Sartre's "Impossibility of God"

[Neithan]

Would would be a solid Catholic rebuttal to Jean-Paul Sartre’s assertion (in Being and Nothingness) that God, as a being whose essence is existence, “would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a *consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a *thing]: which is a contradiction in terms” (Wikipedia), and therefore could not exist?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Neithan

My reply would be that yes, any conception of God involves contradictions. That does not mean that God does not exist. If Sartre wanted God to be reduced to a logical certainty in order to accept His existence, he was certainly barking up the wrong ontological tree.

It would be as if a child, finding his father full of contradictions, should thereby conclude that his father did not exist.

 

[Ghosty]

Would would be a solid Catholic rebuttal to Jean-Paul Sartre’s assertion (in Being and Nothingness) that God, as a being whose essence is existence, "would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a *consciousness

] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a *thing]: which is a contradiction in terms" (Wikipedia), and therefore could not exist?

I honestly don’t understand the assertion. Why is a conciousness contrary to being a thing? It seems to me that a conciousness would have to be a thing.

Reading the argument as explained on Wikipedia makes even less sense. There’s no reason to assume that existence necessarily precedes essence in the First Cause, and in fact this would be impossible. They would have to perfectly coincide for the First Cause to exist, and a First Cause is necessary.

On the face, it looks like Sartre’s flaw is in not approaching a First Mover. Nothing we can experience with our senses is the cause of its own movement, in this case the movement from being a potential conciousness (essence) to being an actual conciousness (existence). Nothing can cause itself to move from potential being to actual being, because to be a cause you must be an actual being. So everything is moved from potential being to actual being by something prior to itself, and this can’t go on infinitely because without a First Mover there is no Second Mover, or Third Mover, so on forward into infinity. So there is necessarily a First Mover regardless of how many subsequent movers there are.

In this First Mover (regardless of whether or not it’s the Christian God, or some idiot principle) being (existence) must be identical to essence so that it can be the First Mover. We already know that a First Mover is necessary, therefore it’s necessary that a single entity have the essence of being in itself, rather than a potential for being, and if it is necessary in itself it is always “actualized” and never in potential.

This First Mover must have a concious choice in actualizing the Second Mover, elsewise the Second Mover would “be” at the same instant as the First Mover, which is permanantly being, and so on down the line of movements, meaning that there would be no time as there would be no movement of change. But we can observe that not all things are in being at the same instant (stars were once potential, as were you before your parents conceived you), and further that nothing which is moved is entirely co-terminal with its mover. Since in the natural world the motion of a potential being is always subsequent to its mover, and non-concious beings act infallibly in their natures (water becomes steam when heated, grass grows with proper nutrients, bodies of matter draw eachother together with gravity, ect), if the First Mover were non-concious then it would infallibly move the Second Mover instantly, which is not possible as explained above, so the First Mover must be concious of moving the Second (which could then theoretically move in time by virtue of the fact that it’s not pure actuality, unlike the First Mover, and is therefore subject to change and time and could trigger subsequent effects at different times; this would be the model of deism, and while it’s not the full Christian model, it does necessitate a God).

So just by reason alone we can conclude that there is a being that exists, is actual, in and of itself, and is also concious. Sartre’s objection doesn’t carry much weight for me as presented, but I could be off on his system and conclusions.

Just my personal musings!

Peace and God bless!

 

[mosher]

To argue against JP Sartre you have to work against his major premise which is that being is in fact non-being. However, it gets sorta complicated because he tries to redefine being and non-being. If we stick to the basics that being is and non-being is not then everything else falls into place.

 

[Liberian]

Neithan,

If you ask my co-workers about me, they will tell you that I am pretty intelligent. If you ask my wife about me, she will tell you that I have done some incredibly stupid things. There is a contradiction here, so I obviously do not exist.

• Liberian

 

[Ghosty]

To argue against JP Sartre you have to work against his major premise which is that being is in fact non-being. However, it gets sorta complicated because he tries to redefine being and non-being. If we stick to the basics that being is and non-being is not then everything else falls into place.

On what grounds does Sartre make the claim that being is non-being? Of course if you make up a philosophy based on redefining basic principles, you’re gonna come up with different conclusions. Any philosopher who asks you to accept something that is fundamentally, on the face self-contradictory without making up new definitions does not need to be argued against.

They need to prove fundamentally that all human experience is somehow in error, that circles aren’t really circles, and that up is down. It’s not on us to prove that circles are circles, that being is and non-being is nothing at all. So how does Sartre try to twist reality and definitions?

