existence before essence?

[plabius]

evening all. its been quite a while since ive posted here.



Sartre seems to draw the conclusion that if god does not exist, there is nothing which can create an absolute human 'nature' or 'essence'. he says that 'man first exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world, then defines himself afterwards'(-'existentialism is a humanism'). I was just interested in what people think of this view vs. the seemingly opposite view posed by more naturalistic theories.
Scientifically, it appears as if man is pre-defined (DNA, instinct etc.). however, i guess Sartre's argument is that we must first exist then afterwards decide to define ourselves according to science...

[DarwinianJihadi]

he says that 'man first exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world, then defines himself afterwards'(-'existentialism is a humanism'). I was just interested in what people think of this view vs. the seemingly opposite view posed by more naturalistic theories.
Scientifically, it appears as if man is pre-defined (DNA, instinct etc.). however, i guess Sartre's argument is that we must first exist then afterwards decide to define ourselves according to science... I don't know if this was specifically Sartre or some other existentialist, but I recall reading about a concept called "facticity." I can't seem to find my notes, so I'll have to do an impromptu summary. Basically, IIRC, facticity applies to the given conditions that you find in your life. For example, if you're short, then it's a fact of your existence. I know that I'm mangling philosophy here, but in the context of your issue with DNA and pre-definitions (though I myself would prefer the term predisposition) he, or some other existentialist, does seem to acknowledge factors that are beyond the immediate ability of people to actively determine or affect through their own lived experience.

On second thought, I might have gotten that facticity bit from Nietzsche. *sigh* I guess we'll know better when more people post and correct me.

[plabius]

I don't know if this was specifically Sartre or some other existentialist, but I recall reading about a concept called "facticity." I can't seem to find my notes, so I'll have to do an impromptu summary. Basically, IIRC, facticity applies to the given conditions that you find in your life. For example, if you're short, then it's a fact of your existence. I know that I'm mangling philosophy here, but in the context of your issue with DNA and pre-definitions (though I myself would prefer the term predisposition) he, or some other existentialist, does seem to acknowledge factors that are beyond the immediate ability of people to actively determine or affect through their own lived experience.

On second thought, I might have gotten that facticity bit from Nietzsche. *sigh* I guess we'll know better when more people post and correct me.
appreciate the post...
come to think of it, i do remember Sartre making some breif reference to these circumstances 'beyond our control'. He has a confusing style, and often oscilates between acknowledging these factors then returning to talk of 'utter freedom'. i guess, though, that he sees this freedom as something disconnected from circumstance, as stemming from our ultimate and insurpassable sense of 'choice'

Existentialism is still, though, a metaphysical philosophy. It assumes somewhere down the line that there is something fundamentally different between the 'body' and the 'mind'. the mind is a free thing, that cannot but choose (for to not choose is still a choice)My problem is that its so unrelentingly logical, and at the same time so at odds with what i have come to understand scientifically!

Within a scientific perspective, it is choice and 'free will' which are illusions. They are part of what appears to be, part of the illusion of the human 'being'; and it is matter, energy, antimatter, superstrings...whatever...which constitute reality
in existentialism, a human is some crazy phenomenon, some free spirit who is not determined by what science says is the reality, but who can choose, and cannot but choose, what constitutes his/her reality.

Existentialism seems the more appealing option (over the implied insignificance of humanity within the scientific view), which is probably one of the reasons im so skeptical of it.

[zorathruster]

I was just interested in what people think of this view vs. the seemingly opposite view posed by more naturalistic theories.
Scientifically, it appears as if man is pre-defined (DNA, instinct etc.).
This is a total misreading of naturalism. Just because something is "Natural" doesn't mean it is all "pre-defined". The human mind develops. For example, your mind did not originally have a "pre-defined" desire for chocolate. The process of introducing a commodity or idea, then evaluation of that commodity or idea, finally desire for that commodity or idea is the result of a process called Feedback. This process much like evolution allows the individual to desire for personal reasons a particular choice. It is not pre-defined.

Naturalism says, there are no supernatural events causing particular events to occur. When you desire chocolate, it is your personal choice, not a supernatural being floating in the clouds effecting your desires and changing your aversion to chocolate into a warranted or unwarranted desire for it. When you head out to buy chocolate, there is a certain probability that you will get hit by another car. That probability is effected by whether you are drunk or paying attention to driving. The probability you will be hurt is effected by whether you wear your safety belt. Naturalism says the probability of this happening is not effected by a supernatural piddler that changes the light at the wrong instant and causes you to be in a wreck or be hurt.

Naturalism infers the sun will rise tomorrow, not because some supernatural being drives the sun chariot across the sky but because gravity planetary motion and such follow established laws, consistent laws that work the same a very very high percentage of the time. If the sun god doesn't get out of bed tomorrow and drive the chariot implies something inconsistent is responsible for the events in our lives.

[plabius]

sorry. i've gotten bored of this post. On top of this, i forgot what it was i originally wanted to know.
THanks Zorathustra (isn't it meant to be zArathustra?). i dont think i was referring to naturalism as a whole in my original post, only to those theories which oppose existentialism and which are not theistic, which i assumed would be mainly naturalistic. I can say no more. The gist of what i was asking though is summed up in the thread topic.

[Richbee]

I will open with a blast of Quote from the PAST!

"One of the French radical student groups that attracted Sartre's attention was the Proletarian Left, a self-proclaimed Maoist revolutionary cell. What appealed to Sartre was their revolutionary motto:

'Violence, Spontaneity, and Morality.'

The Maoist had also attracted the attention of another, younger radical intellectual, Michel Foucault."

"For at least two years after he contracted AIDS (from 1982 to 1984), Michel Foucault continued to visit his various gay orgy sites, knowingly passing the disease on to his anonymous partners.

'We are inventing new pleasures beyond sex,'

Foucault told an interviewer."

Arthur Herman, The Idea of Decline in Western History, p. 349 and p. 357.

[Richbee]

For background, IMO, you need to cover Freddie Nietzsche - the Godfather of Postmodernists.

YIKES!!!

This is an atheist only area - you may start a thread in one of the other areas

[steamer]

RB, I thought you were a theist?