One of the main pillars that holds up the philosophy of existentialism is the idea presented by Jean Paul Sartre, that existence precedes essence. This Idea has constantly been weighing heavy on my mind, forcing me to consider a new world view. To better understand this statement I had to dive into the opposite view point of essence preceding existence.
By believing essence precedes existence, you lead yourself down a logical path that ends with the question about religion. The only way for this viewpoint to work is if you consider god to be the ultimate sculpture of reality. This is because if we believe god puts everything on this earth with a meaning we don’t have to deal with the abyss that comes with complete and utter free will. Essentially people who believe that essence precedes existence are placing their hopes in a belief system where a divine intelligence has come up with a concept or pre-existing meaning for everything, from the stones that litter the ground to the humans that sit next to you in class. This would be a a belief held by almost every religion where god is the creator of our reality.
The view that in my mind is more logical in its approach, is atheistic existentialism, where existence precedes essence. The one true place where existence precedes essence is human reality. We are thrust into this world with no intrinsic purpose and no pre defined concept of who we will become. It is no other beings job to tell a man how he must live, that is a decision he must decide on his own. He must define his meaning and come to terms with who he has planned himself to become. By believing this first principle of existentialism the full responsibility for every action becomes apparent. There is no higher being to blame your woes on, just the decisions you have made to get you to where you are.
For some this is too much of a thought to handle. The complete responsibility for any action you take rest squarely on your shoulders, and that can be scary. While this philosophy might be daunting, it is the one that offers the most freedom. It creates a reality where you have complete free will to do whatever you want. The only thing that is holding you back is your ethics and social norms.
To me the journey to believing that existence preceded essence was difficult. I come from a somewhat religious background, so to have me flip and go to quite an atheistic viewpoint was difficult. But what swayed me to the view point of Sartre was the freedom that is given to me. I would find it very difficult to live in a world where I am not fully responsible for my own actions. Logically I would struggle to deal with the tragedies that go on everyday, if people could just blame their decision on a predestined plan set forth by another. So I will continue forward in my search for meaning with the believe that my existence precedes who I have made myself to be. Allowing me to know that the decisions I make are fully my own.
I respectfully disagree with your argument. I don’t think you have to be any less “free” by believing in a supernatural “essence” as you call it. In fact, one of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity is that humans have free will. The supernatural being at the source of their existence grants them the ability to make choices. While there may be a greater being that dictates which choices are the “right” ones, the choice of action is ultimately up to the individual, not swayed by any other factor than the understanding and worldview of the individual. And I think religion does a much better job of forcing a person to consider the consequences of their actions. Religion isn’t supposed to provide a source of blame for all the things that go “wrong” in your life. There are consequences to the actions of an individual that are attributable to those actions. Indeed, the actions of an individual in Christianity are held to a much higher standard than is reachable, and in the end, there is no one to blame for the individual’s own shortcomings than themselves. I am a Catholic personally, and one of the stereotypes of Catholics is that they are characterized by a high level of guilt. So religion absolutely does not, in my opinion, take away responsibility or disassociate actions from an individual. Otherwise us Catholics would have nothing to feel guilty about!! To finally address the point of freedom in terms of existentialism, with that existentialism comes an acceptance of the “truths” of the world around you as absolute. The biochemical processes going on in your head dictate your every action in this world, and you really have no “choice” as you might understand it. In that case you would be entirely beholden to the complex conditions in the world around you which induce chemical responses in your head. In terms of science, if everything makes sense and works out right and our scientific understanding of the world being a series of repeatable circumstances is complete, then in any given situation there is only one outcome when exposed to the same conditions, thus dictating your “choices” and making them illusory. Sorry for the book, but I hope I have offered some interesting commentary, or at least another way to look at things.
Thanks for the comments, I would love to suggest you take a look at “Existentialism is a Humanism,By Jean-Paul Sartre 1946”. On your point about the biochemical process, this is a philosophy called determinism and to me it is truthfully one of the most egregious of ideas. I would love to go deeper into conversation about these topics in person, because I think we would both become tired of typing if forced to write down our responses.
The problem with the idea of a ‘created ‘ being, as in Christianity and almost every other recorded Religion extant, mirrors the most basic and ancient division in this strange universe we inhabit. Chaos and Order, Structure and Entropy. God must unavoidably fill his vessel with himself (or the other way around). His thought paths, his moral systems (his good and evil, his choices, his delusions.) The only freedom the vessel has is confined to the order (or orders) of this system. A man cannot have true free will until he has emptied himself of God. As genius is forged in the crucible of suffering, true morality can only evolve from emptiness, a “big bang” of the soul.
Simply essence would it be irrelevant without existence.
Humanity has long used the crutch of religion to “explain” …
Are we not currently witnessing a transition from religion to science? In contrast not unlike religion… just believe we hold the answer(s).
Combined with a shift from patriarchy to matriarchy globally…
In reality the discussion has not evolved past good vs evil… existence (self) being good and essence (ego) inner self.
Existence… gives time purpose.
The common comment that “science is replacing religion” I think is rather silly. Science cannot replace religion because they are not substitutes. It is like saying that automobiles are replacing bagels or we are experiencing a transition from dogs to chairs. Rather, religion, or “God’s faith” is being replaced by personal, experiential, “subjective” metaphysical assumptions. These are not scientific. Even if it is scientific to say “I have a feeling of disgust towards ___”, it is still a subjective metaphysical assumption to say “AND THEREFORE I must avoid ___.” And “subjective” does not even equal non-conforming: the lifestyle of Puritans in England or Holland and Orthodox in Eastern Europe four hundred years ago was much more different than two modern atheistic hedonists today. Existentialists must logically be determinists. The very maxim “existence precedes essence” IS a deterministic one, as existence, which is worldly experience, is determined by the world, by forces outside the will; the values are conformed to the experience, the existence, in exactly the same manner that the OP is criticizing religion, how Christians and other religious people conform to God’s values. The only difference that can be asserted is that the atheists can have a fluidity in values; but this is a false difference; by definition I assert that values must be at least somewhat fixed to be values at all, otherwise they are merely twisted observations about events: which they are for most atheists, which is the very reason why you see only about three different value sets among self-professed atheists, because in reality they do not have values and instead conform to either the past of least resistance or predictable emotions; thus determinism.