A criticism of existentialism

[kroony]

The founding premise of Existentialism is the non-existence of God. I do not, as you may know, dispute this assertion. However, I do dispute the logic whereby Existentialism comes to its conclusions -- that we are capable of choosing our natures, and all of the things that we do are of our own making.

I don't have "Existentialism and Humanism" to hand so this quote is from memory. 'If there is no God, then there is at least one being whose existence occurred before its essence'. Now, if God does not exist, then definitely humans cannot have been intended to be anything specific, and Sartre develops this point into a rejection of the concept of 'human nature'. However, I think that this dismissal is premature.

If one rejects God, then one is forced to rely on the explanation of evolution. But evolution is perfectly capable of bestowing 'human natures'. The Existentialists agree that rats or lice or magpies do not face the 'dilemma' that humans face. Apparently they have 'natures' which compel them to act within certain limits. Nor do they need God to have 'natures' -- evolutionary pressures do the job. But why should humans be any different in this regard?
Humans evolved from ape-like creatures. These ape-like creatures had 'natures'. But at what point in their evolution did these apes lose their natures and become 'condemned to be free'? And how did it happen?

Another point of existentialism is that "consciousness is not affected by matter". If I take my existentialist friend out for a few drinks and ask him "how do you account for outside influences on consciousness in your search for authenticity"? He will say "Conshusnus... s'not (wassatword) affected by like, matter. And I think thut girl rrreally fancies me...' In other words, it is abundantly clear that our conscious thoughts ARE affected by matter. If you have ever drunk alcohol, or taken drugs, you will know. And therefore, isn't it probable that our mind is affected very frquently by chemicals, of which we are not always aware? And doesn't that impede our freedom?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:36 PM
If one rejects God, then one is forced to rely on the explanation of evolution. But evolution is perfectly capable of bestowing 'human natures'.
It's called instinct.


The Existentialists agree that rats or lice or magpies do not face the 'dilemma' that humans face. Apparently they have 'natures' which compel them to act within certain limits. Nor do they need God to have 'natures' -- evolutionary pressures do the job. But why should humans be any different in this regard?

Because we are consious of those instincts. We are aware that we exist.


Humans evolved from ape-like creatures. These ape-like creatures had 'natures'. But at what point in their evolution did these apes lose their natures and become 'condemned to be free'? And how did it happen?

There brains got bigger. As that happened the ability to interpret the world around them developed. This is where god came from. For primitive cultures the explination of the sun or of the moon was that it was something greater and more powerful. Imagine being the first civilisation on earth and looking up in the night and seeing the moon staring right back at you. It must have seemed so rediculously grand that the brain, understanding that it was there attempted to rationalise it.


And therefore, isn't it probable that our mind is affected very frquently by chemicals, of which we are not always aware? And doesn't that impede our freedom?

First of all, I think that science is so extensive that these chemicals would have been discovered already. Secondly, I am not sure what you mean by matter?

[Trissy]

But why should humans be any different in this regard?
Because we are free. If we present a dog with two bowls of different meat the dog will eat the one that tastes better (and then probably the other bowl too). Yet we are different. Our consciousness may be influenced by taste and maybe to a minor extent instinct, but my choice remains. I could still choose to eat the the meat I dislike the taste of first, despite my senses telling me one is tastier then the other. Sartre said that part of our freedom entails us being able to imagine what is not the case. If I have two bowls I can imagine eating either one regardless of what I end up doing, and being-in-itself (such as animals) cannot.


Humans evolved from ape-like creatures. These ape-like creatures had 'natures'. But at what point in their evolution did these apes lose their natures and become 'condemned to be free'? And how did it happen?
And why did it happen? What a Nietzschean set of questions Arie! :) The development of consciousness it could be argued was the next step in evolution. Our consciousness makes us more likely to survive and reproduce.


Another point of existentialism is that "consciousness is not affected by matter". If I take my existentialist friend out for a few drinks and ask him "how do you account for outside influences on consciousness in your search for authenticity"? He will say "Conshusnus... s'not (wassatword) affected by like, matter. And I think thut girl rrreally fancies me...' In other words, it is abundantly clear that our conscious thoughts ARE affected by matter. If you have ever drunk alcohol, or taken drugs, you will know. And therefore, isn't it probable that our mind is affected very frquently by chemicals, of which we are not always aware? And doesn't that impede our freedom?

