The Flaws in the Concept of ‘Existence Precedes Essence’

After cross-examining the concept of Falikowski on “existence precedes essence”, I am certain of the faults of existentialism. This activity, therefore, will discuss the same concept, illustrate the flaws, and then discuss the implications that the concept has on the existing political structure and society. However, the first activity is to explain the concept of “existence precedes essence.”

While existence is the manifestation of consciousness, essence is because of environmental makeup and genetic. In the ancient western philosophy – of which I am referring to non-existentialist, existence is preceded by essence. What defines humans are the existing environmental and genetic characteristics. The same characteristics determine personal behaviour. In general, shared environmental and genetic characteristics throughout species is known as “human nature” (Falikowski, 2004). However, the philosophy of existentialism denies the existence of human nature and in its place, proposes that essence comes second to existence. Which is likely to mean that consciousness is likely to influence the way that we feel about our world without any influence from our environmental and genetic characteristics. Even with such a proposition, there are particular limitations to the same argument that existentialists concur with. For instance, an individual cannot choose any environmental background or different genetic composition through force of consciousness. Falikowski (2004) convinced himself that no one could wish himself or herself into being a bird or have a childhood away that is abusive. On the same, the authors purported that existentialists propose that, “because an individual’s consciousness is first, such an individual determines how he or she responds to or otherwise feel about environmental characteristics or genetic background in the present or historically”. Through Falikowski (2004)’s concept of looking at environment and genetics as a single entity, the entity could then be termed as “facticity” in the context of existentialism. Referring to the same, “facticity” could then mean the world’s objective facts of which consciousness has a chance to respond to in different ways. Most importantly, since in existentialism consciousness has several ways of responding, it is impossible to predict human behaviour and determinism through general principles. Such also reflects on the fact that individuals have responsibilities on whatever they do. Individuals are also autonomous creatures and such is a comforting and popular belief.

The concept that this critical analysis has identified herein in the context of existentialism has one main problem. As identified by Falikowski (2004), the issue is that since consciousness, is associated with responding to facticity yet it is not composed with facticity (that is environmental and genetic background as well as structuring), then what is it? It is the proposition of existentialism that existence is first, however it does not explain the existence of consciousness when it has no source as well as basic facticity. Apart from that, science has proven that consciousness is a product of the brain (Falikowski, 2004). When a person’s brain is damaged, consciousness obviously reduces. In simple terms, science is on the notion that essence precedes existence. Therefore, for consciousness to exist, an individual must have a brain that is functional as well as that brain’s facticity that includes environmental influences and genetic characteristics. Nonetheless, the nature of humans is to possess a limited scope of response to particular stimulus and situations. However, such does not mean that individuals cannot view things in different dimensions concerning the doctrines of existentialists. Yet, it means that the extent to which an individual looks into a given situation or takes responsibility for a given behaviour is a constituent of or resultant effect of his or her nature. In line with the same, one’s ability to transcend his or her nature, therefore, from time to time, must originate from a nature that allows self-transcendence occasionally. This critic paper believes that existentialism is not simply a metaphysical truth, but individuals have the ability to possess a nature that allows them to be inspired ethically to the same (Falikowski (2004), pg. 47).

Implications for Society

The concept has grave implications otherwise at least according to Falikowski (2004). For once, personal responsibility ethics and existentialism appeal to particular individuals because of their nature. These individuals concur with the doctrines of personal responsibility and existentialism and then expect everyone else to do the same. According to such individuals, the definitions they hold regarding existentialism precludes them from acknowledging and recognizing that those who do not practice the doctrines of existentialism cannot embrace such existentialism practices. This situation leaves existentialists with expectations that are unrealistic. What seems as the transcendence of existentialists’ nature is but an expression of what their nature holds (Falikowski, 2004) Nonetheless, these individuals expect others to do whatever they do even if non-existentialists self-transcendence as part of their nature.

On the same, the response of existentialist to such non-existentialist inherent nature is that of condemnation to not being able to, or unwilling to take responsibility upon themselves. This is contrast, termed as moral or intellectual failing on the part of non-existentialists according to existentialists. According to Falikowski (2004), the reality is, however, that such a case is because of their consequential nature compared to the immutable ability of existentialists to decide to view facts and situations in different situations. One who is inclined to being self-transcendence will be locked to such a behavior just as the other who is disinclined to the same getting locked to disinclination behaviour. The overall result of the same translates to the general belief of individuals with a natural psychological ability that is inherent to be able to overcome unfavourable genetic characteristics or difficult upbringings of which individuals contrary to the same are deficient. On that matter, inadequate compassion and sympathy, as well as political policies and ideologies, show dominance in the context of existentialist ideology. Falikowski (2004) believe that poor individuals are considered to lack initiatives of morality, competence, and responsibility by existentialists instead of being viewed as lacking the upbringing or nature that makes success easy as well as the process of choosing to transcend to the nature of success.

Finally, yet importantly, Falikowski (2004) believe that the existentialistic denial of nature is an indication that these individuals altogether deny neuroscience. The same also implies that the individuals believe that consciousness is a result of something immaterial and/or needs our brains to act as independent entities with personal structures. No matter the case, such beliefs are extremely unreasonable which result in consequential beliefs that are unreasonable as well, all of which require the impossible from fellow humans with contrary nature and beliefs. The same could be regarded as an ideology that is self-delusive and with a philosophical dead end. The result of such an ideology is total confusion in the context of understanding the nature of man and his possibilities. All the same, existentialists would be wise enough to forget such beliefs and continue with the adage discussion on concerning “the human nature elements that are most important in understanding the limits of man” as well as how man can organize projects and societies best as a result of the “human nature elements” or as aligned with the same. Conclusively, it would best be proper if existentialists the behavioural limits of man compared to a general rejection of people’s ability to subsist underwater or fly. In addition, it would be proper if such individuals would accept such limits and develop structures and tools that would then help in surmounting the limits instead of jumping off the reality in hope of willing ourselves to survive the vicious reality.

Reference

Falikowski, A. F., (2004). Experiencing philosophy. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall