I've been studying the existentialist theory of consciousness first developed by the philosopher Jean-Paul Satre in his book Being and Nothingness. He argues that consciousness is not an essential or eternal thing, but rather that it is temporalized and relational. It is nothing-in-itself.
This may sound strange at first until we examine it further. Consciousness is temporal since it is in constant motion between a past and a future, a 'no-longer' and a 'not-yet'. There is no static present. What is time? It is not really a thing that we can grasp like a rock. It can be measured and we feel it passing, so it is real enough, but it is not a thing. It is relational. Math is another good example of being relational rather than material. The same can be said for different states of mind, such as beliefs and expectations. Consciousness is of time. It is constantly using a 'past' to springboard into an awareness of 'future' possibilities.
To be conscious is to be conscious about something. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, then does it make a sound? It could be argued that without the presence of consciousness, there is only undifferentiated being, which just is what it is, and that's all we can really say about that.
We can get the scientific impression that there are physical processes, but they only gain distinction through the interaction of consciousness as a relational process of making meaning between collections of appearances. Consciousness itself needs to be physically embodied it seems, although it would be inaccurate to say that it is merely reducible to brain activity.
To be is to do. Consciousness works through the negation of undifferentiated being into appearances of phenomena. This becomes distinct from that, this as external to that, here as not there, then as not now, etc. Phenomena are a synthesis of what's going on 'out there' and the activity of consciousness. We interpret every situation according to inquiries, desires, hopes, expectations, and intentions.
We are always predisposed to find something lacking in any situation because lacking is intrinsic to the very meaning of the situation for any particular consciousness. In general, a person always lacks the future, which gives meaning to present actions, but just becomes another past-future opening up new future-past possibilities.
Beyond that are vain hopes of becoming one with ourselves. However, this would be impossible since, really, we are this endless march forward in time. Perhaps the harshest of all existential truths regarding the human condition is that there is always a certain degree of dissatisfaction that cannot be overcome. This realization may also be liberating once we embrace our freedom and the responsibility for choices that this theory of consciousness supports.
What are some opinions on this existentialist theory? Is it supported by any evidence? Or is it used more just to justify a particular ethical system surrounding freedom?
Thanks,
~Curt
This may sound strange at first until we examine it further. Consciousness is temporal since it is in constant motion between a past and a future, a 'no-longer' and a 'not-yet'. There is no static present. What is time? It is not really a thing that we can grasp like a rock. It can be measured and we feel it passing, so it is real enough, but it is not a thing. It is relational. Math is another good example of being relational rather than material. The same can be said for different states of mind, such as beliefs and expectations. Consciousness is of time. It is constantly using a 'past' to springboard into an awareness of 'future' possibilities.
To be conscious is to be conscious about something. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, then does it make a sound? It could be argued that without the presence of consciousness, there is only undifferentiated being, which just is what it is, and that's all we can really say about that.
We can get the scientific impression that there are physical processes, but they only gain distinction through the interaction of consciousness as a relational process of making meaning between collections of appearances. Consciousness itself needs to be physically embodied it seems, although it would be inaccurate to say that it is merely reducible to brain activity.
To be is to do. Consciousness works through the negation of undifferentiated being into appearances of phenomena. This becomes distinct from that, this as external to that, here as not there, then as not now, etc. Phenomena are a synthesis of what's going on 'out there' and the activity of consciousness. We interpret every situation according to inquiries, desires, hopes, expectations, and intentions.
We are always predisposed to find something lacking in any situation because lacking is intrinsic to the very meaning of the situation for any particular consciousness. In general, a person always lacks the future, which gives meaning to present actions, but just becomes another past-future opening up new future-past possibilities.
Beyond that are vain hopes of becoming one with ourselves. However, this would be impossible since, really, we are this endless march forward in time. Perhaps the harshest of all existential truths regarding the human condition is that there is always a certain degree of dissatisfaction that cannot be overcome. This realization may also be liberating once we embrace our freedom and the responsibility for choices that this theory of consciousness supports.
What are some opinions on this existentialist theory? Is it supported by any evidence? Or is it used more just to justify a particular ethical system surrounding freedom?
Thanks,
~Curt
Last edited:
