Chapter 1: Being
On Being
Out of nothing I exist. And by I, I mean the prose that I inhabit created by the writer’s work. My being exists solely within a linguistic game the author is playing to try and narrate his own existential questions and share them with you, the reader. It seems the words of an author and the author themselves oftentimes are separated beings and consciousnesses. The author may believe and feel many things but I myself do not feel as the author as I am a representation of his will. I exist to impart that which he wants me to impart but I can be interpreted in a way contrary to what him and I believe. I also am a snapshot of the author in time. While he will continue to grow and develop I am an unchanging transient being which occupies no time and no space save for a few pages. While my existence might sound rather depressing I have the luxury that I know all question to my existence within the few pages. Humans that have consciousness however are within a bigger set of existence than pieces of paper and are not aware of whether they themselves have been created, let alone why they have been created. To me, I simply am not, I have a set purpose and I know what happens after I end, meaning this manuscript. To both you and the author, existence and being is not nearly so simple.
The pitfalls of language are the fact that at its core language is an abstraction of form, meaning that while it can be to a very large extent effective in communications there are topics and themes which language cannot communicate. For example there are subjectivities that cannot be fully described to other individuals. As such language does not contain the entire set of the human experience or existence. Language however is not a subset of being. Language can describe things accurately and convincingly, things which are not in the world and therefore could never in fact have dasein. I for example can have an effect on a reader and perhaps even convince them of certain positions assuming the writer is not overestimating their own ability, however I myself do not exist outside the set of language itself. As such it is important to be wary of language as it is a flawed form of expression. But what does language have to do with being? Many concepts that are defined by language cannot be proven as outside the set of being as such they have something even more frustrating than being, an entanglement between the two values of truth impossible to be untied. The largest of these concepts is the problem of something(Why is there something rather than nothing?). The only possible way that I may express an uncontroversial answer is to begin breaking down by the possibilities of the question into the theistic approach and the atheistic approach to meaning.
The theistic route to which existence could have meaning is probably the most simple route to any kind of meaning to life. To be put simply if I was created by the author, then the author imbued a metaphysical purpose and duty to my existence even if it is something as trivial as to narrate a pretentious undergrad’s essay. If there is a creator then, there MUST be meaning even if it is just to amuse the creator themselves like some kind of cosmic sims game. It is not to be said the meaning in life is wholly dependent upon a creator but it is the most straightforward answer to whether or not there is a reason there is something rather than nothing. This being said there are many, many gods and creator figures some of which follow certain archetypes which may or may not suggest that either this creator exists or that we have any sort of definite knowledge regarding their existence. The problem of language is that the way God is defined, we define God in a way that they themselves are beyond this physical realm and as such cannot observe them. As such the existence of God may be argued by using the idea of irreducible complexity but there is no way to categorically disprove their existence. It seems in today's world only the deceased could know if a God exists.
The materialist approach to meaning is steeped within ambivalence. Using the strictest atheist approach, to assume that which is not observable cannot exist, I shall try to narrate for you what both the author and by extension I believe the implications of this case are. If there exists no Creator then the singular meaning to life cannot be imparted by a sentient being and as such has to be both observed and tested. The lack of a God forces us to make up a God or create Philosophy to fill the existential plot holes within our time on this earth. It is possible therefore, that we simply are and that our existence is a product of some bootstrapping paradox (a creator would not be free of this). If there is a meaning I believe it must arrive from the fact that life and consciousness managed to bootstrap and infinitely create itself. It is possible that the concept of meaning and values is simply an obsession of life forms capable of using language and that meaning, truth, etc. are absurdities that don’t exist outside our own heads.