Good points Arie. But before I answer them I must establish what consciousness is to Sartre and his phenomological ontology. You may have read my analysis of it on the Russell thread but I recap it anyway as it'll help me answer your points.>>>

Breaking the phenomenological ontology down we see Sartre's thinking go like this:
*Consciousness has intentionality. Consciousness is always of something. Right now I am conscious of the room I am in, and the people in this room. I am not conscious of the things I cannot sense.
*Consciousness can never be conscious of itself. We cannot be self-conscious directly. The term self-conscious relates to us becoming aware of somebody (who is therefore matter) being aware of us.
*So consciousness has intentionality but cannot be truly self-conscious. This is because consciousness is not part of the material world, and so consciousness is not made up of matter.
*Consciousness is not made up of matter then it is not determined in the same way matter is determined by the laws of nature.
*Consciousness is not determined by matter then it is free. This is not the same as saying that we aren't influenced by the world around us, it is saying that at the end of the day we have a choice. From here Existentialism as a field begins.


Your alcohol point is interesting but it does not remove our freedom and I'll tell you why. Alcohol (matter) effects the body (matter) and as such influences our consciousness in the way you describe. But it cannot determine my actions. If I am drunk I may punch someone or I may sit down and sleep...my body is being determined by the alcohol but not my consciousness. If you present a drunk person with an option they can still make a choice. True, they might not be able to carry it through because of the alcohols effect on the body (i.e. if they choose to walk in a straight line) but they have made the choice none the less. Drugs and alchohol and numerous other things influence our consciousness and Sartre doesn't deny that. What he does deny is that they determine our actions because consciousness is not made up of matter. Even the drunk man is free.

[BuyOurEverything]

The founding premise of Existentialism is the non-existence of God.

That's not neccessarily true, there are Christian existentialists. Kierkegaard comes to mind.

The rest of your post I agree with, however. Our minds are material things and our thought, choices, and actions are dictated by chemicals and electrical impulses.


I think that science is so extensive that these chemicals would have been discovered already.

They have been.

[Trissy]

Our minds are material things and our thought, choices, and actions are dictated by chemicals and electrical impulses
But our consciousness is not made of matter. You can cut open someone's skull and see a mind but you cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear consciousness. Hence it is not made of matter, and so is only influenced by matter not determined.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:24 PM
Our minds are material things and our thought, choices, and actions are dictated by chemicals and electrical impulses.



.
.
sorry i always thought we had feelings since i work with heavy handicaped people ,i can not agree with you their chemical are distort or are almost absent still the can laugh cry be depressed or be happy is it chemical? if you are depressed they can feel it to is it chemical? and if your are in love is there altijd a (chemical or physical) reason?...if then you choose not to be faschists,or to be, is is chemical???????

[BuyOurEverything]

But our consciousness is not made of matter. You can cut open someone's skull and see a mind but you cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear consciousness. Hence it is not made of matter, and so is only influenced by matter not determined.

That stems from the fact that no machine can ever understand itself, it's a limitation of the human brain.

It's generally agreed that computers are not consious. When I open a computer and look inside, I don't 'see' it 'computing.' That doesn't mean a computer's computing ability is not a material thing, it just means my eyes can't see it and my mind can't comprehend it.


sorry i always thought we had feelings since i work with heavy handicaped people ,i can not agree with you their chemical are distort or are almost absent still the can laugh cry be depressed or be happy is it chemical?

Having mental disabilities does not mean someone has no brain chemicals. The correct term for that is 'dead.' Problems with brain chemicals alters someone's pshyche, you should know this is you work with mentally disabled people.


if you are depressed they can feel it to is it chemical? and if your are in love is there altijd a (chemical or physical) reason?...if then you choose not to be faschists,or to be, is is chemical???????

Yes, obviously.

[Trissy]

It's generally agreed that computers are not consious. When I open a computer and look inside, I don't 'see' it 'computing.' That doesn't mean a computer's computing ability is not a material thing, it just means my eyes can't see it and my mind can't comprehend it
If you slowed down a recording to a relevant speed you could see the pulses of electricity, the computer working in binary code. In that sense you could see it 'computing'. If you monitored the electrical signals in the brain of a human I doubt you could tell that much difference between the signals in an animal brain. In that sense you cannot sense 'consciousness'.

