Universal Condition: Implications and Problems

[This final term paper was written in Spring 2007 for a 100-level philosophy course entitled 'Theories of Human Nature.' I was a freshman at the time of this writing and only recently uncovered it as a senior. I was introduced to dailies on mises.org the summer before college, and I did not begin reading Mises' or Rothbard's treatises until later so it's fascinating for me to look back and see how my understanding has matured from what was simply relativist-positivist confusion. The comments were added to illustrate this.]

Universal Condition: Implications and Problems[1]

The world around us is fraught with incongruence. Everyday we come across conflicts of both large and small proportions. Where does this come from? Why are humans so psychologically variant that commonality across cultures becomes problematic? There must be some causal factor[2] that creates the differences in realities people hold within themselves. I contend that there is a universal condition. This condition of mankind is the point in which the differences in human’s realities are caused. This condition creates the various and personal realities in humans. Subsequently, the realization of this condition forces man to rethink his convictions for truth in this world.[3] Who holds truth? More importantly, why do we believe someone could even hold it?

Sartre describes this universal condition as “...all the limitations which a priori define man’s fundamental situation in the universe” (362).[4] This condition is the variation of placement for man in this world. Sartre states “…man may be born a slave in a pagan society, or may be a feudal baron, or a proletarian. But what never vary are the necessities of being in the world” (362). This condition consists of a billion variables that a human encounters in his environment. These variables include place, time, heritage, culture and other experiential factors. In other words, the universal condition is the same story for each human, but in completely unique discourses and variations. Humans must act according to their universal condition. Sartre explains, “In fashioning myself I fashion man” (Sartre 350). A person defines himself by his choices in various situations. “Whenever a man chooses his purpose and his commitment…it is impossible for him to prefer another” (Sartre 365). A person’s identity results from these decisions. He will become limited in his scope of understanding why a human could choose another. These decisions occur so frequently, that we are often unaware of them. Furthermore, a human’s psyche is affected by this decision whether realized it or not. Experience, and how we choose to interpret it and react to it, is crucial to our personal understanding of the world.

A human’s view of reality will continually stem off this condition, resulting in a variety of ‘truths’ among men. Subsequently, a person’s view is self-created and unique to that individual. Humans create their reality by internalizing their interpretations of their experience.[5] Humans will view their reality as absolute despite the existence of differing beliefs.[6 ] Interestingly, no two humans have made the same decisions since their conditions are always different. There is this constant barrier between humans because of a conflict of ideology. They hold a strong conviction in the authenticity of their view of reality. A Christian holds Christian truths as real, while a Muslim sees otherwise. A human will even defend his view and proclaim the other side to be deceived.[7] This fact occurs in the smallest arguments to the largest ideological battles. It is a pervasive result of this human condition.

Furthermore, the constant variance of conditions, or environments, shows us how these variations of ideologies are conceived. Nancy Holmstrom has shown indications of a heavy influence of social, and thus experiential factors, as crucial in psychological perceptions. Holmstrom offers us “…dramatic evidence in favor of environmental factors as the primary determinants of psychological differences” (295-96). In other words, these conditions humans face are instrumental in forming the human psyche.[8 ] I have already stated that no two conditions are alike[9], thus leaving room for the conviction that no two minds are alike. Humans face influences from culture, custom, friends, enemies, past experiences, and multiple other elements that are a part of this condition. The variance among humans across history and cultures is enormous. A human’s past experiences and the way he or she has chosen his or her path, consciously or not, has defined who that human is. Humans are then left in a scary world where people hold their choices to be the truth and an inability to see clearly the foolishness of our quarrelling over matters irrelevant to existence.[10]