This is an underlying problem in all existentialist philosophy, namely that it throws out what is necessarily prior (being, for example) in order to build up a concept of self detached from the essence of being, and then refer backwards to being from this arbitrary construct.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mosher]

On what grounds does Sartre make the claim that being is non-being? Of course if you make up a philosophy based on redefining basic principles, you’re gonna come up with different conclusions. Any philosopher who asks you to accept something that is fundamentally, on the face self-contradictory without making up new definitions does not need to be argued against.

They need to prove fundamentally that all human experience is somehow in error, that circles aren’t really circles, and that up is down. It’s not on us to prove that circles are circles, that being is and non-being is nothing at all. So how does Sartre try to twist reality and definitions?

This is an underlying problem in all existentialist philosophy, namely that it throws out what is necessarily prior (being, for example) in order to build up a concept of self detached from the essence of being, and then refer backwards to being from this arbitrary construct.

Peace and God bless!

Well, in short he is really not talking about being as defined as something that is in re/] because he denies basic metaphysics with the excuse that he doesn’t want to talk about it. Pretty much it is an expression of a relational reality where the “being” of another is over and against my “being” and thus does violence to me. So, with this in mind true being that which does not harm is “non-being.” Frankly, it is retarded and I wish that I had never taken the time to read his works. All of his philosophy can be summarized in his play “No Exit.” with the ending line being “hell, that’s other people.” Usually I am more apologetic of other atheist philosophers but as for him and Russell I find their work both trite and pointless.

 

[Ghosty]

Well, in short he is really not talking about being as defined as something that is in re/] because he denies basic metaphysics with the excuse that he doesn’t want to talk about it. Pretty much it is an expression of a relational reality where the “being” of another is over and against my “being” and thus does violence to me. So, with this in mind true being that which does not harm is “non-being.” Frankly, it is retarded and I wish that I had never taken the time to read his works. All of his philosophy can be summarized in his play “No Exit.” with the ending line being “hell, that’s other people.” Usually I am more apologetic of other atheist philosophers but as for him and Russell I find their work both trite and pointless.



That pretty much sums up my view of existentialism in general! I consider it a step below materialist atheism on the “weight of argument” scale, and more than a few steps removed from reality. Of course, Sartre would likely be honored to be considered divorced from reality

Peace and God bless!

 

[batteddy]

That pretty much sums up my view of existentialism in general!

Just curious, what do you think of Kierkegaard? Or “Christian existentialists”?

As for Satre…under his philosophical assumptions…yes, God is a contradiction.

But we don’t accept Satre’s basic premises, so we aren’t going to accept his conclusions.

To us, essence precedes existence…so everything else works out correctly with God’s existence perfectly intact.

 

[Ghosty]

Just curious, what do you think of Kierkegaard? Or “Christian existentialists”?

I consider it to be the foundation of all existentialism, and therefore the foundation of the error of existentialism. My problem with atheist existentialism isn’t atheism per se, but the existentialism, so the same applies to it whether Christian, atheist, deist, agnostic, you name it.

I find existentialism to be a fundamentally erroneous philosophy, ignoring the very basic, common, and necessary assumptions of human existence (which are best expressed in Realist frameworks, particularily moderate Realism). The fact that the human mind throughout history, regardless of languages and cultures, has found roughly the same categories of naming and identification for common experiences (flying things, bodies of water, weather phenomena, crawling insects, ect), and also the fact that infants seem to learn by realist categories and assumptions even when erroneous (“ouch, I burned myself on that red fire, red things must be hot” or “mailmen have candy to give”) indicates to me that realism is the fundamental human thought mode, and is the basis for our cultures and developments. This renders other philosophical models superfluous except for entertainment, most especially existentialism which takes the individual perspective as the first assumption despite all evidence to the contrary, evidence that there is indeed a common human perspective that underlies all human developments in history whether it’s been recognized or not.

In the end, I think that only realist constructs allow a person to function at all in society, even if they’re only a closet realist. Even existentialist thought becomes just another (superfluous) approach to a realist universe, and even the most radical existentialist must become a realist to get out of bed in the morning and brush their teeth.

