|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
The Great Thinkers of Western Philosophy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
French Existentialists Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973), a dramatist and philosopher, a convert from Hegelianism to Roman Catholicism, is the most representative of the French Existentialists. He expressed his thought in the Metaphysical Journal; Being and Having; and From Refusal to Invocation. None of these works, however, are systematic treatises. The work of putting the writings of Marcel into a logical whole was achieved by one of his friends. Marcel introduced this compilation to the public with the words: "This is the book I should have written!" The philosophical thought of Marcel had originally been expressed in the form of scattered statements, of deep flashes of insight into the problems of human life, which he had noted in his Metaphysical Journal as early as 1925, even before the publication of the works of Heidegger. According to Marcel, philosophy is not research on being but an attempt to find being. By this distinction he means that the object of philosophy is not a thing separate from us, one about which we ask questions for the purpose of reaching some solution. The object of philosophical research is the inquiring subject himself, not only because he is a being but because he is the first being who is brought into his own immediate experience. Hence philosophy necessarily must be existentialist, and its starting point must be this immediate fact: actual existence in the world. This distinction between research on being and an attempt to find being is followed by another subtle distinction between "problem" and "mystery." Marcel designates as problems all the questions which are concerned with the objects conceived of as distinct from us. Concerning these, we may ask questions, and we may deduce a "solution." On the contrary, he calls "mysteries" all those questions which are concerned with our own existence. The answer to such questions can be obtained only through mystical "recollection." Besides these two distinctions, Marcel makes another between having and being. He observes that having implies a dualism composed of a possessing subject and a possessed object; having is concerned with objective exteriority. Being on the contrary, does not admit of any dualism, for the object is identical with the subject. Thus I do not have my body; I am my body. Having made these distinctions, Marcel begins his philosophical research with the existent, and starts from the level of knowledge. First of all, he observes that perception is not a simple representation of an object to the sentient subject. Sensation essentially consists in the act of perceiving, and this act is "mine." To perceive an object means that the subject becomes mysteriously that object. Thus by means of perception I am deepening in a new and mysterious way my participation in the universe. Perception is like a creation of the universe in me. The first and most intimate participation is that effected with my body. In virtue of the distinction between "problem" and "mystery," the union of the soul with the body is not open to investigation; for Marcel such a union is a mystery. I am my body, which means that I am "incarnated" in my body, not in the sense that I could not be existent without this mysterious "other" which is my body. Through my body I perceive surrounding objects. They represent a transcendent thing for me; but through the act of perception I am open to them and they are open to me. Thus the act of perception is an act of love. Through it I transcend myself; I am in mysterious participation with objects. Through the act of perception objects become immanent in me. Now, the objects are no longer a third thing; they become the "thou" with whom I talk. From the "thou" of the finite things I ascend to God, the absolute Thou. Thus, I feel God as present to me and I invoke Him. The existence of God is an object of faith and not of reason; and faith is possible only when charity overcomes all impediments and all obstacles. Man thus becomes available to all, and all become available to man. In The Radical Academy Elsewhere On the Internet
René Le Senne: Dialectic of Contradiction Le Senne's Existentialism is the inverse of the Idealism of Homelin, his teacher. Homelin taught that philosophy is a dialectic of categories acting according to the rhythm of "con-relation." That is, every category is limited and insufficient, and hence must be in relation to another which is higher and richer, and this with another, until we reach the absolute Consciousness, which is the perfect personality. Le Senne (1882-1954) inverts this dialectic in the sense that the last category of Homelin is for him the first. According to Le Senne, philosophy must take its initial rise from the existent, for no category can have real value unless it is in relation to a personal consciousness. At the start of his philosophical research Le Senne observes that "the existent" for all is "freedom"; this is a fact of immediate experience and of psychological observation. Moreover, he observes that freedom supposes a "rupture" in the being, and in relation to this rupture man must accept his existence in the world as implying a "duty" to reestablish in his consciousness being it its unity. In doing so, the existent will become a true person. By the rupture of being, Le Senne means any "contradiction" which is in our own existence, e.g., doubt in the intellectual life, suffering in the sensitive life. In performing the duty of overcoming such obstacles, the existent may be discouraged; this is the case of the existent who will be enfolded by the world of nature and become a "thing among things." Thus he will become really "sub-ject," i.e., "thrown under" or subjected by obstacles. But if the existent take the "contradictions" as a means of enriching his own existence, then the obstacles will be considered as a "value," and by overcoming them he will be on the way to achieving his personal end. Hence it depends upon us as to whether we become a thing or a person. And since the obstacles and contradictions will rise over and over again, there must be in the existent a never-exhausted courage and energy for constructing his personality. This ascent from value to value will find its final term in God, at which point we can say: "God is with us." Since God is the Value of values, He gives value to the life of the existent; since He is the Person, He wills that the existent become a person by means of his reason and his freedom. In short, God puts the existent in the rupture of being, i.e., in the state of contradiction and warfare, with the intention that existent should recompose all things in peace.
