Introduction
Modern anthropological metaphysicians have focused much of
their attention on the essence of man.
Some philosophers have denied the coextension of essence and existence,
at the onset of existence, by setting forth the principle that existence
precedes essence. This theory is
often put forth under the belief that it preserves human freedom.
Many existentialists, including Sartre and Ortega, assert
that a person’s essence is unlike that of any other being. A human essence is not given with
existence, as it is with other beings, and therefore there is the denial of
the coextension of these two principles. The person
is, before there is a
determinism of what he is. This
belief that essence follows existence is present in much of modern
existentialism.
The modern era is different than any other in that man is
viewed by many philosophers as being fundamentally free. There is a great
emphasis on personal freedom.
With the zealous attempt to defend human freedom and do away with a
deterministic view of a human being, some existentialists believe that there
is a conflict between essence and existence. This conflict is due in part to their
interpretation of essence in regards to the human person as deterministic and
therefore in the same way opposed to human freedom. For if the what predetermines a human being, this
same what would also restrict the
human being to live as a free and self-determined person. Thus the famous principle of Sartre’s
philosophy: ‘Existence precedes essence’ in a human person. A typical existentialist approach to
understanding the human person is strongly opposed to any form of essentialism
in regards to the human person.
This is to combat any threat of determinism that is believed to be
present in an essential view of the human person. Here by essentialism is meant that the
human person, has an essence that is at least partly responsible for it being
what it is at the moment it begins to exist.
Sartre wishes to emphasize the importance of denying the
coextension of essence and existence, by focusing on the real issue of human
activity. For if man is free, he
will reflect this in his actions above all else. If man is free, his actions, his
project of life is not pre-determined. Sartre believes that the denial
of a personal essence is crucial to preserving the freedom of the human being,
and therefore the autonomy of the human being. For in this understanding of the human
person, man is alone responsible for deciding what he is, for if essence does not
precede existence then man must choose by compulsion at every moment of his
life. This is why Sartre rejects
an essential view of the human person.
Aristotle will be used to represent the traditional or
classical view of essence.
Essentialism is meant that the human person has an essence that is at
least in part responsible for it (refers to essence here) being what it is at
the moment it begins to exist.
For Aristotle, man is a rational animal. By forming a concept of the
essence of man along these lines, Aristotle has fixed the essence of the human being by way
of a definition. Animal is the genus that is common among many living
organisms. What however is
different is the ability of man to reason. From this the species rational comes
about. Man is always a rational animal and this is what separates him from the
other animals that share his same genus.
By establishing this type of a concept of essence, Aristotle fixes a
distinct nature to man. It is at
this point where some existentialists begin to see a problem. Does man have an
essence at the onset of existence?
For the existentialist, man is understood as a pragmatic
being. He participates actively in his own life. Through acting, man moves
intentionally towards a project.
His eventual success is not important. According to Sartre:
[The] fundamental condition of the act is freedom...Now freedom has no
essence...Freedom makes itself an act, and we ordinarily attain it across the
act which it organizes with the causes, motives, and ends which the act
implies. But precisely because
this act has an essence, it appears to us as constituted; if we wish to reach
the constitutive power, we must abandon any hope of finding it an
essence. That would in fact
demand a new constitutive power and so on to infinity...it is freedom which is
the foundation of all essences since man reveals intra-mundane essences by
surpassing the world toward his own possibilities.[1]
Thus some existentialists say existence precedes
essence. The need to preserve
human freedom has caused Ortega and Sartre to declare that a human person does
not have an innate nature or essence. If man did have an essence, he would not
be truly free, and he would exist as predetermined.
Human freedom, for these thinkers, seems to deny the
possibility of a human person having an essence at the start of existence.
Essence is seen as deterministic and therefore a danger to human freedom. In
the interest of human freedom, some existentialists have chosen to deny that
human persons have an essence when they begin to exist. It is a choice motivated by the desire
to preserve human freedom at any cost, and an attempt to avoid the determinism
that an essential view of the person might cause. Human freedom is crucial to
understanding the problem of essence in the human being. And, with this problem, we find the
starting point for much of existential thought. This thesis will begin to
explore this problem of human essence, as seen in modern anthropological metaphysics
with Jean-Paul Sartre and Jose Ortega y Gasset.
After this issue of personal essence has been presented, an
alternative approach to understanding the human person will be presented
through the work of Xavier Zubiri.
Though Zubiri has also been classified as an existential thinker, it is
worth noting that he is indeed atypical in his understanding of the human
person; for Zubiri recognizes the importance of a deeper investigation into
the unique status of being human and his study produces the theory of “open
essence”. Open essence is the metaphysical concept that allows for human
freedom while recognizing a unique personal essence in a human being that is
coextensive with existence.
Zubiri is sympathetic to the notion that something indeed separates man
from that of other creatures. There is a personal essence that is uniquely
man’s and not shared with other animals.
Zubiri however, criticizes Aristotle’s final view of the essence of the
human person. For Zubiri, the essence of man is far more complicated and
dynamic than a simple definition. Zubiri grounds the human person in such a
way that he avoids the utter absurdity of life that is so prevalent in
existential thought. The personal essence seen in Zubiri offers an in-depth
interpretation of human essence which avoids complications seen in classical
philosophy of Aristotle and that of later existentialists.
Like
other modern metaphysicians, Don Jose Ortega y Gasset denies a personal innate
essence. Though Ortega also is
concerned with freedom like Sartre, his approach to understanding the human
person is very different.
Ortega is one of Spain’s most influential
philosophers, known for his social and political philosophy. Yet one of the most important areas of
philosophy that he has contributed to is the area of anthropological
metaphysics. This portion
of the thesis will examine his interpretation of the human person through his
existential view of human history.
