Essence V/s. Existence: The Existentialist’s Dilemma

A bottle opener is an object made from an artisan’s inspiration underlying a particular concept. This implies that the bottle opener is made through a certain concept which is by and large a routine, one having a particular function. There is no way we can avow that a bottle opener can be created without having a particular purpose. If anything, the purpose of the bottle opener is established even before the object itself is created. Its function and essence is determined hence we can assert that in whatever form of any object, be it toothpaste, a motor vehicle, a house or anything for that matter, has its essence determined. The role which the object will play is already known hence its essence precedes its existence. Nonetheless, can we say the same for human beings?

Existentialists, such as Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), claim that for human beings, they exist first and then their essence is developed. What I am trying to say in layman terms is that the purpose of human beings on earth is not determined. No one knows the reason as to why they exist hence no one can claim that their lives here on earth are significant in whatever way. Moreover, no one can maintain that he was chosen to play any important role on this planet; thus the renowned quote “I was created/born for a purpose and a reason” is null and void. I know this is a very controversial issue, an issue which some of you may hate me for, but we have to look at facts and separate them from logical fallacies. I am not an existentialist and neither am I denying some of their ideologies concerning human essence and existence.

To begin with, existentialists believe that “I choose myself and in so doing, I create an image for all people” Sartre. The issue of existentialism can be divided into two groups, Christian and atheists. For the Christian, they believe that God, as the creator, is the superior artisan who creates man and already has his purpose in mind while creating him. This is a view believed and taken as true by most people with spiritual doctrines. Religious people believe that God knows the purpose of any person before He creates him/her hence the essence of man is predetermined before his existence. Philosophers such as Leibniz and Descartes believed in essence being predetermined and this is the same as likening human existence to the bottle opener.

Philosophy is about attaining the universal truth, and my question would be, will atheists hold the same views held by Christian? Is it universal truth that the purpose of human beings is predetermined by their creator, in this case God? If so, what would atheists who don’t believe in God say? Most definitely the idea of God would not be mentioned by Atheists hence in this case we would say that God being the creator of Human beings and the determinant of human essence, as held by Christians, is not a universal truth. It is not a truth that would be accepted by everyone thus it is in the scope of philosophy to find the universal or absolute truth.

Let us look at atheistic existentialists and their ideas concerning this issue. To begin with, the first principle of existentialists states that “man is nothing else but what makes of himself. This means that man determines his own fate, determines his own purpose hence determines his own essence. Secondly, as Sartre asserts, “God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man”. In short, atheistic existentialists do not believe in God and believe that man determines his own essence. Let us look at this issue closely; it would seem true that man determines his own essence. For example, when one is a child, he may have the desire of being a doctor. I know one may ask where this desire comes from if not imparted into the brain by God. Desires, feelings, intuitions and the will are independent entities that result from ones perception and are not imparted into the brain by anyone. And if you still insist that God is the one who imparts the idea into the brain, I would still tell you that the idea is unfounded simply because even if he imparts the idea to the person, he imparts it to an already existing human being hence existence came first then the essence “imparted” into an already existing being. Anyway, the issue of the origin of ideas will be dealt with on another day.

As I was saying, when one is a child, he develops the idea of becoming a doctor which if he “works hard”, he may achieve but when he fails to work hard, he won't. This means that the achievement of his essence (in this case being a doctor) is dependent and determined by the person himself. This is proof enough to show that human beings exist first and then their essence or purpose comes later, a purpose which they themselves determine not God. Moreover, for the Christians, it is written in the Bible that “God rewards the work of your hands” meaning that He does not determine what you will become but only helps you achieve what you want to become hence you determine your own purpose.

