Existence
1) Existence in Plato:
Greek philosopher and mathematician Plato (429-347 B.C.E) is one of the most influential philosophers in history. By working with his mentor Socrates and his student Aristotle, Plato helped create the groundwork for western philosophy. His dialogues emphasise his notion of existence. The transcendent sphere and the material sphere are Plato’s two divisions of existence. He contends that a person’s reason and thinking give them access to the world of forms. This feature allows us to acknowledge the existence of people in a stable world free from changes and suffering. Plato held that there are two spheres that make up reality.
The physical world, which individuals can see with their five senses, is the first realm. The second realm is the universe made of eternal perfection, which includes thoughts or forms. Plato’s theory of form postulates that all conceptions and objects have archetypal or ideal forms, which occupy a level of reality. As a result, there is a form for both, physical objects like rocks and tables and abstract concepts like justice and beauty.
The duality between the physical world and what Plato called the realm of forms is the foundation of Plato’s Theory of Forms. It’s simple to comprehend the physical reality because it’s where humans live. It is the only world that people genuinely experience during their lifetimes, and it is filled with material things. But for Plato, the material world was insufficient to describe some concepts. He proposed the presence of the realm of forms, a spiritual level. The principles that underlie physical reality were perfected and immutable in this dimension.
2) Existence in Aristotle:
The Academy was a philosophical institution established by Plato in Athens. Here, Plato’s younger contemporary and sole opponent in terms of his impact on the development of Western philosophy, Aristotle (384–322 BC), came to study. Aristotle was frequently harshly critical of Plato, and his work differs greatly from that of the latter in both style and content, but there is still a great deal in which the two thinkers agree. Aristotle agrees with Plato that living a moral life is profitable for the righteous as well as advantageous for society as a whole.
Aristotle also concurs that the finest and most meaningful state of human existence is one in which a person uses all of his or her logical powers. Aristotle rejects Plato’s theory of forms, or universal ideas, which is one of their main differences. In light of this, he does not contend that understanding the fundamental character or essence of “the good” is the way to goodness.
The life of the rational being is the highest form of existence, and the purpose of lesser beings is to support this form of existence according to him. As a result, he defended slavery, the use of non-human animals for food or clothing, and the belief that barbarians were less intelligent than Greeks and thus better suited to serve as “living tools”. This led to the development of a theory of ethics as well as a concept of human nature. Aristotle believed that all living things have intrinsic potentialities and that it is in their nature to maximise those potentials.
Their objective is to live in this manner since it is best suited to them. However, what is the potential of humans? This question turns out to be equal to asking what makes humans unique, which is obviously the ability for reason, for Aristotle. Therefore, the development of human reason is the ultimate objective of humanity. They will live the most meaningful lives when they do this because they are living in harmony with their true selves.
As a result, Aristotle concurs with Plato that the pursuit of knowledge is the ultimate form of life. However, because he was more grounded in reality than Plato, he added the qualification that the finest life a person could possibly lead must also include the benefits of material prosperity and personal relationships.
3) Existence in Ghazali:
One of Sunni Islam’s most well-known and renowned philosophers, theologians, jurists, and mystics was Al-Ghazali (c. 1056–1111). The issues of the world’s eternity or creation, the nature of Being, and a clear separation between essence and existence in the physical world are just a few of the key areas where Islamic philosophers and Aristotle diverge significantly.
Al-Ghazali studied philosophy so that he could refute it. He suggested that knowledge is inferior to faith since knowledge cannot dispel uncertainties. He made a lasting impact with his book Tahafut al-falasifa (The Incoherence of the Philosophers). Here, al-Ghazali criticises Aristotle and his adherents, al-Farabi and Ibn Sina, focusing on the idea of the world’s eternity that he finds it incompatible with the Qur’anic account of God’s creation of the universe from nothing. Al-Ghazali agreed that this notion severely restricted God, which was wholly inappropriate.