I agree with you that it may be due to a limitation on our part but Sartre deals with Phenomenological Ontology, and that is where his Existentialism starts from. We cannot escape our phenomenal view of the world, and so we are free. We are condemned to be free, and even an appeal to chemicals and physical laws cannot deny our freedom.

[redstar2000]

If you monitored the electrical signals in the brain of a human I doubt you could tell that much difference between the signals in an animal brain. In that sense you cannot sense 'consciousness'.

This might be disputable.

I have no idea if there's even been any extensive research involving animal brain scans.

But in scans of multiple human brains, when test subjects are asked to think of certain things or perform certain tasks, different parts of the brain "light up" disproportionately and preferentially.


But our consciousness is not made of matter. You can cut open someone's skull and see a mind but you cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear consciousness. Hence it is not made of matter, and so is only influenced by matter not determined.

How could something not made of matter be "influenced" by matter? How would matter be able to interact with the non-material?

Consciousness is clearly a product of matter (a human brain) and that brain matter is obviously subject to external and internal material influence.

"Determination" would be more difficult to "prove"...but if there's influence, then it seems a short and logical step to determination.

I think this came up in the discussion of free will; if we were able to know all of the strong and the extremely numerous weak material causes that were influencing a human brain at a given moment, we could predict the choice s/he would make...and even the words that would be used to justify the choice.

The abstract "freedom of consciousness" that Sartre posits seems to me to be based on the impossibility of actually knowing all those material causes, strong and weak.

Knotty problem, though.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Trissy]

But in scans of multiple human brains, when test subjects are asked to think of certain things or perform certain tasks, different parts of the brain "light up" disproportionately and preferentially
Indeed this is what I was refering to when I mentioned observing electrical signals in the brain. What we observe are electrical signals and not consciousness itself. The key part of Sartre's work is the word phenomena in phenomenological ontology. He's examining how things appear to be, not how they are. Consciousness cannot percieve itself even if it has noumenal existence. The noumenal world is always our of our grasp.


How could something not made of matter be "influenced" by matter? How would matter be able to interact with the non-material?
Indeed it is a curious problem and I think one that will baffle the human race for the duration of our existence. Descartes cetainly did open up a fresh can of worms!


Consciousness is clearly a product of matter (a human brain) and that brain matter is obviously subject to external and internal material influence
Agreed. The issue at stake for Sartre is whether freedom remains (although influenced to some degree), or whether we are determined.


I think this came up in the discussion of free will; if we were able to know all of the strong and the extremely numerous weak material causes that were influencing a human brain at a given moment, we could predict the choice s/he would make...and even the words that would be used to justify the choice.

The abstract "freedom of consciousness" that Sartre posits seems to me to be based on the impossibility of actually knowing all those material causes, strong and weak.

Knotty problem, though
The freedom Sartre talks about is freedom as it appears to us. Our consciousness appears free to make choices. I don't think Sartre denies that we could be determined, and I agree with you that he thinks the chance of us being able to deny our existence with evidence is slim. For Sartre our freedom as phenomena is our only concern. If we are determined then it is noumenally and that should be left to followers of Kant to ponder over because it has very little affect on ordinary members of the public. Existentialism at the end of the day is a philosophy grounded in everyday life and the choices we have.

[Wenty]

The founding premise of Existentialism is the non-existence of God

As said before this isn't true, theres lot of directions you can go with Existentialism.

[kroony]

It seems to me that Tristan's points cannot be proven one way or the other, though I would nitpick one or two of his conclusions.

Anyway, Adam: I don't see how you can possibly say that man is "responsible" for what he is if he was made by God, with intentions in mind. Yes, I am aware that Kierkegaard is an existentialist Christian, but to me this doesn't prove anything other than people's willingness to reconcile opposed ideologies that they feel comfortable with. Man cannot be "free" if there is a divine purpose he must fulfill.

[Wenty]

I don't see how you can possibly say that man is "responsible" for what he is if he was made by God, with intentions in mind

Why not? God made me, doesn't mean I can't make myself whatever I want to be after that.