G. K. Chesterton, himself a social critic and not “professional philosopher”, issued some of the best and most damning critiques of existentialist assumptions in recent times, IMO. His social critiques and studies eventually led him to devout Catholicism. I recommend his works such as “Orthodoxy”, “Heretics”, and “St. Thomas Aquinas” as giving a basic foundation for his critique.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mosher]

While I am not as radically opposed to Existentialism as Ghosty is I do agree with his fundamental argument that realism is the only true philosophy. All other so called philosophies try to impose a system on reality while realism only observes this as they are and comments. I do think that there are things that some of the more notable existentialists can tell us such as the purification of motive of Nietzsche and the idea of the self as proposed by SK and many ideas posited by Marcel. I would also say that some of the philosophies that have been born from existentialism are meritorious such as the I-Thou of Martin Buber and the work of Leibnitz. Out of these we have seen good things such as Communion Theology form under Cardinal von Balthasar and Benedict XVI. However, we must be careful to use these ideas and not accept in whole each philosophical system.

 

[Ghosty]

Indeed. There are many good things that have come from existentialist philosophers, especially as regards human relations. I certainly don’t mean to cut those out.

My main problem lies with it as a philosophical system and foundation, not so much the perspective it can offer to truly solid philosophical systems. So long as the underlying reality is preserved (and I’m very much a Thomistic realist as regards fundamental reality) there is no absolute harm in looking at things from different perspectives. In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that such an approach is necessary for a complete realist philosophy, as our personal perspective and action is an integral part of Reality. It’s the assumptions that are brought into the philosophy of Existentialism that I think are ultimately harmful, and the best results of the existentialist perspective have come in spite of the underlying philosophy, not because of it, IMO.

So I definately agree with Mosher that there is good to be had from it, just as an adjunct to philosophy rather than as a philosophy itself.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I just ran across a beautiful paragraph by G. K. Chesterton in his biography on St. Thomas Aquinas which in a certain way sums up my feelings on Existentialism as a philosophy, and why I think Thomistic realism is the best philosophy, and not just the best Christian philosophy:

Without pretending to span within such limits the essential Thomist idea, I may be allowed to throw out a sort of rough version of the fundamental question, which I think I have known myself, consciously or unconsciously since my childhood. When a child looks out of the nursery window and sees anything, say the green lawn of the garden, what does he actually know; or does he know anything? There are all sorts of nursery games of negative philosophy played round this question. A brilliant Victorian scientist delighted in declaring that the child does not see any grass at all; but only a sort of green mist reflected in a tiny mirror of the human eye. This piece of rationalism has always struck me as almost insanely irrational. If he is not sure of the existence of the grass, which he sees through the glass of a window, how on earth can he be sure of the existence of the retina, which he sees through the glass of a microscope? If sight deceives, why can it not go on deceiving? Men of another school answer that grass is a mere green impression on the mind; and that he can be sure of nothing except the mind. They declare that he can only be conscious of his own consciousness; which happens to be the one thing that we know the child is not conscious of at all. In that sense, it would be far truer to say that there is grass and no child, than to say that there is a conscious child but no grass. St. Thomas Aquinas, suddenly intervening in this nursery quarrel, says emphatically that the child is aware of *Ens (my note: this word is usually translated as Being in English translations of the Summa Theologica. A more definite description of Ens as Being, IMO, would be “is-ness”)*. Long before he knows that grass is grass, or self is self, he knows that something is something. Perhaps it would be best to say very emphatically (with a blow on the table), “There is an Is.” That is as much monkish credulity as St. Thomas asks of us at the start. Very few unbelievers start by asking us to believe so little. And yet, upon this sharp pin-point of reality, he rears by long logical processes that have never really been successfully overthrown, the whole cosmic system of Christendom.

Only by accepting that “there is an is” can we build up an all-encompassing philosophy that really does touch on, and incorporates, all areas of existance. Ironically, this assumption that is required for a system that can literally explain everything within the limits of human experience, and touch on things that are beyond it, is the first assumption that every human being makes as they begin to approach the world around them. I would argue that it’s practically on the level of first principles, such as “a thing is a thing”, or “one and one make two”.

Any philosophy that asks more of us at the start than “there is an is” is more complicated than need be, and any philosophy that rejects such a fundamental assumption is more likely to lead to errors than truths, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mosher]

Ahh … the Ens in se. I too qualify myself as a Thomist as that is my educational background and is my practical study. I remember I throughly frustrated a quasi-heterodox professor of mine by stating the famous quote about Plato, “All philosophy since Plato is merely footnotes to Plato” could also be applied to Thomas, “All theology after Thomas is merely footnotes to Thomas,” and the professor was not amused. However, with Chesterton (a modern idol of mine) I too salute the single most brilliant intellect (apart from Christ of course) that the world has ever seen. This is mostly because realism is not the superior philosophical system but rather it is not a system and that is what makes it the only true philosophy.