Al-Ghazali thought the Avicennan model of secondary causes may be a good substitute for the occasionalist ontology. God uses some of His own creatures as intermediaries or “secondary causes” when He wants to bring about a particular outcome. God generates a chain of effective causes in which any superior element brings about the existence of inferior elements.
Al-Ghazali remained undecided for the entirety of his life. We must reserve judgement on this issue because there is no conclusive evidence provided by observation or any other method of knowledge (including revelation) that a cause and effect are connected, he stated. God can either create directly without such mediation or indirectly through the causes He uses, according to him.
4) Existence in Mulla Sadra:
Due to his distinctively formulated philosophy of existence, Mulla Sadra is frequently referred to be a metaphysical revolutionary. The ontological division between the necessary (the principle, God), and the contingent, is where the analysis of existence begins. God is unadulterated existence devoid of any essence, quality, or property that is dynamic or subject to change according to him.
The doctrine’s roots can be found in Avicenna’s account of radical contingency, which holds that the difference between the necessary and contingent is based on how the former’s existence is simple while the latter’s existence and essence are complex. The latter is a being to which accidents pertain and are packaged in what is known as their “essence”. Existence is a concept that the intellect naturally and instantly grasps; it does not require any kind of description or definition (ta’rif) according to him.
Existence, according to Mulla Sadra, is ontologically prior, a single reality that is scaled in terms of intensity, and an illusive reality that is impossible to fully comprehend. Any attempt to define existence conceptually reifies a mental essence, which falsifies existence. Existence is dynamic and in flux, and it cannot be adequately described by a reified, fixed, and unchanging idea.
God is essence-less, so his causal connection to the world can only be existential if one wants to prevent the contamination of the divine nature with essences that are composites of various and multiple properties and features. Existence must be ontologically prior not only due to the absurdity of an existence before existence but also because His causal connection to the world can only be existential. This idea is included by Mulla Sadra into his own ontological demonstration of God’s existence, known as the Proof of the Veracious (burhan al-siddiqin).
5) Existence in Sartre:
Few philosophers have achieved the same level of fame throughout their lifetime as Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80). Thousands of Parisians attended his public talk, Existentialism is a Humanism, in the final months of 1945, as World War 2 concluded.
According to Sartre, existence is a result of an accident or a chance. Since our freedom is the only thing that gives our lives value or purpose, we are forced to rely on our own abilities. According to Sartre, existence shows up as freedom of will, anxiety, and decision-making. In this way, it is up to each individual to create their own destiny, but because the future is unknowable, there is no way to avoid feeling anxiety and hopelessness. Anxiety is a constant presence in our lives, and as our responsibilities increase, so does our anxiety.
The search for being brings about an awareness of nothingness, emptiness brings about an awareness of freedom, freedom brings about bad faith, and bad faith brings about the being of consciousness that creates the environment for its own potential. Sartre says that existentialism is not pessimism as he wraps up his argument. According to him, existentialism doesn’t seek to leave us in a state of hopelessness; rather, its ultimate objective is to prepare us through suffering, abandonment, and hopelessness for a real existence. It is primarily focused on the human condition as an all-encompassing type of free will. An authentic meaning for life is thus the key problem.
6) Existence in Camus:
The fundamental paradox in Camus’s (1913–1960) philosophy relates to his foundational idea of absurdity. Camus contends that people cannot avoid wondering, “What is the meaning of existence?”, and accepts the Aristotelian notion that philosophy begins in wonder. However, Camus disputes the existence of a satisfactory response and disbelieves in any scientific, teleological, metaphysical, or human-created goal that could provide an answer. Camus thus adopts the sceptical position that the natural world, the universe, and human endeavour stay quiet regarding any such meaning, while acknowledging that humans inherently want to grasp life’s purpose. We need to develop the ability to accept an unanswerable void because existence itself has no purpose.