Man cannot be "free" if there is a divine purpose he must fulfill

What divine purpose. Maybe he cannot be truly free i dunno. I like to pick and choose from theories when it fits me I think. Should stop doing that i guess.

[kroony]

Well, consistency is important. Implicit in all Christian doctrines is that it is obligatory to worship God, and therefore, man does not have full "choice".

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well I guess for Kiekegaard the individual trimuphs over the crowd, 'the crowd is untruth' so it dosent really matter what doctrine says but how he himself as an individual makes choices plus it is man's choice to believe in God so even before that he has made the decision.

It is a free choice to believe in God so you are free before God exists for you not the other way around.

[The Worm is God]

i dont know if i could beleive in a theory that focuses on the absurdity of humanity. it seems as though they label action and change as futile.

[Trissy]

i dont know if i could beleive in a theory that focuses on the absurdity of humanity. it seems as though they label action and change as futile.
On what do you base that conclusion? My understanding of it is that the meaning of one's life is based in one's choices and actions. It doesn't render action and change as futile as such, rather it states that meaning is linked to the individual. In that sense I find it quite an optimisitc theory. By absurdity it just means lacking any clear objective reasoning.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I think the absurdity pretty much gives impetus for just getting on with it, also gives us a realisation of our potential to change based on our own choices thus leading to a profouned personal feeling.

[Wenty]

i agree entirely with the last two posts.

[Daymare17]

Existentialism reflects the senile decay of bourgeois individualism. It is closely related to consumerism and monetarism.

[kroony]

Ok. (removes Marxist blinders from Daymare's head). What do you think of it now?

[apathy maybe]

We are free to a certain extent (this is only because a. there exists a God, b. there exists randomness or c. both).

However, who are we to say that animals are no less free?
The example of the dog eating the bowl of food that is tastier, I too would eat the tastier food if given the choice (I may eat both as well). If given a choice most people will choice the most pleasant option. As you cannot communicate with the dog, how do you know what it thinks? And just 'cause you can't communicate with it, doesn't mean it is stupid.

Now I won't argue that dogs are as intelligent or more so then humans, but I will argue for dolphins. Dolphins live in the ocean; their day consists of eating, sleeping, playing and not much else. Our day, living on land, consists of eating, sleeping, working, occasionally playing, more work etc. All this work leads to stress, depression, and suicide. Which animal is more intelligent? The one that works? Or the one that doesn't?
Someone will say something about building and/or training if I left it at that so I will continue.
Yes, dolphins can be trained to do many things. But so can humans. But not by dolphins you cry. You're wrong. In (some place, I can't remember) dolphins and humans work together to catch fish. The dolphins started it and humans came along after.
And building, yes humans build (and adapt the environment to their needs). Along the way, humans destroy habitat of other animals and pollute things in their own cities.
Many humans live in poverty and hunger, whilst many have far more then what they need. If a dolphin goes hungry, generally they all are hungry.

Humans are not the only animal on the planet, nor the only animal with free will. While we cannot communicate with all animals with free will (people who know sign-language can communicate with chimps that know it), this does not mean that we are any more intelligent then them.

[Trissy]

Existentialism reflects the senile decay of bourgeois individualism. It is closely related to consumerism and monetarism.
Do you care to explain you opinion? That way I can blow your argument out of the water like I did with Hazard's when he stated a similar thing.


We are free to a certain extent (this is only because a. there exists a God, b. there exists randomness or c. both).
Existentialism doesn't need God. It begins from the standpoint of phenomena and there is no direct phenomenlogical experience of God. That is why we can have Christian Existentialists like Jaspers and Kierkegaard. The noumenal status of God is irrelevant.

From the standpoint of phenomenological ontology we are free. I'm sure I have explained this when dealing with people's queries earlier in this thread. I explained Sartre's views on the freedom of the consciousness quite well I think.


