Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Transgenderism and the Failure of Atheism’s Best Philosophy
The Stream ^ | July 12, 2019 | Tom Gilson

Posted on 07/12/2019 9:20:21 AM PDT by Heartlander

Transgenderism and the Failure of Atheism’s Best Philosophy

By Tom Gilson Published on July 12, 2019

Remember existentialism? It was all the rage in my youth. Since then? Nothing.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy marks its end in Woody Allen’s movies of the 1970s. It had its impact, though. In fact, it’s easy to trace a direct line from there to today’s transgender movement. And even though existentialism is now passé, we can learn something from what’s come of it — something about God, atheism and human nature.

Jean-Paul Sartre’s Definition

So let’s take a glimpse into Jean-Paul Sartre’s 1957 book, Existentialism and Human Emotions. It’s specifically about atheistic existentialism. In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest that Sartre was in many ways the modern era’s clearest, most consistent, most ethically responsible atheistic thinker. The lesson we can learn here is what happens when the best atheistic philosophy fails; as it must do, since atheism is false.

Sartre wrote that if God does not exist, then

Man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. … At first he is nothing. Only afterward does he become something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. … Man is nothing but what he makes himself.

And so although Sartre doesn’t say so himself, it follows that if man makes himself woman, there is no essential human nature to stop him from it.

Human “Nature” Without God

Sartre set existentialism’s core principles in direct opposition to Christianity. He likened the Christian view of God and man to a man’s work in creating a paper-cutter. The paper-cutter is “an object produced in a certain way and … having a certain use;” so obviously, there is no such thing as a man “who produces a paper-cutter but does not know what it is used for.”

Similarly, when God created humans He had a specific design in mind. Human nature is nothing other than what God has made it to be. God had a specific purpose for humans in mind, and we can either fulfill or deny that purpose. In fact, to deny our nature and purpose is to struggle not just against ourselves or each other, but against reality itself. In the end, reality must always win, which is to say, God Himself wins, and the reality-deniers lose. Those who align their lives with reality, on the other hand, share the joy of God’s victory in it.

That’s basic Christian teaching. If, however, there is no God, says Sartre, then human nature and human purpose are out the window. We are just what we make ourselves to be; and as our own makers, we are radically responsible for our choices. We can choose as freely as we wish. The one ruling moral principle, as stated by Sartre’s colleague and paramour de Beauvoir, is “authenticity.” Sartre himself said as much; that as we create ourselves, we ought not create a lie.

Clarifying Terms

When I use the word “transgenderism” or “transgender movement” in this article, I’m referring to the ideology that says gender is a matter of mental decision rather than physical reality.

I’m specifically not talking about gender dysphoria or the previously used diagnosis, gender identity disorder. These are clinical conditions whose origins may have little to do with whether one believes in God or not.

I associate transgenderism with atheism in this article. I do not suggest, however, that every trans person is an atheist. The “ism” is essentially atheistic in nature, but not every person involved in it draws that connection as clearly as they possibly could or should.

All in all, it’s a fair statement of what human life might be if there is no God. There is no such thing as human essence, no human nature; there is only human will. My will — and my will alone — determines what it means to be me. And I have but one responsibility, which is to be authentic to myself.

The Transgender Version

I read this book as an undergrad, and I got what Sartre was saying. Considering where he was coming from, that is, I could make out what he meant by it. But it took today’s transgender movement really to bring his doctrine to life. For what is this movement about, but trans persons’ declaration that they have no human nature or essence but what they decide for themselves?

Sartre was all about radical freedom, not being constrained by anything but one’s own decisions. What could be more free than finding freedom from your own biology? This looks a lot like existentialism in action.

Sartre Would Be Unhappy

Except I think Sartre would be disappointed. Today’s LGBT movement is too flippant, too irresponsible, too literally gay for him. According to Sartre, the person who truly grasps the human condition knows that the image we fashion for ourselves “is valid for everybody and for our whole age. Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have supposed, because it involves all mankind.”

