This is a dialogue between two lecturers. Each of them teaches philosophy but in different schools. They have met at a local restaurant for lunch after having not seen each other for a long time. The two are philosophical fanatics having their own firm beliefs in varying matters. At meetings like this, they do not fail to disagree on a thing or two. On several occasions, the two professors invite each other to their classes to help give students opposing views. The restaurant is moderately occupied and the atmosphere is humid and warm. The two gentlemen have just completed their meal when they start this conversation
Williams: I have just come from a class. Today’s lecture was rather interesting. It was even more captivating given that I have a very active class and some, I would like to believe, are just as in love with the discipline as I am.
James: How far have you gone with your class?
Williams: Currently, we are handling existentialism: one of my favorite topics. It is even more interesting when I have students who are bold enough to raise views that are opposed to mine. How shall I put it? Well, it makes it even more captivating.
James: I could not agree with you more. What exactly is your stand on the subject?
Williams: something tells me this will turn out to be one of those heated discussions we always have. Come to think of it, I have never heard your views on this matter. Personally, I do agree with Sartre’s theory. I am a staunch existentialist.
James: You are probably right to say that this will become another debate. I do not agree with the claim that existence precedes essence. I believe that the existentialist overestimates the freedom of man.
Williams: I have come to know you long enough. What is your understanding of the terms “existence” and “essence”?.
James: I take the term essence to mean the precise nature of something. It is the element that makes something unique. Take water for example, it is unique because of its chemical properties having only molecules of hydrogen and oxygen in a ration of 2:1. In the case of human beings, essence is simply the environmental and genetic makeup of an individual. On the other hand, the term existence may be defined as the consciousness (Alderwick, 2015). In the Western philosophy as you know it, essence comes before existence.
Williams: I beg to differ with you. Saying that the essence of human beings lies in their environmental and genetic composition, is implying that all humans have a common nature which is not the case. Human beings are independently defined by their own consciousness. We freely decide on how we perceive things without the influence of the environmental and genetic factors. From where I am standing, the environmental and genetic factors you mention are mere facticity. They are just the objective elements in the external world. Our consciousness has the liberty to respond to such elements in various ways.
James: That is where I have a problem with you. The conscious- which freely makes decisions- which from your argument I deduce is not made of genetic or environmental elements, what exactly is it then? I know for you existence precedes essence but how can the consciousness develop out of nothing given it has no association with facticity? From my scientific knowledge, there is a physical implement in the brain which creates consciousness. Damage to one’s brain is bound to increase his or her degree of consciousness. For instance, when an individual is confronted with a given situation, the decision he or she makes is bound to be influenced by the facticity. This is evident because if I take the same person and remover their part of the brain which handles critical thinking, expose them to a similar situation, the reaction exuded will be significantly different (Alderwick, 2015). Therefore, it is clear that essence precedes existence. For one to have a consciousness, a certain part of their brain much be functional. It is the facticity of one’s brain that molds the nature that impacts one’s reactions to various situations.
Williams: In existentialism, we believe that there is no determinism. As such, it is impossible to predict the behavior of an individual in varying situations. Determinism cannot exist because people have the freedom to make their own decisions. These decisions, made in one’s consciousness, are not subject to the influence of facticity (Olson, 2012). Consequently, human behavior becomes unpredictable. I believe that each individual has personal responsibility over their actions.
James: My saying that human beings have a common human nature only refers to the fact that each has genetics and environmental entities. This does not necessarily imply that all people will make an autonomous decision or reaction when presented with a similar situation. Each human being has his or her own unique nature. This reduces the level of predictability of the human behavior, but does not completely out rule determinism (Richey, 2015). If you were in the office and you hear the fire alarm go off, I am very certain that your instinct will prompt you to clear the students from the class and exit the building as well. That is determinism. It would be incorrect to fully out rule determinism in this case.
Williams: Sartre only applies the theory to humanity. When it comes to artificial objects, I am compelled to agree that essence precedes existence. In the contemporary world, mankind has made millions of inventions. Each of the inventions was driven by the need to have something. Take the car for example it was created after man felt the need to ease his movements. Later, man embarked on creating a tool that would make transport easier (Richey, 2015). It did not stop there, there was also the need to continue creating cars that are fuel efficient, faster, and more comfortable that the previous models. This indicates that the essence of artificial elements precedes their existence. But what essence of the human being precedes their existence?
