ADORA, Gabriel D.

PHL103

August 22, 2014

1. The fundamental difference between the two is that in essence precedes existence,
value is intrinsic while in existence precedes essence value; value is obtained by
experience or by doing. Existence precedes essence is the fundamental mantra of
existentialism coined by Jean-Paul Sartre meaning that the things we do and how we
act are the determinants of our qualities. This is as mentioned because during birth,
man does not possess any intrinsic value or uniqueness- the significance of his or her
existence is dependent on the acts he or she makes. It also means to say that a thing
exists principally, without dependence on any ultimate goal, objective, or purpose. An
example of this mantra will demonstrate its meaning: a student of UST named Gabriel
Adora is a high school graduate of Bader International School in Jeddah, Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. Before establishing a reputation, he had to be a good student and a good
schoolmate. However, he knew that college would be a very different league, and in
addition, he would be in the Philippines- a lot of things will be different. Supposing that
the students successful enrollment in the university is the beginning of his existence or
his birth (metaphorically), he knows that in order for him to be a significant individual,
he needs to act in such ways that his actions will result to positive consequences. If he
wants to have a good reputation, then he needs to work hard for it. Involving himself in
organizations and university-oriented activities will most likely be beneficial to him.
However, if he chooses to be apathetic and disoriented, there will be no meaning to his
college life and his future will be affected negatively. The means justify the ends.
Essence precedes existence, however, is the viewpoint that religious people take. The
essence is their soul, and existence is the diminutive of essence.

Things exist

perpetually as an idea and then they come into existence. For example, if every planet
and all humans were, for example, obliterated or destroyed from this world, usually the
common phrase that connotes to this phenomenon is the end of the world. However,
for those who believe essence precedes existence, there is no calamity that can
endanger essence because as long as it survives, there is a probability of something
developing into existence. In short terms, there is an Absolute that creates something
into existence, and when the creation ceases to exist, it is never completely and
ultimately gone because there is an Absolute being (essence) that can re-create it. It is
an ongoing cycle that has no end. Another example is the human expectation. Our
expectations are limitless though we try to convince ourselves otherwise. When
something happens, we immediately console ourselves by producing an ideal result that
will fit our interest. Even if our expectations werent met, they keep coming and it
becomes a cycle.

2. The theist and atheist existentialists, despite the diversity of opinion between the two
camps,

share

five

common

characteristics.

First

and

foremost,

existentialist

philosophers attempt to philosophize from the standpoint of an actor rather than from
that of an observer- meaning that they rather experience than watch or observe. This is
because of the fact that the struggles well thought out by existentialist thinkers result
from their personal experience. They explicate rather than explain. Second,
existentialist thinkers stress the subjectivity of man. This does not mean that they do
not acknowledge man as a tangible object- its just that man, as an object alone does
not comprise his humanity. He is the source of initiative that defines his own life,
explores it, and gives it meaning. Subjectivity is also the single way to be objective,
which is, to talk meaningfully of a world. Third, existentialist philosophies stress on
mans existence as he is situated. Existentialists of both camps have different views on
this. Kiekergaard situates man as a single, finite, and unique individual who has to
decide before God in fear; Heidegger thinks that man is doomed to potentialities with
the extreme potentiality being death; Jaspers believes that to exist is to overcome limit
situations and find God eventually; Marcel says to exist is to co-exist; Sartre says that
man is condemned to freedom while Merleau-Ponty responds by saying man is
condemned to meaning. Camus, lastly, states that to exist is to live the absurdity of life.
The fourth common characteristic is the existentialists emphasis on the freedom of
man. Similar to the third characteristic, each existentialist has his own take on
freedom. Freedom, for Kiekergaard, is that which empowers man to pass from the
aesthetic state to the ethical, and finally, to make the leap of faith which is the highest
act of mans liberty. However, Sartrean freedom is the most popular notion among all
existentialists- man exists primarily, and then creates his own essence. Freedom
creates its own essence because man cannot help but be free. He believes in the
negating power of consciousness while Merleau-Ponty on the other hand believes that
mans freedom is due to his or her body. Contrasting the negating power of freedom by
Sartre, Gabriel Marcel stresses its affirming power- his or her capability to say yes to
Being, and that one becomes free only if he surpasses himself and drives out to others
in love, contributing to something grander than himself. Last is their propagation of
authentic existence versus inauthentic existence. Inauthentic existence to Camus is he
who is unable to make decisions of his own- he will not, therefore, find the meaning of
his life due to his indecisiveness and his apathy. For Buber, he is the man living the
life of monologue, meaning that he lives a plain life, only in black and white. There are
no thrills, no ups and downs- in other words, no experience. The man whose existence
is authentic, however, is the man who does not dive in a crowd to be just one of the
people, instead he rises and makes himself known.