The one who chooses his own being for himself is at the same time “a lawmaker… choosing [for] all mankind.” Thus he “can not help escape the feeling of his deep and total responsibility.” One should always ask himself, Sartre says, “What would happen if everybody looked at things that way?” Then he warns: “There is no escaping this disturbing thought except by a kind of double-dealing.” We have to accept this freedom and make our choices authentically, with nothing guiding us but our own will. To do that we must accept what comes with it: “anguish, forlornness, despair.”

But where is anyone taking note of this responsibility in today’s trans movement? There is power in play there, to be sure. There is choosing for others, indeed, there is forcing choice on others. But there is no hint of Sartre’s reflective questioning. No one is asking, “What if everyone treated life this way? What if everyone could bend every other person’s reality by the power of their mental state, as trans people claim to do? How would we view it if everyone forced their will on others, the way we do when we demand everyone treat us as the ‘gender’ we’ve declared ourselves to be? What if every person had to submit to everyone else’s private pronouncements about public reality?”

The Best Atheism Still Loses to Reality

I’ve written in the past of the god-like move trans persons make when they force their reality on others. Sartre actually says, “man is the being whose project is to be God.” He also says, “Existentialism is nothing else than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position.” Besides that, it was also his attempt to hold on to human responsibility in the process.

For my money, it’s the best attempt any atheist has made so far. Still it fails. The transgender movement shows what happens when that attempt gets carried out in real life. It goes to seed. It grabs the god-like freedom, and adds as much power to it as it can. But it does so without owning a bit of the responsibility Sartre wanted to keep alive.

In fact, if there’s any good to be found in the transgender movement, it’s this: It’s a living demonstration that Sartre’s project was wrong from the start. There is no coherent atheistic position. There can’t be; not in this God-created, God-ruled world we live in. The trans movement is fighting against reality. Reality — meaning, God Himself — still wins.

 

Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream, and the author of A Christian Mind: Thoughts on Life and Truth in Jesus Christ and Critical Conversations: A Christian Parent’s Guide to Discussing Homosexuality with Teens, and the lead editor of True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »


TOPICS: Education; Reference; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS:
"It is nowhere written that 'the good' exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: 'If God did not exist, everything would be permitted'; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself."
- Jean-Paul Sartre

1 posted on 07/12/2019 9:20:22 AM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

For my money, it’s the best attempt any atheist has made so far.


And, to my limited understanding, existentialism remains a valid philosophy today. Something like the Enlightenment or Christianity itself aren’t passe because they are still in force. Existentialism is still in force.


2 posted on 07/12/2019 9:31:49 AM PDT by sparklite2 (Don't mind me. I'm just a contrarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
I dislike Sartre as much as the next guy, but this is a sloppy argument because it ignores the context of the comment:

Sartre wrote that if God does not exist, then "Man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. … At first he is nothing. Only afterward does he become something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. … Man is nothing but what he makes himself.

Sartre did say all that, but he was a philosopher, not a biologist. So in context, he was clearly talking about morality, spirituality, etc.. He wasn't talking about physical realities.

Otherwise, you're accusing him of believing that a puppy raised by a pig is in fact a pig just because it thinks it is. There's zero evidence of that, and I don't believe there's any evidence that Sartre viewed biological realities as simply a matter of choice/volition, in the same sense as mental/spiritual realities.

3 posted on 07/12/2019 9:34:12 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Me

I’m trying to
Rid myself of
Arguments of this
Sort...
I am Corrupt.


4 posted on 07/12/2019 9:44:24 AM PDT by Big Red Badger (Despised by the Despicable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

He’s making this a far more profound issue than it really is. Even the tranny crowd doesn’t believe this gender fluidity bullshyte. They know it’s logically unsupportable and absurd on its face.

But its purpose is not to empower trannies or deal with reality. It’s to disrupt normality, to undermine the status quo, and to redefine deviancy to the point that chaos ensues. It is the ultimate destructive force, existing not to create anything, but to annihilate everything.

It is what happens when existentialism metastasizes.


5 posted on 07/12/2019 10:04:44 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

It’s very rare nowadays to find atheists who are honest and intellectually serious. At least the existentialists had that going for them. You could debate them, point out to them the shortcomings of their philosophy, and while they might disagree that those were shortcomings, they were not dishonest enough to deny your observation, or too intellectually dense to grasp the ramifications.