However, who are we to say that animals are no less free? The example of the dog eating the bowl of food that is tastier, I too would eat the tastier food if given the choice (I may eat both as well). If given a choice most people will choice the most pleasant option. As you cannot communicate with the dog, how do you know what it thinks? And just 'cause you can't communicate with it, doesn't mean it is stupid.
Animals are not free because they are not self-conscious. They are not aware of choices, and they act soley on instinct and experience. You may well choose the more pleasant of the two options but you have a choice. You are aware of the choice because you are conscious of your own existence. If you put a mirror in front of a dog it thinks what it sees is another dog. It is not self-conscious. We do not need to talk to it to know this. We can simply observe what the dog does. The being of animals and humans is different. We are being-for-itself and they are being-in-itself. A dog can only ever be a dog...it's essence procedes it's existence. A dog cannot be a 'brave' dog unless it is taught to be brave. A dog will not stay by its owners side unless taught. It cannot chose to be obedient or brave in the way that your or I can through our actions...


Now I won't argue that dogs are as intelligent or more so then humans, but I will argue for dolphins. Dolphins live in the ocean; their day consists of eating, sleeping, playing and not much else. Our day, living on land, consists of eating, sleeping, working, occasionally playing, more work etc. All this work leads to stress, depression, and suicide. Which animal is more intelligent? The one that works? Or the one that doesn't?
Someone will say something about building and/or training if I left it at that so I will continue.
Yes, dolphins can be trained to do many things. But so can humans. But not by dolphins you cry. You're wrong. In (some place, I can't remember) dolphins and humans work together to catch fish. The dolphins started it and humans came along after.
And building, yes humans build (and adapt the environment to their needs). Along the way, humans destroy habitat of other animals and pollute things in their own cities.
Many humans live in poverty and hunger, whilst many have far more then what they need. If a dolphin goes hungry, generally they all are hungry
I didn't really understand what this is arguing for or against. I hope my other points clearly address your main points. The vast majority of animals lack self-consciousness and have a different level of consciousness to us. Learning is not what is at stake here, it is about choice, consciousness and self-sconsciousness. This is not discrediting animals, it is merely saying that their existence is of a different type to our own.


Humans are not the only animal on the planet, nor the only animal with free will
Some animals may make very primitive choices I'd agree but I wouldn't go as far to say they have true freewill. Their consciousness has not developed to the level that the human conscious has. Even dolphins to an extent do not have consciousness at our level in that they can be determined by hormones and the such like, where as we are only influenced by hormones.

[apathy maybe]

How do you know that animals don't have "self-consciousness"? You can't communicate with them. You saying that they are influenced by hormones or instinct, sorry but you can't prove to me that they are or not. You are just being speciet.

While I agree that probably most animals don't have self-consciousness because I can't communicate with them I can't be sure.

When Europeans first came to southern Africa they showed the natives 2D pictures. These pictures showed 3D scenes however. The natives didn't know how to interpret the pictures 'cause they had never seen things like them before.
Perhaps it is the same with the dog. (If you bring a child up with out access to a mirror, and then you show them a mirror, they will rapidly learn out to use it. This does not detract from my argument 'cause it also applies to dolphins and chimps.)

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 04:18 PM
Do you care to explain you opinion? That way I can blow your argument out of the water like I did with Hazard's when he stated a similar thing.
Existentialism has its roots in the irrationalist trend of 19th century philosophy, typified by Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. It has assumed the most varied forms and political colouring. There was a religious trend (Marcel, Jaspers, Berdyayev and Buber) and an atheistic trend (Heidigger, Sartre, Camus). But its most common feature is extreme subjectivism, reflected in its preferred vocabulary: its watchwords—"being-in-the-world," "dread," "care," "being towards death," and the like.

It was already anticipated by Edmund Husserl, a German mathematician turned philosopher, whose "phenomenology" was a form of subjective idealism, based on the "individual, personal world, as directly experienced, with the ego at the centre."

For Karl Jaspers, the aim of philosophy was the "revelation of Being." Clearly religious and mystical.

Jean-Paul Sartre spoke of "Being and the threat of Nothingness," "Freedom of Choice," "Duty," and so on.

This expressed a certain mood among section of the intellectuals after the first world war in Germany, and then in France. What it indicates is the profound crisis of liberalism, as a result of "the Great War," and the upheavals which followed in its wake. They saw the problems facing society, but could see no alternative. A sense of impending doom, and a feeling of powerlessness and "Dread" fill these writings, accompanied by an attempt to seek an alternative on an individual basis.

