One might say that Existential Philosophy is diametrically opposed to Ontological Philosophy. The former gives sovereignty to perception, the latter to what is; the former gives precedence to subjective identity, the latter to inherent identity; the former emphasizes what is apparent – feelings, qualities, or the accidents – the latter emphasizes substance…. Perhaps, in no case is the existential philosophy more evident in today’s culture than in the phrase “Perception is Reality,” less frequently predicated as “Perception is Truth!”

We are in the midst of an existential crisis. Not a crisis that threatens our existence, but rather a crisis of existentialism.

Let me be up front: The phrases – clichés, rather – “existential crisis,” or “existential threat” are pet peeves of mine because I see these perfectly good expressions being bandied about in a torpidly pretentious fashion. One almost uses the term “existential” as an intensifier (much like the misuse of “literally”) rather than to describe something as pertaining to its existence (instead of essence, or even potential).

Existentialism is perhaps one of the more difficult philosophies to pin down, but I am convinced its influence is pervasive in modern American society. The premise that “existence precedes essence” – a focal point of existentialism – is loaded with philosophical baggage, and requires an understanding first of what “essence” is – and then rejecting its philosophical denotation as the ultimate being: the “*-ness” of a thing.

One might say that Existential Philosophy is diametrically opposed to Ontological Philosophy. The former gives sovereignty to perception, the latter to what is; the former gives precedence to subjective identity, the latter to inherent identity; the former emphasizes what is apparent – feelings, qualities, or the accidents – the latter emphasizes substance.

(To say, in my opinion, that “existence precedes essence” thrusts the existentialist in a quagmire of circularity. For to insist that the existence of a thing is more important, more absolute than its essence, is really to say that the essence – the beingness – of a thing is its subjective existence. But I digress.)

Perhaps, in no case is the existential philosophy more evident in today’s culture than in the phrase “Perception is Reality,” less frequently predicated as “Perception is Truth!” We see this philosophy in our language – in which the meanings of words are determined by how they are inferred rather than by how they are meant. We see it in our art – in which the meaning of the painting is determined by the audience, not the painter or the art itself. We see it in our song – in which the lyric can mean whatever you want it to mean. We see it in our religion – in which “faith” is a subjective bromide for the individual soul.

(But again, we are stuck in circularity by accepting this, for the existentialist doesn’t posit that “perception is perceived as truth,” but rather submits a truth claim that is not governed by perception — that perception is — its very essence is– truth. But I digress again.)

We have seen an abhorrent example of existentialism in our legal system, in which our very own Chief Justice admits that in order to arrive at his desired ruling he was “compelled” to interpret the law in question opposite to “what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.” And then we saw that very same Chief Justice chastise the majority the following day for abandoning the natural interpretation of the law concerning marriage (the whole idea of same-sex marriage is itself an existential innovation that allows individuals to call themselves married because they feel they should be.)

We have also seen existentialism rear its chaotic head in the media in two very recent examples. The first in the transformation of Bruce Jenner; the second in the transformation of Rachel Dolezal. In both cases, the individuals identify their existential condition by an inherent perception of themselves – to the point of altering their appearance (in order to conform to the social norms of that condition, I might add).

But this post is not intended to weigh in on the merits of Justice Roberts’s ruling and dissent, or either Jenner or Dolezal’s existential crises; nor is it intended to be a comprehensive critique of existentialism per se. But it does strike me as odd, that in this existential world in which perception reigns supreme, that the same culture would be so dogmatic – so ontological, or essential – about the products or symbols of our existence.

There is, in tandem to these recent events, another controversy surrounding identity – namely those identities expressed by the Confederate flag.

(But again, this post is not intended to weigh in on the merits or demerits of the confederate flag as a symbol.)

Read More