Definition
Existentialism is basically the idea that "your existence defines your essence". That is to say that your actions determine who you are; you are to define the significance of your own life for yourself. There is no purpose to the universe, because the universe is a series of forces that care nothing for you. It is a cold, dark, non-sentient place. There is no objective moral standard. I would like to argue that this is a completely paralyzing philosophy. But first, I want to define "truth" for a second.
Truth
I will be assuming correspondence theory of truth. That is to say that "truth" is "that which corresponds to reality"; truth is that which can accurately describe reality. To me, this seems to be the common sense definition of truth.
Point of Agreement
The one point of agreement I have with existentialism is the active engagement with reality it encourages. That's the one thing I think existentialist philosophers get right; you must be an active participant in reality. You can't just sit back, smoke weed, and be a hippie. You actually should do stuff. From there, it's all downhill.
Critique
Alrighty, here we go. Suppose existentialism is true; there is no transcendent purpose to your life. In the words of Stephen Jay Gould:
“We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a ‘higher answer’– but none exists”
The two questions we must ask of any worldview are these:
1.) Is it internally consistent? That is, are the propositions the worldview affirms coherent with each other? I will argue that this is so for existentialism-and I want to draw out the logical implications.
2.) Does it accord with what we know of reality?
1.) Is it internally consistent? That is, are the propositions the worldview affirms coherent with each other? I will argue that this is so for existentialism-and I want to draw out the logical implications.
2.) Does it accord with what we know of reality?
Internal Consistency and Implications of Existentialism
There seems to me nothing (immediately at least) contradictory about the propositions:
1.) There is no transcendent purpose, and no objective standard of morality-you are here due to the blind workings of reality
2.) You must define your own existence
These two proposition seem compatible. I know this is a simplification of existentialist philosophy, but I'm writing a basic critique here. Now, let's suppose these propositions are true. That is, they accurately describe reality. Here's what follows:
1.) There is no transcendent purpose, and no objective standard of morality-you are here due to the blind workings of reality
2.) You must define your own existence
These two proposition seem compatible. I know this is a simplification of existentialist philosophy, but I'm writing a basic critique here. Now, let's suppose these propositions are true. That is, they accurately describe reality. Here's what follows:
I could give no reasonable meaning to any single action or to my whole life. I was only surprised that I could have avoided understanding this from the very beginning -- it has been so long known to all. Today or tomorrow sickness and death will come (they had come already) to those I love or to me; nothing will remain but stench and worms. Sooner or later my affairs, whatever they may be, will be forgotten, and I shall not exist. Then why go on making any effort?... How can man fail to see this? And how go on living? That is what is surprising! One can only live while one is intoxicated with life; as soon as one is sober it is impossible not to see that it is all a mere fraud and a stupid fraud! That is precisely what it is: there is nothing either amusing or witty about it, it is simply cruel and stupid.”
-Leo Tolstoy
What??? Tolstoy you craycray. No, he's pretty on point. Tolstoy was an existentialist, and this was his realization. So what were his reasons for holding this view? Why does it matter that death will come? Well, suppose this life is all that there is. There's no reason for your existence-no purpose "from above". You define your own existence, and after death you simply cease to exist.
Let's consider two actions X and Z. Why do humans choose one action over another? Well, because one action is more conducive to some end or the other. Some action (so we think) achieves a certain end, and another action achieves a different end ultimately. However, if existentialism is true, there is ultimately only one end that's achievable: ultimate annihilation. Let me borrow an analogy from Tim Keller that may help illustrate this.
Suppose you're on the Titanic. It's sinking-you're not going to escape. You're all like, "oh no, I'm gonna die in 5 minutes! I'm gonna end up like Jack!" Well, the guy next to you whips out a pistol and says "gimme your wallet". What are you going to say? "Oh no! What a tragedy!" Of course not! You're going to say, "psh, fine. In fact, take my shirt." If the ship's going down and you're gonna die in 5 minutes, and there's nothing that comes after, what different does it make whether you go down hugging or mugging? It doesn't make one whit of a difference. That person's memories will be completely wiped out. Your memories will be completely wiped out. But don't you see? That's us! Relative to the oceans of dead time that precede us and come after us, we're all about to die in a proverbial "5 minutes". Whether you spend your time terrorizing little Timmy or loving him, it doesn't matter. Little Timmy's gonna die, and his consciousness will be completely wiped out-as will all of humanity. Ultimately, none of your actions make any difference. So then, why choose one action over the other if all actions have the same end? The idea that different actions produce different ends, if existentialism is true, is in fact an illusion. And THAT'S why Tolstoy despaired of everything at the end of his life.
Suppose you say, "nah Sean you're wrong. You ought to hug the guy going down cuz people matter cuz #beahuggernotamugger cuz people have intrinsic value.