Ortega’s philosophy of the human person reflects upon human
life; one’s ability to project an authentic self throughout the course of a
life. If the human person had an essence this would determine that person’s
life. Instead Ortega believes
that man is free, and also compelled to create himself, to live uniquely
through a self-determinism.
A person lives constantly immersed in one project or
another. This project propels the
person towards a goal, a goal that really can never fully be completed. Because a person is not fully
actualized, he is forced to create himself, to make his life. The process of
life has as its goal self-actualization.
Life is pragmatic, it requires a process of “que hacer” or doing. The person undertakes a narrative
process, while living in the midst
of circumstances. He moves
towards a goal, the vital project that guides his life. It is the occupation of man to create
itself. This again illustrates the strong convictions that push Ortega to deny
that persons have an essence.
Man ultimately remains unfinished until death halts this
process of self-actualization.
Human life, is a personal project that entails both circumstances and
subjectivity (the I and my circumstances).
A project of life necessarily entails the existence of
self-consciousness and the ability of the individual to self- reflect.
Ortega’s native tongue fosters the development of his philosophy of the human
person. The Castillian
language provides its speakers with a word unknown to English speaking
peoples. Ensimismarse is
a Spanish verb with a reflexive character. It means to be absorbed in
thought. This word expresses the
starting point from which Ortega proceeds to a very important distinction
between animals and man. Ortega in Ensimismamiento y alteracion: editacion de
la tecnica status:
The
animal is pure change. He
isn’t able to become absorbed in thought. Therefore, when things stop
threatening and caressing it, when they permit it a vacation, in short, when
they stop moving and governing it, the poor animal has virtually to stop
existing, that is, he sleeps.
From here the enormous capacity of drowsiness that reveals to the
animal the heavy slumber that continues in part, in primitive man and
adversely, the growing insomnia
of-the-civilized man the nearly
permanent watchfulness turns, terrible, untamable, that afflict the men with
an intensive internal life.[2]
It is to this internal life that man withdraws, and thus
escapes momentarily from the external world. Here in man’s inner world, in the
midst of the strength of his inferiority, the human person is able to think
and to construct a personal plan of action. The ensimisamiento that is put forth by
Ortega is a very powerful and pragmatic capacity known only to the human
being. This pragmatic view of the human person, held by Ortega, helps to
explain his sharp denial of a human essence.
Ortega’s pragmatic approach to anthropological metaphysics
helps to support his theory of the human person and the denial of a personal
essence. He says “the destiny of
man is, then, primarily action.”[3] He is the being whose life is one of
praxis. Man lives as an active
participant in making himself.
Human life permits no passive onlookers. Man alone is responsible for what he
is.
Always pushed towards the completion of a task, the human
being is orientated to be a being of action. The individual lives this
self-actualizing project. This
project, life, is not to be completed in common. Everyone is responsible for himself,
his own life. Although human
beings are social creatures, each must choose his own “vital program”. Ultimately one projects life and in
this structures a life completely unique.
I alone am left with my task, the que hacer, or the chore of determining
what I will be. Through my
self-determinism and action I make myself, I choose my own what-ness. This is
a very different metaphysical approach to the human person. Without an essence as such, the person
is forced to establish his own essence.
Again Ortega is an existentialist and similar in his position of human
essence to that of Sartre.
What does it mean for one to be human? Ortega answers this difficult question with this
response. In reference to the
human person” he(man) is the existence of a non-existence.”[4] Man exists, he is a real being. Yet he
enjoys a distinct ontological status.
He exists, with his life not being complete. One could go as far as to say that a
person’s life can never be examined except after it is finished. Only then, after death, could one look
at the completed process that we refer to as life. Prior to this termination of life, one
is always immersed in a project, active in the process of life. One continually strives for a
completeness but this idea is never fully realized.
Man exists, but something of
himself always remains outside himself.
The past is his, but it flees every moment into the next. Man is more than the sum total of his
comprised experiences. Man,
though temporal, is not tied to a determination dictated by his past. Ortega
says that “man does not have a nature: nothing in him is invariable. Instead of a nature, he has a history,
it is what no other creature has.”[5]
Man’s ability to make a history is due in part to this lack
of an essential nature. The human
person is not tied to an essence.
Instead he is allowed to
construct his life. Man can at
any moment change his project and alter the course of his existence. He is the only creature who possesses
this special “favor”.
Albert Camus, also known for his existential orientation,
states a very similar position in The
Stranger. Here he states “Every man alive was privileged; there was only
one class of men, the privileged class.
All alike would be condemned to die one day.”[6] Living as one of the privileged, man
still must meet his own end.
Though he holds the power to make himself, the human person is still
finite. The human being is a
temporal being, yet he still is able to transcend the ties of his past and
freely project himself towards a future not yet seen. Abandoned with this life task,
humankind must continue to endure and struggle with it to survive.
Ortega empathizes with the overwhelming feeling that hits
the human person who reflects on the awesome task that he is left with, the
self-determination that is the vehicle for the person’s task of creating
himself. He states:
We are not thrown into existence like the bullet of a gun,
whose flight is absolutely predetermined. The misfortune is that we fall, fall
in this world—the world is always
this, this of now—it consists in all the unfavorable. Instead of imposing on us a
trajectory, it imposes for us various ways and consequently, it forces
us....to choose. The surprising
condition of our life! To live is
to feel oneself fatally compelled to exercise liberty, to decide whom we are
going to be in this world. Not a
single instant, does it stop to rest, our activity of decision. When exasperated we abandon ourselves
to what will come, we have decided not to decide.[7]
This quote echoes the same
sentiments that were seen earlier with the philosophy of Sartre. Ortega also recognizes the mandate
commanding all persons to the continual exercise of personal freedom. This is an obligation that remains
with the human being throughout his life. He can not take a vacation from his
freedom. At every moment he is a
free being. Like it or not there
is no conscious escape. It is
impossible to avoid the weight that comes from our own liberty. Even indecision or an omission of
choice is already seen as an example of the exercise of freedom.
