Existentialist Trap

Existentialism had its heyday during times of extreme stress and turmoil, from the late Victorian era to the 1960s. Since then, it is not a philosophy in vogue. As an introspecitve philosophy, perhaps it has something to do with 'looking inside' when the external world in unrewarding or deadly.
 

I didn't mention the religious adherents and exponents of Existentialism. It is still studied by some theological students, usually the more liberally minded. That tradition starts with Soren Kierkegaard and flows through Martin Heidegger, and still influences many liberal American theologians. I don't know much about Existential spiritualism, as I am generally averse to things spiritual, but it is enough for my present purpose that there is such a thing. I think it is "spiritualism" which somehow ties together the various kinds of Existentialism.

In Being and Nothingness, what Sartre tries to prove is there is some spiritual essence. He was troubled by the same thing troubling many people during the last century: am I nothing but an animal? He was unable to accept the modern scientific view of Homo sapiens as a highly evolved animal; a view central to my beliefs. In that feeling, he is not alone, as millions of people - perhaps the majority - consider themselves "spiritual" beings. The various and sundry ways people find their spirituality shows this identity is not easily defined, nor can it be justifed by any physical evidence, especially scientific evidence.
 

The one thing all the Existentialists have in common is their belief in some form of spiritual self. Perhaps this is why the religious varieties of Existentialism are still au courant. That is the important point here: the spirituality of Existentialism.

The difficulty, from my point of view, is the multiple, contradictory and contrary conclusions reached by Existentialists. While Sartre seeks a self, as a Communist he does not seek a god. For the religious Existentialists, the transvaulation of self is the first step in recognition of a transcendent self ("souil"), thence God. For the Fascists and Capitalists, it doesn't matter whether there are any gods; what matters is the self-asssertion (of a transcendantal self) which justifies ruling over others. Even though I have been attracted to Existentialism from time to time, I have to question the validity of a method or outlook or doctrine (whichever it is) that leads to so many shifting results. It is like peering through a leafy tree carressed by flirting breezes.

It is a principle of mathematical logic that an argument is valid when a false antecedent implies any consequent. That is, from false premises, one can draw any conclusion. When the antecedent is true, the argument is only valid if the consequent is also true. Truth has a much narrower range than falsity. Looking at this the other way around, a claim we make as a true conclusion does not imply the truth of any antecedent. On the other hand, falsity always implies the fallacious nature of its antecedents in a valid argument. This analysis shows that we must judge two things when considering claims made: the argument form and its nodes. This amounts to evaluating whether the connections can made between nodes, and what is the "truth" of each node. The mere existence of an argument, that A implies B, is insuffiicent to determine its validity; we have to determine the truth of A and B independently and separately.

In thinking about Existentialism, I have to hang onto the notion that, in valid arguments, false antecedents imply anything. When antecedents (premises) are used in various arguments to demonstrate this, that or the other thing, it is very likely the antecedents are false. So, the fact of disparate results of Existentialist methods suggests all of the starting points are false. This is merely a suggestion, not a proof of falsity, because there remains the possibility that the argument is invalid.Invalid arguments start with anything, true or false. An argument is considered invalid when true premises lead to false conclusions, as our conventional belief is that true premises should lead to truthful conclusions. Somehow, it doesn't violate our sensibilities when false antecedents are linked to truthful conclusions as, formally, that is considered a valid argument. So, an argument is considered valid whenever the conclusion is known to be true. This assymtery puts a premium on known truths, regardless of how they are derived. Truth has a special place, because it colors everything around it. Falsity doesn't do much for its surround, although it may obscure a truth in the background when imbedded in an invalid argument. This analogy creates the eye's world in which there are colored bits here and there in a hazy gray field of shades. Here and there in the background, there are even patches of darkness, a complete lack of any light. What the Existentialist asks us to do is fasten our attention onto the bits of color, without reference to the field in which they appear. That is transcendental Being which, when seen, justifies the other things we connect to it.

This seems a straightfoward enough exercise, except that I cannot do it. I never see the bits of color. I am told that is because I lack the proper training in spiritual undertakings. Perhaps if I attended Yoga M or Guru X ... Smoking dope helps. Apparently, this is not so simple.

In the end, that is my problem with Existentialism. I cannot trapse about the country amidst a sparkling, drugged haze like Jack Kerouac. Either I am weak or incapabale, but I cannot do it.  And, I cannot sufficiently meditate to arrive at some recognition of transcendental self, never mind actually fasten onto it. No, I cannot do that. Perhaps that is why I am a scientist. In science, the facts (truthful conclusions) are readily observable by anyone. The strength of science is the publicity of its methods and assertions. Science is not merely finding a wonderfully colored stone, it is also knowing where and when to discover them in our obscured world. Science rigorously connects only known facts to other known facts, systematically excluding falsity as well as the uncertain and improbable. Even if a scientific hypothesis predicts something, and even if we rely on that prediction, that something is at best only tentatively true, not a certainty. Thus, astrronauts who ride the Space Shuttle do so ultimately on a hope and a prayer, even if on many prior occasions the estimates of their navigational computers proved correct.

Thus, a main difference between Existentialism and science is a matter of outlook, particularly with respect to invididuals. Existentialism is inward directed, even solipcistic, as in Descartes' cogito. Science is outward directed and always public, as demonstrated by peer review of scientific work. That is why, in science, people are impersonal 'workers' and 'observers,' not the very individual "I" of introspection or Freudian analysis. It is the publicity of science that prevents the willfull assertions of a Nietzsche, or the false claims of Libertarians of public tolerance of Capitalist predation. It is the social nature of science that makes possible recognition of Self as an instance of Other.

Existentialists and others of similar mind can certainly rebuke my foregoing analysis, for, even if science proceeds by linking facts into an unbreakable chain, the chain starts somewhere. There has to be an act of valuation of that initial thing presented as "fact;" the first truth. I concede that argument, but the retort is easy enough. In Existentialism and other spiritual exercises, there are assorted facts each practitioner believes to be true. Those beliefs are not links of a chain, as by their very nature they are subjective, part of a person's consciousness of "being." Truths grasped by meditation or introspeciton stand alone as insights. The typical goal of Existential and spiritual practices is an "inner state" or recognition of truths about oneself. While practitioners may achieve exalted states of Being, none of that helps anyone else, nor is it intended to help anyone else. I think that is why such practices are often associated with asceticism.

Finally, perhaps it all comes down to what orientation one prefers. For myself, that is clearly social and public, not private. That is how I avoid the Existentialist Trap. It makes all the difference, for just as the public nature of science is the guarantor of its facts, the social nature of ethics underlies morality.