6 posted on 07/12/2019 10:07:04 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

True. They are basically toddlers stamping their feet demanding that everyone believe in the products of their imagination, even though they know they are imaginary. The real goal is to make you bow to their demands, no matter how silly, because they lust for the power to control others.


7 posted on 07/12/2019 10:08:48 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

Re: “Sartre did say all that, but he was a philosopher, not a biologist. So in context, he was clearly talking about morality, spirituality, etc.. He wasn’t talking about physical realities.”

I’m sure you’re probably right that Sartre was not including human biology in these quotes. However, I think his premise that “if there is no God, there is no human nature, etc.” - my question would be why not apply it to human biology?

If there is no human nature, if there is no purpose, if there is no intentionality, and man “defines” what he will be - why not define one’s own sexuality?

Just a thought.


8 posted on 07/12/2019 10:35:02 AM PDT by rusty schucklefurd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

bkmk


9 posted on 07/12/2019 10:44:01 AM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

Postmodernism is more responsible for today’s insanities than existentialism, though the two are related.


10 posted on 07/12/2019 11:04:30 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

FWIW if there is no God, then philosophy is biology. Man is nothing but a rock that thinks it has meaning. Thinking is merely biological and biology is nothing more than random molecules in motion.


11 posted on 07/12/2019 12:02:42 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Freep mail me if you want to be on my Fingerstyle Acoustic Guitar Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

And the only meaning life has is what you bring to it.
The universe is without ‘purpose,’ and certainly doesn’t care if we exist or not.

Existentialism is an unflinching mistress.


12 posted on 07/12/2019 12:05:21 PM PDT by sparklite2 (Don't mind me. I'm just a contrarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2
The universe is without ‘purpose,’ and certainly doesn’t care if we exist or not.

What are the odds of all of this occurring as a cosmic accident?


To paraphrase the American rabbi and theologian Milton Steinberg (1903-1950), the believer has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else - for the world, life, consciousness, beauty, love, art, music. It would seem the believer has the upper hand.
- Dennis Prager, The Rational Bible: Genesis

Existentialism is an unflinching mistress.

Existentialism is the mistress of postmodernism.

Existentialism is not a "system of thought," because it is a single philosophical belief… The famous story is of a young man who sought out Sartre for advice on whether to take care of his aged mother or go to fight a war of liberation he believed in. This is asking which activity to value more highly. Sartre's reply: "You are free, therefore choose." Clearly there is no system of values in that reply that helps determine which duty is greater.

13 posted on 07/12/2019 12:23:50 PM PDT by Heartlander (Prediction: Increasingly, logic will be seen as a covert form of theism. - Denyse O'Leary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Sorry for dumping the philosophical bent but tiny children “feeling inside” like the other gender is real to them. They didn’t get it from their parents. Say what you want about adults but toddlers don’t even know how to lie. What, 99% of toddlers feel good about being called their gender? (Even ones who will later have a gay orientation). But that 1%, who tell mommy that no, they aren’t a boy inside, are telling the truth about their brain function.

It’s not a philosophical problem. It’s a biological problem caused by some form of environmental pollution, most likely affecting the uterine fluid. One day we will figure it out.


14 posted on 07/12/2019 12:30:22 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
The author states in the article:
When I use the word “transgenderism” or “transgender movement” in this article, I’m referring to the ideology that says gender is a matter of mental decision rather than physical reality.

I’m specifically not talking about gender dysphoria or the previously used diagnosis, gender identity disorder. These are clinical conditions whose origins may have little to do with whether one believes in God or not.


15 posted on 07/12/2019 12:36:52 PM PDT by Heartlander (Prediction: Increasingly, logic will be seen as a covert form of theism. - Denyse O'Leary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2

ping to read later, looks very interesting.


16 posted on 07/12/2019 2:41:17 PM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Functional existentialism is not passe; it is ubiquitous.

I knew aspiring seminarians who were influenced by it. They are still leading sheep astray.

The Frankfurt School made good use of Sartre.


17 posted on 07/12/2019 5:35:47 PM PDT by YogicCowboy ("I am not entirely on anyone's side, because no one is entirely on mine." - J. R. R. Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson