The Achilles Heel of Atheistic Existentialism?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Hello everyone!

This is my first post on ILP, and I have a bit of a burning question that I cannot seem to resolve.

In Sartre’s lecture Existentialism is a Humanism he asserts that there are two types of existentialism:

Christian Existentialism [Jaspers, Kierkegaard] (CE) - Which asserts that we are fashioned by a divine artisan who has instilled elements of the supreme intellect in our being
Atheistic Existentialism [Sartre, Heidegger] (AE) - Which asserts that man arose as a form due to natural forces, and is simply the product of his circumstances, and his attitude.

What dilineates the two, is the idea that “existence precedes essence”, in this case rejected by the CEs, and maintained by the AEs. What Sartre means by this, is that mankind must first choose his existence, and project himself into the future in order to have identity (essence), otherwise he/she does not exist, or is nothingness. The CE holds that God has instilled some kind of “human nature” in us, that would be maintained regardless of future attitudes or actions, but Sartre and Heidegger say the opposite, insisting that we are the ‘facticity’ or accumulation of all past action, and future potential, but nothing more.

The logical difficulty I encounter can be thusly expressed:

In order for Sartre to be right about this, their must be some kind of entity within a human being, or at the very least an emergent property of being human that can make a meaningful choice. This entity, must also predate all actions undertaken by that being, and all choices that being makes. When a human being begins existing (i.e. a human child is born), in Sartre’s view, this choosing entity must exist before the child makes the decision to breath, to open its eyes, and so on. But Sartre also fundamentally asserts in Being and Nothingness that without future projection, and without facticity, we are at base, nothing. So it’s a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg problem. One must exist in order to choose, and one must choose in order to have an essence. But, how can we go about making a choice, or existing, if we begin in a state in which we have no identity?

CEs solve this problem by saying that our existential agent comes from God, but it does not seem as though the AEs such as Heidegger and Sartre can account for the emergence of our existential agent, our conscience, or Dasein. How did we make our first existential choice, if we at base had no existential identity on which to base that choice?

2

Every choice is your first choice, because you must choose your past. I’ll go into more detail if you’d like.

3

Philosophically, that’s a very interesting point. I hadn’t considered that before. It however, does not answer the fundamental question insofar as I understand it. For a Christian Existentialist, it is possible to say that when a human body comes into form, it is animated by some kind of soul that goes about the “choosing” that existentilists amount so much importance to. But what is the source of that which chooses, according to an atheistic perspective?

4

By source you’re implying a certain type of temporality that has no place in the most basic discussions of AE philosophy. If you absolutely must have an answer to the source of a choosing consciousness that begins developing relatively soon after conception outside of sciences such as neurology, physiology and psychology then you must choose that for yourself, create. I’m content enough with science in that matter.

That we were born in a world with a history and slowly developed self-consciousness is all a choice, existentially. Each instant I choose the world; preferably within a framework of accuracy. The question still arises as to what the ‘source’ of this choosing consciousness is in each instant. In Being and Nothingness, Sartre makes it clear that nothing or nothingness is that ‘source’. In other words; there is no source to it, it is it’s own nothingness in the sense that it can’t be it’s own being.

5

Ok. But if nothingness is the true nature of Being, I still cannot understand what chooses. If I choose to type this message, or to blink my eyes, what is it in the opinion of the AEs that makes such a decision, that is acting outside of the dynamics of psychology, and the laws of physics. If nothingness is the root of Being, what then makes human existence non-determinant? Why, in the AEs mind, can a human being not be reduced to an extremely complex machine, with fixed input and output? It seems to me that while we can appear to make conscious deliberations, or appear to choose our attitude, the AEs have given me no reason to suspect that my “decision” making engine is anything besides the deterministic forces of physics, perception, and so on. Obviously that cannot be considered a “choice” any more than a raindrop choosing to fall or not can be considered an act of choice.

6

Existence precedes essence is the same as saying undifferentiated being precedes differentiated being. We do not choose undifferentiated being; it is. We choose to differentiated it. The existential term ‘vertigo’ is the realization that nothing is what chooses that differentiation and nothing can stop us from choosing.

When I said, “I’m content enough with science in that matter.” I should have said, “I choose science in that matter.” Any given aspect of science doesn’t effect our choices unless we choose to allow it; choose to let it be a part of differentiated being. Science is why we would considered our body a machine, it’s a subject that takes away the personal.

Whether the world be defined by scientists as deterministic or random is absolutely irrelevant to existential absolute freedom. For something to be determined, someone would have to determine it. For CEs that easy; God determines. For AEs, only they can determine. When AEs speak of the idea of there being an order to the universe, one that could possibly be predicted, they’re speaking of what comes from the field of science - as they choose it. The everyday scientists, unfamiliar with AE or CE, may speculate on the idea of their being a determinism to the universe, but they only do so in terms of predictability and as a contrast to the idea that the universe may be inherently random; to them choice is not a factor in those speculations, only the sum accumulations of the date and analysis of their experiments.

