The Argument for and against Existentialism - Term Paper Example

?Topic: Existentialism Order: 766383 Outline Thesis: Where as “essence precedes existence” and existentialists partly believe In the existence of God, (theistic existentialism) and partly not (atheistic existentialism), their ideas that its man to determine his existence is a fallacy. Man cannot determine his own existence except if that man is a secular humanist. There is no way one can be both atheist and theist. This is unprincipled marriage of convenience that only calls secularism. Therefore, existentialism is a quasi-secular humanist philosophy. 1. Abstract: Summary or overview of the paper 2. Introduction: An expository and informative pro and cons of existentialism 3. Arguments in support of existentialism 4. Criticism or arguments against existentialism 5. Conclusion. Abstract The purpose of this paper is to underscore the argument for and against existentialism. Even though advocates of existentialism lament that philosophy should begin with individual thinking which is the cornerstone of his or her existence, it’s also prudent to state that individual morals as well as reason and experience does not alone define the true character and origin of a person. This is the thesis of this philosophical movement. The experience one under goes determines the resultant character of that person until that person absurdly perishes. These are among other things that the author explores to understand more about existentialism. The paper is divided into an abstract, as a summary of the author’s intended research goals, introduction of the topic arguments for and against existentialism and a conclusion of the findings. The author concludes that there is no specific definition of existentialism but it is merely a bundle of ideas that tries to marry Christianity and atheism. It is therefore, a quasi-human secularism philosophy divided into Atheist and theist existentialism. This marriage has so far received considerable criticisms and the writer agrees that it does not justify the philosophical means attached to it. The rationale supporting is that existentialism is more inclined to secular humanism that Christianity and thus theism existentialism has no place in this human philosophy. Introduction The term existentialism is an idealistic doctrine which appeals to individual freedom and responsibility in determining personal actions and motivations. It rests upon the presupposition that “essence precedes existence” (Sartre 387). Once man appears on the scene, he determines his existence (Sartre 388). This philosophy is strongly opposed to the traditional thinking that in search for truth, man appeals rationalism plus empiricism yet you cannot divorce reason and experience from philosophical and human development. These two brains development are sarcastically motivated and have much origin in theism than existentialism. Whereas existentialists developed their thinking based on reason together with experience, all these are a cornerstone of traditional theism. It is agreeable that reason plus experience have linkages with theistic existentialism. And whereas it presupposes that the scientific plus moral ideas cannot sufficiently explain “human existence” without individual subjective responsibility, collective responsibility cannot also be ignored either. Accordingly, it is a self-descriptive thinking theory of determining one’s own way of life and responsibility than the will of external thinking or force motivated by moral values. Besides, it negatives the rule of law in society which is divisionary because society without rule on law is a dead society, undemocratic and ungovernable. These advocates are morally dead men looking of moralists to devour. However, this is the ideal of reason, empiricism and freedom to effectively think about what is right and wrong, which are typical moral virtues. It’s a philosophy with no definite definition but its meaning is gathered from the ideas and classical illustrations of philosophers such as “Jean-Paul Sartre, Kant, Hegel, and Soren Kierkegaard” among others among others forming the basis of this discussion (Sartre 388). Arguments for Existentialism Existentialism is categorized into two theories upon which its philosophical arguments are based; that is, “theistic and atheistic existentialism.” The former appeals to the existence of the sovereign God but states that God’s existence is only relevant for creation purposes but it is man who determines his own existence. While the later, denies God’s existence thus making this marriage but believes in everything being good according to man’s definition of truth rather than real theism truth hence making this unprincipled. In other words, these two categories make it difficult to fully understand this philosophical ideal. In general terms, existentialism is a drama that is best understood by one’s world view; that is if a person is a pro atheist, then he or she will understand it as an atheist and the same applies to theism. However, it would be better it was purely designed as a quasi-secular humanist philosophy because it leans more on it than theistic beliefs. These two categories shall form the basis of this paper as the author underscores the arguments for and against existentialism (Friedman 3). According to “Atheistic Existentialism”, your values and essence on earth depends on your existence, which is a general presupposition for all. It is existence that defines essence- a philosophical emblem of human secularism. This belief denies the existence of supernatural being, rejoices in the rejection of truth except their secular human truth. It is a very subjective philosophy presupposing that existence is followed by essence. They argue that morality is a preference and that it has no absolute basis yet they believe in brain development and human ethics. However, how do you attain human ethics without ultimate origin? It is absolutely wrong but to them man is “the beginning and the end” of human life (Barret 26). In other words it is obsolete. For this reason, it is my considered view that “atheistic existentialists” looks at mankind as useless creature with no ultimate purpose as their existence ends with death hence the absurdity principle (Sartre 16). Therefore, life is meaningless after death and that is why essence is determined by existence. For these reasons, it is form