With the above example, we cannot say that “I was created for a purpose and a reason” but we could simply say, “I was created to come up and work towards my own purpose and a reason”.  This view (if well understood) can be accepted by both Christians and atheists. It is a more neutral idea as opposed to the Christians view which totally locks out atheists. We can assert that in human beings, existence precedes essence and this can be considered as a relative universal truth. Man is not like a bottle opener where one creates a bottle opener simply because he wants a device which could help him open a bottle. In conclusion, as you continue to deliberate upon this issue, is whether you can say, “I want to create a car which will help me move from this place to that other place”, would you say, “I want to “create” a human being so that he can…”???

Ethical Relativism amongst Women

Questions abound as to whether gender has got anything to do with morality. The beliefs that virtue is somewhat gendered - standards of morality being different amongst women as opposed to men - are very prevalent, especially amongst the proponents of feminism. Ethical thinking along this line has shown varied ideological presuppositions hence has become an issue of great concern amongst most contemporary philosophers. Nonetheless, we have to begin by understanding the meaning of ethics and comprehending its relative nature. Ruth Benedict (1887 - 1948), a known U.S Anthropologist, describes ethics as a term used for socially approved customs. In her Patterns of Cultures, she notes that what may be accepted in one culture may not be necessarily permissible in another. Thus, morality is culturally relative.

For example, while most nations condemned slavery, ancient Greeks accommodated it; some communities viewed polygamy as unethical while others held in great regard a man who had a number of wives. Moreover, just as effeminacy may be viewed as a weakness on the side of men, among many American Indian tribes, in the institution of the berdache (as referred to as by the French), involved men who at puberty put on dresses and played the roles of women. They went as far as marrying their fellow men but this was considered as a socially approved norm. In this regard, we can justify the fact that ethics are relative hence the view held by ethical relativists holds enough ground.

Having defined the relative nature of morality, let us consider the premise that women may be morally heightened as compared to their male counterparts. Jean Grimshaw (1995 -), a professor of Philosophy at Bristol Polytechnical university in England, observed that during the eighteenth century, most middle class women opted to get married in route for security. They were economically dependent on men hence the idealization of the family unit became evident. A sentimental vision of the understrapper but righteous and idealized wife and mother, whose particular female virtues both defined and underpinned the “private” sphere of domestic life, came into focus. Moreover, Rousseau, in Emile, argues that those characteristics which would be found faulty among men would be considered virtues in women. Thos was illustrated by his idealization of the rural family whose simplicity of life countered the evils that were evident in the cities. These meant that as women took up family responsibilities and were confined to their “private” lives, they lived a more simplified life that would not threaten their moral principles hence developed into bearers of great ethical standards.

In his argument, Rousseau asserted that men were frequently faced with “masculine” choices that would involve compromising of their moral principles. In addition, most Victorian writers of the nineteenth century such as Ruskin defined the quality of selflessness as being a distinctive female characteristic. These beliefs, held through the beginning of the emancipation of females, asserted that “women were morally superior to men, and believed that the society could be transformed through the influence of women”. Many forms of aggression and destruction have been linked to the nature of “masculinity” and the male psyche. Mary Daly stated:

All the havoc reeked on human life and the planet tends to be seen as the undifferentiated result of the unchanging nature of the male psyche, and of the ways in which women themselves have been “colonized” by male domination and brutality. The uncorrupted female psyche will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of male-dominated culture and save the world.

Two theories have been suggested that try to explain this variation. The first asserts that there are common or typical differences in the ways in which men and women reason concerning moral issues. Secondly, there is an assumption that particular social practices generate their own vision of what is considered as “good”, their own priorities and concerns and their own criteria fro what is seen as a virtue. I shall leave you contemplating with an example by Kohlerberg which is well illustrated by Gilligan about two eleven year children, “Jake” (male) and “Amy” (female) who  were asked to give a response to this dilemma. A man called Heinz had a wife who was dying but he could not afford to buy her drugs. The two children were asked, should Heinz steal the drugs from the pharmacy so as to save his wife?  Jake responded by emphasizing that Heinz should go steal the drugs because his wife was dying. Amy on the other hand suggested that Heinz should go to the pharmacy and talk to the druggist and see if there was anything which could be done.

Is morality in men different from that of women?