Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt

By Nominis Expers

Existentialism can be divided into two basic camps: Theistic Existentialism, affirming a belief in the existence of God, and Atheistic Existentialism, as the name indicates, denying the same. Existentialism in general has been described as the attempt to philosophize from the standpoint of the actor rather than from that of a detached spectator. As one might well imagine, the resultant philosophy will vary enormously depending upon its Theistic or Atheistic presuppositions. Our examination here will be of the atheistic variety of existentialism, as this is the more prevalent in our culture today. Atheistic Existentialism is, simply put, the philosophy of mere existence. It falls under the rubric of Secularism, having an ontological position involving a denial or exclusion of transcendent, supernatural realities. It rejects the idea that there is any Truth, only particular truths; it rejects the idea of any objective absolutes, stating that "existence precedes essence." It maintains an anti-supernaturalist posture, holding that subjective existence has primacy over any sub-stratum of the supernatural. Without any absolute basis, morality is subjective and reduced to preferences; without design or purpose, life, as pure existence, has no meaning, and is absurd. Jean-Paul Sartre (see below) summed up man as a "useless passion", caring deeply about an existence that ends at the grave, futile, meaningless and devoid of value.
A glimpse at a few...

Influential Existentialists
Frederich Nietzsche (1844-1900): Atheistic Existentialist Major Work: "Thus Spake Zarathustra" "God is dead...and He died of pity." For Nietzsche, religion emerged in order to bring comfort and consolation to weak people lacking courage to create their own values. Human culture is decadent due to the "herd morality" and due to Christianity's emphasis on peace, love, forgiveness, meekness and humility, which is nothing but weakness . The distinctive of the human animal is the "will to power", the basic drive to be the best, the most powerful. In encounter with each other and our fundamental aggression, we flee conflict and sublimate our basic drive for power. The "authentic" human will be the "Ubermensch", the Superman who will submit to no rules, refuse the will of the community or the common good , the individualist, the conqueror with the courage to define his own morality and values in his own interest. (Is it possible that a thinking person would fail to classify this nut as a sociopath?) This is philosophical crime at its most heinous. It was largely from his (some say "mis-") reading of

this book that Adolf Hitler developed his view of "Biological Heroism", whereby he attempted genocide of the Jewish people and establishment of the "Aryan" race. A quote from Nietzsche: "Don't believe those who speak to you of super-terrestrial hopes...they are poisoners, whether they know it or not." Thus Nietzsche grounds religion in the human needs of the insecure person. Although Nietzsche was openly hostile to Christianity and religion in general, despised Christian virtues, ridiculed theology and and the metaphysical systems of others, he indulged in a theoretical system of his own, which revived the Greek notion of the eternal recurrence of all things. He died insane, after spending the last eleven years of his life believing himself to be Jesus Christ.

Jean-Paul Sartre: 1905-1980 Atheistic Existentialist

Major work: "Being and Nothingness"

In this work Sartre reduces the existent to the series of appearances which manifest it, and "...overcomes embarassing philosophical dualisms by the monism of the phenomenon." Some Definitions, Please! Dualism opposes 'interior' to 'exterior' in the existent.
Exterior: A superficial covering which hides from sight the true nature of the object. Interior : The 'secret reality' of the thing which one can suppose but never reach because it is the 'interior', the 'true nature'.

In Existentialism, these distinctions do not exist. The appearances which manifest the existent are neither interior or exterior; they are equal; all refer to other appearances, none is privileged. The dualism of Being and Appearance is not allowed any legal status within the philosophy of existentialism. The appearance refers to the total series of appearances and not to a hidden reality which encompasses the true being of the existent. Neither is appearance an inconsistent manifestation of this being. (cf: Neitzsche: "the illusion of worlds-behind-the-scene").

For Sartre, the appearance is "full positivity"; its essence is an appearing which is not opposed to being but on the contrary is the measure of it. The being of an existent is exactly what it appears. This is the idea of "the phenomenon" found in the Phenomenology of Husserl and Heidegger: The 'Phenomenon" or the "Relative-Absolute". The phenomenon remains relative, for "to appear" supposes somebody to whom to appear. It doesn't have the double-relativity of Kant (the phenomenal-noumenal). It doesn't point over its shoulder to a true being which, would be, for it, absolute. What it is, it is absolutely, for it reveals itself as it is. The Phenomenon can be studied and described as such, for it is absolutely indicative of itself. In analyzing the nature of human existence, Sartre claims that the fundamental distinctive of human "Being" (ontology) lies in man's ability to make free choices, which freedom defines man as a "subject", rather than an "object". Sartre equates this freedom with complete "Autonomy". This word comes from "auto" (self) and "nomos" (law), yielding the meaning of being totally a law unto oneself, answerable to no other. "If man exists, God cannot exist...", says Sartre, because God's attributes, particularly that of "Omniscience" (having all knowledge) would reduce man to a thing, an "object", thereby destroying man's ontological distinctive of freedom. "Existential Self-Awareness", created under the gaze of another, destroys our basic humanity; we are thereby degraded and reduced to a state of being suspended in a fixed, dependent way between the "already", and the "not yet". It is a state of conciousness of shame, having a sense of having "fallen into the world", and needing the mediation of another to be made what one ought to be. For Sartre, God's omniscience would make human free moral choice impossible, for such a choice under the scrutiny of another is not altruistic. Further, declaring total moral independence from any standard other than one's own with impunity would also be an impossibility. In Sartre's play "No Exit" this sense is elucidated in the closing scene where the character, feeling himself under the gaze of others, turns in surprise to discover what he assumed would be a multitude to be only a few people, their eyes intent upon him. His next lines express his discomfort and feeling of de-humanization: "...all those eyes intent on me. Devouring me. What? Only two of you? I thought there were more; many more. So this is hell. I'd never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the "burning marl." Old wives' tales! There's no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS--OTHER PEOPLE"

Assuming you are accustomed to thinking in something akin to rational categories, the question has probably occurred to you of how a person's discomfort with a concept can be used as a proof for or against a truth-claim for an ontological objective reality. "If man exists then God can not exist." Not without upsetting Jean-Paul, evidently. I submit that this highly technical, complicated and obfuscatory song and dance is a denial amounting to little more than "whistling past the graveyard"; not a very cogent argument. Rather than being a reasoned response to an argument for the existence of God, this particular denial would have to be classified as "volitional". Sartre's reasoning is flawed; he has here committed the logical fallacy of Appeal to Consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam). The perpetrator of this fallacy points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this

