Knowing And Being

[Aniki 0]

Sartre, a French philosopher, said that everyone would like to be absolutely what we are with the full awareness that we are it. But this is impossible, since we are aware of ourselves, and can never be completely ourselves. It's a difficult concept for me to describe, but the point is a thought I had...If people are aware of what they are, but cannot be absolutely what they are...And gods are both aware of themselves and are absolutely what they are...Then wouldn't animals be exactly what they are, but not aware of themselves?And then would unliving and inanimate objects like rocks be neither?I'm going to ramble for a bit, going back to gods. Take a god like Zeus, king of the gods, ruler of the heavens, and wielder of a fun lightning shaped spear. Cool guy, loves going around and having affairs with mortal women. Now, Zeus, as a god, would be both aware of himself, and be exactly what he is, which is god of the sky. But isn't this a trap? He cannot be anything else, he cannot suddenly become god of grass, for instance. While a mortal is ever changing and adapting, a god seems to have a fixed agenda and domain. Interesting to think that while they command such power, they are trapped in a singular existence.Anyway, questions, comments, general discussion?

[mitchellmckain 0]

Aniki,

I have been heavily influenced by Existentialism, expecially by Kiekegaard and Albert Camus, but I shall never forget Kafka's "Metamorphosis" or Sartre's "The Wall". I have always found philosophy in the context of a story to be much more meaningful than the context of prose, the life situations giving the words far more substance than they would otherwise have for me. You will find a thread on the second page of this religion and philosophy section entitled "Christian Existentialism", which I started in order to introduce a discussion of these ideas, and there you will be able to read my take on the general topic.

Sartre, a French philosopher, said that everyone would like to be absolutely what we are with the full awareness that we are it. But this is impossible, since we are aware of ourselves, and can never be completely ourselves. It's a difficult concept for me to describe, but the point is a thought I had...

Let me help then. The point is that there is a fundamental difference between subject and object of awareness. Even in self-awareness, what we are aware of is just an object and therefore fails to capture the reality of the true self which is the subject of awareness - "the one that is aware of". As a result, this raises a fundamental doubt about the relationship between this object self and the true subject self and whether one reflects the other with any accuracy at all.
Such doubt concerning self-knowledge is a common conception among many Christians, and therefore this truth expressed in existentialism finds a rather welcome place in the thinking of such Christians. However I think I have a partial answer to Sartre's challenge. You see I think that part of the problem with this conception is that it is limiting itself to the act of self-reflection and I think we come up with a different understanding when we consider deliberative choices of action. You see the true self is not only the subject of awareness but also of action. It is the most fundamental experience of human existence that we are the author of our actions, and that we have a self that is the cause of these actions and is responsible for them.

I think that it is possible that it is in the making of deliberative choices in regards to action that the subject and object of consiousness momentarily bridge the gap between them and have the potential to become one. The reason is because a strict adherance to the seperation between them leads to a conclusion that contradicts our fundamental experience. Our choice of actions is not utterly divorced from who are but tells us about the self that is their cause and source. Our actions reveal a truth about ourselves that prevent others from being fooled by whatever delusional self concept we may have. But then we have this chain of cause and effect from self to action back to self.

But then if our actions are caused by something which preceeds the action itself then the causality is logically extended to preceeding causes like following a chain of dominoes until they surpass the limits of our existence to something outside of ourselves. But this results in a philosophical conclusion that our experience of being the cause of our own actions is delusional, and such a philosophy is denounced by existentialism as useless to the task of facing our existential realities. I conclude therefore that in deliberative choices we recreate ourselves and what we choose is not only what we will do but also what we shall be. Thus the consequence of our choices are not only the actions that we do but also the self that we become, and it is the self that we have become that percieves itself as the cause of the chosen action.