Existentialism represents an irrational reaction against the rationalism of the Enlightenment and German classical philosophy—a rationalism now glaringly out of place in a world gone mad. The existentialists criticise the latter for dividing the world into subject and object. The unity of subject and object, according to them, is existence. In order to be aware of existence, it is necessary to find oneself in a critical border-line situation, for example, confronted with death. As a result, the world becomes "intimately near" to man. Thus, existence is to be known, not through reason, but through intuition.

A central place in existentialism is occupied by the question of freedom of choice. Freedom is seen as the "free choice" of the individual of one possibility among an infinite number of possibilities. Thus we arrive at an entirely abstract conception of "freedom," conceived of as the polar opposite of necessity.

This boils down to an assertion of voluntarism, that the individual is free to make a choice, irrespective of objective circumstances. This, in turn, implies the "freedom" of the isolated individual from society. It is the "freedom" of a Robinson Crusoe, that is, no freedom at all. In effect, they turn the question of freedom into an abstract ethical problem. Yet, in practice, freedom is a very concrete question. It is not possible for real men and women to become free by ignoring the constraints that hold them in bondage, any more than they can jump off a cliff and ignore the laws of gravity.

With existentialism, we reach the complete dissolution of modern philosophy. Jean-Paul Sartre made an unsuccessful attempt to unite existentialism with Marxism, with predictable results. One cannot unite oil and water. Sartre’s thought cannot be described as a coherent body of philosophical ideas. It is a disorderly mishmash of notions borrowed from different philosophers, particularly Descartes and Hegel. The end result is total incoherence, shot through with a pervading spirit of pessimism and nihilism.

For Sartre, the fundamental philosophical experience is nausea, a feeling of disgust at the absurd and incomprehensible nature of being. Everything is resolved into nothingness. This is a caricature of Hegel, who certainly did not think that the world was incomprehensible. In Sartre’s writings, Hegelian jargon is used in a way that makes even Hegel’s most obscure passages seem models of clarity.

Underlying all this is the feeling of impotence of the isolated intellectual, faced with a hostile and uncomprehending world. The attempt to escape from the wicked world into individualism is summed up in Sartre’s celebrated (or notorious) phrase: "L’enfer, c’est les Autres." ("Hell is other people"). How this outlook could ever be squared with the revolutionary optimism of dialectical materialism it is hard to imagine. But then, no-one could ever accuse Sartre of consistency. It is, of course, to his credit that he espoused progressive causes, like Vietnam and solidarised with the movement of the French workers and students in 1968. But from a philosophical and psychological point of view, the position of Sartre was completely foreign to Marxism.

[Trissy]

You can't communicate with them. You saying that they are influenced by hormones or instinct, sorry but you can't prove to me that they are or not
I know that I can't talk to animals but like I said, we don't need to. We can monitor the hormones levels of animals at different times of year and relate it to their actions. Why do we castrate aggressive dogs if it is not because of their hormone levels at certain times of the year? Plus I said they are determined by hormones where as we are influenced. Hormone levels in animals dictates their actions, where as in humans we still have a choice.


You are just being speciet
Speciesist? How? When did I say the life of animals was inferior to that of mankind? When did Existentialism say this? All it says it that we're different. You're the one who is asserting one is better then the other from this distinction. I can say that their is a difference between the state of a live electrical wire and a dead electrical wire without saying that one is better than the other.


While I agree that probably most animals don't have self-consciousness because I can't communicate with them I can't be sure
If you want to get picky about this then we can't be sure of anything except perhaps our own existence ('I think therefore I am') but that hasn't hindered mankind’s development nor philosophies development. Existentialism is not a way of finding absolute knowledge but then no philosophy or science is. It cannot be singled out on such an issue.


When Europeans first came to southern Africa they showed the natives 2D pictures. These pictures showed 3D scenes however. The natives didn't know how to interpret the pictures 'cause they had never seen things like them before. Perhaps it is the same with the dog
But self-consciousness is not taught as such. The natives would have recognised a photo of their environment perhaps even if they didn't understand what it was (i.e. a photo) or how it was made. A dog in front of a mirror will always see another dog no matter how long you leave it there. It may grow used to seeing that other dog and so not bark at it or run up to it but that doesn't mean the dog associates its reflection with itself. Plus we can note that it recognises another dog so it's not the fact that it's in 2D that fools the dog. The dog will not learn self-consciousness. A chimp or a dolphin may be self-conscious to some degree but they will not learn to become more self-conscious over time, only through millennia of evolving. I do not deny that some animals are self-conscious, I deny that they are self-conscious to the same level that humans are. This is what all the evidence leads us to believe. I do think it is not due to human arrogance on the issue.