humanism negating “pre-establishment of human nature” by God. A person exists according to his or her own will not the will the God and thus, no morality. What is good, valuable or moral differs from one person to another and this is defined by a person’s own conscience. Believing in this philosophy leaves one with no alternative but to think that there is no life after death and that man creates himself. How he does it is difficult to understand hence it existentialism is a bundles idealistic lies with no practical truth but intended for academic purposes (Nietzsche 168). Another justification of this belief of the Atheistic Existentialism is that moral doctrines should be universal but the utility of these principles should not be determined objectively but subjectively. Therefore, advocates of morality should by all means place themselves within this definition to achieve maximum satisfaction. This then determines general life style of all individuals because “existence precedes essence.” The end will “justify the means” that every person should do whatever he or she wishes according to that person’s desires as long as what is done does not affect another. This makes every person a legislator and that form of legislation if followed by another becomes the essence. This is often times difficult to conceptualize because human behavior can sometimes be difficult to tame and should be both morally and legally regulated, yet to the atheistic existentialist, moral values are extremely useless except secular molarity (Yalom 12). Accordingly, one can argue that individual choice and action cannot be arbitrary since every person is responsible for his or her own choice, whether good or bad without any objective legislation. This is what is referred to as secular morality. They argue that if there is no secular morality, then, similarly there is no “Christian moral values.” For this reason, I believe that existentialism is a meaningless philosophy with no absolute truth. For example, Frederich Nietzsche advanced his existentialism philosophy by arguing that “God is dead...and He died of pity." He adumbrated that the purpose of religion was to create room for comfort and consolation in times of distress especially to those who cannot encourage themselves. That Christian teaching about, “peace, love, forgiveness, and meekness” is completely meaningless but what man needs to do is to have self-will. They encourage their followers not submit to the rule of law but should submit to their own human will because everything is okay as long as no one is hurt. He was completely against democracy and rule of law except self-governance without external interference. Those who believe in him therefore, think that their essence depends on their existence (1960). However, how can a person not ever be hurt in life? This is what makes this argument vague because he died an insane person after equating himself to Jesus. These are the realities of secular humanism and the true ideals of atheistic existentialism (Barret 1962). Another philosopher who extended the Atheistic existentialism is Albert Camus. He developed the ideal doctrine of absurdity. He stated that death renders human existence meaningless upon which no rational belief in his or her experience is made. Once dead, one loses a meaningful stature in life and there is no life after that because there is no hope. While living, a person is free to enjoy whatever freedom is chosen even if it is contrary to moral virtues, for after death, there is no freedom hence the absurdity. This justifies man’s allegiance to fellow men than to the absolute God whom Frederich Nietzsche said is dead. While living, man is everything regarding his life and how he relates with others. That anything that follows after the death is a constructive lie. This makes life and existence meaningless but they also argue that failure to define life still makes existence worth living. That although one may be absurd after death and they exist with such prior knowledge; life is worth living according to human will. Thereafter he aligned his thinking with Sartre and Nietzsche’s beliefs by saying that there is no justification for objective universe but for subjective secular morality. These are among the major arguments of atheistic secularism (qtd in Hamalian et al 37). On another footing, theistic existentialism was developed to supplement atheistic existentialism by believing that there is God but God’s existence does not provide meaningful life and thus adds to the earlier voice of Atheistic existentialism that there is nonexistence of exceeding truth claimed by the real theist. Among the proponents of this thinking include Soren Kierkegaard's, Martin Buber, Karl Barth, Gabriel Marcel, Rudolf Bultmann, as well as Reinhold Niebuhr. They state that Christian faith is blind and you cannot meaningfully define life. Whereas theistic existentialists does not fully accept God’s existence due to death, they believe that God exist for purposes of defining worldly life. This means that they are in concurrent belief with the former that there is “no life after death” and rationalism together with empiricism cannot be defined by God’s existence but by faith. What then distinguishes them from the real theism as understood in Christendom is their definition of life starting with the existence of man not God and therefore, “essence precedes existence” (Hongo 1995) Although they believe in the existence of God as an “infinite, omniscient, sovereign, transcendent, personal, and good”, they still hold onto the existentialist propaganda that essence is determined by one’s existence. It is an individual who determines his or her belief not God. The rationale is that upon death, you are rendered useless hence the absurdity. Therefore they question God for allowing death take mankind. If God was the source of human existence, he would have prevented death from happening. For this reason, they state that there is “no life after death” and this makes them believe that its man who determines his own existence. They believe subjectively in the existence of the spiritual world than the supernatural spiritual being in a sense that man’s existence determines his spiritual world and that there is no supernatural spiritual being. This is contrary to the real theistic spiritual world envisaged in “holy trinity.” Furthermore, they argue that there is