Lemme play the existentialist for a second. *Puts on existentialist face* Who says people have intrinsic value? Your grandma? The whole concept of "value" is a man-made imposition on reality. It has no more weight than my thought that "vanilla ice cream has more value than any other ice cream". Why? Because there's no objective standard. There's no objective fact of the matter that people matter. You can pretend people matter all you want; but objectively, people are just hunks of meat, or even moreso, compositions of atoms, just like rocks or tables. If it makes you feel happy to pretend that people somehow matter, then pretend away. But don't pretend to say that people actually do matter; that idea is a subjective preference, not an objective truth about reality.
*Takes off existentialist face*
Lemme play the existentialist for a second. *Puts on existentialist face* Who says people have intrinsic value? Your grandma? The whole concept of "value" is a man-made imposition on reality. It has no more weight than my thought that "vanilla ice cream has more value than any other ice cream". Why? Because there's no objective standard. There's no objective fact of the matter that people matter. You can pretend people matter all you want; but objectively, people are just hunks of meat, or even moreso, compositions of atoms, just like rocks or tables. If it makes you feel happy to pretend that people somehow matter, then pretend away. But don't pretend to say that people actually do matter; that idea is a subjective preference, not an objective truth about reality.
*Takes off existentialist face*
So here are the logical implications of existentialism. Your life is ultimately meaningless. Any action you do-and end you pretend to be able to achieve-is ultimately summed up by one final outcome: utter annihilation. People won't remember who you are. Why? Because they won't remember anything at all-their memories will be wiped out.
Well here's the last escape route for the existentialist: "yeah, there's no transcendent purpose. But you ought to do what makes you happy-your personal happiness ought to define who you are." I don't totally disagree with this...but suppose that which makes you most happy is person-relative. For me to sufficiently critique this idea from the existentialist lens, it will be helpful for me to contrast this with the Christian view point:
The reason we delight in relationships, music, etc is because these things are communications of the Ultimate objective reality: God Himself. God's beauty is manifest in the laugh of a friend, the warm embrace of a lover, the support of all those who matter to you, music, the sunset, and all other good gifts I don't have the space to name. Hence, everything is declaring the glory of God. God Himself is the fountain of all joy and all happiness. Thus, the reason you ought to do anything at all, we can say, IS because that thing or outcome gives you the most joy. However, if Christianity is true, then the Ultimate Reality that can satisfy anyone's soul is God Himself. So if someone is concerned about happiness, they ought to pursue a relationship with God, since it is objectively true that communion with God (perhaps in prayer, or in enjoying God's beauty revealed through the creativity of jazz, or the laugh of a baby, or the Cross of Jesus Christ) is the highest source of joy.
My goal isn't to argue that that paragraph is true (at least not in this post...though I intend to ;) ). My goal is to provide a contrast. If existentialism is true, however, then there is no objective reality that can universally satisfy everyone. Everyone's existence is self-defined; thus, everyone will have different definitions of who they are. So then the problem for the existentialist is this: what if different things make different people happy? Note, I am not saying that people can obtain enjoyment of the same thing in different ways-as a Christian, this is actually what I believe. I think God can be enjoyed in a variety of ways (through art, through music, or film-"let all that you do be done to the glory of God"), because His perfections are limitless and manifest in the good gifts of creation. I believe that the things we enjoy-whether we are conscious of it or not-are different mediums of enjoying the One behind all good things. But I'm not trying to argue for that yet-right now I am asking if it's true that what gives someone ultimate happiness and meaning actually is relative? Is it true that there is no purpose given to us, but one we create for ourselves? Do we define our own joy?
Let's run with existentialism for a second. For you, maybe art gives you a sense of purpose. Great! If you're an existentialist, and you live for art, then art isn't a means to an end (i.e a medium to the enjoyment of God), but an end in itself. Okay, but let's say someone else orients their life around...murder. Take Axe Murder Chuck. Chuck chucks people off rooftops because he enjoys murderous puns with his name...and he's just a menace to society. Why should you condemn him?
"He's harming people!"
Let's run with existentialism for a second. For you, maybe art gives you a sense of purpose. Great! If you're an existentialist, and you live for art, then art isn't a means to an end (i.e a medium to the enjoyment of God), but an end in itself. Okay, but let's say someone else orients their life around...murder. Take Axe Murder Chuck. Chuck chucks people off rooftops because he enjoys murderous puns with his name...and he's just a menace to society. Why should you condemn him?
"He's harming people!"
