Existentialism is the philosophy of existence; asking the question ‘why do humans exist?’ And existentialism critiques how humans conduct their lives. These questions of existence and being are the focus of the philosophies of Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger. Many philosophers have written and studied existence, but existentialism framed existence into ones own being.
Thus, the study of existentialism is closely related to any study of ontology and metaphysics. Existentialism has been sharply criticized for being selfish and pessimistic. Jean-Paul Sartre wrote in ‘Nausea,’ “Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness, and dies by chance” (quotes.prolix.nu). Sartre argues that these views are neither inherently selfish nor pessimistic. Rather, he argues that existentialism is the most optimistic view to hold because it leaves open the possibility of choice and freedom. “Thus, existentialism’s first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him (Sartre, p.36).
Being aware that you are solely responsible for your actions doesn’t seem like a great revelation of freedom and choice, but it is. Knowing that there is no heaven or hell and no God frees up the individual to make choices that they otherwise would not make. Sartre had a student who came to him with a difficult choice to make. He could avenge the death of his brother and go fight against the Germans, or stay home in France and take care of his mother while the war is continuing. “Therefore, in coming to see me he knew the answer I was going to give him, and I had only one answer to give: ‘You’re free, choose, that is, invent.’ No general ethics can show you what is to be done” (Sartre, p. 44-45). The meaning behind Sartre’s parable is that any ethics, religion or form of guidance contributes only what the individual wants it to contribute. If the individual finds comfort within the Bible, it is only because they are able to derive their own meaning from the text. So, Sartre says ‘you’re free, choose,’ the implications of this on ones being can be overwhelming.
But, what is being? Heidegger argues that there are beings, which are things that exist, such as humans. Then there is Being, which is harder to define, but essentially represents consciousness in thinking along with action. “’Being’ cannot be understood as a being. ‘Being’ cannot be defined by attributing beings to it. Being cannot be derived from higher concepts by way of definition and cannot be represented by lower ones” (Heidegger, p. 44). Heidegger makes the argument that all ontological studies that came before him were incorrect, “All ontology, no matter how rich and tightly knit a system of categories it has at its disposal, remains fundamentally blind and perverts its most proper intent if it has not previously clarified the meaning of Being sufficiently and grasped this clarification as its fundamental task” (Heidegger, p. 53). What Heidegger is getting at is that philosophy has done well in articulating beings. But, philosophy has completely avoided defining Being or existence. It is Heidegger’s job, by taking intellectual steps towards understanding Being, to develop the notion of Being.
Differing from Heidegger is Sartre’s notion of being. He divides the idea of Being into two spheres, one he calls being in-itself the other being for-itself. Being in-itself is ‘the form of being characterizing nonhuman reality.’ This means that there is existence that is nonhuman and has no purpose, it is a meaningless being. An example widely used is the utility of objects, such as a pencil. A pencil only exists as long as the idea and notion of that pencil exists within the mind of the viewer. If the idea of a pencil does not exist, then the pencil becomes something else, without a defined value. The pencil will exist as matter until the viewer changes the purpose of the pencil to exist as a utile tool.
The real question is what the individual perceives themselves to be. If I consider myself a student and solely a student, I am attempting to be a being in-itself. But, I cannot be a student because I am a man. Rather, I am a man acting as a student for a while. Acting as the student would lead me to constantly recreate myself, meaning I am not focusing on being for-itself (Sartre, p.167).
Being for-itself is described as a being with choice. I choose what I am and I have complete freedom to decide so. Sartre acknowledges that there are some things that we cannot choose, such as where we were born and who our parents are. But Sartre argues that we can choose how to treat our parents, these are just limitations on our freedom. Similarly, Sartre argues that even a prisoner has many freedoms, they choose how to act as a prisoner, to behave in a good manner or poor manner and how to treat themselves and others are all choices. Being for-itself is the existence where man makes his own decisions and defines his own existence, this can only be accomplished with the realization and control of the being in-itself.
Along similar lines, Sartre argues that man is a “being in whom existence precedes essence, a being that exists before he can be defined by any concept” (Sartre, p.35). The pencil that we use is an example of an object where essence precedes existence, the idea of the pencil existed, and then it was produced. The pencil is just wood and graphite and other assorted parts, its existence is separate. The graphite’s existence is as graphite, while the existence of the wood is as wood; it is not until we put the pencil together that it becomes a pencil.
Man evolved from Australopithecus, Neanderthal and many other hominids. When man first came on the scene, through the process of evolution, he could not define himself. It was not until later when man was able to define himself as man. Thus, existence precedes essence, it Sartre’s mind. “Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence” (Sartre, p.36). Sartre uses this argument to then discredit the notion of god and human nature, because man is what man defines himself to be.
Heidegger uses another method to try and classify Being and existence. He uses the term ‘Dasein,’ which philosophically means that-it-is of a being, its use in everyday German means ‘existence.’ Heidegger uses the term to describe human being or the being for whom being matters. How does any of this actually help us understand being?
Heidegger analyzes previous ontological arguments, “An understanding of Being is always already contained in everything we apprehend in beings,” St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote (Heidegger, p.43). Of course, Heidegger asserts that one cannot use beings to define what being is. “But the ‘universality’ of ‘Being’ is not that of genus” (Heidegger, p.43). Being and existence transcend the categories of species or type. Heidegger finally admits that, “the concept of ‘Being’ is undefinable” (Heidegger, p. 43). He uses the argument from Blaise Pascal used in his famous Pensees articles, used to defend the Christian faith.
Pascal writes, “For one cannot define a word without beginning in this way: ‘It is…’ This beginning may be expressed or implied. Thus, in order to define ‘being’ one must say, ‘It is…’ and hence employ the word to be defined in its definition” (Heidegger, p. 43). Unlike Pascal, Heidegger argues that a higher universality cannot be used to define Being. He continues to say that not being able to define Being only furthers the question of its meaning.
“Dasein is a being that does not simply occur among other beings. Rather it is ontically distinguished by the fact that in its Being this being is concerned about its very Being” (Heidegger, p.53). Not just concerned with their being, such as a dog is concerned with maintaining the amount of food it eats in order to survive. But rather, concerned by the greater questions of Being and existence. Not just existing, but asking the question, why do I exist?
Popular culture has spawned many ideas worthy of philosophical debate, but none as fascinating as that of Artificial Intelligence. When discussing the essence of being or Being, it is important to set parameters on what constitutes existence and being. Let us assume that there have been great scientific leaps in the field of robotics and AI is now available. Not just AI systems as we know them today, as programs that can ‘learn,’ but rather as advanced systems that can learn, socialize and feel. These AI robots are advanced enough to understand and reason through philosophy, art and the humanities. If the robots can question their existence, and exist as a robot, which functions as something else, wouldn’t they be considered Beings? Heidegger and Sartre would answer this question very differently.
Sartre, dividing being into being in-itself and being for-itself would argue that the robot is a being in-itself. As a preprogrammed piece of human-designed machinery, the robot would only act as it is programmed too. Even if it is programmed to learn, socialize and feel, it does not have choice. The freedom that is might have would be preprogrammed to a certain degree, meaning that the robot is at the whim of the programmer.
Similarly, one could make the argument against Sartre that humans could be preprogrammed just as a robot could be. That humanity could have a programmer (god) who has written in code the choices we will make. In other words, destiny. Sartre of course argues that it is not important whether or not a god exists, “if God did exist, that would change nothing….we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue” (Sartre, p.62). Even if there was a god, that would not pose a problem, the problem is in how people exist.
If robots could imitate humans, wouldn’t they exist as beings for-itself, just a different variation of Sartre’s argument. Instead of humans being for-itself functioning as a student, it could be a robot being for-itself functioning as a student or any number of other jobs. Unfortunately for robots with AI capabilities, Sartre defines existence and being for-itself in terms only related to humanity. Existence is only what man defines it to be is a commonly used Sartre argument. Existence, therefore, cannot be what a robot defines it to be. Because that existence would have already been defined by a man.
Heidegger admits that Being and existence transcend the categories of species or type and that the concept of Being is ‘undefinable.’ Even though Heidegger commonly defines his philosophical terms of dasein and Being in relation to humanity, he admits that parameters cannot be placed of Being. For a robot to be a Being and exist, it must have asked questions of ontological importance. How one would determine whether that robot was thinking or just responding to programming would pose a problem. Even though the robot was interacting with the world and asking the question, why do I exist, one can never know the truth about what the robot was ‘thinking.’ Heidegger would most likely argue that Dasein or Being cannot alone answer this question of AI. Rather, Dasein should be used to further ones quest for the true meaning of existence.
Heidegger coined the term Dasein as a way to describe the way that humanity lives its everyday life. He never wanted it to be a final answer in the search for meaning of existence, but rather it can be used to aide one in that search. Sartre used many of Heidegger’s arguments to further his own. The being in-itself and being for-itself and ways of dividing the world in terms of existence. Sartre uses these and other terms, many adopted from Heidegger to define, defend and elaborate on existentialism. The greater questions of ontology and existentialism will always remain unanswered. Maybe, if there is a god, we will know someday, but as Sartre says, “That God does not exist, I cannot deny, That my whole being cries out for God I cannot forget” (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/jean-paul_sartre/).
Works Cited
Heidegger, Martin. Basic Writings. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1977.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Essays in Existentialism. New York: Citadel Press, 1993.
Loading ...
Another nicely written article, I really enjoyed it!