After nothingness, the root of this choosing which takes place during each instant, is the unreflective cognito; once it reflects on being and differentiates it, there is a cascading effect of it reflecting and differentiating all it chooses in that instant. The reason that, besides reflection, each instant we only need make a relatively small amount of thought as we chooses the world or differentiate being, is because the mind is part of being. So in the instant most of the conceptions of being that the mind has chosen ‘previously’ only needs to be confirmed before a choice is made.

7

It seems to me, then, that the root of this choosing faculty is the Cartesian cogito, the notion of some pure awareness or consciousness which can then effect action. In order for this cogito to be spared from causal forces common to all other material phenomena, it must somehow transcend all other material forces. In order for Sartre to be right, we must have a mind or consciousness, some aspect of our being that is separate from (at least observable) material phenomena. This seems like nonsense to me. We all know that consciousness does not transcend material, as it is affected by physiology, drugs, sleep/hypnosis, comas, and ultimately death.

When I speak of determinism as a topic of philosophy, I do not necessarily refer to computationalist capability. I am not saying the future can be predicted, or need be predictable, even given infinite data. My argument is not concerned with whether or not the universe is on a set course (computationalism) or a variable course (randomness). What I mean by determinism, is the idea that everything is the sole subject of causal forces, known or unknown. If mind cannot transcend those causal forces, then it cannot choose.

I mean, imagine being an alcoholic, deciding whether or not to take another drink. As you are sitting at the bar, innumerable psychological and physiological causes are in play. Your body is dependent on alcohol to open the serotonin channels in your brain, your body is becoming dehydrated, and you are reliving the memories of psychological pleasure induced by past drinking experiences. On the other hand, there may be some form of superego or social conditioning influence trying to tell you not to get drunk. If he chooses to drink, because his body is so powerfully tied to the addiction, it can hardly seem like a “choice”. I think that when it comes to making these kinds of choices, one simply adds together all the pros and cons present because of causal forces, and whichever alots more to it’s side becomes “the choice”. Since those causal forces are there anyway, regardless of the presence of the cogito, the decision in reality is already made the instant the question becomes available.

8

You are not stating a fair case in the point you make about Sartre. You are trying to pretend that the choosing entity has to exist before it is born. I don’t think Sartre meant to say that. Each human is not alone, and learns about his existence through senses. Authenticity emerges through learning. This has to be the same for both types. Except the real problem actually exists for CE, because a human cannot be authentic if he has been given something by god, before he was born. He cannot fulfil any kind of existentialism if he has been conditioned with a moral sense by a divine being.
So far from solving a problem, CE has no ground at all.
For AE you simply accept that consciousness os an emergent quality that does not preexist life. Every slug has the power to seek food, every virus the ability to invade a cell and transform its genetic code to re-produce new versions of itself. With each step you get something from nothing. What’s the problem.
WIth CE all you have is the age old problem - where did god come from? A much bigger problem that this one that seems to worry you about AE.

9

ANd where does that “soul” come from?

10

People care about freedom, but they dislike the idea of control. They want control in one way, then they neglect what control requires in the next instant. The will to power is basically the will to freedom, and the will to will. That may sound strange. The most powerful consciousness will be the most causal.

Some people are destined to power, some people choose power, but a lot of people choose pleasure and peace instead.

11

It can and does “choose” you just have to understand “how”, and that choosing is compatible with a deterministic universe in which humans are causal and wilful agents.

Existential authenticity is simply a case where an individual knows that he is a wilful agent of cause and pursues his own life in his own terms. THis is why CE is really not existentialist at all, because the only choice is to follow the teaching of god, which is a rejection of your personal authenticity.

12

That’s not for me to answer, as I do not consider myself a Christian Existentialist. But I imagine a CE would say that it is a part of God, of some greater divinity. I really don’t want to discuss it though, because it is really broad philosophical subject, and not germane to the point.

Yes, I do except consciousness/mind as an emergent property that does not pre-exist life. But the mistake people make so often when they speak of emergence, is that emergent properties somehow transcend that which they emerge from. This is not the case, not even with mind. So while it is true that the emergence of mind cannot necessarily be explained by contemporary science, it is still dependent on form (brain) to function. Mind is great in all, but if you put a bullet in someone’s head, that mind ceases to ‘emerge’. Which only goes to show, that once again, causal forces of emergence are still at play, though they may be ineffable to understanding.

Please, elaborate.

13

Please stop using (sic).
What’s your problem? I’ll elaborate when you tell me why are you confused here.