Man is condemned to live free. Sartre finds no solution to
the feeling of condemnation and abandonment that plagues the human person as a
result of his liberty. Man alone
is left with the task to actively establish his unique self, at every moment
of his life. Ortega, however,
holds onto the strong desire of man to find order in life and escape the
feeling of being lost:
This is the pure truth--to know, that to live is to feel
oneself lost--, he that accepts it already has begun to encounter himself,
already has started to discover his authentic reality, already is on firm
(ground). Instinctively, the same
as the castaway, he will seek something to hold on to and this tragic glance,
urgent, absolutely truthful because one tries to save oneself, he will have
order in the case of his life.
These are the only true ideas:
the ideas of the shipwrecked.[8]
Where the philosophy of Sartre leaves the human person in a
bleak sentence, Ortega expresses the hope of the human spirit. Here the human person also feels left
alone, but instead of focusing on this abandonment, Ortega describes man as
looking for help. This is an
avenue by which man might be able to escape his plight. By far this depiction of the human
person and his life is empowering.
Man, left with a tremendous task, feels as though he has been
abandoned. Instead of pining over
his plight, he seeks help.
Something must provide man with the help he needs to give order to his
life. Ortega states “Lord of all
things, but he isn’t lord of himself.
He feels abandoned by his own abundance.”[9]
Man is able to provide order and rule over the things which
surround him. He finds little
comfort in his vast abilities, life perhaps is the most difficult task that
confronts man. A task, a burden, and but it is his.
Though man is the inventor of many technological advances,
he still remains a mystery to himself.
He experiences a wealth of freedom, but this freedom is a source of
discomfort to him. One must
create himself, the human person finds no comfort in this. There is a task that he is thrown into,
it is not complete and as he lives it will never be complete. This sounds
familiar to anyone who knows the myth of Sisyphus: Condemned to roll the rock
up the hill, only then to see it return to the bottom. This is a sentence in which Sisyphus
is tormented by never seeing his task fully completed. Man too lives daily immersed in his
task, never to see it completed.
His process of self-actualization is always continued. His what-ness is never complete, it is
always being made.
Why is it that the human
person exists differently than the animals? Ortega states that “the animal has not
enough imagination to draw up a project of life other than the mere monotonous
repetition of its previous actions.”[10]
In part, the animal does not have the same capacities as
does the human person. The
animal’s abilities do not allow it to design a vital project. Its existence is determined by its
nature, it can not transcend the instincts that guide its life.
Man, however, is identified by his own activity. It is this activity that determines
the self. He is his own subjectivity (the I) and the circumstances that he
encounters are his own. Unlike
the animal, the human person is able to withdraw from the world. In retreating to his own interiority
he immerses himself in thought.
This process then leads to the development of a plan of action. He then works towards the goal,
projecting himself forward into the uncertainty of the future. It is through this process, moments in
the history of the human person, that man chooses himself. He alone makes what
he is. Ortega states “Hence man’s
existence is no passive being in the world, it is an unending struggle to
accommodate himself in it.”[11]
This pragmatic view of man illustrates the dignity that he
possesses as a free being. He is
intimately involved in the establishment of himself as a unique being. He alone holds the ultimate
responsibility for what he has become.
Life allows no one simply to observe, to sit on the sidelines. Life is
a call to action. Life is an
active existence that enables man to be an autobiographer.
We are all familiar with the notion of natural selection.
This biological theory asserts that the beings which have evolved have done so
because of their ability to adapt to the environment in which they live.
Ortega refuses to accept the notion that man is adaptable. He states; “The animal is adaptable,
but man is essentially inadaptable.
Man is, everywhere a stranger.”[12]
Animals can neither say ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ to
life. They differ from man in
that they already have an essence.
This essence is what determines their life. Life for the animal is not an
experience or an expression of freedom.
Life here is not a process as it is for mankind. An animal is not burdened with the
chore of inventing itself.
Instead the life of the animal is already decided along with its
instincts. It is unable to act
freely, it must always act in accordance with its essence. A human person,
however, is alone responsible for himself, for what he is and will
become.
Man can not claim amnesty because of his instincts, for man
is not tied to his instincts as is the animal. Our responsibility for personal acts
cannot be diminished by the excuse of our instincts. Humanity is free, it is not determined
by its instincts. Man is required
to live as a pragmatic being and is placed in a situation where each one must
act to continue living.
Jose Ortega y Gasset provides insight into the existential
understanding of man. Man is free
and self-determining. Essence is
not seen as innate because of a desire to preserve human freedom. Man is an animal with a history which
he alone chooses and lives. Though the writings of Ortega are interesting and
eloquent, some problems arise from his concept of personal essence.
One problem with Ortega’s metaphysical anthropology is that
man’s history cannot be confused with a concept of essence or the process that
leads to the making of his essence.
Man lives and in doing so does author his own story. By the decisions he makes and the
actions he chooses he can never create what he is. No matter how you try to
deny this, man is still that, man. He has a human-ness that is unique to the
human person. He is free but that
freedom is always that of a human person.