It is the "freedom" of a Robinson Crusoe, that is, no freedom at all. In effect, they turn the question of freedom into an abstract ethical problem. Yet, in practice, freedom is a very concrete question. It is not possible for real men and women to become free by ignoring the constraints that hold them in bondage, any more than they can jump off a cliff and ignore the laws of gravity
It is freedom to choose as you have stated, which results from the freedom of a consciousness that is not made of matter and so is not determined by physical laws and forces. Humans cannot become free because they are from the viewpoint of Phenomenological Ontology. Humans are aware of their existence and they are aware they make some choices. What they do not want to admit is the scale of their freedom and this is where 'bad faith' comes into play.

The freedom spoke of is a freedom to choose, not the unlimited freedom we sometimes think of. The material world and all the matter in it is governed by physical laws. I may choose to fly but my body as matter is prevented from doing so. It doesn't stop the fact that I choose to try and fly. On that note humans do not become free (in the political sense) by ignoring the constraints that hold them in bondage but through the choices they make and the actions they take. If our existence comes before our essence then freedom in the political sense is certainly attainable.


With existentialism, we reach the complete dissolution of modern philosophy. Jean-Paul Sartre made an unsuccessful attempt to unite existentialism with Marxism, with predictable results. One cannot unite oil and water. Sartre’s thought cannot be described as a coherent body of philosophical ideas
I think they show a good deal of coherence and when I get around to writing a dissertation I'm planning on writing about the links between Existentialism and Marxism. I still believe that the two can be reconciled without lots of serious contradictions.


It is a disorderly mishmash of notions borrowed from different philosophers, particularly Descartes and Hegel
Nearly every great philosopher has used the works of those who went before them. Descartes Ontological argument owes a lot to St.Anselm, Hegel owes some of his work to the thoughts of Kant, and Kant to Hume, etc. The progress of philosophy has come from reading others and putting forward how you see things...


The end result is total incoherence, shot through with a pervading spirit of pessimism and nihilism
How is it incoherent?

I find the central premises of Existentialism to be optimistic not pessimistic. Revealing to mankind that they are responsible for their actions and for who they are is a positive idea. It means that we can forever change the path we are walking down and that we need never give in. As long as their is a chance and we do not rely on hope we can change the world... the resistance in the second world war shows us this as well as events such as the Russian revolution.


For Sartre, the fundamental philosophical experience is nausea, a feeling of disgust at the absurd and incomprehensible nature of being. Everything is resolved into nothingness
Nausea is only an extreme feeling brought on by the realisation of the superfluous abundance of matter in the world, as well as abstract things like colour, beauty, language, etc. It is not the fundamental philosophical experience because their are many identified in his works including anxiety and despair. We should also note that the idea of abundance influenced the other major philosophical field of the time which was Logics (with Russell, the Logical Positivists, Wittgenstein, etc).


In Sartre’s writings, Hegelian jargon is used in a way that makes even Hegel’s most obscure passages seem models of clarity
Again, I don't think this is a crime of just Sartre or Existentialism. As you say Hegel's writings are dense and complex at times, so are those of Kant, Husserl, Kierkegaard, Heidegger and even Hume from time to time.


Underlying all this is the feeling of impotence of the isolated intellectual, faced with a hostile and uncomprehending world
Isolated perhaps...impotent? The ability to choose mean that we are not totally impotent.


The attempt to escape from the wicked world into individualism is summed up in Sartre’s celebrated (or notorious) phrase: "L’enfer, c’est les Autres." ("Hell is other people").
Hell is other people due to the fact that I can never be who I truly want to be. I cannot a fixed and concrete character like the rock or the table. Other people will always view my actions and interpret them in one way or another. I cannot merely decide to be brave but I must act bravely. That is why hell is other people.