a world order but it is based on logic plus rationalism in a sense that God can interconnect with this world order. At least for this belief, they are in agreement with the real theism but this makes them contradict with existentialist doctrines that are completely against the existence of God. They further contradict themselves that upon this backdrop, humanity is defined by existence as a cornerstone of the human intellect not God’s wisdom (Macquarrie 17). This is what makes one question their partial belief in God. According to Macquarrie (1973) this existence is defined by living and once you die, man ceases to exist- where upon essence is determined by that living. For this reason, “life after death” is best understood by each individual person depending on mankind existence. They thus somehow deviate from the earlier position about “life after death” and some argue that the ultimate end of life is either hell or heaven depending on individualistic existence which starts with man. This depends on the principle of choice. Individuals have the freedom to belong to any religious movement in the absurd world. Therefore, your purpose is the highest good of individual existence. For this reason life has a meaning according to the way it is understood by an individual though it may well be temporary. Besides, truth is subjective depending on one’s ability to conceptualize it. What is right or wrong is not a moral thing but an individual thing. Morality cannot be a determinant of one’s existence except that his or her conscience does. This is how truth is determined by human beings. The only objective truths according to theistic existentialism are the things we see but anything beyond that is subjective- based upon individual existence. God is neither in the world nor seen after the absurdity but it is God who creates humans and humans determining their existence. They believe in God for purposes of satisfying a particular need of existence in life which is a subjectively rational thought because it’s the end that justifies existence. However if the end result is death and there is a spiritual being after death, where upon it is clear that even existentialist believe in a particular God, then why not to belief in life after death. This means thaexistentialism is a fallacious belief. Therefore, all the above arguments are designed to support existentialism philosophy. The following pages then deals with arguments against this philosophy. I have included them because in order to get coherent finings, you have to prevent the good, bad and the ugly. Arguments against or Criticism of Existentialism The most fundamental criticism is the erosion of reason and experience in thinking. Existentialism is opposed to any school of thought such as rationalism, nihilism, empiricism, positivism, Marxist extra thus negating freedom of expression and conscience and this would undermine human development. They themselves accept that it is through reason that their arguments are embraced. This is human freedom they extremely enjoy and advocate for. Why then are they against reason. Although it is the latest philosophy, it is an archaic vestige idea with no significance to humanity and brain development. Therefore, total belief in existentialism would be a throttle to the 21st century (Sartre 388). The second criticism comes from the traditional theistic philosophers. They state that whereas existentialists believe in the existence of God and that the only way to defining life is by “embracing human existence (Sartre 388),” as a solution to rising above the absurd human condition as the subjective principle, they do not believe in the power of passion. This is a wrong perception because freedom of existence cannot be a condemnation but the actions can be condemned as designed by God (Sartre 399). There must be laws and values to guide society which the existentialist do not adhere to. These moral values have their origin from the Supreme Being. Therefore, regardless of one’s world view, there is an appeal to the supernatural meaning upon which rationalism and empiricism emanates. If “there is no human nature” and that nature cannot be regulated by universal laws, then who are we and where do we come from; what has gone wrong with the world? These are philosophical questions that appeals to a supreme authority and have been ignored in this theory of existentialism. We are God’s created being with origins from His supernatural human creation. What has gone wrong with the world is that people, like existentialist have evaded their own creator and equated themselves to God. It is this insanity creating a crazy world where everything is good according to one’s definition of good (Sartre 388). This has created things like terrorism because to a terrorist there is nothing wrong in killing, which is a typical definition of existentialism. The third criticism is that man cannot rely on his own intellect alone to make a sound judgment and responsibility. The existentialists believe that “essence precedes existence (Sartre387)” as a method of determining human existence but in order to peacefully co-exist; you must rely on the ideas of others and only valuable ideas for your human responsibility. This is what Sartre’s meant when he gave the example of a military officer being responsible for others actions in execution of their work (392). Therefore, collective responsibility motivates individual responsibility and the two cannot be divorced. Another criticism is that Existentialist way of denying the existence of moral values derived from the supreme being of God according to the real theism is a total fallacy. To the Atheistic existentialist it can well be understood that their secularist beliefs makes them question everything relating to theism. However, for the “existentialist theism” believing in God’s creation of humans but disputing the fact existence of God in mankind is total nonsense. You cannot create something and fail to make it exist. God cannot create humans and then fail to pave way for their existence. It is not man who determines existence but God. Even to the theist existentialist, their problem is equating themselves to God as earlier on stated, for you cannot be a creator of your own life. If God is not the ultimate author of human life, then, “who are we and where do we come from?” None of them have answered these questions because God