Jean-Paul Sartre, Existence and Essence

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Jean-Paul Sartre, the French Existentialist philosopher, once wrote:

Our existence precedes our essence

Is there any applicable truth to this statement? What are your thoughts on it?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Just as a way of expressing some thoughts on this topic, when taken non-redemptive-historically, man's existence is more important and in fact precedes his essence.

To explain, consider the metaphysical existence of a person, over and above their physical existence. You could remove the gray matter from my skull and I would still remain, metaphysically, as Gabriel Martini. You would have done nothing to me, to the real me, the metaphysical - the spiritual - Gabriel Martini. Only my physical nature would have been disrupted. If we are nothing more than the sum of our parts, physically speaking, then our essence is all we are and existence is limited to the material world.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Also, consider that through cell destruction and replication, our bodies are constantly being renewed into a different form, physically. Were I to say that Gabriel Martini is writing this post, I would be in error, (physically speaking, as pure essence materially) because I am no longer the Gabriel Martini of the first part of this sentence, physically. In fact, you can never say - physically - that you are "such and such" because it is never a constant.

 

[crhoades]

Off the cuff I would say it is not a matter of preceding but of simulataneousness. God created Adam. His existence is tied to his essence. Was there a time when Adam existed without an essence? Did he have an essence but not exist?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by crhoades
Off the cuff I would say it is not a matter of preceding but of simulataneousness. God created Adam. His existence is tied to his essence. Was there a time when Adam existed without an essence? Did he have an essence but not exist?

If we are all conceived of by God outside of time, then "yes" there was a "time" when I was merely existence and without bodily form. Maybe as a concept or "future" creation. But, I don't quite understand God's relationship to our conception of "time" (which, as a side note, I reject), so I can't go too far into detail

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
so I can't go too far into detail

I'm at work so I'll not go into detail either... Besides, I'm not sure where to copy and paste an answer from to buy some time.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
so I can't go too far into detail

I'm at work so I'll not go into detail either... Besides, I'm not sure where to copy and paste an answer from to buy some time.

Is the physical you at work? If so, you just lied to me!

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
so I can't go too far into detail

I'm at work so I'll not go into detail either... Besides, I'm not sure where to copy and paste an answer from to buy some time.

Is the physical you at work? If so, you just lied to me!

I am at work. Didn't know that I was schizophrenic - The spiritual me said to the physical me, "please pick up a book so you can feed me some spiritual goodness.

There you go reading all of those philosophers and not your Bible...that edumacation is corrupting your head. (meant by that-your immaterial mind)

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Which "I" is at work? The "I" that wrote that sentence has long since passed on. That "I" does not exist. By the way, you're not really conveying anything to me, ontologically, about "I" since you're corrupting that sense-perception by a medium (language).

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Which "I" is at work? The "I" that wrote that sentence has long since passed on. That "I" does not exist. By the way, you're not really conveying anything to me, ontologically, about "I" since you're corrupting that sense-perception by a medium (language).

Problem of Identity over time
Not sure if the above article has anything postive to add. Didn't read it but at least it sets up the issue and lists some contributions over time in order to resolve it. Regretfully I never had the opportunity to study philosophy in college and have had to learn as I go. You're definitely bringing up some good issues.

As far as validity of language goes, God is a creational-relational being who created us to have communion with Him and each other and provided sense organs as well as language to be able to convey thoughts and feelings one to another. I think Van Til mentioned something about all of this. If I get a moment after a meeting at 3:00 I'll do a quick search of his stuff.

Oh yeah...how pomo of you.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
By the way, you're not really conveying anything to me, ontologically, about "I" since you're corrupting that sense-perception by a medium (language).

Since when did epistemology obliterate ontology?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
By the way, you're not really conveying anything to me, ontologically, about "I" since you're corrupting that sense-perception by a medium (language).

Since when did epistemology obliterate ontology?

Well, that's just your opinion. :bigsmile:

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
By the way, you're not really conveying anything to me, ontologically, about "I" since you're corrupting that sense-perception by a medium (language).

Since when did epistemology obliterate ontology?

Well, that's just your 0fainasdfion. :bigsmile:

What? Couldn't make out what you just said. looks like it got all garbled in the transmission... Or was it the reception?...

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
By the way, you're not really conveying anything to me, ontologically, about "I" since you're corrupting that sense-perception by a medium (language).

Since when did epistemology obliterate ontology?

Well, that's just your 0fainasdfion. :bigsmile:

What? Couldn't make out what you just said. looks like it got all garbled in the transmission... Or was it the reception?...

Who are you?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Okay but seriously, no more existential dilemmas for me and Chris..

 

[crhoades]

These may be of interest to you:
Knudsen on existentialism

As always, type in 'existentialism' on cmfnow.com's search engine.

I'll also email you a couple papers...by Knudsen

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by crhoades
These may be of interest to you:
Knudsen on existentialism

As always, type in 'existentialism' on cmfnow.com's search engine.

I'll also email you a couple papers...by Knudsen

Hmm, this should be interesting. I'm admittedly quite a "fan" of existential literature and philosophy, so I'm not sure how I'll react. I don't accept Existentialism "as it is" or as a stand-alone; rather, when carefully considered in the subjective sense of the Christian lifestyle, it produces quite a rich spiritual experience and existence. But, to reject the importance of the objective in the Christian life is absurd and detrimental to the faith. The communion of the saints is of utmost importance to Christianity, but I do sympathize with Kierkegaard's problems with the European state-religion of his time. However, rejecting the objective nature of the Church is not an option, nor should it be considered by anyone who believes Scripture.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by crhoades
These may be of interest to you:
Knudsen on existentialism

As always, type in 'existentialism' on cmfnow.com's search engine.