James: I prefer to answer you based on Avicenna’s argument. I know that you are a God fearing man in which case implies that you do believe in the existence of God. According to Christians, God is the sole creator and He created man. He had a reason to create a man which implies that the essence of a man precedes his existence (Alderwick, 2015). God, being a necessary being, becomes the source of man’s essence. In the long run, it also means that man lacks unlimited freedom.
Williams: You are missing my point. Personally, I understand the existence of the human being as being more than just being in the present. That chair you are seated on and yourself, which of the two is actually existent? It is you and not the chair. What makes you to be an existing element is your ability to materialize your own being with your own mental activity. From my point of view, existence is not there mere state of being there but it is an act. It is the process through which we as human beings ascend from being potential beings to being actual beings (Olson, 2012). For man to continue existing, he is compelled to keep making choices and keep transcending. It is through this that man chooses his essence. We independently choose who we want to become. You cannot be able to chose who you wish to be if you do not exist in the first place. For dasein, living refers to being in a position to determine who you are and the essence to your entire existence. This is the definition of life for the existentialist. In such a context, the term dasein has an ontic significance (Richey, 2015).
James: The theory formulated by Sartre, with which you arguing is not void of its weakness. For one, it is a fact and I have proven to you, that his theory overestimates the freedom of man to make his own decisions. According to Warburton, human beings at time have no control over their own emotions. Secondly, the definition of subjectivity is not entirely sufficient. This term may be used to refer to the liberty of each individual. On the contrary, it may also refer to the element of man being limited by human subjectivity. While Sartre remains focused on man’s commitment, he also has an atomistic perception (Olson, 2012). He is well aware of the limits within which man is raised in which include traditions and languages. I also differ with his argument that my choosing is a choosing for the entire humanity. In his argument, Sartre makes reference to joining the Communists or being a Christian. From this, I can deduce that Sartre believes people have expectations placed on economic structures and such decisions are not merely based on personal preferences. Similarly, deciding to marry an even have children is not just a commitment to oneself but to humanity (Tymieniecka, 2009). Warburton refutes this when he says that one can also simply do such simply because it’s what is right for them.
Williams: earlier on you made reference to the Christian theory of existentialism. Sartre made it very clear that his theory was not of that category. His is more or less like that of the atheists. He states that if one cannot prove the existence of God, then he cannot be said to be the source of man’s essence. Removing the concept of God’s existence requires that one also withdraws all other concepts that are drawn from assuming He exists irrespective of how familiar they may seem (Tymieniecka, 2009). Therefore, we cannot argue that human beings have a common nature simply because it is God given. They essence only develops after their existence. Secondly, the nature of each individual is solely dependent on that individual. It is dependent on the choices they make which are equivalent to their radical responsibility.
James: but even if that were true, your argument also falls short in that it denies the influence of nature. By doing so, the existentialist in you is denying the knowledge you have in neuroscience. You are claiming that one’s consciousness arises from immaterial elements. This just results in consequential beliefs that are utterly unreasonable. It is a philosophical dead end and self-delusive (Richey, 2015).
Williams: I would like to have this discussion next week with you in my class if you do not mind.
James: Most certainly. I believe that it would help your students a lot.
[The two men make arrangements on how to get together and continue with their arguments the following week]
References:
Alderwick, C. (2015). Atemporal Essence and Existential Freedom in Schelling. British Journal For The History Of Philosophy, 23(1), 115-137. doi:10.1080/09608788.2014.977219
Olson, R. G. (2012). Introduction to Existentialism. Dover Publications.
Richey, L. (2015). Existentialism and Christian Humanism. Logos: A Journal Of Catholic Thought & Culture, 18(3), 33-56.
Tymieniecka, A.-T. (2009). Phenomenology and existentialism in the twentieth century: The yearbook of phenomenological research. Dordrecht [u.a.: Springer.