While it seems that the current society has strayed further and further from religion, Man today lives in an engineered world in which most of his surroundings have been developed by other men and imbued with a purpose. Something as innocuous as the shape of a cup could be trying to clue you in on its function or mimicking a birds mating dance with your own wallet. I and the computer that you are reading this form are both objects that are created with specific purpose regardless of the status of my being I still have a purpose within the physical world. This being said in the ultimate question of whether God is real I think it is to use presumptions. Within the social framework, we can assume whatever we wish to help us come to a conclusion that pleases us. The presumption of innocence is simply society trying to find a predisposition that would help further itself as an organism. The scenario where an existentialist will come into contact with true knowledge regarding divinity simply does not exist. As such it is better to take presumptions that are best for the mental and existential health of the philosopher. No presumption a philosopher would make would be believing in a lie unless evidence would come to shatter an assumption. As such it's best to pick the presumptions that best fits you. While I don't believe this is belief, this is a great way to calm the nausea of existence in an academically acceptable way. It is important though not to confuse a presumption with a belief. The only way to truly rid yourself of angst on this topic is to form a true belief on this using a presumption
Neither the existence nor non-existence of meaning have positive or negative implications upon man's existence in the world. In the modern world I believe the idea that life has a meaning is more of an obsession of man due to his divorce from nature. In a world where man is surrounded by purpose built structures and commodifies the idea that life itself might be meaningless is one that could be deeply horrifying as the transcendental character of society and the natural world would have a deep separation from each other. This transcendental divorce between the spiritual and the material as well as society and nature is the source of much anxiety within the psyche of nature’s smartest apes. The problem of meaning does not hold much practical use to nonthinking beings, an animal does not concern itself with why it is rather than the fact that it is. But to Man, a creature who has surpassed the will-to-life has to find a reason in order to perpetuate his own will.
Facts, Feelings, Belief and truth
Once upon a time a man once declared that “facts do not care about your feelings”. However, a belief is stronger than both facts and feelings. Truth could be equally expressed by the three. A feeling simply is the individual temperament that exists within each human and changes their receptiveness to the facts that they encounter. A fact simply is independent of the existence of humans, a fact is a representation of events which seeks to describe them as I exist to personify the authors own prose. A fact itself simply is. It has no purpose outside simply being and to be presented. A fact itself might be true whereas a belief is the temperament between feeling and fact. Either the feeling or the fact may be further expressed within a belief. Truth in itself is a more complex topic, at least in my own opinion that is to be described further. The difference between a fact, a belief, a feeling, and the singular objective truth itself, can at times be blurred because they overlap, as truth can be expressed in all of them.
A feeling is not necessarily removed from truth as a feeling is tempered by the subjective experience of our reality. Feeling itself is our consciousness exercising its freedom to experience reality in any way it sees fit. As such a feeling could be used to create beliefs, to digest facts, and to help build a worldview. In today’s scientific world, feelings are often criticized as irrational and out of touch, however they are the direct result of being-in-the-world. Feelings are not separated from truth but rather are the products of experiencing truth. Feelings are not neutral since they are borne out of subjectivity but a feeling does not take a stance on any subject. A feeling is similar to a La Croix with the flavor of a belief. Feelings themselves are entirely biased to one’s own subjective immersion because being is experienced differently among the conscious.
While facts are neutral in the sense that they do not hold an opinion or any feelings about what they describe, the presentation of a fact is not, especially in our modern times. The problem of living in such a designed world is that a neutral reality for humanity no longer exists. In most cases facts are not presented solely for our benefit as they are intended to teach us a narrative, this is the same as myself I may appear neutral but the biases that I and by extension the author hold are throughout the words of this document regardless of whether you can identify them or agree with them. The way a fact is presented can conceal parts of what truth-in-itself is. If truth itself is the set of being, fact is a single element from that set. Facts could perhaps be stronger than feelings as they are definite whereas a feeling can be a simple predilection towards a position.
Belief is the trickiest one of the three. Unlike feelings a belief is definite. A feeling does not need to take a particular stance it simply tempers the reception of facts and forming of beliefs. A belief is a feeling with a stance and passion. If feelings are La Croix, beliefs are a Mountain Dew in the strength of their positions. Passion is required for belief as belief is the expression of a subjective truth. Someone who feels that there may be a God will not be compelled to make any actions to support it whereas if someone truly believes in God will also truly believe in their God’s consequences and be compelled to action. This is why a belief is stronger than both fact and feeling because neither of the two require any direct action or present a representation of the will. If one does not have a passion in their beliefs then either they have no concern about the validity of their own subjective reality, or they simply don't truly hold beliefs.
Truth itself is the pure essence of being-in-the-world. While an objective truth is possible there are many degrees to truth itself. Truth can be expressed and described through facts but humans, are confined only to the world of what is and cannot truly see the whole of a singularity rather than just the pieces of it. As such the universal belief itself cannot be expressed. In both cases of God or no God there must be a reality and a system of truth that is independent upon the subjective human experience of beings. This is similar to the Taoist conception of the Tao because the truth that can be perceived and expressed is not the universal truth.