I'll also email you a couple papers...by Knudsen

Hmm, this should be interesting. I'm admittedly quite a "fan" of existential literature and philosophy, so I'm not sure how I'll react. I don't accept Existentialism "as it is" or as a stand-alone; rather, when carefully considered in the subjective sense of the Christian lifestyle, it produces quite a rich spiritual experience and existence. But, to reject the importance of the objective in the Christian life is absurd and detrimental to the faith. The communion of the saints is of utmost importance to Christianity, but I do sympathize with Kierkegaard's problems with the European state-religion of his time. However, rejecting the objective nature of the Church is not an option, nor should it be considered by anyone who believes Scripture.

As far as ethics goes...Have you read much of Frame's tri-perspectival take? Normative, Situational, and Existential perspectives? Definitely allows the subjective to play a proper role.

I thought I had an article or two by Knudsen from the WTJ about existentialism but I just checked and don't. I do have them in syllabus format. Whenever I can get around to scanning them in, I'll send it to you. I'm not sure when that will be - I'm still unpacking from a move and my computer is on the blink.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Ecclesiastes presents a lot of Existential queries and dilemmas!

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Ecclesiastes presents a lot of Existential queries and dilemmas!

One of my favorite books of the bible and an often neglected one. I think it would resonate in a lot of non-Christian ears today. One of these days I'd love to use it as a context for apologetics.

 

[B.J.]

I thought I would mention (not that you guys didnt know this already) Sartre said that because God does not exist existence must preceed, because there is no God to give mankind an essence. Hence, we are doomed to Freedom and must choose Authentically what we should do to create our essence.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by B.J.
I thought I would mention (not that you guys didnt know this already) Sartre said that because God does not exist existence must preceed, because there is no God to give mankind an essence. Hence, we are doomed to Freedom and must choose Authentically what we should do to create our essence.

Well, I don't exactly agree with your interpretation of that.

The main point is, you don't start with "essence" (i.e., I am a sinner), you start with "existence" (i.e., I am). But, this is speaking redemptive-historically, which I don't think you absolutely HAVE TO in this context, although many do.

 

[Puritanhead]

Sartre liked Joseph Stalin. Commie!

 

[B.J.]

Well, I don't exactly agree with your interpretation of that.

What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world "“ and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing "“ as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. qoute from : Existentialism Is a Humanism


I think this quote is pretty self-explanatory. Sartre should have begun with the assertion that God doesnt exist--->therefore, existence preceeds essence, because there is no God to give man one. I would agree with Sartre if i were an atheist. However, as a Christian I would maintain that God Is Being, and I am a Human Becoming. I believe I have a pre-essence that preceeds being concived in sin, or existing (time-space) with the essence of sin. However it might be explained, my explanation for pre-essence might be comparable to saying that I was pre-dead in sin before I was born. So my view for now is catogorized as essence--->existence, new essence---->new existence. So I guess I disagree with you.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Jean-Paul Sartre, the French Existentialist philosopher, once wrote:

Our existence precedes our essence

Is there any applicable truth to this statement? What are your thoughts on it?

I think our Essence precedes our existence.

I am the Anti-Sartre.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by B.J.

Well, I don't exactly agree with your interpretation of that.

What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world "“ and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing "“ as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. qoute from : Existentialism Is a Humanism


I think this quote is pretty self-explanatory. Sartre should have begun with the assertion that God doesnt exist--->therefore, existence preceeds essence, because there is no God to give man one. I would agree with Sartre if i were an atheist. However, as a Christian I would maintain that God Is Being, and I am a Human Becoming. I believe I have a pre-essence that preceeds being concived in sin, or existing (time-space) with the essence of sin. However it might be explained, my explanation for pre-essence might be comparable to saying that I was pre-dead in sin before I was born. So my view for now is catogorized as essence--->existence, new essence---->new existence. So I guess I disagree with you.

Well Kierkegaard said that you can't say "God exists," but he doesn't mean it the way you are taking it, as far as I know. A quick read of Fear and Trembling would show that he most certainly believes IN God, but he does not believe in nihilistically destroying who God is by attempting to define Him and His essence/existence through medium. I could be wrong. I just believe that the Christian Existentialists, like Kierkegaard, believe -- along with the early Church fathers -- that it is more prudent to say what God is NOT, rather than what God IS.

[Edited on 8-11-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[B.J.]

Well Kierkegaard said that you can't say "God exists," but he doesn't mean it the way you are taking it, as far as I know. A quick read of Fear and Trembling would show that he most certainly believes IN God, but he does not believe in nihilistically destroying who God is by attempting to define Him and His essence/existence through medium. I could be wrong. I just believe that the Christian Existentialists, like Kierkegaard, believe -- along with the early Church fathers -- that it is more prudent to say what God is NOT, rather than what God IS.

I think we should shift gears when we jump back to Kierkegaard. Existentialism changed (they would say I was wrong because if it changed it was at one point defined, which they would have me shot dead for saying) a little when the atheist hi-jacked it in the 20th century. I personally believe that through all his writings, Kierkegaard was a believer. I just want to lay that out there.

As for what Kierkegaard said or believed......to use his lingo.....God does not exist. We exist, God is eternal. I also dont think there is a such thing as a "quick read of Fear and Trembling.":bigsmile:

As far as Brunner, Barth, and Tillich are concerned the only one I have had to read is Tillich. He was O.K. He also denied most Orthodox doctrines and believed Christ to be a man with good morals. The only book I read of his was The Dynamics of Faith in which he lays out his teaching of Ultimate Concern. Anyway, my understanding, or rather misunderstanding of the Existentialist, be it atheist or Christian, is to be blamed on my Professors:bigsmile: