Existentialism v materialism

[Faceless]

There seems an abundance of "existentialism" threads here but in my naivity I am posting another.

The question is, "are existentialism and materialism mutually exclusive?"

Materialism suggests laws dictating human society as with other fields of the physical world and existentialism suggests that we are free when we dump faith (correct me if I'm wrong?) The latter seems to contradict the idea that any laws can exist concerning human societies. But can I consider the idea of quality becoming quantity as being the bridge over an aparent divide. In the same way as the price of a commodity seems unrelated to the cost of production yet over the total industrial process we see there to be a relationship? On the subatomic level particles are capable of "tunnelling" due to the uncertainty principle. But when we have a cloud of reactants the rate of reaction follows a pattern despite the theoretical possiblity that such a reaction may even spontaneously reverse. Can we be theoretically free in every respect as the existentialist suggests yet have a society in which general laws govern change as a product of variation about some dictated yet constant convention? It seems to undermine the concept of existentialism since it seems we are liable to make certain choices along the way and we are in fact subjest to our conditions. But we are free to make any chioce we want. Right or wrong?

[Trissy]

The question is, "are existentialism and materialism mutually exclusive?"
I would argue that they were. Materialism argues that everything that exists is matter, where as Existentialism holds that we are free to make choices and so must argue that there is matter and something else which is not matter and so if free from the laws that govern the material world (or in other words that our environment, our biology, our psychology, etc don't determine our actions). People like Sartre will argue that consciousness is not made up of matter, and that consciousness is merely linked to matter somehow. Kierkegaard and other Christian Existentialists may argue for the existence of a soul which is not matter. Either way the Existentialist must argue that there is more to human existence then just matter, and that determinism is wrong.


Materialism suggests laws dictating human society as with other fields of the physical world and existentialism suggests that we are free when we dump faith (correct me if I'm wrong?)
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that for the Existentialist we are free when we dump faith. The Existentialist position can be put more simply...'We are free to choose whether we like to admit it or not'.


On the subatomic level particles are capable of "tunnelling" due to the uncertainty principle. But when we have a cloud of reactants the rate of reaction follows a pattern despite the theoretical possibility that such a reaction may even spontaneously reverse. Can we be theoretically free in every respect as the existentialist suggests yet have a society in which general laws govern change as a product of variation about some dictated yet constant convention?
I don't think that we can be free as individuals as the Existentialist suggests and then have laws that govern overall trends in society as Materialism would claim. I think we can monitor choices and actions, and from this we can perhaps see trends and predict future actions. However, I do not believe we can find absolute laws and so therefore predict with absolute certainty future choices and actions which is what a materialist would claim because materialism and determinism are related.


It seems to undermine the concept of existentialism since it seems we are liable to make certain choices along the way and we are in fact subject to our conditions. But we are free to make any choice we want. Right or wrong?
Well personally I don't see it as materialism undermining existentialism but rather the other way around. I think we are free because consciousness is not made of matter and I'll produce my reasoning for believing this if required. I haven’t written it here because I've stated it before quite a few times and I don't want people to get bored of reading it.

To end with I'll just quote something I read in Sartre's 'Existentialism and Humanism' on the issue:

This theory alone is compatible with the dignity of man, it is the only one which does not make man into an object. All kinds of materialism lead one to treat every man including oneself as an object – that is, as a set of pre-determined reactions, in no way different from the patterns of qualities and phenomena which constitutes a table, or a chair or a stone. Our aim is precisely to establish the human kingdom as a pattern of values in distinction from the material world.

[Faceless]

I haven’t written it here because I've stated it before quite a few times and I don't want people to get bored of reading it.
I would be very much interested to hear this if you dont mind since I'm not easily bored.


I don't think that we can be free as individuals as the Existentialist suggests and then have laws that govern overall trends in society
well, if a billion people are confronted with a lion each and have a gun each they each have many choices but most would choose to shoot the animal, some would run away and I wouldnt be surprised if one of the individuals randomly shot themselves in the head out of choice. All of them had choices but their is a common tendency if not dictated laws. There is "randomness" which is related to matter yet independant of it. This is what I consider to be the essence of consciousness. My point with the subatomic analogy is that on this tiny level of the individual no one can predict the time when a radioactive particle will degenerate. It is random. Indeed, this randomness allows alpha particles to escape the atom. They have freedom which is devoid of restricting laws which, if there was no random jumping between points should restrict it from escaping.

I am, however, intent on understanding your views because to me the world is already governed by a certain existentialism of the individual and a materialism of the totality.

[Trissy]

I would be very much interested to hear this if you dont mind since I'm not easily bored
Okay, well all I did was put a brief outline of how Sartre comes to the conlcusion that consciousness is not made of matter, and so therefore we are free to choose because the laws that effect the material world do not apply >>>

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, or to us being aware of our own body as matter.
*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.


All of them had choices but their is a common tendency if not dictated laws
I think Existentialism will acknowledge that there are often cases were you can identify what the most likely outcome is, but it still opposes the Materialist view that if you know all of the factors that effect a situation then you can predict the outcome with 100% accuracy. The materialist will believe that we're not free and that freedom is just an illusion. Furthermore they would say that there were laws that governed the 'lion and gun' example, and that these laws were as reliable as Einstein's theory of relativity or Newton's laws of motion. Existentialism would say that there were laws governing the material world, but that at the end of the day any event that requires us to make a choice cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy by using some absolute law.


My point with the subatomic analogy is that on this tiny level of the individual no one can predict the time when a radioactive particle will degenerate. It is random. Indeed, this randomness allows alpha particles to escape the atom. They have freedom which is devoid of restricting laws which, if there was no random jumping between points should restrict it from escaping
True, but then I'm sure we could find that there are plenty of physicists who would say that the movement of particles at the subatomic level are not random, but they appear to be so because we have not yet discovered the laws that govern their complicated movement. The view of a Materialist is similar because they would say that we appear to be free, but that there exist laws that govern our behaviour which we have not yet identified. The Behaviourist B.F.Skinner would be someone who held a materialist view. He thought that if you controlled every factor influencing a child as they grew up then you could tell how they would react to any situation.