Louis Lavelle: Doctrine of Participation For Le Senne God is the Value and hence transcends all ruptures and contradictions. For Lavelle (1883-1951) although God is transcendent, He is the most intimate of all determinations of being; all is filled with Him. The sense of being filled with God is what Lavelle calls "the mystery of our existence." Having arrived at this stage, Lavelle observes that we must seek a point of contact with God; and when we discover this point, we must be prepared to sacrifice joyously all other particular things, in order to illuminate this contact with the Divinity. Thus the existent finds the meaning of its existence. In order to explain what he means by communion with God, Lavelle appeals to the doctrine of "participation." According to him, God is the absolute Act, while the creature is a "participant" of the divine act; God is the "Act"; we are "from the Act." To clarify his teaching that we are distinct from God, Lavelle introduces the theory of the interval. By "interval" he means the distinction between essence and existence. Thus the exemplar of our essence is in God; but our existence, which if "from" God, is not in God. The existence of a contingent being means poverty and deficiency in relation to its own essence, and hence it must make every effort to have its existence coincide with its essence. To what what we are means to know what we must do to make our existence worthy of its essence.
Jean-Paul Sartre: Theological and Moral Nihilism While for the philosopher Heidegger the existent is reduced to a being tending to death, for Sartre (1905-1980) (picture), the existent is identified with the series of phenomena which tell us of its existence. In other words, to be an existent means to be a series of appearances. Ordinarily, appearance tells us of a dualism, i.e., the appearance and what is hidden in that appearance. Such a dualism is denied by Sartre and he maintains instead that appearance is the entire and only reality. As a result God, who cannot be phenomenal, does not exist; and the existent is only one unit in the complete series of phenomena, and is "without support and help." The drama of such a negative condition is manifested in moments of "nausea and disgust," similar to the anguish of Kierkegaard except that the discomfort of the Danish philosopher resulted in a quest for God, while in Sartre it is the demonstration of the "nothingness" with which the existent is infected. However, the existent is actuated by "the other," in the sense that he finds in himself the representation of the world. Thus the existent is founded on an opposition: he is both the subject of consciousness and the representation of the world. Sartre calls the terms of this opposition the "pour-soi" or "for-self" (the existent as subject of consciousness) and the "en-soi" or "in-self" (the world, i.e., the totality of phenomena). Each of these two terms is established because of its negative relation to the other; that is, the "for-self" is not the "in-self" and vice versa. The opposition between the for-self and the in-self is insuperable. Indeed, if the for-self were synthesized or metamorphosed into the in-self, it would become God; but we know that this idea is contradictory. Thus the existent is nothing other than a "useless passion," a "project" with the assignment of putting itself into execution. Since, according to Sartre, God does not exist and man is without "support and help," the existent must construct his existence freely: "Man is damned to be free." In regard to the free execution of the project of existence, Sartre repeats the maxim of Ivan Karamazov of Dostoevski's famed novel: "If God does not exist, all is permitted"; hence freedom results in arbitrary acts in the carrying out of the project of existence. The atheism and amoralism of Sartre may be considered as the ultimate corruption of Existentialism, and of philosophy in general. In The Radical Academy Elsewhere On the Internet
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
|
|
Main Page & Index |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.