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

[John Carl]

Holly:  It was Jean-Paul Sartre that said, "Hell is being locked in a room
with your friends forever."

Lister:  Yeah, but all his mates were French.


> 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.
>

Well Ham, if it mystifies you, I know I'm not going to get much out of it.
 And being myself theistically oriented, I'd probably lean more toward
Keirkegaard. Especially as he was an influence upon one of my favorite
authors/thinkers - Jaques Ellus.




>  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.


Well then, I know I'm not gonna go for that.  I don't like "deterministic
universes without meaning" and if I'm ever convinced I live in one, I'll
just have to become willfully deluded.


>  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.


Ok, good.  I'd buy that.



> I don't understand "subjective in comparison, objective in person", and
> what is "common" between your experience and mine is essentially empirical
> knowledge.


Well take right now for instance, what empirical knowledge do we share?  Our
sensory and factual realities are completely different.  The concepts we use
to communicate are subjectively realized and I would say that the primary
sharing we can achieve is emotional states generated by commonly realized
experience....




> 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.
>


Well this does bring up an interesting point of contention between Royce and
James, that of the religious insight.  James in Varieties of Religous
Experience argues that we justify religious doctrines because they justify
otherwise inexplicable intuitions and feelings.  Royce felt that this view
made all religion non-rational, (a good topic of debate that Steve brought
out on his question of whether theists are irrational)

Royce, in The Sources of Religious Insight, attempts to salvage a possible
religious alternative  that is based on reason and metaphysical truth:


"Must one chose between inarticulate faith and barren abstractions? Are we
forced to chose either intuition without reasoning, or else relatively
fruitless analysis without intuition?  Perhaps there is a third possibility.
 Perhaps one may use one's process of abstraction as a sort of preparation
for certain articulate and noble intuitions that cannot be approached by our
human consciousness through any other way.  Perhaps analysis is not the
whole process which determines demonstrations.  Perhaps synthesis--viewing
of of many facts or principles or relations in some sort unity and
wholeness--perhaps a synoptic survey of various truths, can lead us to novel
insights."

This seems to me very much along the lines of Pirsig's process and
furthermore, a more accurate description of the way we humans really make
advances in knowledge and get things done.

Thus, our response to value is both spontaneous AND calculated.  Both innate
AND influenced.

At least, that's the way I see it.  And the reason I agree with Pirsig's
formulation of Nature as Value's source - relative to humans, anyway - is
because it is within Nature and Nature's patterns that we intuit our
realization of what value, ultimately is.


>
> Also, the meaning of "is" in the context of "value" is ambiguous.  To
> "exist" or "to be" is not the highest value.


Yes.  Existence is not the highest value, it is the fundamental starting
point in an enquiry into the highest value.  I'd say the highest value is
that which promotes life.  The Good equates with Life Promotion, the Bad
with life degradation.  Good with order, Bad with Chaos.  Every level's DQ
in the MoQ's levels is that "thing" which tends towards more dynamic choice,
order and life.

Seems pretty simple to me.


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.)


Essence is conceptualized  by metaphysicians.  Thus, existence is logically
prior to essence.   Without a conceptualization of whatever is meant by
essence, would it look the same?  I don't think so.  I don't think trees
falling in forests make "sound", without ears to define the vibes.



> 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.
>

Well I've been one for some time, but only realized the label recently...
I'd hate to abandon it before I've worn it out.  I don't wanna seem more
scatterbrained than I actually am.

Heaven forbid.




> 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.
>

And with that last statement,  we are in full agreement.  Existentialism
that I've discovered so far, is all about taking responsibility for one's
own meaning and purpose.

Essentially existentially yours,

John