God's Will vs. Existentialism

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheDumbFox
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheDumbFox

Guest
Hello!

I’ve been studying Existentialism lately in my college philosophy class. One of the core tenets of Existentialism is that “being precedes essence.” This said, there is no God planning our whole life, who has a will for us to follow. Nor is there a perfect human nature that we strive to imitate or attain, merely a human condition that we find ourselves in.

With this said, does the Church really teach that God has a plan for our lives? Or that he has an ultimate plan that includes everything? Specifically, does he know us before we are conceived, or if not, does he make a plan for us once we arrive on the scene? If someone could clarify what the Church teaching is on God’s Divine Will, both personally and as a whole, I think it would help much out greatly in my battles with existentialism. If you can, please provide supporting sources. Thank you!
 
Last edited:
TheDumbFox said:
…
Click to expand...
Catechism of the Catholic Church
302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:
By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161
Click to expand...
303 The witness of Scripture is unanimous that the solicitude of divine providence is concrete and immediate; God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and its history. The sacred books powerfully affirm God’s absolute sovereignty over the course of events: "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases."162 And so it is with Christ, “who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens”.163 As the book of Proverbs states: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will be established."164

161 Vatican Council I, Dei Filius 1: DS 3003; cf. Wis 8:1; Heb 4:13.
162 Ps 115:3.
163 Rev 3:7.
164 Prov 19:21.
Click to expand...
 
Is this a class as an undergraduate or is it on a Masters level? And do you mind sharing where you are going to school (optional), and what your major is?
 
I’m an undergrad Theology Major. I’ve been trying to reconcile existentialist philosophy with Catholicism lately, and if it cant, then I’m trying to formulate concrete answers as to why. Thank y’all for the links, I’m going to see if they help me.

For clarification, I believe that God is ordering things, etc. I’m just trying to develop a response to the existentialist claims.
 
TheDumbFox said:
I’ve been studying Existentialism lately in my college philosophy class. One of the core tenets of Existentialism is that “being precedes essence.” This said, there is no God planning our whole life, who has a will for us to follow. Nor is there a perfect human nature that we strive to imitate or attain, merely a human condition that we find ourselves in
Click to expand...
The truth of Divine revelation, aka that Jesus is God and has a plan for our lives is approached differently than the God of Philosophy or reason.

One is based of emprical historical evidence, the other is logical deduction of observed reality.
I don’t know if you can determine God’s will through philosophy alone other than it’s his will that we exist.

In existentialism what is the first cause of being?
 
Essence is what defines a thing. Is a human being definable, even if strictly in general ways? If so then a human’s essence is inseparable from their being. The Catholic Church would maintain that there are many aspects of a human being that are specifically proper to its nature, things that all humans share in common. IOW, there are things which a human being is not free to be, simply because they go beyond what a human being is.
 
Last edited:
Amazing. This is a little of what I’ve been developing in my head. Not that existence precedes essence, or that essence is primary, but that the two are in some way simultaneous.

The only thing I’m not so sure of is to what extent God’s will is joined up into our essence. If there’s an element of essence that defines our human nature, i.e. God seeing our existence even before our conception and conjuring a plan for our lives, then I must commit to some form of essentialism.
 
Yeah I’ve heard of him, but i’ve yet to take a chance to look at his work.
 
Most existentialists do not prescribe the cause of our being to God. They are atheistic. But the existence of a God or not isn’t important to philosophers in this branch, as they are only concerned with evaluating the truths of the human person from the perspective of human experience. Phenomenology is big in this area.
 
The book I linked to (Vols. 1 & 2) is said to be the clearest statement of his beliefs. Apparently it was first published in English, unlike his other books.
 
TheDumbFox said:
One of the core tenets of Existentialism is that “being precedes essence.” This said, there is no God planning our whole life, who has a will for us to follow. Nor is there a perfect human nature that we strive to imitate or attain, merely a human condition that we find ourselves in.

With this said, does the Church really teach that God has a plan for our lives?
Click to expand...
God (whose essence is Love) Will is for us to align with His Will via our completely free will.
God’s Word incarnated in Jesus Son of God and Blessed Mary - IS our Examplar.

_
 
Agreed. Another aspect that I was considering though, was the aim of the human person to be living primarily for the Glory of God. And in that is our sanctification and alignment of will etc.

Thus in accordance with one a quote commonly attributed to St. Irenaeus “The Glory of God is Man fully alive.”
 
TheDumbFox said:
Agreed. Another aspect that I was considering though, was the aim of the human person to be living primarily for the Glory of God. And in that is our sanctification and alignment of will etc.