Nietzsche[11] tells us: “…‘Reason’ is the cause of our falsification of the evidence of the senses” (Nietzsche 46). Reason, as well as rhetoric, is just a more systematic form of language whose purpose is to prove one idea over another.[12] The symbols themselves have already been tied to thoughts. The role of reason, then, is to align these symbols in such a way that the person gathers up the thoughts that would convince a certain view.[13] Reason is elusive in nature.[14] It will only offer half-truths since there is always something not being said. The function of debates is to use reason to cover up holes on one side while exposing the other’s gaps. Many, in fact, will just regurgitate words to justify whatever belief they are proclaiming, whether or not they fully grasp the idea in which it came. These people lack the ability to reason their beliefs, and instead turn, like a herd of sheep, to others who are quite good at reasoning. Even the ones who are able to use reason with great proficiency, like that of a great philosopher, still lacks the ability to gather full support.[15] Furthermore, it is evident that the sheep mentioned earlier also clamor around different camps of so-called ‘reasoned’ beliefs. So even these great ‘thinkers’ still lack the ability to express their ideas so that all may join in their ideas on reality.[16]

One might take from this then that there are no moral facts since everyone’s reality can contain whatever they choose.[17] This leads to a fear of chaos in which justice would have no role and civilization would crumble. Sartre addresses this problem. He states that “…one chooses himself in view of others, and in view of others one chooses himself” (365). Also, Sartre states “in certain cases choice is founded upon an error, and in others upon the truth” (365). We have the ability, the freedom, to choose our actions.[18] If we can manage to realize this, we can understand the freedom we will for others when we perform certain actions. If we choose to discriminate, we allow others to discriminate against us.[19] Sartre restates this as: “I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my own” (365). Justice should not come from an absolute doctrine filled with abstractness[20], limiting our freedom to choose for others and ourselves.[21] Furthermore, we need to realize the ideological differences that exist and deal with them.

Moving on, I want to position myself against the use of claiming truth in a group or individual. Specifically, turning towards one’s interpretation of reality as truth. Philosophers, such as Descartes and Socrates are guilty of this. They turn away from senses and towards their own personal thoughts to acquire truth.[22] Nietzsche tells us that philosophers will,

…look for reasons why [truth] is being withheld from them. ‘It must be an illusion, a deception which prevents us from perceiving that which is: where is the deceiver to be found?’ - ‘We’ve got it,’ they cry in delight, ‘it is the senses...they which deceive us about the real world. (45)

Socrates was one of the earliest demonstrators of this. He would use his thoughts and imaginations to justify the use of his ‘philosophy’ as the moral way for humans to live. He used careful reasoning to justify these thoughts[23], but his philosophy still conflicted with others. His conviction for this was nothing more than an example of how one might create one’s reality in light of his background. To Socrates, the reality of life was the immortality of the soul and all his other conclusions about the evilness of the senses. Unfortunately for Socrates, his reality did not manage to persuade the larger populace. One should realize that thoughts are personal enough and the conviction gained from them is not easily convinced in another.[24] Although, Socrates should not have been persecuted since even the society Socrates lived in had an established belief.[25] Therefore, just as it is wrong to look inwards for truth, looking towards numbers of followers is just as false.

Thus far, I have explained the universal condition and showed how its variables continually influence humans. The variation of conditions alone accounts for the larger ideological incongruence humans have in relation to humans of different conditions. Their beliefs on reality and our existence is self-created and many are cleverly able to use reason to convince and tame others to their own ideological conclusions. And while many choose to put their faith in themselves, using imagination and their own historical perception and experiences, I have claimed it is just as false as the vast numbers that utilize a common reason. Support in numbers is a false hope for a ‘truth’.

However, in regards to everything I have thus said, how can I know it is true?[26] The conviction I might have for this is in nothing more than a perceived view of the world. If I equate everything else in this world as a self-created fantasy, no more truthful than the dreams we have at night, than I must be just as disillusioned as the rest. To find truth or reality, one would need to experience all the possible orderings of life. Nietzsche explains that “One would have to be situated outside life, and on the other hand to know it as thoroughly as any, as man, as all who have experienced it, to be permitted to touch on the problem of the value of life at all…” (55). Of course, I am, as well as everyone, unable to grasp the full complexity of reality. The reach of my intelligibility will not allow me to grasp reality fully. I am left with only my thoughts on this world and the use of language to relate it to others in hope that maybe another has a reality similar to mine.[27]