is the source of everything. There is no empirical evidence in their writings to suggest otherwise. It is a total contradiction especially for the “theistic existentialist” who partly believes in God but disputes God to be the author of existence and is overwhelmingly taken up by the absurdity after death and life thereafter. For this reason, there is no clear definite definition of existentialism. It means that existentialism is more inclined to atheism than theism because they believe in paying allegiance to mankind than God and it is man who determines their existence. Anything after death is nothing but a mere absurdity. Most of the argument in support of existentialism makes sense with atheist beliefs than theism as seen above for example, their presupposition that “there is no absolute truth but nothingness.” It is evident that existentialism is a secular humanist philosophy that is completely a turnaround for the historical metaphysics which brings endless fear together with anxiety because they do not have a sense of direction and purpose as observed by William (2011). The positivist argue that the existentialist also contradicts themselves as to the real meaning of “being.” That it lacks a predicate but this is a matter of construction of words though I concur with them that the word is misused in a sense that human beings are peculiarly created in “the supernatural image of God” and therefore, they should respect the superiority of God. Therefore, their argument of a meaningless life has no empirical evidence to support it. From their argument that “existence precedes essence” was a typical reversal of traditional metaphysics which contrary to natural existence because existentialists do exist too through the supernatural being. They do not have the basis to question God. It should be an ignored philosophy since it has no absolute truth except its own beliefs. It is corrupting society and eroding proper human thinking although it can be looked at for academic purposes. It thus makes it difficult to philosophically define existentialism because of the existentialist poor appreciation of essence. Essence simply means significance and human significance does not only depend on existence but on the ultimate purpose of life which is to glorify the creator. To the real theist, it is God but to the existentialist is mankind himself. The question then is who creates mankind? It's God. Therefore, a person cannot be his creator and glorifier. In the end, there is no existentialism but secular humanism as further analyzed by Clifford (2011). Conclusion In conclusion therefore, there is no specific definition of existentialism but it is merely a bundle of ideas that tries to marry Christianity and atheism. It is therefore, a quasi-human secularism philosophy divided into Atheist and theist existentialism. Similarly it is an idealistic doctrine which appeals to individual freedom and responsibility in determining personal actions and motivations. It rests upon the presupposition that “essence precedes existence. Once man appears on the scene, he determines his existence. This philosophy is strongly opposed to the traditional thinking that in search for truth, man appeals to rationalism plus empiricism yet you cannot divorce reason and experience from philosophy and human development. These two brains development are sarcastically motivated and have much origin in theism than existentialism. Whereas existentialists developed their thinking based on reason together with experience, all these are a cornerstone of traditional theism but the existentialists’ rests more closely on the traditional secular humanism. In this vein they presuppose that there is no God except mankind who is everything until death takes him hence the absurdity. It is also my further considered findings that theistic existentialism appeals to the existence of the sovereign God but states that God’s existence is only relevant for creation purposes. In this vein it is man who determines his own existence while atheistic existentialism denies God’s existence thus making this marriage unthinkable and ambiguous. This so because existentialist believes in everything being good according to man’s definition of truth hence making this unprincipled marriage where on one part God’s existence is recognized while on the other, is not. This is a total miscarriage of philosophy. In other words, these two categories make it difficult to fully understand this philosophical ideal. In general terms, existentialism is a drama that is best understood by one’s world view; that is if a person is a pro atheist, then he or she will understand it as an atheist and the same applies to theistic existentialism. However, it would be better if it was purely designed as a quasi-secular humanist philosophy because it leans more on it than theistic beliefs. Everything existentialist is more likely secular humanism and it would make sense if married in secularism, for example believing that man is the ultimate end of everything. I should also acknowledge that the two existentialist categories have formed the basis of this paper as underscored in the arguments for and against existentialism as seen above. It is correct that this philosophy has so far received considerable criticisms and the writer agrees that it does not justify the philosophical means attached to it. The rationale supporting it is that existentialism is more inclined to secular humanism than Christianity and thus theism existentialism has no place in this Existentialism philosophy. Works cited Barret, William. Irrational man: a study in Existential philosophy. New York: Anchor, 1962. Friedman, Maurice. The worlds of Existentialism. New York: Randon House, 1964. Hamalian, Frederick Karl and Leo. The existential Imagination . Greenwich CT: Fawcett premier, 1963. Hongo, Howard V Hong and Edna H. The essential Kierkegaard. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995. Macquarrie, John. Existentialism. middlesex England: Penguin, 1973. Nietzsche, Friedrick. Joyful wisdom, Trans Thomas Common. New York: Frieederick ungar, 1960. Sartre, Jean-Paul, 'Existentialist Ethics', in L. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, pp. 387-392. n.d. William, Clifford. Existential reasons for belief in God. Down Grove: Inter University Academic, 2011. Yalom, Irvin. Existential Psychotherapy. New York: Basic, 1980. Read More