belief is false. Proper reasoning will lead to the conclusion, however, that what one wants to be the case does not affect what is in fact or may be the case. As we have seen, one of Sartre's arguments for atheism was that God cannot exist because the existence of an omniscient (allknowing) being would destroy what Sartre considered to be a human distinctive: autonomy. As disagreeable as Sartre may have found this concept, it has no logical bearing on the truth-claim of the objective reality of the existence of God. Another quote from Sartre: 'Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view.' Here's my take on Sartre's statement: As we have seen, one of Existentialism's objections to "God" as a concept, hypothesis or objective reality is that, were such a being to exist, Humankind's essential defining characteristic, freedom (read: 'Absolute Autonomy'), would be compromised to such an extent that a human being would no longer be able to 'authenticate' his/her existence. Such a condition being so inconceivable mitigates against the existence of God. To read between the lines, if I may, Sartre is refusing to consider any arguments or examine any potential evidence to support the proposition that God exists as an objective reality a priori, dismissing any such possibility out-of-hand. Thus his choice of Atheism as an element of his worldview is volitional rather than being a reasoned response to rational arguments . In other words: "I refuse to believe in God, not because there is no reasonable evidence or argument to support such a claim, but because I choose not to, since the very idea offends me. True or not, no matter, still I refuse to believe." Coming at it from another angle, Sartre denied God's existence based on the argument that God, by His very nature is a "self-caused being", which is a logical absurdity. He would have to be ontologically prior to Himself in order to cause His existence: That is, He'd have to exist before He existed in order to cause His existence. This, however, is also a fallacious argument (The "Straw Man"...this fallacy attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than the oppositions best argument.) God is not argued to be "self-caused", but "uncaused", having the power of "aseity", or the power of "being" or "existence" within His nature. (Incidentally, this very fallacy was at the root of the atheistic conclusions of two other philosophers of note: John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell.) Sartre evidently reassessed his position, embracing Christian theism before his death. In 1980 he said: "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God." Two months before his death Sartre admitted to his doctor that he "regretted the impact his writings had on youth," that so many had "taken them so seriously."

Albert Camus: 1913-1960 Atheistic Existentialist

In Albert Camus we find the secularist's denial of the eternal and yet another proponent of the doctrine of the absurd: Human life is rendered ultimately meaningless by the fact of death and the fact that the individual cannot make rational sense of his experience. The "Absurd Hero" gains victory by focusing on his freedom, his refusal to hope, and his knowledge of the absurdity of his situation. He continues to perform his duty no matter how useless or how insignificant his action. Man's proper allegiance is to man and not to abstractions or 'absolutes'. In Camus' epistemology we know only two things: "This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction."

With this, Camus concludes that life is meaningless; yet refusing to grant a meaning to life does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is not worth living: "There are some words that I have never really understood, such as sin...For if there is sin against life, it lies perhaps less in despairing of it than in hoping for another life and evading the implacable grandeur of the one we have."

Despite man's irrational desire for unity, for absolutes, for a definite order and meaning to the objective universe, no such meaning exists. It is this juxtaposition of the irrational, longing human heart and the indifferent universe that brings about the notion of the absurd. For Camus, it is refusing to hope that makes the "Absurd Hero", he who embraces despair and realizes that the only question left for philosophers to consider is the question of suicide. "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy." ~ Albert Camus Have a nice day. erm atheistic existentialism refers to the exclusion of any transcendental, metaphysical, or religious beliefs from philosophical existentialist thought. Atheistic existentialism can nevertheless share elements (e.g. anguish or rebellion in light of human finitude and limitations) with religious existentialism, or with metaphysical existentialism (e.g. through phenomenology and Heidegger's works). Atheistic existentialism confronts death anxiety without appealing to a hope of somehow being saved by a God (and often without any appeal to supernatural salvations like reincarnation). For some thinkers, existential malaise is mostly theoretical (as it is with Jean-Paul Sartre) while others are quite affected by an existentialistic anguish (an example being Albert Camus and his discussion of the Absurd).

Sartre once said "existence precedes essence". What he meant was that, first of all, man exists (e.g. appears on the scene) and only afterwards defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. 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. [citation needed]

YUKSEL.ORG
y y y y y y y y y y y y y

Existentialism Versus Coexistentialism

Edip Yuksel (Quotations are from Paul Moser's book, Contemporary Approaches to Philosophy, which reprints from Existentialism and Human Emotions, trans. Bernard Frechtman, pp. 12-40. New York: Philosophical Library, 1957.) Jean-Paul Sartre version of atheistic existentialism which can be summarized with his own words as "existence precedes essence" may appeal many. Here when we refer to existentialism we will be referring to this version. Sartre explains this starting point clearly: What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. 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 (327). Sartre's Atheistic Existentialism is a reaction against atheistic or religious absolutism. Atheistic Existentialism as an answer for the basic problems of morality has serious flaws and shortcomings which we can list under seven titles: 1. It is built on two presuppositions, or "IF"s. IF there is no God, AND IF we have free will . . . 2. The combination of the two "IF" statements is a very

Home Resume Law & Politics PHILOSOPHY Religion Paranormal Language Children Rainbow Books Guest Articles Contact Discussion

19.org

difficult position to defend. Non existence of God, does not necessarily bring the freedom for man. Indeed, defending free will becomes more difficult without the master paradox-solver, ie., God. 3. "Being condemned to be free" is a paradoxical statement. 4. The principle, "Existence precedes essence" is selfcontradictory or meaningless. 5. If we have genetic and statistical information about the material conditions we can usually predict the behavior of an individual. The same prediction can be made for a certain population. Thus, even if we have freedom it is restricted. 6. Moral values are not created by free individuals, but by mutual and complicated interaction among interdependent individuals. 7. Atheistic Existentialism promotes arrogance which may deprive individuals from enormous useful experiences of previous generations. I will briefly discuss the first five points and then focus on number six followed by a closing argument on number seven. 1. Presuppositions Sartre assumes that God does not exist: ". . . if God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct. So, in the bright realm of values, we, have no excuse behind us, nor justification before us. We are alone, with no excuses" (330). Sartre also takes the freedom of man for granted and establishes his philosophy on it. He expresses this assumption with a picturesque statement: ". . . man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet, in other respects is free; because, once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does" (330). Atheistic existentialism can be questioned without

arguing existentialism at all. One can dismiss it by arguing the probability of God's existence, and/or the impossibility of having free will in a deterministic material universe. Atheistic existentialism, therefore, is built on two controversial foundations. Nevertheless, still there will be some who are already convinced that they can hurl God into the realm of nonexistence with their free will. In sum, Sartre's philosophy appeals to those atheists who believe in free will. (Did Sartre ever provide substantial arguments for free will in his books? Do you know Marga? If he did, then I have to change the title of this section to "preconditions") 2. The difficult combination It is easy to accept "free will" after believing the existence of immaterial mind or the Master Paradox Solver, that is, God. Without believing in God or in metaphysical self, our brain, the candidate for "free will" miracle, comes across great difficulties in accepting of its free will. Recent finding of quantum mechanics that challenges our deterministic commonsense is open to speculations and is far away to put period for the debate on free will. Even if we are convinced that we have free will, still it does not mean that we are entirely free. Sartre appears to believe that every individual is absolutely free to create himself by creating his history and choosing his future. 3. The paradox of "being condemned to be free" Our three-pound brain stumbles on Sartre's elegant assertion, that is "man is condemned to be free." Our brain will wonder: "How can I have free will? Did I decide that I will have free will with my free will? Or am I condemned (in other words, determined) to have free will without my' free will? If I did not create myself, and if there is no the Master Paradox Solver Creator, then, I could not possibly have chosen whether to have free will or not having it. If I am born with free will, then, can I reject this forcibly imposed freedom by my free will? If I can't, then I don't have free will in absolute sense. If I can then every moment I insist in rejecting to have free will I will be using my free will.