Thus in accordance with one a quote commonly attributed to St. Irenaeus “The Glory of God is Man fully alive.”
Click to expand...
Whom (Thomists and others) in turn are reflecting what they’ve gleaned from Jesus.
All are called to be saints - All known Saints point to Jesus…

_
 
TheDumbFox said:
One of the core tenets of Existentialism is that “being precedes essence.” This said, there is no God planning our whole life
Click to expand...
Existentialism, knowledge gained by individual experience, is inherently biased. When the subject becomes its own object, bias impregnates knowledge. I can observe more objectively things outside myself than the thing that is myself. Bias, a preference or an inclination, inhibits impartial judgment. If I know bias exists, I should be reasonably skeptical of any all-inclusive claims based on such knowledge.

Skepticism and existentialism, I think, are good partners when we pursue the truth about salvation. Metaphysics compliments existentialism as a thought process, each checking and balancing the other. Existentialism, an experience driven mode of knowing, may garner notions about the human condition that metaphysics, a rationally driven mode of knowing, may not. Metaphysics, however, can clarify and expand spiritual notions, like God, and his plan for our salvation, because spiritual notions are only dimly part of my “lived experience.” My “lived experience” may be tangential or partial with the divine, but is never co-extensive or exhaustive of it. An existential knowledge of the divine must be seen as at least anthropomorphic, if not anthropocentric.

Existentialists, noting that existence always precedes essence, seek to discover, not deduce, knowledge by examining one’s own “lived experience” and, inductively, from those particular experiences that are common to all, offer generalized theories of reality. The discovery of who you are (and who God is) always includes who I am. Intelligence can never disown itself.

The existentialist’s method of discerning reality has two weaknesses. Any initial generalized hypothesis offered by the existentialist is both inchoate and fragile. Inchoate because the truth in the hypothesis is dependent on massive collaboration and fragile because just one descent may begin its obliteration. If the “lived experience” examined is unique to its examiner, then that “lived experience” must be considered an anomalous experience of the examiner, and, therefore, not natural by definition— present in all people, at all times and all places. Until the “lived experience” of the one is confirmed by the many, the generalized truthfulness of that knowledge as applying to all humanity must be held in suspense.

The only logical way around this conundrum is to specify that reality is not singular, but multiple, and, at times, perhaps even contradictory. But such a position, making truth subjective, would obviate any need for further deliberation! I must, therefore, reject any part of an existentialist’s expression of human nature or salvation that does not square with my own existential expression. If we are to dispute productively, we must go to a different realm of knowing, and, I suggest, the metaphysical as the only court of appeal.
 
Yes, the perfection of a human which the catechism refers to in para 302, in Vico’s post #3 above, is man’s purpose or end according to the Church. This is realized as we’re fully bound to God (para 1732), meaning that we fully love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength to put it another way.

This is what man’s justice consists of, the right order of things IOW. A necessary and intrinsic aspect of that justice is that it must be freely chosen, even as God’s help (grace) is necessary in helping us arrive at that point. When man’s will is aligned with God’s will, creation is in order.
 
TheDumbFox said:
I’ve been trying to reconcile existentialist philosophy with Catholicism lately, and if it cant, then I’m trying to formulate concrete answers as to why. Thank y’all for the links, I’m going to see if they help me.
Click to expand...
You may be trying to do the impossible.
For starters, even Existentialism is not one monolithic aspect of philosophy; it is a branch with a number of thinkers who come at questions from a general direction, and amongst whom there is disagreement; either debated, or simply unresolved.

The last time I delved into Existentialism was in about 1966 or 1967 so it has been way too long for me to address your question specifically; as noted by BartholomewB there was at least one writer, Marcel, who approached matters thorough the lens of Christian experience and thought.

It would be my suggestion to read him (Marcel) if you have the time to delve into it. If you lack the time, then I suspect that what you need to do is understand the subject matter sufficient to be able to clearly state what the field holds in general, and move on.

That is, unless part of the class is to try to reconcile and/or adapt existentialism to faith, you may be on your own adventure - something which is personally worthwhile, but may have little or nothing to do with the structure of the class.

All of which, without being rude, leaves most of the responses in this thread missing the point, as they are coming at existentialism from a theological point rather than a philosophical point. All, or at least almost all philosophical musings are attempts to address reality and our interaction with it. It is a tool, or rather, a bunch of tools, and those steeped in one of them often have a hard time of it when someone else approaches a question with a different one or set of the tools.

A prime example goes back to Pope John Paul 2. When he came out with his Theology of the Body series of talks, neo Scholastics had a rough time of it, as he approached it from a point of phenomenology, not scholasticism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top