I call this "self-causality" and consider this the solution to the paradox of human free will. Accordingly it is in choices that we find both the cause and effect of our actions arising from the same event, and thus we cannot follow some chain of dominoes to a cause of our actions outside of ourselves. Whatever influences there may be on our actions it is we who choose to be influenced by them. More importantly, the self is not a static and uninvolved observer but part of a dynamic process of self creation. But now back to our original question: if we choose the self that we become, does our future self not start out at least potentially as an object of our awareness? As finite beings we have limited awareness of the consequences of our choices, and as a result our awareness of the self that we are choosing may be limited. But on the other hand, these consequences are something that we can seek to comprehend in the process of making decisions, and the awareness of the self that we become may thereby be enhanced. And thus the awareness of the self is something that can be pursued (in this process of becoming) rather than resigned to impossibility.
Edited June 6, 2007 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[mitchellmckain 0]

If people are aware of what they are, but cannot be absolutely what they are...And gods are both aware of themselves and are absolutely what they are...
Then wouldn't animals be exactly what they are, but not aware of themselves?
And then would unliving and inanimate objects like rocks be neither?

First of all I do not know what you could mean by suggesting that inanimate objects are not absolutely what they are. As I understand it these are not two independent attributes but related and it is not a question of being what we are but of whether the self that we are aware of is truly what we are.

I do not believe that there is that fundamental a difference between human being and animals quite like this. I believe that awareness and self-awarness is a characteristic of the property of life itself and therefore present in all living things. HOWEVER, I also believe that awareness like life itself is a highly quantitative attribute. Therefore the primary difference between human beings and the animals (and the plants for that matter) is not a qualitative one of having awareness or not having awareness, but of having more awareness.

Life is a process that consists of the self-organization of dynamic structures and as such, one of its primary tasks is the maintenance of those dynamic structures which make up its being. But clearly that task of self maintenance requires both self awareness and awareness of the environment. Human awareness like human life in general is the most complex on the planet with many hierarchial levels, and what we usually call human conciousness is really just the tip of a vast pyramid of consciousness. We talk of the subconsious or unconscious mind which in truth are part of the awareness that operates in our life but which are simply at a lower level in in that pyramid of consciousness.

Some religions (like Native American) believe that consciousness is an attribute that belongs to all things including those which we call inanimate. I do not consider this to be completely without merit, for it is my understanding that the the basic mechanism which makes life possible is found in the laws of physics themselves and thus everything in the universe may be considered participants in some process of life and therefore alive and aware subject to some quantitative measure that may be exceedingly small. Relating to what we call "lower forms of life" as conscious beings may largely be a matter of scale - particularly temporal scale. For example, from the point of view of a micro-organism we may seem like a part of its inanimate environment, like a mountain or a planet.

Now, Zeus, as a god, would be both aware of himself, and be exactly what he is, which is god of the sky. But isn't this a trap? He cannot be anything else, he cannot suddenly become god of grass, for instance. While a mortal is ever changing and adapting, a god seems to have a fixed agenda and domain. Interesting to think that while they command such power, they are trapped in a singular existence.
Anyway, questions, comments, general discussion?

Yes indeed which is why I find this type of conception of the divine to a bit devoid of merit. This nature of finite living things to exist in a state of constantly becoming more than we are is in fact the manner in which we are the image of an infinite God. God's infinite actuality is reflected in our infinite potentiality.

Please remember there is a differnce between the God of theological definitions and the God that Christians claim to have a personal relationship with. We surpass this necessity of finding simple answers in the here in now (and in our theology) because we have faith in someone who has an understanding that surpasses our own. And nothing surpasses our understanding more than the nature of this infinite God himself. For example, the Christian God is believed to be personal (having all the attibutes of a person) but not bound within the limits of person-hood. So you could say we believe in a transpersonal God and one consequence is that we can assert that three seperate persons are each entirely God, even though there is only one God.

We believe in an infinite God who lacks all limitations, and so freedom from the limits of personhood is only one of the many limitations which God trancends. Another is the type of categorization that you are trying to fit God into. The image of an unchanging eternal God is a conception to which God is not confined. Clearly Christians also believe in a God that participates in personal relationships, and such a relationship cannot be meaningful unless God participates in manner that is responsive and thus changing as we change. The God of the Bible is clearly has such a responsive nature and this truth is expressed rather well in the story of Jonah. Jonah is told by God to speak a prophecy of impending doom to the city of Nineveh, and after great reluctance, Jonah finally does as he is told only to have God change his mind about desroying the city, much to the consternation of Jonah.

In conclusion God is NOT limited to what He is but can be anything or anyone He chooses in relation to whatever task He sets Himself to. God likewise transcends life and is capable of all its expressions and characteristics without being subject to its limitations.