Blog 1 -- 1/13/14

I'm not quite sure which is more disheartening: the overwhelming possibility of there existing no self--as delineated in the introduction of Robert Solomon's Existentialism and shared by countless existentialists and postmodernists alike (xvii); or, perhaps it's the realization that Solomon's articulation has served only to confound my own, personal understanding of existentialism as it was introduced to me in years past. Most simply defined, existence precedes essence, or so I was taught. In other words, one would come into existence before acquiring or assigning purpose for his or her being. This becomes problematic for me in light of my inability to separate the notion of self from essence, their relationship as follows: the self is one’s essence made manifest through existence. If, then, 1) individuals exist and 2) they possess a permutation of characteristics with which to distinguish them from other individuals (regardless of when essence came about), then I would argue that it follows from these premises that individuals exhibit those requisites necessary for self-identity and thus, the self to which I speak. Or, is it that in denying the notion of self, Solomon and other scholars embodying this philosophy are similarly denying existence and/or essence as well? Are there sincere responses to this quandary which might suggest existence, essence and the concept of self needn't all rely upon one another for at least one to be objectively true? It remains that I know little of just how Solomon and the likes define the self. How are any of these terms defined by the world’s most prominent philosophers, contemporary or not, for that matter? These are questions I seek to explore in greater detail as I continue to formulate my own ideas about existentialism and the role it will come to play in my life over its course. 

Yours Tru.ly