Julian Marias describes the human person as having the
ability to choose who he will become. This is a more
accurate description of the process of life that a person goes though. By acting in such a way or choosing a
certain path, man makes a decision on what type of person he will become, who
he will become. Man, no matter
what his decisions are, or actions will always remain a human being. The type of person he is or will be are
all self determined. I believe
that Ortega, and some of his fellow existentialist thinker confuse the two
concepts, and thereby misunderstand a traditional sense of human essence.
If man exists, then how can he create himself? As a free
being he can choose the particular essence that he will have. For example he can be of noble
character or he can be a wretched man.
Either way he still remains a man. His universal essence is already in
place and no action, omission, etc. can change this fact.
With the thought of Ortega, one sees the longing for an
escape from the absurdity presented though life. He describes man as a castaway looking
for something or someone. With this longing, Ortega takes a more hopeful
approach to the plight of the human person than some, but it is still without
a grounding. Where does the meaning in human life come from? This is an
important question given the fact that Ortega points out the capacity of man
to at any time say “yes” or “no” to life. Why then do we continue to live as
castaways? Where is our meaning?
Perhaps one of the most radical thinkers associated with
the existential movement is Jean-Paul Sartre. For Sartre, existentialism is a
celebration of personal freedom and an exploration into the real physical
condition of man. Man’s
situation; this is the focus and the starting point for Sartre’s
anthropological metaphysics.
Existentialism is seen as the truest anthropological examination of
man. At one point in his work
Sartre refers to existentialism by saying that “this theory alone is
compatible with the dignity of man, it is the only one which does not make man
into an object.”[13]
In order to understand Sartre’s statement and his
philosophy, one must understand this statement to be a defense of human
freedom. A genuine concern for
the preservation of human freedom is the starting point of his
existentialism. This is also the
root of the problem of essence in the human person. By attributing an essence to a human
being at the start of his existence, Sartre believes there to be a grave
consequence; a limiting of personal freedom and an objectification of
man. In attributing to a human
being a fixed nature or essence when he begins to exist, the person’s freedom
is limited by what he is and will be.
Man is then reduced to an object, no longer does he exist as a free
subject who holds the power of choice.
Man lives determined by his essence. In a theory pushed by the belief
that man is self-determined, one does away with anything perceived as
impairing this freedom. Sartre
sees the attributing of an essence to the human person along with existence as
endangering man’s ability to act freely. In this light, the ability of the
person to establish himself freely as an authentic and unique being is forever
crippled by the attribution coextensively of a human essence, with
existence.
Existentialism by and large is a philosophy directed
against determinism. In the
interest of maintaining human freedom, any elements of determinism are
rejected. Sartre clearly
identifies traditional anthropological metaphysics as deterministic. Traditional metaphysics, as
represented by the philosophy of Aristotle and later Aquinas, is dualistic in
nature; that is to say any given real substance has both an essence and
existence.
In reading the work of Jean-Paul Sartre, one immediately is
struck by the vigor in which he defends human freedom. As stated earlier, his existentialism
is a radical but sincere concern for the preservation of human freedom. Sartre does more than just attribute
freedom to the human person. For
him freedom is not just an attribute or feature of the human being. In Existentialism and Human Emotions
Sartre states that “there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom.”[14]
This is perhaps one of the most forceful statements that
one will encounter in modern anthropological metaphysics. Man is freedom. The copula “is” has many uses in the
English language. In this specific case it appears that Sartre uses “is” to
express an equality of terms.
This usage goes beyond a mere attribute that the human being
possesses. Man is, that is to say
equals, freedom. Therefore human
freedom, for Sartre, is more than an essential feature of the human
person. Freedom is the human person and can not be
separated from the human being.
Justus Streller provides us with a guide to the philosophy
of Jean-Paul Sartre. Throughout his book To Freedom Condemned, Streller focuses
on the importance of human freedom in Sartre’s philosophy:
Human freedom is not a part of human existence; it precedes
human existence and makes it
possible. The freedom of man can
not be separated from the being of man.
It is the being of man’s consciousness. It is not a human attribute but it is
the raw material of my being. I owe my being to freedom.[15]
As a free being, I choose, and in choosing I decide what I
am and what I will be. It is in
choosing that I establish myself. My freedom serves as a platform from which I
actively come to be. In choosing,
I authentically make myself. I act, and in acting create myself as a unique
being. Sartre states “Acting is
not a consequence of anything at all in the world or in man; it is rather the
expression of freedom.”[16]
If the basic tenet of Sartre is correct and ‘man has no
essence only a past’, then the importance of freedom is crucial to
understanding his form of existentialism. If man indeed has no essence, but only
a past, one must be careful not to fall into a determinism. To avoid this determinism one must
recognize man as a free being, one which acts out of this freedom. Then, though man has a past, he is not
tied to this past as psychological determinism would have us believe. Man can negate his past, and choose at
any moment to move in an entirely different direction. For man to act authentically
necessarily presupposes that the man, as agent, is free. My ability to act, to choose what I am
through the process of self-determination, illustrates that I am a free being.
For only a free being would have the option to act authentically, the
opportunity to determine himself.
Sartre recognizes the necessity of human freedom in a metaphysical
anthropology. The French
philosopher states:
As well look for emptiness in a container which one has
filled beforehand up to the brim!
Man can not be sometimes slave and sometimes free; he is wholly free or
he is not free at all.[17]
Yet in the midst of this profound and complete freedom that
Sartre has found in the human person, even he admits a limit. The human person is free in all
instances, except one. The human being is not free from this personal
freedom. One is “condemned”, if
you will, to live as a free being.
This condition of freedom, which seems to be a source for
human dignity in such a philosophy, is also a source of a distinct limitation
on the human person. Free in all
cases except for the case of choosing one’s own condition or situation of
freedom. This is mandatory for every human being. All persons are obliged to
live freely. They are free by
compulsion. To live as a
human person is to live as a free being.
