Write a critique on Existentialism.

Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice. It is

the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational
decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. It focuses on the question of human
existence, and the feeling that there is no purpose or explanation at the core of existence. It
holds that, as there is no God or any other transcendent force, the only way to counter this
nothingness (and hence to find meaning in life) is by embracing existence.
Thus, Existentialism believes that individuals are entirely free and must take personal
responsibility for themselves (although with this responsibility comes angst, a profound anguish
or dread). It therefore emphasizes action, freedom and decision as fundamental, and holds that
the only way to rise above the essentially absurd condition of humanity (which is characterized
by suffering and inevitable death) is by exercising our personal freedom and choice (a complete
rejection of Determinism).
Existentialism originated with the 19th Century philosophers Sren Kierkegaard and Friedrich
Nietzsche, although neither used the term in their work. In the 1940s and 1950s, French
existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus (1913 - 1960), and Simone de
Beauvoir (1908 - 1986) wrote scholarly and fictional works that popularized existential themes,
such as dread, boredom, alienation, the absurd, freedom, commitment and nothingness.

Criticisms of Existentialism:

Walter Kaufmann criticized 'the profoundly unsound methods and the dangerous contempt for
reason that have been so prominent in existentialism.'
Logical positivist philosophers, such as Rudolf Carnap and Alfred Ayer, assert that
existentialists are often confused about the verb "to be" in their analyses of
"being". Specifically, they argue that the verb is transitive and pre-fixed to a predicate (e.g., an
apple is red) (without a predicate, the word is meaningless), and that existentialists frequently
misuse the term in this manner.
Sartre's philosophy: Many critics argue Sartre's philosophy is contradictory. Specifically, they
argue that Sartre makes metaphysical arguments despite his claiming that his philosophical
views ignore metaphysics. Herbert Marcuse criticized Being and Nothingness (1943) by Jean-
Paul Sartre for projecting anxiety and meaninglessness onto the nature of existence itself:
"Insofar as Existentialism is a philosophical doctrine, it remains an idealistic doctrine:
it hypostatizes specific historical conditions of human existence into ontological and
metaphysical characteristics. Existentialism thus becomes part of the very ideology which it
attacks, and its radicalism is illusory".
In Letter on Humanism, Heidegger criticized Sartre's existentialism:
Existentialism says existence precedes essence. In this statement he is
taking existential and essential according to their metaphysical meaning, which, from Plato's
time on, has said that essential proceeds existential. Sartre reverses this statement. But the
reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement. With it, he stays with
metaphysics, in oblivion of the truth of being.
Herbert Marcuse (1898 - 1979) has criticized Existentialism, especially Sartre's "Being and
Nothingness", for projecting some features of living in a modern oppressive society (features
such as anxiety and meaninglessness) onto the nature of existence itself.
Roger Scruton (1944 - ) has claimed that both Heidegger's concept of in
authenticity and Sartre's concept of bad faith are both self-inconsistent, in that they deny any
universal moral creed, yet speak of these concepts as if everyone is bound to abide by them.
Logical Positivists, such as A. J. Ayer and Rudolf Carnap (1891 - 1970), claim that
existentialists frequently become confused over the verb "to be" (which is meaningless if used
without a predicate) and by the word "nothing" (which is the negation of existence and therefore
cannot be assumed to refer to something).
Marxists, especially in post-War France, found Existentialism to run counter to their emphasis
on the solidarity of human beings and their theory of economic determinism. They further
argued that Existentialism's emphasis on individual choice leads to contemplation rather than to
action, and that only the bourgeoisie has the luxury to make themselves what they are through
their choices, so they considered Existentialism to be a bourgeois philosophy.
Christian critics complain that Existentialism portrays humanity in the worst possible light,
overlooking the dignity and grace that comes from being made in the image of God. Also,
according to Christian critics, Existentialists are unable to account for the moral dimension of
human life, and have no basis for an ethical theory if they deny that humans are bound by
the commands of God. On the other hand, some commentators have objected to Kierkegaard's
continued espousal of Christianity, despite his inability to effectively justify it.
In more general terms, the common use of pseudonymous characters in existentialist writing
can make it seem like the authors are unwilling to own their insights, and
are confusing philosophy with literature.
Besides these, Existence is consciousness, while essence is genetic and environmental makeup.
In traditional (by which I mean non-existentialist) western philosophy, essence always precedes
existence. We are defined by our genetic and environmental characteristics; they determine our
behaviour. Generally shared genetic and environmental characteristics across the species are
typically termed human nature. Existentialism rejects the existence of a common human
nature by proposing that existence comes before essence, meaning that our consciousness has
the opportunity to determine how we feel about the world around us independent of our basic
genetic and environmental characteristics.
Of course, there are certain limitations to this that existentialists recognisea person cannot by
force of consciousness wish for different genetic characteristics or environmental background.
One cannot simply will oneself into a bird or will an abusive childhood away. What the
existentialists do propose, however, is that since ones consciousness comes first, one can
choose how to respond to or feel about ones genetic background or environmental
characteristics, both historically and in the present moment. Taken together, genetics and
environment are typically referred to by existentialism as facticity, the objective facts about
the external world that the consciousness can respond to in a variety of ways. Importantly,
because under existentialism the consciousness has the opportunity to choose how to respond,
there can be no determinism and consequently no prediction of human behaviour based on
general principles. It also means that people have personal responsibility for everything that
they do and are autonomous individuals, a very popular and comforting belief.
The key problem with this is that if the consciousness, the thing deciding how to respond to
facticity, is not itself made up of facticityof genetic and environmental background and
structuringwhat is it? Existentialism proposes that existence comes first, but how can a
consciousness exist produced from no source with a fundamental facticity? Furthermore, we
know scientifically that consciousness is produced by a physical implementthe brain. If you
damage a persons brain, the level of consciousness will decline. Imagine, for example, that a
person is confronted with a given situation and asked how to respond to that situationin other
words, how that persons consciousness will respond to the facticity. The answer the person
would likely give would be very different if, prior to asking the question, I removed a portion of
the persons brain known to handle say, critical thinking. What this means is that existence
cannot precede essencein order to have consciousness, one must have a functional brain, and
the facticity of that brainits genetic characteristics and environmental influences, will give one
a nature that will limit ones scope of response to a given situation or stimulus. It is as if one
attempts to evaluate the properties of a metal using a lens made of the very same metalone
cannot know what impact the lens is having on the analysis and on the data, but one thing is
certain, and that is that, unless the metal is absolutely perfect for use in lenses, the data is going
to be both inaccurate and useless.