Just reconstructed...Oct. 6th, 2009.
A distinction can be made between the type of existentialism that was laid down by Jean-Paul Sartre - let us call this Tabula Rasa or Relativist Existentialism; vs. two other types of existentialism that I support: 1. Essential Existentialism; and 2. Dialectic Existentialism. .
Essential existentialism is the anti-thesis of Sartre's Tabla Rasa Existentialism and can be defined by the formula: Essence precedes existence, as opposed to Sartre's famous formula: Existence precedes essence.
In contrast to both of the opposing types of existentialism, Dialectic Existentialism would state something like this: Essentialism and existentialism play of each other - dialectically interact with each other - from the day we are born to the day we die. Thus, Dialectic Existentialism integrates Essentialism and Sartre's type of Existentialism.
By 'Essentialism' we mean here that man has what has been historically called his 'spirit' or his 'soul' - an 'essence' that makes each of us uniquely who we are. We are not only what we do (Sartre) but also what we dream of doing, being, and becoming. Our dreams are often the gateway to our soul. Poisoned dreams are usually a reflection of a poisoned soul.
Thus, essentialism and existentialism need each other just like day and night need each other, up and down need each other, men and women need each other, 'yin' and 'yang' need each other. Essentialism without existentialism is out of balance and existentialism without essentialism is out of balance.
Thus, Sartre's brand of existentialism is out of balance.
The concept of dialectic existentialism makes much more sense than tabula rasa existentialism when we come to make such comparisons and contrasts as between 'being' and 'becoming', 'being' and 'non-being', and between 'a vibrant, passionate, self-fulfilling or self-actualizing existence' and an 'alienated, depressing existence'.
Sartre's reasoning that if a man acts like a 'fish', then he is leading an 'inauthentic' existence begs the question: Why? Because if the man has no 'self-essence', then there is no basis of 'right' or 'wrong' that should dictate that a man should not act like a fish. The idea of 'inauthenticity' only has meaning if we include the idea of a 'self-essence' which is implicit in this statement where Sartre is assuming that the 'self-essence' of a man or woman is different than the 'self-essence' of a fish. There would be no other basis of logic for his arguing that a man behaving like a fish was leading an 'inauthentic' existence. Furthermore, there might be some 'career or hobby divers' who actually do dream of being able to swim like a fish.
Furthermore, there is at least one more philosophical position here - an integrative position - which is the position I take. And that can be called 'Essential Dialectic Existentialism'. The idea here is two fold: 1. Essence precedes existence - essentialism is the unique blueprint of the personality; and 2. from the day we are born to the day we die, essence will continue to interact with each other in an ongoing dialectic relationship. Essence influences existence. And existence influence essence. A poisonous existence can eventually lead to a poisonous essence.
Let us see how these ideas stated quickly above contrast with what we can find on the internet as pertains to Sartre's tablula rasa, relativist brand of existentialism.
................................................................................................. .............................................................................................
From the internet...
Existentialism...Wikipedia...
Existence precedes essence A central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence, which means that the actual life of the individual is what constitutes what could be called his "essence" instead of there being a predetermined essence that defines what it is to be a human. Although it was Sartre who explicitly coined the term, similar notions can be found in the thought of many existentialist philosophers, from Kierkegaard to Heidegger. It is often claimed in this context that man defines himself, which is often perceived as stating that man can "wish" to be something anything, a bird, for instance and then be it. According to most existentialist philosophers, however, this would rather be a kind of inauthentic existence. What is meant by the statement is that man is (1) defined only insofar as he acts and (2) that he is responsible for his actions. To clarify, it can be said that a man who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel man and in that same instance, he (as opposed to his genes, or "the cruel nature of man", for instance) is defined as being responsible for being this cruel man. As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world and defines himself afterwards." Of course, the more positive, therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: You can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since man can choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things essentially.[58]
..............................................................................
You can see how Sartre's brand of existentialism is basically equated with 'existentialism-as-whole'. This is basically wrong - although implicitly assumed - because I have just contrasted Sartre's brand of existentialism with at least two other philosophical positions that take either the opposite position or a mixed, integrative position. Furthermore, Sartre's brand of existentialism is probably the weakest of the three brands of existentialism with the brand I am suggesting - Essential Dialectic Existentialism - by far the strongest.
Subjectively it is our 'wants' and 'needs' and 'dreams' and 'fantasies' (and our 'nightmares') that define us; objectively, it is our actions that define us. Deeds speak - but they often belie our inner core, our inner essence for better or for worse. In Jungian terms, we all have a 'Persona' and we all have a 'Shadow' and the two dialectically intertwine all of our lives and integrating our Persona with our Shadow is probably the best way to get in better contact with our inner Essence, our inner Core.
Our Persona - our 'social self' - by itself is generally out of balance.
Our Shadow - our hidden or suppressed Self - is by itself generally out of balance as this aspect of our personality strives to overcompensate for an out of balance Persona.
And like the constantly swinging pendulum of life, balance generally comes from the following democratic Hegelian dialectic formula: thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis.
1. Thesis/Persona; 2. Anti-Thesis/Shadow; 3. Synthesis/Essential Existentialism (authentic, balanced living, and good contact with the essence of our Self).
We can also call this 'Subjective-Objectivism' or 'Objective Subjectivism'.
The dialectic formula bridges the gap between two opposing extremes, in this case, between existentialism and essentialism.
But without this dialectic bridge - which Sartre's brand of existentialism is sorely missing, existentialism becomes 'the sound of one hand clapping'.
Sartre could have decided to have been a ballerina and by the logic of his 'tabula rasa' brand of existentialism, he would have had no grounds upon which to say that he was living an 'inauthentic life'. Because according to Sartre, he had no 'essence'.
Without the concept of 'essence', Sartre's concepts of 'authenticity', 'inauthenticity', 'good faith', 'bad faith', all ring hollow and shallow. Relativism - whether it is cultural relativism or existentialist relativism - has no basis of comparison or contrast for ethics or morality or good or bad or right or wrong, or contactful or alienated.
Not even for being a 'fish' which assumes that the 'essence' of a 'man' is different than the 'essence' of a fish.
If you have the capacity, the talent and the potential to be a nuclear physicist, and you choose to be a bricklayer, well, Sartre has no grounds by which to say you are living an 'inauthentic life'.
In essence, Sartre's brand of existentialism has no essence.
Here is a list of DGB Philosophy's top 15 essential-dialectic-existential concepts:
1. 'Authentic';
2. 'Inauthentic';
3. 'Congruence';
4. 'Incongruence';
5. 'Acting in good faith';
6. 'Acting in bad faith';
7. 'Alienation';
8. 'The Master-Slave Relationship'
9. 'The Sado-Masochistic Relationship;
10. 'Authoritarianism';
11. 'Confluence (no self-boundaries)';
12. 'Approval-Seeking (wishing to please and/or not displease others at the expense of losing one's own self-boundaries)';
13. 'Self-Fulfillment' or 'Self-Actualization' or 'Individuation' (living an authentic, contactful existence);
14. 'Self-assertiveness';
15. 'Passion' as in a passion for existence, being, and becoming....
.....................................................................................