This is what Sartre calls “the facticity of freedom.”[18]
Such an existential view of the human person leaves the
person with sole responsibility for himself. Sartre states in Existentialism and Human Emotions:
If we have defined man’s situation as a free choice, with no excuses and no
recourse, every man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, every
man who accepts a determinism, is a dishonest man.[19]
In order to escape the charge of being dishonest one must
indeed reject all deterministic views of the human person. Sartre has included in this notion of
determinism all essential views of the human being. To attribute an essence to the human
person is for him, a determinism, a dishonest self-reflection. This is the rational behind his
philosophy, and his denial of a personal essence. This is also a mark of some
existential thinkers and will be
shown later as a point of difference between Sartre and Zubiri.
A possible moral consequence of an essential view of the
human person may follow from the determinism that Sartre so readily
rejects. The consequence is
that personal responsibility is minimized. A person can always resort to the
argument that he was tied to a nature and was without the sufficient freedom
to act differently. This seems to
be a position that is often identified with that of the Behaviorists. Free, but tied to a nature seems to be
a contradiction.
Throughout Sartre’s work he focuses on the responsibility
of each individual person. In
asserting an inescapable freedom
of the human person, he also secures the responsibility that each man
experiences for himself. This
further establishes setting in which Sartre feels compelled to deny an essence
of man.
Sartre rejects an essential view of the human person, that
the human person has any essence. This is the position that Sartre brings to
modern anthropological metaphysics. With this position he rejects both the
duality of traditional metaphysics and the notion that the human person has an
essence.
Thus human existence serves as a starting point from which
the person freely chooses himself. This is the reality that the human person
experiences according to Sartre. He states:
If existence really does precede essence, there is no
explaining things away by reference to a fixed and given human nature. In
other words, there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom.[20]
From this statement, one understands Sartre to be asserting
the total freedom of the human person. Actions are a result of the freedom and
not the nature of the human person. One is held completely accountable for
one’s choices and actions. This is a defense of human freedom, and of man’s
ability to establish himself.
The anthropological metaphysics of both Jose Ortega y
Gasset, and Jean-Paul Sartre are without a doubt, typical expressions of
existential thought. With the denial of a human essence, the focus is placed
upon the existence of the human being and the making of an essence by free
choice.
With this emphasis on human existence, man is left with his
freedom of self-determination. As the person lives, he make vital projects the
goal of his actions. He acts continuously throughout his life. His own
identity, what he is, results from the choices that he has made. He is an
author writing his own drama. Life is the creation of the human person. Life
also remains an expression of the freedom that the human being both enjoys and
dreads.
The recurring theme throughout this paper has been the
issue of essence in the human person and human freedom. Up to this point the authors that have
been chosen to illustrate this problem have agreed on one common point. Man, the human person, does not have
an essence when he begins to exist.
The personal essence of traditional anthropological metaphysics has
been sacrificed for the preservation of human freedom.
The autonomy that man enjoys is due to this status of a
free being. Man alone holds the
power to make himself, by having the freedom to establish his unique essence.
Man, having no essential nature is left with the chore of establishing
himself.
This tenet, denying an innate nature of the human being,
leaves much of existentialism and modern anthropological metaphysics relying
on an absurd position. Man is
free, but his freedom is limited.
Human freedom is a finite expression of freedom. Any other interpretation of human
freedom remains an error on the part of the thinker. Man neither has the ability to create
himself, nor would any sane man wish to torture himself with illusions of such
an impossible task. Man is free,
but nothing he does can ground his freedom, from which he is able to act. For, as is seen in Thomistic thought,
‘every action is also an expression of existence’. This means that if the action of man
is an expression of his freedom, as many existentialists think, action too is
the expression of existence. I
have found no grounding for human freedom in man with either the philosophy of
Jean-Paul Sartre or Jose Ortega y Gasset. The closest thing to such a foundation for personal existence as
seen in the following quote. According to Sartre’s theory of human freedom “it
is not a human attribute but it is the raw-material of my being. I owe my being to freedom.”[21]
This is indeed a radical statement even for the French
philosopher. Here the grounding
of my existence, of my being is found in my freedom. This seems fatally flawed. If I am to give credit for my
existence to something, how can I try to give it to my freedom. ‘My’ seems to set this freedom apart
from that of any other.
What Sartre seems to be saying is that my freedom grounds
me. This is at least a logical
error. For if Sartre is truly trying to answer a question of why the human
person exists, he can hardly refer back to the same person that is the source
of the perplexity. Sartre clearly
has failed to provide the human person, the I, with the grounding or the
foundation of man’s existence. Ontologically speaking, to the reader
of Sartre, man and his existence are but a mystery. Perhaps Sartre is right to
focus on the tremendous freedom that is given to man. The human person is an active being,
but he lacks the absolute freedom that he would need in order to ground his
own existence. Man is free to
choose, and thus make who he is.
Man, however, is unable to provide himself with an essence. Human freedom is precisely that,
freedom in human form. If one maintains the position that a human person is
indeed able to produce his own essence or nature through his autonomous acts,
one must therefore concede man is the creator of himself and not his
existence. For the what-ness of
the human person would not be a given, but would be something decided at every
moment by the person who is choosing.
The acting person is the one credited with realizing the authentic
self. His nature would be what was decided on by himself alone as a result of
his choices.
William Barrett, in his book entitled Irrational Man, describes the freedom
of Sartre as “a rootless freedom.”[22] This seems to be a problem not only
with Sartre, but also with Ortega.
Since much of existential anthropological metaphysics is dependent upon
his interpretation of human freedom, it is important to investigate further
this criticism of Sartre’s theory of the human being. Sartre attributes a
radical freedom to the human person.