So what? People don't have intrinsic worth, remember? "Value" is a subjective illusion. You might like to think that people matter or people are worth something-but that's your opinion...your preference. People are, objectively, worthless. They neither matter nor deserve to die; they are worth nothing. They're insignificant. Nothing makes your judgment of people's worth more valid than Chuck's judgment of people's worthlessness, because without an objective standard of worth both reduce to preferences.
Let's think about ice-cream for a second. Suppose my brother George likes chocolate ice-cream. It's brown, he's brown. It fits. Plus, George just likes the flavor a ton. I don't think anyone in their right mind would ever say that George is wrong to like chocolate ice cream. You may have a different preference, and George's preference wouldn't align with yours. But he isn't wrong to like chocolate ice-cream. If you called his choice "dumb" or if you said he was "wrong", you would either be joking, or you wouldn't be using wrong in the normal sense of the word. You'd be using it to describe the fact that George's preference is different than yours. Why is it that George isn't wrong when you have a different preference? Because there is no objectively "best" ice-cream flavor. Ice-cream preferences are totally subjective, and totally relative because there is no objective standard.
So let me ask you again. You do art because art is what gives you the most joy. Great. Chuck kills people because that's what gives him the most joy. Why should you oppose him? You'd be a hypocrite to oppose him because he's operating under the same principle as you are: I'm going to do what personally gives me the most joy. What makes your outlet more valid, or more praiseworthy than his? If all actions have the same end (ultimate annihilation), then nothing does. Chuck ought to kill people because that's what gives him the most happy feels, just like you ought to do art for the same reason. And who cares about the people he's killing? You might not like the fact that he's killing people...so what? There is no reason he ought to because people don't have intrinsic worth. Once again, "value" is as relative and trivial as "ice cream preferences" for the reasons mentioned above-there's no objective purpose, objective standard of value, etc. Every action has the same end. It makes not one whit of a difference whether you go down hugging or mugging.
Is this true?
To answer this question, I have to address a basic type of belief we hold: Properly Basic Beliefs (PBB). PBBs are beliefs we hold not because of any external reason to the belief. They are our starting beliefs-the ones that are self-evident. We justify them on the basis of experience. For example, my belief that "I exist" is self-evident to me. "I think therefore I am". That is one of my starting beliefs-I am rational to hold that belief solely on the basis of experience. My experience of the external world likewise is one such belief. It's possible that I'm hooked up somewhere being stimulated by electrical signals. But I'm rational to reject that possibility and hold to the truth of this reality due to my experience, and due to the fact that there's no defeater for my experience. I think morality is one such belief. The Declaration says "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...". There's no outside fact that justifies it; on the basis of experience it seems clear to me that people really do matter. Some people's moral worldviews really do suck, and some people's moral worldviews are better than others'. Perhaps you existentialists out there are inclined to disagree with me. Ok. Let me ask you this: if Chuck likes murdering children, should he do it? Remember are whole discussion above...if you're consistent, you have to say "yup. If Chuck wants to rape someone, he should do it if that's what gives him the most happiness."
Yet I think that answer is atrociously false, and patent nonsensical rotten bull puke. Why do I think that? It is self evident that it is better to hug than mug...better to give than to receive, better to love the fellow man than exploit. These things are simply part of the reality we inhabit-we know that these things are true. The fact that people matter, that what we do matters, and that there is a right way to live and a morally wrong way to live are self-evident truths...i.e they're Properly Basic. We can formulate a modus tolens argument (If P, then Q. Not P, therefore not Q, or Not Q, therefore not P) to falsify existentialism.
If existentialism is true (P):
no one has any significance (Q1)
Morality is a matter of preference (Q2)
What you do makes no difference (Q3)
BUT!
People do matter (not Q1)
Morality is not a matter of preference-there really is a "right" and a "wrong" way to treat your fellow man (not Q2)
What you do matters (not Q3)
Therefore, existentialism is false (not-P).
And I'm glad it is. Good riddance.
Yet I think that answer is atrociously false, and patent nonsensical rotten bull puke. Why do I think that? It is self evident that it is better to hug than mug...better to give than to receive, better to love the fellow man than exploit. These things are simply part of the reality we inhabit-we know that these things are true. The fact that people matter, that what we do matters, and that there is a right way to live and a morally wrong way to live are self-evident truths...i.e they're Properly Basic. We can formulate a modus tolens argument (If P, then Q. Not P, therefore not Q, or Not Q, therefore not P) to falsify existentialism.
If existentialism is true (P):
no one has any significance (Q1)
Morality is a matter of preference (Q2)
What you do makes no difference (Q3)
BUT!
People do matter (not Q1)
Morality is not a matter of preference-there really is a "right" and a "wrong" way to treat your fellow man (not Q2)
What you do matters (not Q3)
Therefore, existentialism is false (not-P).
And I'm glad it is. Good riddance.
No comments:
Post a Comment