As I said in a previous posting, I took a semester course in college on Existentialism. That does not make me an expert of course, but it does mean that I am familiar with the leading Existentialists. So, before I cite from the definitions and descriptions that scholars and philosophers give to the term, let me give the humble or layman's description of it, which is mine.
I recall one thought that continually came to my mind as I read from the Existentialist authors. How they see themselves and the world, their worldview, yea, how they think, was foreign to me as a theist, or as a Christian. I kept thinking how animalistic was the thinking about the human being.
In fact, many Existentialists, except those in the Kierkegaard tradition, it is safe to say, believe that man is nothing but an animal, though the highest animal. The only "existence," the only "beingness," they say, is the one which is their own personal and unique physical existence, what they are in space and time. What kind of existence that is, or becomes, will be determined largely by fate, by the environment of the man, by forces outside his control. What kind of "essence" will result from an individual's existence is both a matter of choice and free will and a matter of fate.
Yes, the choices a human makes will determine his kind of existence, or "essence," but choices are not made in a vacuum, without outside causation. To many Existentialists free will is rarely a reality, but an ideal, a thing to strive to obtain. Some Existentialists, like Soren Kierkegaard, who was a Christian, emphasized an individual's "free will," and taught that each must therefore take full responsibility for what he does or becomes. His focus was upon the supremacy of the individual. To him, one either chooses the aesthetic life (of pleasure) or the ethical or moral life, hence his book "Either/Or." There was no Hegelian "synthesis" in Kierkegaard. The greatness of faith was because it did not rely upon science, philosophy, nor logic and reason. He spoke of "the leap of faith," how faith escapes the confines of reason. It is a faith in the "absurd," that is, a faith in something that most think is foolishness (as does Paul - I Cor. 1: 18).
Of course, faith and reason have their place and are related just like the physical world is related to the transcendent or spirit world. The physical world has witnesses that prove the reality of the spirit world, that all being is not material or physical. There is a legitimate metaphysical sphere.
Free will decisions were not necessarily an integral part of atheistic Existentialism as seen in Nietzche. Nietzche taught that a man is not truly free if he is controlled by God or under any moral code. To be truly free once must be free of divine influence as well as all other influences other than his own self. In this thinking, Satan becomes a hero for he sought to "become his own man" apart from God. Nietzche did not believe in any other world other than the physical world, rejecting all metaphysics or talk of another transcendent world. He saw belief in a spirit or transcendental realm as shackles, keeping men from enjoying true freedom to be who they want to be. He pushed the idea of creature self determination to the extreme.
Existentialism is a philosophical theory which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining his or her own defining existence, through acts of the will. It says that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. This thinking leads men to see themselves as their own creators and saviors. They are not only the clay but their own potters. This is also the philosophy of Freemasonry. This does not, however, reflect the Existentialism of Kierkegaard, who saw himself as not a philosopher, or promoter of philosophy, but rather as an opponent of philosophy. He thought philosophy begat elitist thinking.
The Existentialist Worldview
Said one author on the subject (here):
"It focuses on the question of human existence, and the feeling that there is no purpose or explanation at the core of existence. It holds that, as there is no God or any other transcendent force, the only way to counter this nothingness (and hence to find meaning in life) is by embracing existence."
People today, more than ever, or at least since the days before the flood, are acting upon this premise. It is an enthymeme, an implied premise behind all their thinking and behavior. Life is meaningless. Such a thought produces psychological and social effects, and of these the Existentialists enumerate, such as angst, guilt, suffering, boredom, depression, anguish, dread, and various "existential crises."
Said the same author further:
"Thus, Existentialism believes that individuals are entirely free and must take personal responsibility for themselves (although with this responsibility comes angst, a profound anguish or dread). It therefore emphasizes action, freedom and decision as fundamental, and holds that the only way to rise above the essentially absurd condition of humanity (which is characterized by suffering and inevitable death) is by exercising our personal freedom and choice (a complete rejection of Determinism)."
Being a "Determinist" while in college (I wrote several papers on it), both theologically and in the various sciences (i.e. determinism in physics, in both the hard sciences and soft, in the psychological and social sciences as well). That is not to say that I reject all definitions of free will. I always defined free will as never being unlimited except in God himself. He is the only true "free" being. Creature freedom is limited. A man may be free in one sense and not in another. I have always viewed "free" as synonymous with the word "independent." None is as independent as God. And, again, we may be independent in one sense but not in another. Satan asserted his freedom and independence from God. He asserted his "freedom of will," his will to be who he wanted to be without any interference or say from God.