Therefore, I don't think I have free will at all, because I am condemned to be free as long as I live." 4. Existence without essence?! "Existence precedes essence" means that the original seed of existence does not have any essence. How can it be? We assume that Sartre is using the conventional language. Essence means "the true nature or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc." If a newborn human baby does not have any essence then it is no different from a newborn monkey or snake or frog. If it is different then the new born must have an essence that will lead him/her to invent the probable combination of his/her future stages. Why a toad "is condemned every moment to invent" frog, but not man? Similarly, why a baby is condemned every moment to invent man, but not frog? Atheistic Existentialists should provide answer for another simple question. How can a being without any essence will be able to invent his/her future? Isn't "to be able to invent certain things" is a great essence by itself? Furthermore, when does a "man" start inventing his/her future freely? In the first month, or first year, or teenage years, or later? 5. Genetic, social, economical, environmental conditions limit freedom The above and similar questions suggest that, "Nothing can come out of nothing." An "existence" deprived of essence is equal to non-existence. Sartre could not have possibly become "Sartre the philosopher" if he was born as a retarded child. He could not have probably become the same man if he was born in Rwanda as the ninth son of illiterate parents struggling for survival. Why western men have more freedom to get patents for more than the 90% of all inventions? 6. The source of moral values Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we

must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoievsky said, "If God didn't exist, everything would be possible." That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. He can't start making excuses for himself (330). I don't agree with Sartre's reasoning that if God does not exist there cannot be a priori values to abide by. I believe that there are certain a priori or universal values that transcends individual's wishes and free will. When he says "We are alone" does he mean as individuals, or as communities? It appears that he believes that the source of values is individuals and the average of the sum creates the values of mankind. Therefore, he claims that each of us contributes to the shape of mankind: "Therefore, I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a certain image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man" (328). But, the reality is the other way around. Moral values are not made up by individuals and their moral values do not create human values by jumbling and mixing with each other. Powerful individuals can create autocratic laws which I consider them to be different from the notion of "moral values." Certain value, whether they are articulated by individuals such as secular philosophers and democratic rule makers, or are demanded by human societies, basically comes from one thing: human interaction and cooperation. This is the main point that I disagree with Sartre: It is not independent individuals that make up values. Values are the essential rules that emerge or are discovered throughout human experience and forced on individuals. Individuals who prefer to live together with others adopt or discover those natural rules voluntarily or involuntarily, intentionally or unintentionally. Some individuals willingly adopt those values and assume them as a trade, as a compromise

between their freedom and well being of others. Some may feel obligation to do so for the sake of being accepted by the society. For instance, the badness of "unjustified" killing, lying, stealing or the goodness of helping others, honesty, and trustworthiness are universal. They are essential values in every human society. The very nature of human society requires or creates those values. It is a contradiction to decide to co-operate and decide to cheat each other or kill each other. Interdependent lives of individuals label this contradiction as immoral. Can you imagine an island inhabited by a community of free psychopath serial killers who don't consider killing immoral? (In my aquarium I cannot have more than one fighting fish!) Can you imagine a community of thieves who continue stealing from each other? (Prisoner thieves punish stealing in their wards!) Can you imagine a community of professional liars who continuously lie to each other? (Congress members consider lying to each other immoral!) Therefore, universal moral values are logical consequence of human societies and in this regard are a priori principles. Besides, even if an individual prefers to live alone in an island, still he will be forced to adopt certain values in order to survive. For instance, he cannot burn all the trees or cannot kill the limited number of animals for entertainment. He knows that he has to adopt certain values in order to be happy. Therefore, intelligent individuals are not absolutely free; they know or discover the universal moral principles in order to avoid punishment and increase reward. An atheistic moral philosophy will be more realistic if it is based on the happiness of individuals; not on the limitless freedom of individuals. Here, I would like to congratulate Sartre in his great question regarding the origin of religious moral principles: "If a voice addresses me, it is always for me to decide that this is the angel's voice; if I consider that such an act is a good one, it is I who will choose to say that it is good rather than bad" (329). If you accept

divine revelation as the source of moral values, and if you establish its authenticity by saying that "because it advocates goodness" then you have a circular reasoning. You are the ultimate decision maker on what is good and what is evil. However, the theist can respond Sartre in a different way: "I believe in divine revelation, not because I think it advocates what I consider to be good, but because it has a unique objective aspect which I think is distinguishable from human artifacts. As for moral values, the Supreme Creator blessed us with enough intelligence to distinguish badness from goodness. The divine revelation is only a reminder. It may also guide us to discover some complicated facts regarding goodness or badness in the interaction of things. Believing in God creates extra motivation to be in harmony with nature." Sartre challenges Christian doctrine and the Kantian ethics regarding the dilemma of the young boy who cannot make his mind whether to remain with his dependent mother, or help the country. "Which does the greater good, the vague act of fighting in a group, or the concrete one of helping a particular human being to go on living? Who can decide a priori? Nobody" (331). Ironically, Sartre is accepting an a priori "greater good": helping others. He does not question this value by suggesting a third option: choosing himself by betraying both his mother and country. 7. Re-inventing the wheel by promoting the rule of "no rule, no consultation" Sartre, regarding the young boy who found himself in a moral dilemma says: "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" (332). Sartre, by abstaining from giving advice reminds me of Ariston, the Greek intuitionist, who rejected the usefulness of moral rules. Ariston rejected moral rules for several reasons. After reading the following summary you may ask: was Sartre a reincarnated Ariston? According to Ariston, rules are not limited and not

exact. For instance, the rule "don't tell lie" is not practical since it does not provide the exceptional cases. Detailing all the exceptional cases without any exception is not possible. Therefore, in order to act virtuously in all situations, understanding is necessary. A moral person knows the principles of morality and creates his own rules on particular occasions with understanding, and rules become limitless and exact. (Compare to Sartre's challenge regarding the dilemma of young boy, in page 331.) Ariston asserted that if you are not virtuous rules are useless, since they don't give you the insight for "why" to do. If you are virtuous, again rules are futile, since the virtuous person is equipped with the formulation of final good, or the principles of philosophy which enables him how to act in particular situations. (Compare to Sartre's hypothetical answer to that young boy in page 332.) I would like to quote myself here. I had written a paper on Ariston's anti-rule position. It seems that it is appropriate to quote two paragraphs from my criticism of Ariston as a response to Atheistic Existentialism: Rediscovering rules is not reasonable. The principles of philosophy are universal. In fact, some rules have become universal throughout thousands-year long human experience, such as respecting parents, taking care of children, not stealing, etc. However, some rules can slightly vary according to the elements of societies. Therefore, a virtuous person who "prefers" to live in a certain society cannot find the appropriate rules without violating them or without learning them. It is very painful and time consuming to learn the rules by violating them one by one. Also it is not virtuous to expect the society to tolerate and bear with the wiseacre virtuous rediscoverers. Violation of some rules may have some fatal consequences on society and on individuals as well. For instance, having unlimited sexual intercourse with multiple partners without protection can create many unwanted children and spread sexual diseases. A young pupil who wants to be virtuous should not be advised to find the appropriate rules based on his