Camus refers to this contradictory condition as the absurd because it occurs when we have a desire to ask the big questions but are unable to come up with any satisfactory answers. The implications of this fundamental paradox are examined in Camus’ philosophy of the absurd.
The absurdity concept serves as the foundation for Camus’ entire philosophy. Humans have a strong desire to give things meaning, and when that meaning is missing, we frequently try to invent it. However, because the universe is uncaring and uninterested in our search for meaning, we will always encounter nonsensical circumstances that frustrate our efforts. Our lives have no purpose and will always remain meaningless, according to him.
7) Existence in Pascal:
Although it wouldn’t be accurate to refer to Pascal (1623 – 1662) as an existentialist, one of the most notable aspects of his work is the philosophical contemplation on the fundamental contingency of human affairs that especially appears in the last years of his life.
Many of Pascal’s insights into the cyclical nature of human existence were widely accepted at the time, particularly among Calvinist theologians. They were somewhat motivated by the cosmology’s growing acceptance of the universe’s unlimited size and, by contrast, the relative shortness of human existence. They owed much more to a theological viewpoint that asserted to depict human affairs from God’s perspective, including His absolute will by which He predestines people for eternal salvation or perdition.
The existentialist writings that emerged in Europe after World War II will recognise Pascal’s rejection of any naturalistic explanation of the human mind or soul, his emphasis on dread of an unknown future (because, according to his theology, we do not know whether we are saved or damned), the apparent meaninglessness of human existence, and the experience of being controlled by political and natural forces that far exceed our limited powers.
He emphasised the inherent insignificance of each individual life, but he did not come to the ludicrous conclusion that human existence was absurd. Instead, he pointed—as have other Christian existentialists since—to a source of meaning that would go beyond the bounds of our reasoning. However, access was rigorously restricted to those who had received the gift of religious faith from God freely, without any merit on their end.
8) Existence in Kierkegaard:
The “father” of existentialism was declared to be Kierkegaard. He was essentially interested in the existence of each unique person. According to Kierkegaard, the concept of existence only applies to those people who have an independent existence as a result of their beliefs and ideals. The individual, according to Kierkegaard, is not merely an organism but also the subject, which refers to a person who views the world from an inward, conscious perspective. Therefore, it is impossible to understand a person from their perspective of reason or body. According to Kierkegaard, the self is constantly changing and evolving.
Every person makes an effort to understand their purpose in life by blending in with the crowd. This, according to Kierkegaard, is not the proper approach. For him, the only way a person can discover the actual purpose of his existence is through a relationship with God. An individual’s knowledge of the profound alienation between his existential self and his core self, causes anxiety to continue to permeate his life. Until a person realises his true nature in God, he cannot conquer his anxiousness. The person then makes an effort to rediscover his true self, and as a result of this impulse, the “process of becoming” of the person begins.
9) Existence in Heidegger:
German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) is well known for his work on phenomenology and existentialism. Heidegger bases his ideas on the human being. Since he believes that man is more than just a rational animal, he refers to it as existence, or the place where it has the potential to arise. He is referring to human Existence, the terms of which are clear because Existence is not just a creature among other creatures. Instead, one may interpret this statement as meaning that “there, the gem of Existence resides inside them”.
Heidegger argues that in order for existence to evolve, humans are necessary since only via human existence and the time of his appearance can it become evident; no other creature possesses the talent that man does, and the capacity to perform does not naturally arise. Man or existence takes place there. The issue of emergence is brought up by existence.
Heidegger contends that man cannot have an authentic life if he does not inquire into the nature of reality and the nature of God. As a creature among other species, man experiences emotions like dread, anxiety, individualism, and death. Heidegger is aware that the only way to question is through Existence.
For Heidegger, existence focuses on the elements of this world that offer them the potential for “inexistence”. According to Heidegger, the Existence has integrity in the following three aspects: 1. Existing in the world and including the facticity of Existence, 2. Being oneself, which includes the “benefit of existence” and 3. Being close to creatures who represent the “inexistence” of Existence.
