it.

I think you have it wrong.  I would say the Existentialist's goal is to 
change reality (his being-in-the-world), whereas the Essentialist seeks to 
realize the value of its essence.  However, this is only my impression from 
reading Sartre and Heidegger, and it would be foolhardy to recommend or 
disparage another philosophy based on my personal beliefs.  One tenet of 
Essentialism is that man is empowered with the freedom of choice: it is left 
to the individual to determine the meaning and purpose of his own existence.

Essentially speaking,
Ham