immature philosophy. Until he learns the nature he may destroy himself and others. Obviously, our reasoning commands us to find the appropriate rules through the best method. A method that eventually leads a person to eliminate some of the unreasonable and unnatural rules knowingly, should be preferred to the one that jeopardizes the well being of society and individuals. The former method is less risky and less regretful. Indeed, the collective reasoning of generations can be perfected in optimum way by natural selection, not by a default wholesale rejection of their moral rules. The paradox of dignity! Atheistic Existentialism ignores God and universal moral principles in order to provide humans with freedom and dignity. Sartre is certain that "this theory is the only one which gives man dignity, the only one which does not reduce him to an object" (335). Ironically, according the same theory, those who reject this theory also have the same amount of dignity and subjectivity. Some of those humans believe in certain universal moral principles and/or the existence of God with their free will. In other words, they have discovered or created God to invent themselves. They can claim that "we chose God, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all" (328). TOP

Philosophy and the proof of God's existence

One of the most far-reaching consequences of the rationalism of the Enlightenment was the undermining of basic Christian faith among the educated classes. The effect was unintended because the project of many Enlightenment philosophers was to prove the existence of God using reason: Descartes and Leibniz assumed that God's existence could be rationally proved, indeed God was a necessary part of their philosophy. There are many traditional "proofs" for the existence of God, and we will look at three of them: The argument from design, the ontological argument and the cosmological argument.

Traditional "proofs" of God's Existence

1) The argument from Design.

If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed. Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.

2) The ontological argument

God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist.

3) The cosmological argument (God as "First cause")

Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.

Pascal's Wager
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.) His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures. If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished. Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?

Kant
Kant attempted to show how philosophy could prove the existence of God. Unfortunately, for him his previous work showed that we could not know reality directly as thing-in-itself. What is real in itself is beyond our experience. Even if God exists, we can not know God as he really is.

For Kant the Christian could have faith in God, and this faith would be consonant with reason and the categorical imperative. Given that human beings have the autonomy to create moral values, it would not be irrational to believe in a God who gives purpose to the moral realm.

Hegel
Hegel thought that the God of religion was an intuition of Absolute Spirit or Geist. Hegel's Geist is not like the transcendent (outside of our consciousness) God of traditional Christianity. For Hegel God is immanent and when we have understood that history is the process of Geist coming to know itself it appears that we are all part of Geist, or God.

Feuerbach and Marx

For Feuerbach and Marx religion is seen as the projection of the human essence onto an ideal: God does not make man. Rather "God" is the invention of human consciousness. Marx also sees that religion is part of an ideological view that encourages the oppressed to accept their fate. As he says: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions."

Sren Kierkegaard
Sren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) agreed with Kant that the existence of God could not be proven by reason. However Kierkegaard did not think that it was rational to believe in God, rather one should have faith in God even if this seems to reason to be absurd. To put it another way reason has no place in faith. God is beyond reason.

Kierkegaard is regarded as the first existentialist.

Nietzsche: The Death of God

"Have you not heard the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly, 'I seek God!, I seek God!' ... Why, did he get lost? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated?... The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances. "'Whither is God'? He cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers...'" "...the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they to were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. 'I

came too early,' he said then; 'my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering -it has not yet reached the ears of man." In these passages Nietzsche is showing the inevitable unfolding anthropocentrism (lit. putting man at the centre of the world) implicit in philosophy since Kant. If we view our existence through human categories, then our concept of God is itself a human creation. Nietzsche is not simply asserting his atheism; he is suggesting that once we are aware that the concept of God is our own creation we can no longer base our religious and moral beliefs on any notion of a divine external reality. In the period that Nietzsche was writing, the death of God was just beginning. Western thought was starting to face the prospect of a radical change in its orientation, and it wasn't quite ready to own up to it yet. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche represent opposite reactions to the inability of rationality to give a rock solid theoretical proof of God's existence. Kierkegaard calls for us to embrace God even if it seems an absurdity, while Nietzsche says it is time for us to create a new mode of being, with human creativity at its centre. The atheist existentialist Sartre accepted God's death and much of his writing is attempt to look at the human condition in a world that is without a prime mover who could have provided a basis and structure for the understanding of being.

The twentieth century

Anglo American analytic philosophers of the twentieth century have tended to agree that philosophy may help us clarify religious concepts, without giving us a secure foundation for religious belief. Many people claim to have had a religious experience, to have experienced the divine directly. This experience is direct and is of a different quality to sensory experience or intellectual discovery, and therefore outside of the scope of philosophy. The view that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by philosophy has not stopped developments in modern theology. Theologians are attempting to balance the anthropocentric view of God presented by philosophers since the Enlightenment with the need to provide a spiritual path and a guide to an ethical and meaningful way of life.

To contents (home) You are here: Philosophy >> Existentialism - Learn More! >> Christian Existentialism
Christian Existentialism - Is it compatible? What is the Christian worldview toward Existentialism? Secular existentialism is a philosophical movement that is gaining an ever increasing popularity in the American

society and to a degree has slowly crept its way into some liberal circles of Christianity. But the worldview of traditional Christianity is that it is not compatible. Here are some reasons why. y Existentialism is a 20th century movement viewed by Christianity as the antithesis of faith in God because the philosophy asserts that God nor absolute truth exist. Existentialism believes in the total autonomy of a person from a world and life view apart from a God of sovereign authority, whereas Christianity acknowledges the existence of an all knowing, all powerful, and all present personal Creator who revealed Himself for the purpose of giving human life meaning. Existentialism states that the world is absurd, and there is no hope. Christianity states that the world is absurd, and it is a wonder there is hope. Existentialism is opposed to rationalism and traditional Christianity is not. Existentialism asserts that man is free from imposed moral values. Traditional Christianity believes in God s transcendent universal moral values. Existentialism asserts that each person is their own authority concerning truth. Traditional Christianity insists that God is the absolute final authority over His creation and all things. Existentialism believes that existence precedes essence. Traditional Christianity believes that a person s essence is predestined from God and precedes existence.

y y

Religious existentialism on the other hand is a philosophy of its own that is not compatible with either secular existentialism, nor traditional Christianity. There is a wide variety of forms of existential religion with differing doctrinal beliefs. Kierkegaard and later Karl Barth are sited for attempting to make theology, particularly the Christian faith, compatible with existentialism. Its premise is that a person must submit themselves totally to God without reasoning -- that is, true absolute faith must be void of philosophy or intellect. Religious existentialism then states such things as: y y y y y y y A person is autonomous and is fully free to make choices and fully responsible for them Rational grounds for theology and divine revelation do not exist True faith transcends rationalism and God s commandments The true God is not the God of philosophers or of rationalism The destruction of wars throughout human history proves there cannot be rational understanding of God or humanity A Christian must personally resolve within self the content of faith from being a myth or mystery to being realty or truth before they will allow an understanding and acceptance of salvation It is impossible to discover personal Being and faith through rational reasoning.

