posted
Existentialism is an often confused term, but here's how I understand it....
Existentialism: The belief that existence precedes essence.
As I understand it, "existence" in this case refers to the simple idea that you exist. And "essence" refers to the various qualities that make you YOU - like your personality, your beliefs, your character. Existence is WHETHER a thing is. Essence is WHAT a thing is.
Thus, when people say existence precedes essence, it means that your existence comes BEFORE your personality, beliefs, and character - that your existence does not depend on any of those traits. In other words, it means that we could change all of your character traits and yet you'd still exist as the same person (the same person but with a different essence.) There is nothing about you that, if changed, would cause you to cease existing.
For a book like Ender's Game we might say existence does NOT precede essence because if we changed the essential traits - the words and the plotlines - then it would no longer exist as the same book. Ender's Game would cease to be if we changed all the words. Instead, it would be an entirely different book.
But with people, the existentialists say, it is different. I could change everything about myself and I'd still be me. There are no natural features that define me, in the way certain characters and plotlines define Ender's Game.
And that brings me to my question... Are the existentialists right on this point? Do you think it IS possible to decide to be whoever you want to be?
I have known many people to insist there are certain traits or beliefs that define who they are - that they could never question those beliefs without ceasing to exist. Some say a belief in God is such a thing. They are Catholic or Methodist or whatever and no matter what arguments are given, they cannot change - that's just who they are. Others feel the same way about politics... I know at least one person who seems to be irrevocably Republican, to the point where arguments are useless. He was raised Republican and is under the impression that right or wrong, he has to remain Republican. That's who he IS.
Which is the correct way to think? Does each person have an essence that is fundamentally THEM, that is unalterable if they are going to continue to exist? Are there certain values and desires that it is just their nature to desire? Or do they simply exist as blank slates - able to become whatever they choose to write upon themselves?
Longer answer: The essence of each of us is the cumulation of all that we've learned or experienced, as well as what we've thought or decided about those experiences. This changes, from day to day, for everyone, some admittedly more than others.
For some people, change is simple, even desired. For others change is frightening, undesirable. Because it does in fact change the essence of who you are. It might not change it much -- yesterday you were a person who didn't like Jude Law, today, after seeing him in a movie you liked, you are -- but it changes you.
Have you ever had a realization, a satori, where something you believed as a fundamental fact was changed and you could feel all of your thoughts and memories shifting as you re-evaluated them in this new light? It can be scary, and it can be wonderful.
I am not the person I was in high school. Nor am I the person I was the first few years of my marriage, and I am profoundly glad of that, yet if you had asked me at the time I'd have thought I was complete.
My call: I think that essence grows out of existence.
[ November 05, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a POV that represents a separation from the self, that is pretty certain. However does it matter?
After all if my "essence" were in the body of a woman the demands of that body would change my behavior, shape my desires and alter my choices therefore changing my total self.
Reduction to the essence of the self seems to be useful only in giving us a detachment from our body and life that allows us to view it with something like amused interest. Engaging in ones total self and in life around one is a much more fulfilling pastime.
posted
I don't think we can just choose who we are. There are parts of ourself -- our personality -- that are beyond our control. There is genetic tendencies. A person may be predisposed to being shy or mean or nice or alcoholic because of their genes. This is no choice because it is something that exists. However, there comes a point when a person might accept that these tendencies are what you are. This is an existentialist choice because it is here that you choose to accept what you are.
Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: For a book like Ender's Game we might say existence does NOT precede essence because if we changed the essential traits - the words and the plotlines - then it would no longer exist as the same book. Ender's Game would cease to be if we changed all the words. Instead, it would be an entirely different book.
But with people, the existentialists say, it is different. I could change everything about myself and I'd still be me. There are no natural features that define me, in the way certain characters and plotlines define Ender's Game.
My understanding of existentialism differs from what you presented. I think it's exactly like your Ender's Game example. If you changed everything about the book, it would still exist, but its essence would be incredibly different. It would essentially be a different book. I think this is the same with people. The choices you make- the characteristics you adopt and the plotlines in your life help make up the person that you are. If you changed your characteristics and plotlines you would change who you are.
quote: Do you think it IS possible to decide to be whoever you want to be?
My view of existentialism is similar to what Peggy presented in the Alvin Maker series. We start out in life with an infinite number of possibilities- capable of becoming an infinite number of different people. Yet, every moment that we live we make decisions that limmit those possiblities. For example, once you've gotten married, you no longer have any possibilities of not ever having been married. Through your choices, you continually create and recreate your essence. Personally, I think that this is true and that it is a wonderfully mixed blessing. On the one hand, you are responsible for who you are. If you do not like the person that you have become, you have nobody to blame but yourself. On the other hand, you absolutely have the power to change who you are into a better person. If you hate yourself, don't fear, there's not one person that you have to be- you can improve and become a great person. I find this truly beautiful.
posted
You cannot be whoever you want to be. Imagine a set of identical twins. Twin A is given the power to teleport at birth. Twin B is normal. They are separated at birth and raised in exactly identical conditions. A's psychology will be different than B's due to his ability. A will have paradigms B will not.
However, character, personality, and especially beliefs are quite mutable. The possibilites are no more infinite than the grains of sand on a beach, but there are just as many of them. If your personality is a grain of sand, you can be any grain on Myrtle beach. Only A can be any grain on Mars. Not even A could be a grain in the sun, because the sun has no grains of sand in it.
I doubt your Republican, Catholic, or Methodist acquaintances particularly desire to change those facets of their essence, so it is not surprising they see no possibility of being anything different.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have always believed that people come into being as blank slates, as long as I can remember--but then, this is something I was taught by my religion. So perhaps it is itself something that is part of me and unchangeable. Go figure.
I know that I can remember believing many things that I don't believe in now. On the other hand, I can also think of several aspects of my life that have remained constant. And I don't know how to say "this part could not have changed even though this other part did".
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