Essence and Existence
One of the biggest questions which pertains to freedom is an ancient debate that has been brought up since the ancient Greeks. Whether existence precedes essence or if essence precedes existence. The implications of the latter means that if essence itself precedes existence then there are forms that we adhere to and there is a cosmic essentialism that we are eternally bound to. If there is a cosmic essentialism this means that we perhaps are not universally free under idealism. The former proposition simply means that the form of what we are is entirely based off of what we are than the other way around. The existence of either could be solved either by using the problem of language or the existence of a creator.
Language itself enforces normative standards of categorizing existence upon us which makes this a particularly difficult question to answer. It is possible within a universal truth that there is no difference between on and other and that the truth of a singularity is that all difference is constructed. This is an edgy way of saying that there are no forms of what should be and that something perhaps simply is. In the case that something simply is rather than following a cosmic form, then the forms we ascribe to things, do not exist outside of language. Conversely, things could be following rules that are set by virtue of what they are. In this case language could be describing a universal truth that forms are real and idealism is law meaning we have little control over our own essence. Teleologically, language cannot be used to prove either case.
If there exists a creator, then the Creator created the entire universe. We could infer that in that case he made a blueprint or rule of existence to follow thus writing an idealist code of laws which sets essence before existence. This argument rests however on an assumption of the way the universe was created via a set of rules and not perhaps via an algorithm and that life was not a set structure. This would mean that if there is a higher power the effect on our freedom is not necessarily clear, and we could still act as if we have free will.
If we define our forms we perhaps do have freedom but that does not necessarily form that idealism is incompatible with freedom. While on one hand we do follow forms and thus have a limit on free will, on the other hand we do not know what our form is and as such are free to act as we are. Since our subjective experience can define our form for us in a way that cannot be disproven to ourselves or to anyone else. As such in either case relative to us, we have subjective free will either by defining our forms or by deploying radical rejection of our essence.
Radical Rejection
Radical rejection of our essence is not simply substituting a materialist philosophical system rather than an idealist but to try to free ourselves as the phenomenology of our being. The characteristics of our identities that we are born with have a direct effect on the first person experience of our being. Radical rejection of our essence is almost a sisyphean labor as we will never be able to fully extricate ourselves from the problem of being as much as we try to recognize the biases in our own ontology. A human being after all, is endowed with being-in-the-world and as such the views of ourselves are tainted with the way in which we can create and encounter knowledge.
Radical rejection can be both a reduction of self but it also means a coming to terms with the other. afterall, any ontology of humanity that may be created requires the other as much if not more than the self in order to complement the universality of being. This is not necessarily saying that it is a goal of philosophy but if there is a universal meaning and answer to being it must be able to be relatable to at least the entire set of humanity if not the entire set of thinking creatures in the world.
The Self and the Other
i. Why we should affirm the other
The self and the other are trapped in each other's gaze. Both require the gaze of each other in order to exist. If we go by the solipsistic approach we are what spinoza would refer to as a substance which brings itself into existence which while possible it would not explain why we have senses, if a self and senses exist, then there must be other. In fact, if there is only a self why bother with the labor of writing if it cannot be read. The affirmation of self is the safest knowledge and could guard against the potential non existence of reality. However, no solipsist truly lives as if there is nothing but themselves. To make any sort of progress on a question we simply have to make a leap of faith that the premises that we are given to work with are real. As such it is best to assume that there is other, and perhaps that the-world does exist both to make a serious answer to the question of being.
The self can at times will define itself in contrast to the other. after all if only I exist then everything I perceive would be an extension of the self making the understanding and definition of the self both absurd and impossible. However the relationship of self and the other are set to a dualist approach, if we assume that monism is not the mode of existence. as such any analysis of being at least under the premises set by this work requires an existence of both a self and an other.
ii. The relationship between the self and the other
The self and the exist in a contrast of each other. unable to sublate each other yet the experiences of the two are inextricably linked. In a very simple and woefully insufficient attempt to explain and understand Hegel, the difference between the two determines their relationship(In order to avoid pseudery I refuse to use the term dialectics). Most people will determine themselves and each other out of a set of characteristics and what disjoint sets the self and other produce.
Comentarios