You are here: Philosophy >> Existentialism - Learn More! >> Christian Existentialism
Christian Existentialism - Is it compatible? What is the Christian worldview toward Existentialism? Secular existentialism is a philosophical movement that is gaining an ever increasing popularity in the American society and to a degree has slowly crept its way into some liberal circles of Christianity. But the worldview of traditional Christianity is that it is not compatible. Here are some reasons why.

Existentialism is a 20th century movement viewed by Christianity as the antithesis of faith in God because the philosophy asserts that God nor absolute truth exist. Existentialism believes in the total autonomy of a person from a world and life view apart from a God of sovereign authority, whereas Christianity acknowledges the existence of an all knowing, all powerful, and all present personal Creator who revealed Himself for the purpose of giving human life meaning. Existentialism states that the world is absurd, and there is no hope. Christianity states that the world is absurd, and it is a wonder there is hope. Existentialism is opposed to rationalism and traditional Christianity is not. Existentialism asserts that man is free from imposed moral values. Traditional Christianity believes in God s transcendent universal moral values. Existentialism asserts that each person is their own authority concerning truth. Traditional Christianity insists that God is the absolute final authority over His creation and all things. Existentialism believes that existence precedes essence. Traditional Christianity believes that a person s essence is predestined from God and precedes existence.

y y

Religious existentialism on the other hand is a philosophy of its own that is not compatible with either secular existentialism, nor traditional Christianity. There is a wide variety of forms of existential religion with differing doctrinal beliefs. Kierkegaard and later Karl Barth are sited for attempting to make theology, particularly the Christian faith, compatible with existentialism. Its premise is that a person must submit themselves totally to God without reasoning -- that is, true absolute faith must be void of philosophy or intellect. Religious existentialism then states such things as: y y y y y y y A person is autonomous and is fully free to make choices and fully responsible for them Rational grounds for theology and divine revelation do not exist True faith transcends rationalism and God s commandments The true God is not the God of philosophers or of rationalism The destruction of wars throughout human history proves there cannot be rational understanding of God or humanity A Christian must personally resolve within self the content of faith from being a myth or mystery to being realty or truth before they will allow an understanding and acceptance of salvation It is impossible to discover personal Being and faith through rational reasoning.

One would be still right in saying that the whole of western philosophy is an appendix on Socrates. So it is even true with existentialism that Socrates has been considered to be the first existentialist. Socrates statement : I am and always have been a man to obey nothing in my nature except the resoning which upon reflection, appears to me to be the best. Right from Plato down to (Spinoza, Leibnitz) Descartes, the majority of western thinkers have been believing in the immutability of ideas and the rest of the thinkers have been suggesting correctives to it. Anyhow their frame of reference has always been Essence Precedes Existence, essense being referred to ideas, values, ideals, thoughts, etc. and existence being referred to our lives. The last in the series was Hegal who carried farthest this effort to understand the world rationally.

MEANING OF EXISTENTIALISM -:

it is an approach to highlight the existence of being the process of becoming. Since a person, in the becoming state, always exists in a constantly dynamic phase, his life may be regarded as a journey on which he finds ever newer experiences and gains greater insights.

ETYMOLOGICAL MEANING -: Etymological meaning of existence from two German words -: ex-sistent meaning that which stands out, that which emerges suggests that existentialism is a philosophy that emerges out of problems of life.

EXISTENTIALISM DEFINED -: Various definitions of existentialism have been proposed by different authors. Blackham (1952) has described existenalism as a philosophy of being a philosophy of attestation and acceptance, and a refusal of the attempt to rationalize and to think Being. The peculiarity of existentialism, according to Blackham is that, it deals with the separation of man from himself and from the world, which raises the question of philosophy not by attempting to establish some universal form of justification which will enable man to readjust himself but by permanently enlarging and lining the separation itself as primordial and constitutive for personal existence.12 Harries and Leveys (1975) defined existentialism as any of several philosophic systems, all centred on the individual and his relationship the universe or to God. 13 Tiryakian (1962) defines it as an attempt to reaffirm the importance of the individual by rigorous and in many respects radically new analysis of the nature of man. 14 In the opinion presented here, existentialism is a humanistic perspective on the individual situation, a philosophy of existence, of being, of authenticity and of universal freedom. It is a quest, beyond despaire, for creative identity. It is the philosophy that is a counsellor in crisis, a crisis in the individuals life, which calls upon him to make a choice regarding his subsequent existence.15 In brief, Existence does not mean living alive alone, it means to maintain perfect, powerful, selfconscious, responsible and intelligent life. Man should get opportunity for subjective consciousness. Truth is realised only in inner life. As modern mechanical and industrial life has

taken away individual freedom from man, Existentialism lays emphasis on Freedom and Individual Responsibility. It has an Eye-view on human weakness and insecurity as man is leading a lonely life, being surrounded byanxieties, frustrations, fear, feeling of guilt etc. His individuality is being crushed. BASIC TENETS AND FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATES -: BASIC TENETS AND FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATES -: 1) The centre of existence is man rather than truth, laws, principles or essence.

Man is characterized by decisions, will and choice. Although existentialists emphasize mans place in the world, or mans relationship to Being, or even mans relationship to God, they still indicate that there is a certain uniqueness and mystery about the human person. The phenomenon of man is life as it is lived, and the mystery is an awareness of mans deep and complex meaning, science and rational thinking cannot grasp or explain it. 2) This notion of the uniqueness and mystery man implies that previous definitions of man have been completely unsatisfactory. The uniqueness of man comes from his emotions, feelings, perception and thinking. The philosophy of existentialism stresses meaning, only through development of meaning in his life, man can make something of the absurdity which surrounds him. Man is the maker, and, therefore, the master of culture. It is man who imposes a meaning on his universe, although that universe may well function without him. Man cannot be taught what the world is about. He must create this for himself. 3) Man is not alone in the world.

He is connected to other men; he communicates with others; therefore, he cannot live in a state of anarchy. Life is seen as a gift, which, in part is a mystery. Man is free to choose commitments in life, in his choice, he becomes himself. He is the product of his choices. He is, therefore, an individual who is different from other persons. The real living person is more important than any statement we can make about him. Mans existence is more important than his essence. 4) Existentialism propounds the belief that man cannot accept the ready-made concepts of existence forced upon him. He is a free agent capable of shaping of shaping his own life and choosing his own destiny. Thus we cannot treat people as machines, first pulling one lever, than another, and expect predictable results. Therefore, we cannot say that the stimulus response or conditioning is a sufficient description of mans behaviour. Man can transcend both himself and his culture. 5) A synthesis of immanency and transcendency, guided by a primordial sense of ontological wonder and subjective knowledge constitutes existence.