Though many Existentialists exalted the idea of creature free will in imitation of Satan, who was the first Existentialist, yet they confessed that most creatures do not exercise their free will, but rather show how their wills are enslaved to the ideas of others, to their moral codes. Existentialists today claim to live by "science," to abide by only what is "proven" by "science." But, science has proven, especially in the fields of biology and psychology, that a human's choices or acts of will are the result of prior causes, many of them determinative of those acts. If that were not so, then no choice can be predictable. But, we can predict, with fairly good certainty, how certain individuals will choose and act under certain circumstances.
Often, Existentialism as a movement is used to describe those who refuse to belong to any school of thought, repudiating of the adequacy of any body of beliefs or systems, claiming them to be superficial, academic and remote from life. Although it has much in common with Nihilism, Existentialism is more a reaction against traditional philosophies, such as Rationalism, Empiricism and Positivism, all which sought to discover an ultimate order and universal meaning behind the structure of the observed world, and who believed that the physical world gave evidence of the metaphysical world.
Guilt, angst, dread, anguish, anxiety, etc., were facts of existence and one must simply "deal with it." Trying to find solace in a god or an afterlife of bliss made slaves of all in Existential thinking. How you deal with it, how you live with this awful fact of existence, is where the Existentialism offers its advice. You are in an awful situation, says the Existentialist, but "such is life." "Life is suffering," so just deal with it. Make the most of it. No wonder such a philosophy produces angst and anxiety with loads of depression.
Hitler and the Nazis often talked about the power of the human will (the "iron will") to make supermen of themselves, and apart from God and religion. The Christian message, however, teaches otherwise. It teaches that men cannot simply will themselves into superior beings, not make themselves supermen. It teaches that salvation is available from the evils of our fallen existence and that God is the Potter and we are the clay. His will is to work to change our wills. To Nietzche Christians, and all religious people, were sheep to be devoured by wolves. The wolves are those who are the masters, the ones with power.
Said another author on this point (See here):
"Think of it this way: If you are a sheep, then what will seem good to you as a sheep? Being able to graze peacefully, sticking close together with others just like you, being part of the herd and not straying off. What will seem bad to you? Well, wolves will seem bad, and anything wolf-like, predatory, aggressive. But what if you are a wolf? Then strength, viciousness, and contempt for the sheep will come naturally to you and seem good. There is nothing the wolves and the sheep can agree on morally—their natures are different, as are their needs and goals, as is what feels good to them. Of course it would be good for the sheep if they could convince the wolves to be more sheep-like—but what self-respecting wolf would fall for that?"
The Nazis had this mentality and worldview. Today's atheistic social and economic elite also think that they are wolves and this is what fate has made them. Wolves must devour the sheep. This is their mission. Who can condemn the wolf for doing such?
Under "Main Beliefs" the previous author wrote:
"Unlike René Descartes, who believed in the primacy of consciousness, Existentialists assert that a human being is "thrown into" into a concrete, inveterate universe that cannot be "thought away", and therefore existence ("being in the world") precedes consciousness, and is the ultimate reality. Existence, then, is prior to essence (essence is the meaning that may be ascribed to life), contrary to traditional philosophical views dating back to the ancient Greeks. As Sartre put it: "At first [Man] is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be."
But, the bible teaches that man is not nothing when he is born. He is rather a creature made in the image of God and therefore has importance, and is something unique and good. Further, it teaches that man is not born "tabula rasa," a blank slate, without Existential "essence," but with only mere "existence." Humans are born with innate knowledge of right and wrong, having the moral code of God written into their nature.
The author said further:
"Kierkegaard saw rationality as a mechanism humans use to counter their existential anxiety, their fear of being in the world. Sartre saw rationality as a form of "bad faith", an attempt by the self to impose structure on a fundamentally irrational and random world of phenomena ("the other"). This bad faith hinders us from finding meaning in freedom, and confines us within everyday experience."
What is the role between faith and reason? That was the chief issue with Kierkegaard. But, these are not unrelated. God is reasonable in his works. His commands to his creatures are also reasonable. But, God is not reason, but reason is his creation. But, faith goes beyond reason.