14

Alright. So we accept that mind, the Cartesian cogito, consciousness, awareness, decision making, all of it, is dependent upon a material object to emerge (i.e. the brain). The brain, like anything else, is a subject of electrochemical forces, body composition, sensations, and so on. All of these outside causes, such as whether or not one’s blood pressure rises, or the chemical balance of neurotransmitters in the brain, or whether or not we perceive something frightening like a snake in the grass are subject to the same causal forces we attribute to all material phenomena. Why then, should our existence be anything but causal? It seems to me there can be no “black box” that allows for the conversion of these causal forces into a decision we can control. So I’m not sure how we can exist in a causal (deterministic) universe, and still make the kinds of meaningful choices existentialists of both types attach importance to.

15

Actually it seems to me that the idea of the Cartesian Ego, does not match what you follow it by saying.
The conceit of Cartesian Dualism suggest that determinism is avoided.

I reject that dualism completely. I do not see the mind and brain as separate- one sort of working the other. For me the mind is what the brain does, not interdependent and discrete but utterly integral.
It is the physicality of the brain that gives the emerging quality we call consciousness, unconscious decisions, autonomic actions, and mindfulness. Often people dismiss this due to some prejudice against materialism not being good enough to explain the mind. But matter and energy in motion; electrical activity in complex organisation is why I used the word “physicality”.
I’m not trying to pretend I have an answer here to the problem of the mind/body question. I just think that dualism is a cheap trick.
I tend towards existentialism for living my life and materialism or empiricism for understanding the world around me. I do not see determinism as problematic for my will to make choices; I just don’t accept that calling it “free” is meaningful. Determinism is compatible with the exercise of the will; when I make a conscious decision it has to be based on my knowledge and experience and determined by it or it is a meaningless action. it seems to me calling that “free-will” is tantamount to ignoring precedent, and forgoing factors by which we commonly judge and choose our actions - what good is that?
We make our conscious choices through an understanding of our foregoing conditions.

Think of it this way…

There are two identical worlds in which each atom and molecule has the same charge and vector. There are two of you one in each world.
You make a decision. In what way does determinism or the idea of free-will change the next second of time in each of these worlds?
Surely for you to be the person you are in each of the worlds your choice will be the same?
If not, if one of you make a different decision then what would be the status of “free-will”?
All things being equal surely your next move will be the same on each world, if not why not, or how not?

16

Consciousness is what observes, but you only needs to observe the observer to observe consciousness. I suggest observing yourself, then from that observation add the observations of others; including scientists’ meticulously kept notes on their physiological observations.

You could say that you’re subject to ‘unknown causal forces’ and then by knowing those ‘unknown casual forces’ you then transcend them, but it would be easier to just say that the knowing/observing entity; consciousness, transcends/chooses being.
Concerning others you can see them as subjects to causal forces that are known to you and not necessarily to them, but it would be useless to say they’re governed by forces unknown to yourself. In fact in some circumstances, such as when others appear in control, it would be better to say that they are a governing force, and that as you know them you know that force.

The decision is made the instant the drink is irretrievably down your/his throat, unless you wish to backtrack and admit that by determinism, rather than only meaning causal forces, you meant events that were, in fact, already determined, by someone…

17

Well said.

18

I would reply with the famous zen quote : “If you try to understand the universe using your mind, you will fail. If you try to understand the universe without your mind, then you will understand both.” Metacognition is not a process I find to be exceedingly reliable, given the mind’s tendency to bias one’s perceptions.

This doesn’t make any sense to me. Simply knowing something does not create transcedence of that thing; knowing I am about to be shot will not aid me in transcending death. Even if it so occurs that I become aware of my dependence on these unknown causal forces, I can hardly change that fact in any manner.

This seems well stated to me. So yes, I’m not saying that sentient beings have no will, but simply that choices made by that will are not meaningful (since there are no other options besides what one chooses) As to why it matters, or what good it amounts to, it makes us wonder at least in a philosophical sense, if people really ought to be held responsible for what they do. Were the actions of Ghandi brought about solely because he was a great and courageous spirit, or simply because he was caused to act in the ways he did?

19

Bias is something that effects metacognition?

To me metacognition is like the machinery which produces bias at a later phase of its processes. Bias is part of everything we do and think. This doesn’t mean all bias is bad, therefor mind is bad, etc. That is not the point of living and thinking. If you say all bias is bad, then all preference and favor is bad, but a basis of good is favor.

20

Perhaps my thoughts were not conveyed clearly. I did not mean to say that metacognition is “bad”, simply that it distorts reality. Whether or not distorting reality is bad or not is a question for a different thread. But, my point in saying such a thing is simply that when searching for some kind of meaningful part of my being that need necessarily exist or not exist, I prefer a logical examination of it that is peer-reviewable (hence my posting) and reasonable than to my own gut feelings. If I am to get at a starting point for a philosophy (i.e. in this thread, existentialism) I want to look at it in a way that makes sense to other people, and in a way that is logically and analytically responsible.