He, however, lacks the justification for such a freedom. From where
does this freedom come?
Why does the human person have this important ontological
status while the other animals enjoy a much lesser position? It is clear that Sartre believes
firmly in the reality of human freedom.
His understanding of the human person can also be interpreted as the
zealous fight for the preservation of personal freedom. How is it then that this learned man
proceeds with a philosophy of the human person, motivated by the strong desire
to retain human freedom, but clumsily leaves this principle of human freedom
without its proper grounding?
What accounts for why man has freedom? Rootless and without a rational
basis, this freedom, so vigorously defended, is but a presupposition in the
midst of the work of the Jean-Paul Sartre. For if he wishes to deny a personal
essence in the hopes of continuing to allow for a philosophy sympathetic to
personal freedom, Sartre must first build the foundation for the reality of
such a freedom. Without such a background, his theory of the human person
loses its credibility as a genuine philosophical discourse.
Another interesting point with respect to the position of
Sartre is that he continually speaks of human freedom. This indicates that Sartre understands
that freedom can be discussed in reference to different types of being;
otherwise this distinction would prove a mere utterance, a useless word. Sartre then also concedes to a basic
understanding of what the human person
is. This is why there is some sort of nature with respect to the human
person that even Sartre would have to accept. Apparently this “nature”
would also include freedom, since the human person is free (he is
freedom).
Though Zubiri would not agree with the denial of a personal
innate essence, he would also criticize Aristotle’s interpretation of human
essence. Zubiri instead continues
from classical views that essences do exist and can be known and goes on to
develop his own
interpretation of the essence of man.
Zubiri agrees with Aristotle that there is something about
a man that makes him a man and not another thing. He however sees the human person as a
much more complicated and dynamic creature. He believes that the human person’s
essence is not definable with a simple statement of genus and species. The
traditional statement of man is a
rational animal is perhaps true but fails to encapsulate the complexity of
the human person. Zubiri then
sets off to establish a fuller concept of the human person than was seen with
his predecessors.
According to the philosophy of Xavier Zubiri, the human
person does have an essence. This human essence
is, however, tied to his interpretation of the human intellect. This theory of the human person allows
for the retention of a human essence.
The human person is like the other animals in some ways but still he
remains unique and set apart from the other natural beings. The human person, according to Zubiri,
is a being with the power of understanding “in the sentient intellect.”[23]
Zubiri in his examination of the human person recognizes
the value of human freedom. In
this way he is similar to Sartre and Ortega. He, however, does not inflate the
status of human freedom to that of some of his contemporaries:
There is not the least doubt,
there are both intellectual and volitional essences. If the will is grounded (whatsoever
may be the mode of understanding this grounding) in the note of the
intelligence, we can limit ourselves to this last (note) and talk only of the
intelligence or intellective essence.
Every intellectual essence is transcendentally open, and reciprocally,
every transcendental essence is eo
ipso intellective, because intelligence is formally apprehension of the
real as real and reciprocally.
The intellective essence is “by nature” open to all that is real as
real.[24]
From this statement it appears that Zubiri wishes to
“ground” volitional essences in the intellect. Freedom, or freedom of the will, (free
will) is thereby grounded in some way in the intellect. Human freedom is therefore intimately
tied to the intellect.
This is clearly an approach to understanding the human
person far different than the existentialism of Sartre. Here in the theory of
personal freedom presented by Zubiri, human freedom has a root, it is grounded
in that of the intellect. This is
not a new idea, it was also the position of St. Thomas Aquinas:
The intellect is related
to the will as its source of movement, so there is no need to distinguish an
active and a passive power in the will.[25]
Freedom, understood in this light would also be
limited. This is an understanding
of human freedom that is a true reflection of the human person as a finite
creature. Though man is a free
being, he does not truly possess the power to provide himself with his own
essence. Man, being what he
is, is a human person. This is a
status that is not of man’s choosing.
He is what he is, a human person.
His personhood is not a result of a decision or a culmination of
actions of his free choice. From
the beginning of his existence, his quiddity is that of person, a being in
human form.
In grounding the human person’s freedom in the intellect,
Zubiri further illustrates man’s finitude. Since human understanding is a finite,
something that is grounded in it would also have to be finite. From this one can deduce that human
freedom is also finite. The
human intellect enjoys a wealth of capacities, yet it is bound to a physical
existence. The intellect of
the human person is by its very nature intimately tied to a corporeal
body. It relies upon the world
and through the bodily senses it receives information that is needed in the
process of understanding.
Unlike a pure intellect, the human intellect is not
complete. It lacks the ability to
understand all things from within itself. This imperfection is seen clearly in
the necessary connection that the human intellect has with the body. Through the senses, the human person
is able to gather information that leads to understanding. Still the nature of
the intellect of the human person is rather sophisticated. The animal possesses only the
senses. The animal is restricted
because of what it is by its nature.
The human intellect requires a real world from which it
senses real things and gathers input.
This is an intellect that is not whole or perfected in and of
itself. It must gather external
information through the senses.
The intellect remains imperfect in that it requires an external real
world to provide sense data. This
may not seem like an important feature of a philosophy of the human person but
it will help us in understanding the difference between an animal and a human
person. Zubiri says “The animal,
with his mere sensibility, reacts always and only in the presence of
stimuli.”[26]
As physical beings both animals and man are sentient. Both
have the ability to feel and react to the environment that they find
themselves in. The animal, being
a real being, finds himself in the world. The animal however exists and lives in
a very different way than does man.
Zubiri speaks of the animals as being guided merely by stimuli. For the animal there is only
a reactive response. The action
of the animal is reduced to an environmental response. The environment is something that
spurs the animal into activity.
