"Existence precedes essence" (Sartre).

Do we define ourselves or are we already what we would otherwise become?

Existentialism: the idea that no general, non-formal account of what it means to to be human can be given, since that meaning is decided in and through the act of existing.

According to existentialism, human beings have no predetermined essence. They are indeterminate.

Fundamental questions

Questions about death, God, and purpose make up some of the base questions of existentialism.

1. What is the value and purpose of my life in light of my impending death?
2. Am I doing God's will or only my perception of what the will of a possible God might be?

For Soren Kierkegaard, the point of view of an Absolute is pointless. "I am not God; I am an individual."

3. What is my purpose in this life?

For the existentialist philosophers, genuine anxiety ... is a basic human response to the very conditions of human existence: our mortality, our inability to fully realize our potential, and the threat of meaninglessness. (Cathcart & Klein)

Vanity of vanities, says the Teacher. Vanity of vanities! All is vanity. (Ecc 1:2)

The Hebrew term הבל means "vapor" or "breath" in the sense of emptiness.

What do people gain from toil, Qoheleth asked.

Then my thoughts turned to all the fortune my hands had built up, to the wealth I had acquired and won--and oh, it was all futile and pursuit of wind; there was no real value under the sun! (Eccl 2:11)

Qoheleth recognized that we labor but we find no real gain from that labor. We are all going to die.

A wise man has his eyes in his head, whereas a fool walks in darkness. But I also realized that the same fate awaits them both. So I reflected: "The fate of the fool is also destined for me; to what advantage, then, have I been wise?" And I came to the conclusion that that too was futile ... (Eccl 2:14-15)

Ecclesiastes searches for meaning where evil flourishes and good goes unrewarded.

Ecclesiastes seems to challenge conventional wisdom such as expressed in Proverbs, that the righteous are materially awarded.

Here we find the fatalistic attitude that humans are like any other animals, with no advantage, for all die. This also leads to the conclusion that the best we can hope for is the enjoyment of daily work. (Hauer & Young)

Is Ecclesiastes pessimistic? Or does it try to face life realistically?

What about Bob God?

Qoheleth has no direct encounter with God but does not refute the existence of the divine.

Instead, we cannot hope to know who that God is or how that God will act.

Qoheleth's understanding of God is considerably different from the God of compassion, mercy, and justice who intervenes in history, which most of the rest of the Bible portrays. (Hauer & Young)

Qoheleth does not spend much time questioning the existence of God. But he does argue that what we think we know about God and God's purpose is meaningless.

So, he advocates, worship God but enjoy your own life.

Cultural background of Ecclesiastes

• Dates for authorship range from 5^th-2^nd centuries BCE. Loan words suggest a later date than Solomon (such as Persian pardes, "garden" [2:5], and pitgam, "response" [8:11])
• The perception of the soul in Eccl 3:21 reflects a Greek concept.

• Futility, uncertainty, vanity, hopeless, but finding enjoyment in life, remaining committed to the commandments of Yahweh reflect a time of social-political uncertainty.
  • As a general theme, texts from the Persian period (6^th-4^th centuries BCE) were hopeful.
  • Texts from the Hellenistic period (4^th-2^nd centuries BCE) were frustrated with the continued presence of imperial powers and an unrealized restoration.

• A strongly patriarchal text (see Eccl 7:28)
• Bemoans the limits of human wisdom (cf. 3:1-9).

Does Qohelet depend upon:

• Relational ethics?
• Absolute ethics?

 

What are the benefits and risks of both?

Does talking about the subjectivity/objectivity of God, morals, ethics, the reality of death, one's purpose in life, etc., have any importance or relevance in today's world?

We cannot hope to understand the why of philosophies or worldviews such as Deism (or nihilism, or other) without having an understanding of how.

 

Neither can we really hope to understand what motivates, in part, the actions of others, which is sometimes critical for maintaining positive interpersonal relationships.

Deism: brief introduction

Futility, lack of certain objectivity, "meaningless" toil (in that there is no tangible divine reward), unanswerable questions, dissatisfaction, etc., together with an emphasis on reason over revelation resulted in Deistic philosophy.

 

But we like that God guy...

• Deism: remote, impersonal creator, or "clockmaker."
• Deism originated in the Ages of Reason and Enlightenment in the 17^th and 18^th centuries CE.
• Accepts that (1) a God exists but that (2) morals are subjective
• Emphasizes reason over continued revelation.