“To be or not to be?” is an existential question raised in Shakespeare’s Hamlet relevant to each human’s endeavor of life, questioning a longing for fate in the absence of true knowledge into one’s existence. Some wonder in seeking an answer, must we arrive at an objective conclusion?
French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre theory of existentialism assumes life is contingent and inherently meaningless, therefore insufficient for the solution we seek.
His philosophical view holds that “existence to precede essence” and the burden of responsibility is on the individual alone. As living rational creatures occupying an indifferent world, we cultivate meaning and authenticity into life by acknowledging our natural freedoms and acting in accordance with our true self. We define ourselves through our fundamentally free choices and actions. This process ultimately creates an identity worth preservation, one we are liable for and one that has meaning.
Though Sartre’s argument is well-articulated, I find it to be fallacious: he vaguely utilizes the term ‘meaning’ and relies upon the false assumption that humans’ role in nature is predominant.
The presence of meaning is only manifested by a human mind, excluding other minds or other biological systems. The term ‘meaning’ inherently has an ambiguous connotation, and might be relevant to other living things, not just humans. For Sartre, humans are the sole contributor and conservator of meaning in this world and that through human observation and action, meaning is then infused into the world.
Sartre would deny the notion that the surrounding world has any sort of value or essence independent from human existence. However, I believe that the vegetation itself is valuable. Weeds serve a purpose just like produce. The weed is crucial for nutrient recycling in the soil, granting it greater health; the produce is crucial for nutrient recycling in humans, granting us greater health. If the weed and the produce perform the same action, are they not then on an equal footing? Or, does the produce have greater merit because of its utility to humans?
I concede that I do frequently find myself creating value in each passing moment, but can existence merely be explained as a one-way street? Does life itself not possess some sort of intrinsic meaning independent of such accreditation? I am not convinced that life’s value is solely dependent upon a subjective observer.
Instead, it seems living beings such as ourselves would not be able to obtain a sense of meaning, if not for life itself. Life permits human beings the ability to observe nature, and in turn rationalize the existence of what we consciously perceive. Without life there would be no opportunity to impute meaning unto the world. Humans would be incapable of bestowing meaning if not for life bestowed upon them.
In my mind, the bestowment of meaning is reciprocal in nature. Humans do in fact confer value in their daily observances, but life is the original benefactor. There is something to be said about life’s gift to humans, and to deny it, would be to deny our very existence.
We are all the offspring of life, are we not?
