1
Now we have returned to that original terror that plagued humankind - freedom. The thought that we are free, along with the implications freedom carries, is a scary proposition. Many have gone as far as to put it that we are doomed to be free. What it all boils down to really is a persons view on that discussed in part 1. If a person believes in god then the concept of true freedom will always illude you. You are bound by his laws and by any subsequent rewards or punishments. So how does the modern, godless, man live his life? How is it possible to live in a state of existence with no guidelines and no eternal truths or values to cling to?
'There is absolutely nothing in the whole world to make men love their fellow-men, there is no law in nature that man should love mankind, and that if love did exist on earth, it was not because of any natural law but solely because men believed in immortality. All natural law consisted of that belief, and that if you were to destroy the belief in immortality in mankind, not only love but every living force on which the continuation of all life in the world depended, would dry up at once. Moreover, there would be nothing immoral then, everything would be permitted, even cannibalism.'
With this paragraph Dostoyevsky set forth the problem that would face every person thereon who attempted to live life without the self deceit of religion. Through his character, Ivan Karamazov, whom later writers called the first 'existentialist' he showed that there was no true path in life with his famous phrase 'everything is pemitted'.
2
So we may surmise that if you do not believe in god then you cannot be bound by moral codes. Whether they are seen as the will of god or the state is irrelevant, those codes are based on false foundations and cannot be trusted or taken for granted. Not only that but good and evil, right and wrong also become irrelevant. In all honesty the only 'good' that can exist is that which is beneficial to the individual and the only 'evil' that which harms him. If there is no god then indeed 'everything is permitted' and the only thing which can define us is our personal preferences. Whether we realise it or not, we all have total freedom, and inevitably with freedom comes that dreaded fear of the unknown.
So supposing we have come to terms with all this so far, we are still floating in the void so to speak. We still have no grounding, what kind of values, if any, could possibly exist if we are being honest?
' For every individual, who does not believe in god or his own immortality, the moral laws of nature must at once be changed into the exact opposite of the former religious laws, and self-interest, even if it were to lead to crime, must not only be permitted but even recognised as the necessary, the most rational, and practically the most honourable motive for a man in his position.'
3
In this sense murder for instance is no more wrong than helping the homeless is right. there can no-longer be any judgement attached to eather action, merely the preference for one kind of act or the other. Nothing more than the desire to act. This is the only way in which things can make sense and the difference between these two types of action is no bigger a decision than that of whether to have toast or cerial for breakfast. That murder is not wrong or evil, in the way we have previously thought isn't a way of saying, or an excuse for committing it. It would be both foolish and highly naive to suggest so. If the person is caught they will deserve all they get, just not in the sense which we have previously thought. If the potential murderer, for instance has genuine reasons for committing the act but shies away from it he will not, if being honest, be able to hide behind morality as an excuse, he will not be able to say he failed to carry it out from his good nature, the only genuine reason for failing to carry it out would be cowardice or fear of punishment.
By our very freedom we are not only responsible for ourselves but for everyone.
'If it is true that existence is prior to essence, man is responsible for what he is. It puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarly upon his own shoulders. And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.'
4
In fact it is that first fatal act of humankind that we here return to again. When our early relatives failed to deal with the responsibilities of freedom and consciousness, they missed the vital fact that we are still governed by instinct and regardless of our new realisations are still at the whim of nature. Not only did the invention of god cast out personal freedom it also did away with our trust in ourselves. Gods law was followed and any law or feeling of the self was ignored to the point of deception. As we had acquired this new sense the old was assumed wrong or shameful. All other animals go about their various activities unconcerned, it is only man, because of his submission to a fictional higher power, who has grown to become ashamed of them.
'At first glance, it would seem that because in the state of nature men have no kind of moral relationships to each other, nor any recognised duties, they would be neither good nor evil, and could have neither vices nor virtues; unless we took those words in a physical sense and could call an individuals 'vices' those attributes that might be deleterious to his own survival and 'virtues' those that might be propitious for it, in which case we should call most virtuous the person who least resisted the simple impulses of nature.'
So it would appear that even though we have evolved beyond the state of nature it is still within nature that we should draw our inspiration for moral values.It is our self imposed isolation from nature which forced us to see things differently for ourselves. We are still governed deep down by the same impulses of instinct and it is through this alone in which we can make any kind of moral standards, whilst at the same time remaining true to the idea that eternal values cannot exist.
This essay is not an attempt to reconsile existentialism with naturalism, but more to the point it should illustrate that we never really left the state of nature and that any indifference we have towards it is merely attributed to the fact that the world is a hostile place for both man and animal. Would we suggest that animals had 'removed themselves from the state of nature' because they had met with chance inconvienience? We were born into it and for the most part do not question our place in it. We assume that we are supposed to live within the constraints of the system, which we have created to alienate ourselves, and unless we come certain realisations we remain constrained. People in general think that they are doing well in life when they are doing what is familiar in social situations. The only way to avoid this path of in-authenticity and make our lives our own is to take over our existence with clarity of what we wish to accomplish and follow through with passion and intensity.
Yet there are some that claim that without god it is still possible for eternal values to exist. The french proffessors of the 1880's, for instance, strove for a new morality, whilst at the same time wanting to get rid of the concept of god.
' The existentialist is strongly opposed to secular moralism which seeks to suppress god at the least possible expense, something like this:- God is a useless and costly hypothesis, so we will do without it. However, if we are to have morality, a society and a law-abiding world, it is essential that certain values should be taken seriously: they must have an a priori existence ascribed to them. It must be considered obligatory a priori to be honest, not to lie, not to beat ones wife, to bring up children and so forth; so we are going to do a little work on this subject, which will enable us to show that these values exist all the same, inscribed in an intelligible heaven'
It was their view therefore that with radicalism we would discover that the same ideas of truth, honesty and progress would still be as relevant and vital whether or not there was such a thing as a god. This approach to the problem however is merely a huge simplication of what we are dealing with. What is really meant is that if you cannot cope with the reality of our situation then you are entitled and perfectly within your rights to fall back on old norms at your own discretion. It will have no basis in objective reality, but it will be a safe way to continue life without having to face up to complexities. Why is the idea of moral truths a priori any different to gods moral truth, when most of the time god is taken as a proposition a priori anyway? It is not possible to know god a posteriori as there is no evidence for such a being in empirical experience. This is no different than obeying morals through 'faith' if we still cannot have rational reasons for why we follow these values. The only way for moral truths to exist at all is from experience of the world which we experience, and which can apply if not judgements then at least distinctions of preference.
6
The problem here lies in the fact that all previous attempts have been based on false premises. As we saw earlier, with humankinds first consious thought it betrayed itself and has been in an intellectual and spiritual downward spiral ever since. To move forward we must see ourselves afresh, in a more honest and rational light. We must risk our peace of mind to attain self knowledge in order to escape from the illusions we have held true concerning ourselves and our actions, which we have hidden behind for centuries.
Un fortunately we as individuals are far too immersed in christianity and its dogmatic convictions. We cannot help but feel the negative emotions which it has battered into our consciousness over the centuries. Even people such as us who have cast out the absurdity of god cannot help but exclaim his name in a moment of agitation.
7
Let me at this point take the chance to defend myself from any implications that this way forward is merely an excuse for greed and self interest. We have previously looked upon people who are self interested, in the light of someone who has commited a crime to the rest of the supposed 'just'. Comments such as, he's only thinking of himself', may be heard. On the other hand there is the self sacrificing person of supposed high morality, and yet in most cases the only real motive is a different form of self interest. Which is more valuable of these two forms of self interest? That which freely admits it and possibly does some good for others merely as a by product or that which struts in public about its noble actions, with expectations of rewards? We have always drawn a thin line between heroes and fools but perhaps we should draw them between heroes and the vain.
If a Christian or other believer of 'faith' acts out of kindness it is only really an act to gain favour with their 'lord', however if an existentialist performs a similar act, wouldn't it be out of a more genuine concern? What other motive could such a person have? So surely what was previously considered self interest is merely genuine interest including for others, as opposed to a continual obsession with appearing to be as helpful as possible?
' One becomes moral - not because one is moral. Submission to morality can be slavish or vain or selfish or resigned or obtusely enthusiastic or thoughtless or an act of desperation, like submission to a prince: in itself it is nothing moral.'
8
The age old saying 'know thyself' is therefore something that is still important and perhaps still central to a doctrine of the future.As being honest before yourself, let alone before others is still not something which is encouraged socially.
So the task set before us is perhaps too daunting. The things proposed here are not exactly new ideas and yet humankind cannot dig itself out of this pit, and for all its technological achievements perhaps it does't want to. It is therefore up to individuals to lead the way, not in the form of a new religion, but to confront these issues in everyday life.
In many ways we will be creating a new culture, in which we shall begin history again, this time avoiding the self deceptive and negating paths previously followed.
There will be no room in this age for pettiness. We will all be self serving but honest about it and therefore all serving a common cause, without being forced to fit into a fixed and stagnated, alienating way of existence.
This age will be based primarily on freedom and our coming to terms with it in a responsible manner. This freedom, we must realise is to do and think whatever and however we wish. However no forms of religion will be accepted nor tolerated. This is not a contradiction as religion, by its very nature, is the exact opposite of freedom of thought.
Everything that has gone before must be washed away, but that doesn't mean that we are not still influenced by the few rare, genuine actions and moments of our history. Nor does it mean that we have failed to learn from it. What it means is that we are returning to that first vital moment and accepting the responsibility to make of ourselves what we wish to be and not what we are expected to be. We must accept this highest of responsibilities and follow through with the passion and intensity that our potential would expect.