How this outlook could ever be squared with the revolutionary optimism of dialectical materialism it is hard to imagine
Class antagonism is produced by oppression of the working class by the ruling class. Dialectical materialism asserts that this will lead to the revolution in which the working class will throw off their chains. But you'll be aware that the working class must be made aware of their oppression if they are to revolt. Whilst class consciousness remains low the exploitation will continue. Class consciousness can be linked to bad faith because they both involve a denial, namely a denial of freedom and the denial of the ability to change ones conditions. If class consciousness increases then bad faith declines. This way we can see how Existentialism and Marxism can be reconciled. That is a brief summary of my thoughts on the issue so far. As I said I'm still thinking this one through because I find it very interesting and relevant to modern society.


But then, no-one could ever accuse Sartre of consistency
I don't see why not. Just because Existentialism is not as systematic as the rationalist philosophers were does not mean they are completely without meaning.


But from a philosophical and psychological point of view, the position of Sartre was completely foreign to Marxism
I'd still disagree with you there. However I must applaud you on your quite impressive summary of the history of Existentialism even thought I disagree on the areas I raised above. All I want to ask is why you didn't say that initially in order to back up your original statement.

[Revolt!]

As expected, Daymare's post is completely unoriginal and easily found on the internet.

http://www.marxist.com/philosophy/chapter6.html

right at the bottom, shameless.

[kroony]

Ha. Thought there was a contrast!

[Daymare17]

So what if it's from a book?

A very good book BTW - one of the pillar works of my tendency.

[Trissy]

<_< In that case I retract my statement about it being a quite impressive summary and I shall forward my comments to the author...

...do you actually care to debate your problems with existentialism or by that do we take it that you have no more to add? I feel my comments were slightly wasted if they were addressing views which weren&#39;t strictly your own. If they are your own then you&#39;ll gladly back them up with your own thoughts, comments and arguments.

[Wenty]

So what if it&#39;s from a book?

He asked for your views and you gave someone else&#39;s without citing them&#33; thats whats wrong.

[DaCuBaN]

So what if it&#39;s from a book?

This may be the internet, but technically it&#39;s still plagerism. We do wish to read good texts, but if it ain&#39;t yours, SAY SO&#33;

[The idealist]

But self-consciousness is not taught as such. The natives would have recognised a photo of their environment perhaps even if they didn&#39;t understand what it was (i.e. a photo) or how it was made. A dog in front of a mirror will always see another dog no matter how long you leave it there. It may grow used to seeing that other dog and so not bark at it or run up to it but that doesn&#39;t mean the dog associates its reflection with itself. Plus we can note that it recognises another dog so it&#39;s not the fact that it&#39;s in 2D that fools the dog. The dog will not learn self-consciousness. A chimp or a dolphin may be self-conscious to some degree but they will not learn to become more self-conscious over time, only through millennia of evolving. I do not deny that some animals are self-conscious, I deny that they are self-conscious to the same level that humans are. This is what all the evidence leads us to believe. I do think it is not due to human arrogance on the issue.

The difference between self-concious and nonself-conciouss animals is rather simple I think. Nonself-conciouss animals can only gain information from their surroundings, and thereby be taught. They cannot respond in other ways because they cannot analyse them.
Self concious animals are aware of themselves, and can learn from their own thoughts and choices, thus the animal can bring up the possibility of teaching itself.

The entire problem with mind discussions is wondering about the presence of a soul. A non-material entity. You say that if you seperate a brain you will not be able to find the you. You might as well look at all the chemicals in a plant, looking for "nature". "you" are only present in your current state (reading, current thoughts, dreams etc.) in the way you are physicly. if two chemicals were mixed, you could be thinking of something else. you could be insane for that matters sake.
"you" = system. The arrangement of the physical components in your head is "you". The question is if feelings, emotions and thoughts are a product of the actions of those chemicals, or whether the chemicals partly heed the thoughts and vice versa. The system is so complex that scientists simply cannot bridge the gap between physics (running through chemistry) and psychology. Seemingly random chemical connections could be affected by the systems "thoughts", or perhaps not. May I mildly hint to the "Emergisme" thread. (it has some of the same stuff)

[redstar2000]

The system is so complex that scientists simply cannot bridge the gap between physics (running through chemistry) and psychology.

Yet&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas