[MD] Does Existence precede Essence?

[Gene M]

> Sartre's reality is divided between "being-in-itself" which, from our time
> perspective, is "being beyond becoming", and "being-for-itself" which is
> the
> "becoming" of individual experience.  If you can follow his reasoning, he
> spells it out in this passage from the paragraph I quoted in my last post
> to
> you and David:
>
> "Consciousness [experience] is the revealed-revelation of existents,
> and existents appear before consciousness on the foundation of their
> being...Consciousness can always pass beyond the existent, not toward its
> being, but toward the meaning of this being."
>
> There's a bit more to it than that, however, as Sartre goes on to show how
> "nothingness" creates things (existents).  "The self which I am depends on
> the self
> which I am not yet (future) to the exact extent that the self which I am
> not
> yet does not depend on the self which I am. ...Essence is all that human
> reality apprehends in itself as having been.  It is here that anguish
> appears as an apprehension of self inasmuch as it exists in the perpetual
> mode of detachment from what is; better yet, in so far as it makes itself
> exist as such. ...So the self is separated from its essence by the
> nothingness its freedom creates."
>
> Heidegger does a cleaner job of this, in my opinion, but Sartre obliquely
> develops his ontology with cryptic inferences, like: "Nothingness lies
> coiled in the heart of being -- like a worm"; "Man is the being through
> which nothingness comes into the world, inasmuch as he is affected with
> non-being to this end."; "Man does not exist first in order to be
> free_subsequently_; there is no difference between the being of man and
> his
> being-free."  Whereas Heidegger is a metaphysicist through and through,
> Sartre, ever the dramatist, articulates his philosophy in the
> psychological
> terms of anguish, fear, doubt, questioning, and "bad faith".  I don't
> think
> he ever succeeds in putting together a complete cosmology.  In his summary
> of "Immediate Structures of the For-Itself", he quotes Heidegger:
>
> "As for the world -- i.e., the totality of beings as they exist within the
> compass of the circuit of selfness -- this can be only what human reality
> surpasses toward itself.  To borrow Heidegger's definition, the world is
> 'that in terms of which human reality makes known to itself what it is.'
> The
> possible which is my possible in possible for-itself and as such a
> presence
> to the in-itself  as consciousness of the in-itself."   -- [Sartre: Being
> and Nothingness]
>
> I see that Matt has joined us.  It's probably about time that we benefited
> from his informed analysis of the relationship, if any, between
> Existentialism and the MoQ.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Ham


The biggest problem I have with any of this stuff is that on the surface, it
makes no damn sense at all!  If you ever tried to explain any of this to a
lay person, or a child, they would be irrevocably confused and muddled by it
I feel. The terminology is just so unbelievably convoluted! It's like people
were backed into a logical corner and just running in logical circles until
they felt they'd explained themselves out. Sure it's all nice and logical,
but it doesn't make any sense.

I agree with Pirsig that an understanding of Reality should be simple enough
for a child to grasp. Just imagine trying to explain to a 12 year old that
"Consciousness can always pass beyond the existent, not toward its being,
but toward the meaning of this being."


It just doesn't sit well with me.

-Gene