6) People are able to appreciate human fortitude only through extreme situations, sorrow, disappointment and death enable humans to achieve authentic life. In short the main tenets of existentialism involve a kind of subjective and direct approach upholding the emergence of the person in a rather impersonal environment. SOME CONCEPTS USED IN EXISTENTIALISM -:

SOME CONCEPTS USED IN EXISTENTIALISM -: 1) Existence precedes essence

It was Plato who said that the surrounding world is a world of essences - ideas, values, ideals, thought etc. and the purpose of life is to discover these essences. Essences are already there and they precede existence. Even existence is an embodiment of an essence - the self, which is a part of an universal essence - the self. The majority of other Western philosopher carried forward this theory. Descartes even affirmed the reality of existence because of its essence - thinking as he said, I think, therefore, I am. Bergson even went to the extreme of saying that I do not think it (essence) thinks in me, 16 thereby striking a transcendental, desperately deterministic note on human existence. Similarly naturalist philosophers rejected this type of a transcendental determinism but replaced it by a naturalistic determinism by identifying essences in nature as preceding existence. On the other hand pragmatists spoke of social determinism. As such, exstentialism is a revolt against any kind of determinism and an affirmation of the free nature of man. They affirm that existence is prior to essence that man is fundamentally free to create his essences. As Blackham writes, There is no creater of man. Man discovered himself. His existence came first, he now is in the process of determining his essence. Man first is, then he defines himself.17 As Sartre himself explains his concept to us, what is meant here by saying that, existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and only afterwards defines himself. It mean, as the existentialist sees him is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterwards will be something and he himself will have made what he will be18 Therefore, it can be easily observed that when idealists believe in transcendental values, Naturalists believe that values are resident in nature, pragmatists believe that values arise out of social life, existentialists affirm that the individual alone creates values. Reality is a state of becoming. Existence increases with every moment of life and essence is a consequence of this perpetual becoming.

2)

Contingency of human life is the giveness or throw ness of human life.

Existentialists believe that existence of a person means his period from birth to death. There was nothing before birth and would be nothing beyond death. In between we have been thrown into a social life and the characteristics of this social life are the contingent circumstances of our life. This contingency is often characterised by experiences of dread, horror, anguish, solitude, bewilderment, uncertainty and finally limited by death.19 As Jean Wahl puts it : Man is in this world, a world limited by death and experienced in anguish; is aware of himself as essentially anxious; is burdened by his solitude within the horizen of his temporality.20 Therefore, we are all aware of our situation in life, limited by death and existentialists rightly remark that man is the only being in the world who knows that some time he will die. That is why his existence is throughout permeated by dread, anxiety and fear. He cannot escape or transcend this situations. He must learn to live with anguish, dread and anxiety. He must learn to love death (Justices Socrates, Lincoln, Kennedy, Gandhi and a score of other great men for whom dying for a meaningful cause was of greater significance than living a purposeless life.) INDIAN PHILOSOPHY AND EXISTENTIAL CONCEPT -: There are a number of correlates in Indian philosophy for existential concepts for e.g., anguish, Dukha, dread and horror; Bhagya, Bhiti etc. But when existentialism advises us to live with these categories of contingency, Indian philosophy counsels us to transcend them. This is very clearly evident in the concepts of a sthithaprajna21 in the Gita. One sloke runs like this (He who is not depressed by anguish, elated by joy and at times of fear, anxiety love, horror and anger maintains his equanimity and poise as a sage). 23 Even the India attitude towards death is similar to that of existentialism. As an illustration, to quota Gita -: (For a man enjoying popular esteem infancy is worse than death) Gandhi once had said that death in freedom is sweeter than life in bondage.25 3) Freedom is identical with existence -:

According to Sartre freedom is identical with existence. As such existentialism has even been described as a search for ways in which mans freedom to create may be widely established and understood. In Marjorie Grenes terms -: The revolutionary philosophy turns out to be philosophy of freedom - not just the philosophy of those who seek freedom but the philosophy of the very free act itself.27 According to existentialists, man is not only free but he is condemned to be free. He is only not free, not to be free. This is the tragedy of human life. This infinite freedom entails upon him a heavy sense of responsibility and this situation of being burdened with a heavy responsibility is the cause of dread, anguish and anxiety. The peculiar quality of

human reality is that it is without excuse.28 A bold, honest, responsible and authentic existence would help man to face this situation. 4) Being

According to existentialist, education should make a man subjective and should make him conscious for his individuality or self. Being self conscious he will recognise his self and he will get an understanding of his being. 5) Authentic man

Existentialists have a special connotation of the Authentic man, they say is one who has permeation of his values and choices by clear awareness of his situation, especially regarding the fact of death. If a man considers death imminent he leads authentic existence. 6) Individuality

Individuality lies on self-realisation, a motivating force, which makes the inner life of man centre of concentration free from anxiety. There is a basic desire and inclination for the existence of individuality in man. It should be recognised. If this existential individuality is recognised, his life becomes purposeful and important. At the same time he becames conscious for his self. 7) Subjectivity (self consciousness)

It means nature of knower. But Chaube, S.P. and Akhilesh (1981, p.225) writes -: Kierkegeard says, Because I exist, because I think, therefore, I think that I exist. According to the statement I think it is clear that I exists and it has existence. I that exists is always subjective and not objective. Objectivity always proves an impossible notion. It gives only ideas but these ideas can be realised only by becoming introvert and subjective. If we use we in place of I the existence of I is lost and objectivity replaces subjectivity. Existential subjectivity means only selfexistence. Objective knowledge is realised mentally only when a person ponders over it subjectively. But objective knowledge is without object, because as soon as the self-realises it, it becomes devoid of object and by becoming centre of self-consciousness, becomes comprehensive and subjective. Now the person because of knowing the object does not desire to know the object, but he emerges himself in knowing the self. (Note -: The concept meaning and existence is already discussed) FUNDAMENTALS -: 1) 2) For the existentialist Reality I s Being or existence of an individual. Existentialism wants man to be without metaphysics.

3) They wish to restore the status of man which he has lost in this advanced technological and mechanised society.

4) Man is not man but humanity. It implies that each mans actions, while subjectively inspired influence by other people. 5) The existentialists aver that the persons mind is the source and substance of all knowledge. 6) 7) The realisation of existence proceeds from the inwardness of man. That knowledge is valid which is of value to the individual.

8) They do not believe in absolute values. They argue that as long as the empirical spirit remains alive, it must remain open to revision and correction and hence it cannot adhere to fixed values. 9) 10) Values should be generated by our free decisions. Freedom is the source of ultimate values.

11) The emphasis on personal existence and subjectivity in existentialism has led to an emphasis on mans freedom, Choice and Action. 12) Freedom is the raw material of his being. Man owes his being to freedom, which is the basis of all human activity. To be free is to be free to change to do, to act, to inflict oneself on the world, to change the world.29 13) The idea of death should be accepted gracefully.