Man, though sentient, is also an active being. He is able to react to stimuli as all
physical beings do, but he is also able to see the world as something
more. Man sees the world as a
world of realities. This is a
fundamental principle that is crucial to understanding Zubiri’ s
interpretation of the human person; for it is the human being that has an open
essence.
Following Zubiri’s theory of the human person, a human
being is redefined as an intelligent animal, the “animal of realities.”[27] Man is the animal of realities.
This statement is important in understanding the anthropological metaphysics
of Zubiri. Man interprets
the world as a world of realities.
For the human person, there is not the animal limitation of seeing the
world solely as stimuli. Man
possesses a unique essence, a different ontological status as a result of this
higher capacity; the intellectual ability towards openness to the world of
realities. This openness is illustrated in the novel interpretation of the
human person as possessing an open essence. Zubiri asserts the existence of
a personal essence, while not discounting the value of human freedom. While
other philosophers have left human freedom rootless, Zubiri provides a
grounding of human freedom. Zubiri, grounds human freedom in the intellect,
and clearly is required to maintain the notion of a personal essence in the
metaphysics of the human person.
How is it that Zubiri retains the essence of the human
person in the midst of modern criticisms? Zubiri builds a philosophy of the
person around this concept of open essence:
Man not only is real, but he is “his” reality. Therefore, he is real ‘in front of’
all other reality that isn’t his.
In this sense every person, it is said, is free from all other reality:
he is absolute.[28]
Zubiri has stated that “In a word, while the animal does
not make but resolves his life, man ‘projects’ his life.”[29] Here Zubiri mirrors the philosophy of
his professor, Ortega y Gasset.
Man does not experience a position of comfort in life. He must live actively and thus
experience life much differently than his animal counterpart. Man is forced to project himself
towards a future that is unknown.
His life is undetermined until he begins to freely choose his
project. The animal lacks such a
freedom and therefore it merely settles into its life. The animal remains closed to the
possibilities that are available to the human person:
The world thus understood is where man must move himself;
and for that reason the world is always something formally open. Human control, is therefore, a good
part, ‘creation’.[30]
The human person is privileged in that he holds a mobility
that is non-existent in the case of other animals. The world of man is a world opened
with a plurality of possibilities.
For this reason Zubiri recognizes the partial responsibility that is
given to man for control over himself, his world of realities. Man is unique in the status of
self-determination. He partakes
in the realization of some of the possibilities that are presented to his
world.
Man holds an essence, but unlike that of any other natural
creature. His essence is an
essence open to a world of realities full of possibilities. Therefore, man is
referred to throughout the work of Zubiri as the animal of realities.
In focusing upon the human intellect, Zubiri allows for a
sharp distinction between human beings and other animals. While retaining the concept of a human
essence, Zubiri re-interprets this essence in a unique manner. Perhaps this
interpretation is an illustration of his sympathy towards modern philosophic
inquiry into the metaphysics of the human person, advances in science as well
as an understanding of classical thought. Though he clearly wishes to preserve a
human essence, he does not wish to adopt a determinism. The formulation of his theory of open
essence, the essence of human being, he believes, avoids a deterministic view
of the human person.
Open essence is a theory of the human person that does not
inflate the ontological status of man.
The human intellect is not a pure intellect. The requirement of a sentient body,
shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the fact that man is limited. The requirement
of the senses to provide information to the intellect demonstrates that the
human intellect can not stand alone. It not only is embodied, but it must
possess a body in order to understand, for the intellect to function.
The human person in being the animal of realities is open
to the possibilities presented to him.
His world is not something that moves him alone. He freely moves in it. The world is but a plethora of the
possible. Man in his liberty is
able to choose, to determine himself, thus sharing, in part, in creation. Man, the animal of realities,
possesses an essence open to a world of possibility. Zubiri is unique in this
approach to modern metaphysics of the human person. His philosophy adds invaluable insight
into the metaphysics of the human person. Through his re-interpretation of human
essence, he successfully depicts the reality of man. The human person retains his personal
essence in the form of a unique essence called “open essence”.
Zubiri is able to preserve human freedom, while maintaining
the traditional metaphysical principle of human essence.
Many problems have faced philosophy, yet none remains as
important and as close to home as the one found in modern anthropological
metaphysics. Does the human
person have an essence when he begins to exist? This is a serious question that must
be addressed by contemporary metaphysicians. Perhaps that which is closest to us,
is most elusive. Even after
tremendous technological advances, man himself, in many ways remains but a
mystery. If we listen to some
existentialists, we are introduced to an interpretation of man that denies the
coextension of personal essence and existence. In the interest of human freedom,
Sartre and Ortega have chosen to reject the traditional duality of essence and
existence in man.
Is man condemned and left alone to construct his own
what-ness? This feeling of “abandonment” is common to all human
experience. This feeling is also
a recognition of the awesome responsibility that is bestowed upon us from
birth. Is this responsibility and the recognition thereof, really sufficient
ground for the eventual dismissal of the traditional metaphysical duality of
essence and existence?
I believe that it is not. It seems that instead there is a
rather basic confusion. It is the
misunderstanding of the freedom that is possessed by the human being. First there must be a distinction
between the who and what with respect to the human
person. Through our freedom we
are able to pick who it is that we will be. It is a choice to be noble, or
ignoble. We do not choose what we are but who we are. From this freedom, that we all have as
human beings, we are able to determine for ourselves what type of human being
we will be. As a contemporary
philosopher once said ‘there are two types of human beings. Decent and indecent.’ From this it appears that freedom is
the tool from which we are empowered to be authentically ourselves. It is the “who-ness” that is
rightfully determined by human freedom and not the “what-ness”
Further distinctions can be made between a unique personal
essence that is reflected in one’s “who-ness” versus the universal essence
that is the basis for a human essence, the “what-ness” of the human
person.
To state that it is human
essence or “what-ness” that would restrict human freedom is an error, it is a
misunderstanding of the real function of human freedom. No matter what one’s decision may be,
one will always remain a human being.
Freedom, in this case is always human freedom. This freedom, however, always will
allow a person to determine who one will be. Freedom is what allows a person to be
who he is.
Perhaps it is the traditional view of essence that lends
itself to this “conflict” presented by much of existential thought. Zubiri is aware of a need for further
clarification in regard to the essence of the human person. In redefining the essence of the human person as an open essence, he
produces the modern-day theory of personal essence. This is an essence that allows for the
autonomy of man, while recognizing his limitation as creature. The limitation
is that he has no choice over what is he. He is human. He can however determine who he is and
will be either choosing to be a decent or indecent person.
The human person’s openness to the world, a world of
possibilities, preserves the freedom of man. This openness allows man to move in
the midst of his world of realities. Through this openness, man is freed from
a life that is fixed, as is seen with other natural creatures.
Man is by his nature, a being with an open essence. I would perhaps continue here by
saying that only in the case of the human person, can one choose the character of that being. Julian Marias expands upon this
further. Only a man is a who. All other creatures have only a what. Through this openness, man can
experience the world as uniquely his own:
The reality of that ‘who’ is never given, and
simultaneously includes a certain infinitude and an essential opacity. That infinitude does not affect the
finite character of human reality. The image of infinity is lack of definition, and only in this
form is the human person infinite: not to be ‘given,’ always able to be
something more, to be arriving.[31]
Unfixed, he is at liberty to realize the possibilities that
are available to him in his reality.
Zubiri grounds human freedom in the human intellect. This
is clear from his idea that the volitional essence is rooted in that of the
intellectual essence. He could have gone more in depth in order strengthen his
theory. This is important since it is human freedom that compels many
existentialists to their eventual denial of a human essence in man.
Zubiri recognizes the importance of human freedom. If human freedom is to be rooted in
something incomplete, imperfect, it too must be imperfect and restricted. Human freedom is seen as rooted in the
human intellect. This suggests an
imperfection in human freedom.
For the liberty of the human being is rooted in something that is
already seen as imperfect.
Nothing coming from something limited can experience an absolute,
complete freedom or liberty.
While some other modern philosophers wish to elevate the
ontological status of man, Zubiri sees man from the start as an imperfect
being. This allows him to proceed with an investigation of anthropological
metaphysics without leading to false conclusions that man is something of a
demi-god.
Man, though a beautiful and dynamic creature, still
experiences limitations because of what it is. The human person, however lives
uniquely. As the being holding a
special essence, he lives in a world of realities. Open essence, recognizes human
freedom, while preserving a human essence. It is open essence that
counterattacks the destruction done to metaphysical anthropology by
philosophers like Sartre and Ortega.
Perhaps to some people the interpretation of man as having
an open essence sounds strange.
Is Zubiri just renaming the problem that was presented by other
existentialists? I would say
“no”. Open essence is a concept
that captures the richness of the human being. It denotes freedom and an ability to
exist in a much different relation with the world than other creatures. Man is an intra-mundane being that
enjoys a different status than other animals. It is through the human intellect that
man is able to stand in this unique relation with his world. With a sentient intellect, man is able
to see the world as a world of realities. Through this ability he stands open
to the vastness that surrounds him.
His freedom allows the human person to choose and pursue the project
that is his own. This is the
proper understanding of the human person. Unlike the animal, a human being is a
pragmatic creature, rational and free.
Man through his openness is able to create a project, a world seen as
uniquely his own.
In re-interpreting human essence, Zubiri successfully
establishes a philosophy of the human person that is able to retain
traditional metaphysical concepts. In setting forth the essence of the human
person as an open essence, he illustrates the true status of the human
person. Zubiri also explains the
distinctions between the human being and other natural beings. This philosophy of the human person,
allows for the continuation of human freedom and the preservation of a human
essence in modern philosophic inquiry.
In presenting the problem of essence in modern
anthropology, it is my hope to express the variety of orientations that can be
seen within existential thought.
Though historically existentialism has been seen as a denial of human
essence, Zubiri illustrates the ability to maintain a concept of human essence
within the framework of existentialism.
Zubiri, in constructing the concept of an open essence has
also laid the foundation for a theory of knowledge. In understanding man as a sentient
intellect, he shows the importance of man as a physical being, possessing a
body.
With philosophers such as Sartre and Ortega, the focus of
their anthropological examination of the human person is human freedom. It is never a concern for the freedom
of a rabbit or a dog. It is
always human freedom. It seems they
have already recognized and accepted an essence that allows the human being to
be distinguished from other beings.
This is the what-ness, the essence that they have tried hard to
deny. If they deny an essence,
they must also deny themselves the ability to denote human and non-human
creatures. This would also make
it absurd for them to go on to fight for the preservation of human
freedom. Human freedom
would be absurd. For the ability
to group human beings as human would also be rather strange. No essence would mean no
what-ness. It seems a result of
such a philosophy would disallow a human species. Since this is unacceptable,
it shows a severe problem that is present within the philosophy of both Sartre
and Ortega.
Zubiri allows for a species of human beings, and still
preserves the freedom seen with all human persons. His interpretation of human
essence as an open essence allows for the unique ability of human person to
establish himself as his own.
This is the importance of open essence as an alternative existential
approach to understanding the metaphysics of man.