Said the author further:
"Kierkegaard also stressed that individuals must choose their own way without the aid of universal, objective standards. Friedrich Nietzsche further contended that the individual must decide which situations are to count as moral situations. Thus, most Existentialists believe that personal experience and acting on one's own convictions are essential in arriving at the truth, and that the understanding of a situation by someone involved in that situation is superior to that of a detached, objective observer (similar to the concept of Subjectivism)."
Keirkegaard was a Christian but Nietzche was Anti Christian. He titled one of his works "The Antichrist." These two Existentialist philosophies have certain things in common and some not. We see such Existential thinking today when people are advised to "be your self," "be true to yourself," "love your self," "indulge yourself," "deny not yourself," "find yourself, "assert yourself," etc. It is also reflected in the belief that no one can understand you but you yourself. This would mean that you can simply listen to yourself and reject what others say.
Said the author further:
"According to Camus, when an individual's longing for order collides with the real world's lack of order, the result is absurdity. Human beings are therefore subjects in an indifferent, ambiguous and absurd universe, in which meaning is not provided by the natural order, but rather can be created (however provisionally and unstable) by human actions and interpretations."
There is no "lack of order" in the world God created in the beginning. As respects the physical world, it is very orderly. As respects the world of beings, be they angels or men, there is order first in their origins. Some disorder has in fact occurred and brought chaos. The bible calls this "the fall," be it the fall of angels, or the fall of humans. This fall of angels and men was the result of "free will," on which the Existentialists have much to say, as well as theologians. Christians see it as a power that God gave to his creatures whereby they could choose their own destiny, determine who they will become. Atheistic and agnostic Existentialists will say that free will, where it exists, is simply the result of being born human. Said Sartre: "Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does."
That sense of being free, and therefore responsible, brings adverse psychological traumas, such as guilt, self abnegation, depression, angst, etc. So, freedom of choice comes with consequences, generally not good. This is certainly true with the gift of free will in the case of the fallen angels and of Adam and Eve and their descendants. This is why most theologians will say that Christians will not have this kind of free will when they are glorified and living out their eternal life. Falling and rebelling against God will not be possible because the will of believers will be fixed and determined and truly and in the highest sense "free." They will be free from the possibility of willing to rebel against God.
Said the author further:
"Existentialism can be atheistic, theological (or theistic) or agnostic. Some Existentialists, like Nietzsche, proclaimed that "God is dead" and that the concept of God is obsolete. Others, like Kierkegaard, were intensely religious, even if they did not feel able to justify it. The important factor for Existentialists is the freedom of choice to believe or not to believe."
"Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, like Pascal before them, were interested in people's concealment of the meaninglessness of life and their use of diversion to escape from boredom. However, unlike Pascal, they considered the role of making free choices on fundamental values and beliefs to be essential in the attempt to change the nature and identity of the chooser. In Kierkegaard's case, this results in the "knight of faith", who puts complete faith in himself and in God, as described in his 1843 work "Fear and Trembling". In Nietzsche's case, the much-maligned "Übermensch" (or "Superman") attains superiority and transcendence without resorting to the "other-worldliness" of Christianity, in his books "Thus Spake Zarathustra" (1885) and "Beyond Good and Evil" (1887)."
Do we not see this philosophy, respecting free will, at work in the debate over transgender people? It is my choice to be male or female, they say. These promote a vulgar idea of what is "free will." It includes the right to be free to choose to do evil. It thinks that being free to do a thing justifies doing it.
Said the author further:
"Christian critics complain that Existentialism portrays humanity in the worst possible light, overlooking the dignity and grace that comes from being made in the image of God. Also, according to Christian critics, Existentialists are unable to account for the moral dimension of human life, and have no basis for an ethical theory if they deny that humans are bound by the commands of God. On the other hand, some commentators have objected to Kierkegaard's continued espousal of Christianity, despite his inability to effectively justify it."
Amen.
In the next posting we will look further at Existentialism and then look at Machiavellianism.
Good videos on Existentialism
"Nietzsche: Sheep and Wolves" (here)
"The Bible and Western Culture - Nietzsche and the Death of God" (here)
"Nietzsche: Master and Slaves" (here)
"Kierkegaard's Christian Existentialism" (here)
"Nietzsche's Critique of Christianity: The Genealogy of Morals" (here)
No comments:
Post a Comment