14) Existence precedes essence. It means a person lives before he dies. Until a person dies he can always change his essence by doing good things and then he will die a noble death. 15) Even if God exists, that would make no difference for a man who needs to know that nothing can save him from himself, not even the valid proof of the existence of God. 16) Human development is seen as independent of external forces, guided by the creative forces of the integral self. It is the development that is a self-directed synthesis of self-destined energy, potential, aspirations and needs. 17) The individual has freedom of choice, which implies a capacity to change. It is a freedom that helps with the self-emerging process. 18) Identify and security attained at the cost of freedom constitude bad faith. Likewise, to question the dynamic of the personality is an act of bad faith. 19) Development consists of a uniquely subjective style by which the individual relates to others and to the processes of being and becoming.

20) The individuality of man is supreme. This individuality is greater and more important than the existence of man, nation and the world. It is very much near to the individual life of man.30 21) The existence of self is related with the existence of the other.

V.R. Taneja Writes -: Existentialists do not believe in absolute values. Indirectly, however, they concede absolute values like awareness of death, fidelity, sincerity, integrity etc. Existentialism is an ethic of integrity in which running away from oneself is evil, facing oneself is good. It is the integrity of character and action rather than of vision alone that is to be prized. Treat every man as an end and never as means. Everyone must choose without reference to pre-established values. Everyone has to invent a law for oneself. Man makes himself. He is not found readymade. He makes himself by the choice of his morality. He cannot choose anything else except his morality. Such is the pressure of circumstances upon him. The heart and centre of existentialism is the absolute character of free commitment through which he realise himself.31 EDUCAIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF EXISTENTIALISM -: The philosophy of existentialism has not displayed any particular interest in eduction.32 Therefore, it has been observed that the educational implications are derived and deduced from their philosophy rather than that are developed by existentialists. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF EDUCTION AND EXISTENTIALISM 1) Education is that which helps an individual to realise the best that he is capable of. In doing so eduction must help the individual to realise the facticity (contingency) of his existence to face the categories of this facticity - dread, anguish, anxiety and fear - resolutely and courageously and finally prepare him to meet death with pleasure.33 2) Education for happiness is a dangerous doctrine because there can be no happiness without pain and no ecstasy without suffering.34 Therefore, existentialists would welcome an education, which throws open to children human suffering, misery, anguish and the dreadful responsibilities of adult life. 3) Students must develop a consistent scale of values, authenticate their existence by being committed to these values and so act as to be prepared to die for these values than to live without them. Dyning for ones own country constituted the supreme sacrifice. 4) Every individual is unique. Education must develop in him this uniqueness. It must cater to individual differences. 5) Education must make pupil aware of the infinite possibilities of his freedom and the responsibilities he must bear in life.

6) The most important aim in education is the becoming of a human person as one who lives and makes decisions about what he will do and be. Knowing in the sense of knowing oneself, social relationship, and biological development, are all the parts of becoming. Human existence and the value related to it is the primary factory in eduction. 7) Education for complete development of personality. 8) More importance to subjective knowledge than objective knowledge. 9) Education for perfection of man in his environment. 10) Education should create consciousness for self.

11) Eduction should train men to make better choices and also give the man the idea that since his choices are never perfect, the consequences cannot be predicted. 12) The ultimate aim of education is to make man conscious of his destination, to give understanding of his being and ultimately lead him to his heavenly abode. So, it is clear that the existentialism accepts the principle of liberal education.35 In short, the objective of education is to enable every individual to develop his unique qualities, to harness his potentialities and cultivate his individualities. It means the implication of existentialist formulations for child rearing education and counselling practises are many. Since existentialists behold human life as unique and emerging a child is to be recognised as a full person and not simple as an in complete adult. The practices by which the child is socialized varied from culture to culture. CURRICULUM OF EXISTENTIALISM -: 1) Since the existentialists believe in the individuals freedom, they do not advocate any rigid curriculum. 2) They recognise the individual differences and wish to have diverse curricula suiting the needs, abilities and aptitudes of the individual. 3) Curriculum, they say should not primarily satisfy the immediate needs but also ultimate needs. 4) The central place is given to humanities, poetry, drama, music, art, novels etc. as they exert the human impact in revealing mans inherent quilt, sin, suffering, tragedy, death, late and love. Humanities have spiritual power. Art and Literature, they say should be taught, as they represent a priori (cause effect) power of human nature. Through these the students profit from the ideas and judgement of others.

5) Second place is given to social sciences as they lead the man to feel that he is nothing more than an object. They however, wish to teach social sciences for inculcating moral obligation and for knowing the relationship of the individual to a group.36 6) History should be taught in order to help the students to change the course of history and to mould future. 7) The specialization in any field must be complemented by liberalising studies for it is the man who counts and not the profession. 8) The study of the worlds religion should be taught so as to develop religious attitude freely within the students. The ideal school permits religious unfolding in according with whatever doctrine the student wishes to accept or to reject. Religion keeps him aware of death. 9) Realisation of self-forme part of the curriculum. Self-examination and social obedience is the first lesson. The child must be saved from his own unexamined self and from those who interfere with the free exercise of his moral decision. 10) Scientific subjects and mathematics should be included in the curriculum but they should not be given more stress, as they deal with objective knowledge. Self-knowledge precedes universal knowledge.37 In short, they dont believe in formal curriculum consisting of set of body of studies to be pursued but a curriculum, which features the reverberatory effect upon heart, and mind of passionate good reading and then personal contact. The curriculum should be chosen, sorted out and owned by the learner. INSTUCTIONAL TECHNIQUE AND EXISTENTIALISM -: 1) Existentialists favour the Socratic Approach to teaching, as Socratic Method is personal, intimate and an I-thou affair. As Kneller put it, The existentialist favours the Socratic method, not so much because it involves induction or the collection and analysis of all available evidence, nor because of its complementary process of definition, whereby general values are reached from particular instances; but chiefly because it is a method that tests the inner-life-as a stesthoscope sounds the heart.38 2) Socratic Problem Method should be accepted if the problem originates in the life of the one who has to work out the solutions. But it is unacceptable if the problem is derived from the needs of the society. 3) Like Socrates, personal reading should be stressed. 4) They reject the group method, because in-group dynamic, the superiority of the group decision over individual decision is prominent. There is a danger of losing unique individualism and free choice.

5) Methods of teaching must develop the creative abilities in children. The world and man reveal themselves by their undertakings. COUNSELLING AND EXISTENTIALISM -: 1) It is from the psychological interpretations of existential thought that counselling thinkers get much of their intellectual grounding. 2) Counselling have become an integral part of education and are playing an important role in helping young people to meet the challenge and to develop a positive view of self. 3) It insists that the aim of counselling in education is to promote maximum self-development by enhancing the individuals powers to choose for, and direct himself. THE COUNSELLORS ROLE -: 1) The counsellors efforts are directed through towards helping each of the counsellors to formulate a set of unique beliefs and a way of practising them. He does not emphasize and right values. 2) All learning aims are formulating the aspirations and desires of the unique individuals, so that he can understand himself and through this build up personal regard for others. 3) Counselling theory takes a dynamic view of personality. Each human being started with what he has by heredity and should continue to change and grow through experiences during his lifetime. THE TEACHER AND EXISTENTIALISM -: 1) Existentialists do not wish the teacher to be social minded umpire or provider of free social activity (as the pragmatists want) or a model personality (as the Idealists say) to be limited, by the students. He must himself be a free personality, engaged in such relations and projects with individual students that they get the idea that they are too are free personalities. 2) He may indirectly influence them about his values but he should impose his cherished values on them, test his values become the code of conduct for the students, who may begin to accept them without thought. Instead of expecting them to imitate he should help them to be original and authentic. 3) His effort should be that students mind should have autonomous functioning so that they become free, charitable and self-moving. 4) The role of teacher is very important because he is the creator of such as educational situation in which the student can establish contact with his self by becoming conscious of his self and can achieve self-realization.

5) It is the teacher who impresses up on the students to work hard and make the best of life and accept death as something inevitable but tell them that death can be gloomy as well as glorious. It is he who inculcates in the students the idea that a life lived lazily, selfishly or improperly is a life not worthy living. Dying for ones country is glorious. So, the role of the teacher is very important. 6) The teacher must build positive relationships between himself and his students.

7) Teachers should avoid applying labels to children (such as lazy, slow learner etc.) for individuals may indeed come to think of themselves this way. 8) of self. The teacher is also changing and growing as he guides the pupil in his discovery

THE CHILD AND THE EXISTENTIALISM -: 1) The existentialists want to give full freedom to the child. But the child should know the nature of his self and recognise his being and convert imperfection into perfection. 2) They do not want the child to become selfish, autocratic and irresponsible. Freedom is needed only for natural development. 3) Education should be provided according to the childs powers and the needs. The relation of the child with his self should be strengthened rather than severed. 4) The child has to make choices and decisions.

5) Child thrives better when relieved from intense competition, harsh discipline, and fear of failure. Thus each child can grow to understand his own needs and values and take charge of the experiences for changing him. In this way self-evaluation is the beginning and end of the learning process, as learning proceeds, child is freely growing, fearless, understanding individual. 6) Primary emphasis must always be on the child, as learner and not on the learning programme. 7) Child needs positive evaluation, not labels.

SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND THE EXISTENTIALISM -: 1) way. The school should provide an atmosphere where the individuals develop in a healthy

2) Any subjectin school (even extra activities like athletics, music etc.) can present existential situations for teaching and the development of human beings.

3) The aim of school tasks should be to nurture self-discipline and cultivate selfevaluation. 4) 5) Mass teaching and mass testing are not advocated in schools. The schedule must be flexible and open.

6) Democratic ideals should pervade the school. Democracy must be the soil in which the individual grows. It should be the democracy of unique individuals who value differences and respect one another. Self-government, pupil participation in planning and the encouragement of a free atmosphere characterize the school. 7) Mechanization and impersonality should be counteracted in school. Students timetables and work programmes are computerized. And thus the relationships between the individual students and the school programme becomes an impersonal one. Besides this, the use of programmed instruction, teaching machines and other equipments tend to decrease the personal contact between teachers and pupils. This impersonality is a hazard to the individual development and growth of the childs personality. Concern and respect for the individual student should be a feature of the school. VALUE JUDGEMENT AND LIMITATION -: 1) After studying the philosophy of Existentialism, the question will arise in anybodys mind : how can the aims, curricula and methods in a school depend upon the individuals choice and freedom? Organization of such a programme would be impossible and bring about chaos. 2) The teachers individual relationship and close understanding of every pupils personality would require a great deal of time and effort. 3) The concepts of Being, meaning, Person are not very clear and appear nebulous. It is not easy to build up an educational programme when the terminology for the objectives of the educational process are not clear. 4) Where there is child-rearing education and counselling practices are many the practices by which the child is socialized varies from one culture to another. If the emphasis in the culture is on mundane security and the value of world essence, then the individual may experience neurotic growth through the conflict between these unsuitable values and the persons inner forces of creativity that continue to aspire for unique emergence and subjective expression. The extent to which a child is accepted or rejected, succeeds or fails, and develops satisfactorily of is retarded depends on the experiences and processes which explain the meaning of things (persons, objects, situations) in relation to the childs being. 5) Educational standards and practices that manipulate the childs behaviours in an arbitrary manner violate the principle of free choice.

6) Many teaching practices, testing procedures, and bureaucratic system of classifying children may be questioned. 7) Over structured public and parochical school systems enslave rather than liberate young souls. Such institutions serve a political rather than a truly educational purpose, promoting the manufacture of efficient robot rather than inspired, enlightened, and creative individuals. As a result various contemporary educational theories are radicalising the institutionalised structures of learning. 8) Teachers who have learned to provide existential encounters for their students enable the learners, to create meanings in a cosmos devoid of objective meaning to find reasons for being in a society with fewer and fewer open doors. 9) If the purpose of education is to build character, to optimise potential and creativity and to enhance the quality of life through knowledge, then from an existentialist perspective bureaucratisation needs to be replaced by humanization. That the existential goal is not being achieved today is illustrated by such evidence as that product in a study of students values indication that American students predominantly seek to learn survival skills rather than to develop a social conscience, a situation contrary to an existentialist view of satisfactory development. This crisis in education is not confined to the west but is observed in Eastern Cultures as well. 10) In the realm of counselling existential intervention is conceptualised as a conscioms attitudinal perspective toward rebuilding the impaired self. The existential influences on counselling practices, though not fully acknowledged nor duly assessed, have been far-reaching. Some form of existential intervention is employed by such a range of practioners as those using gestalt therapy, antipsychiatry, rational-emotive psychotherapy, psychodrama, transactional analysis communication and cognitive approaches, encounter groups, and reality therapy.
Learning to Be: This type of learning leads to self-knowledge. It should contribute to the development of the whole person - mind and body, intelligence, sensitivity, aesthetic appreciation and spirituality. Learning to be develops an independent, critical way of thinking and judgement so that individuals can make up their own minds on the best courses of action in different circumstances throughout their lives. (Schofield, 1999, p. 17)

This description accords well with the implications developed from the existential framework. The description of this same pillar as given in a draft of Queensland's strategy, stated that "learning to be: the development of individual personalities to be creative, independent and responsible, with opportunities for aesthetic, artistic, scientific, cultural and social discovery. These skills are a building block for economic progress" (Education Queensland, 1999, p. 22). This second sentence is a direct misrepresentation of how the Pillar appears in other sources.

Existentialism

Existentialism believes in the personal interpretation of the world. It is based on the view that the individual defines reality, truth and goodness. As a result, schools exist to aid children in knowing themselves and their place in society. Students learn what they want and discuss subjects freely.