Endnotes
1 Cardboard Philosophy:
Think of the stereotypical guy in pajamas, wearing an aluminum foil hat and holding a tattered piece of cardboard with something scribbled on it as he stands on the street corner yelling about the end of the world. The easily dismissible ramblings scribbled on those disposable pieces of cardboard are what I am referring to when describing something as “cardboard philosophy.”
2 Exostentialism:
Chaos
It may seem at times that chaos is more prevalent in the universe than order. However, I believe it is just that we may not see that chaos itself has a pattern or order to it; we do not see the order or pattern within. When we do see the pattern or order within the chaos, we are responsible for ensuring that others can easily see it as well.
Introduction to Exostentialism
Exostentialism (Ex-os-ten-tial-ism) and exostentialist (Ex-os-ten-tial-ist) are terms that I coined many years ago while living in Seattle, Washington in the United States of America. Exostentialism is not to be confused with existentialism. While exostentialism may agree with some of the doctrines of existentialism, it does not agree with them all. It disagrees particularly with some of the more egotistical aspects. I also do not agree with some of the other personal beliefs of the more notable contributors to existentialism.
(An over-simplified explanation of existentialism, for those who could use a definition, can be taken from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: “A chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad.”)
Exostentialism and Society
I take issue with some of the views of the existentialists on society. In some circles of existentialism, it is believed that society is not natural. Unlike the existentialist, the exostentialist believes that society is natural. I not only personally believe that society is natural, but I also believe ignoring this fact can be fatal. In my opinion, even science possibly confirms that society is natural.
•Within each of the following different explanations of the beginning, I believe society is an underlying, constant force in human nature and natural to the universe:
o I am by no means a physicist or astronomer, but I believe society has existed even back in the time of the big bang, when according to the big bang theory the fundamental laws came into existence as a result of the formation of the universe. The singularity gave rise to the society of forces and laws in the universe. I believe even the laws that cause one individual particle drifting in the seeming void of space to attract another, thus forming something new, are laws of society. Even non-conscious bits of matter drifting in the vacuum of space cannot escape this combining force to form a society of particles. The society of forces that created these astronomical bodies existed before the individual physical material was reshaped in the vastness of space. Thus, the pull of the community or society (or the society of the cosmic universe) existed before the individual particle.
o If you do not want to consider science as proof of society being natural, then consider the monotheistic views of the creation of the world. God forming the universe set the stage for a society-based world and universe. The fellowship of God with Adam is an example of society. So also is the creation of Eve to accompany Adam, in order to create a society of two, which by theological accounts set the beginning of us all. And before Adam, there was a society consisting of angels.
o Even the polytheistic views imply society. The very definition of polytheism necessitates more than one, thus implying society of some sort.
•I believe society is natural and can be seen even biologically within our own bodies. The individual cell dividing to become two completely separate cells, and continuing to divide for the goal of becoming something with capabilities beyond those of a single cell, is proof that society is natural.
•Take, for another example, what some would consider less advanced species on our planet, such as ants or bees. I believe they demonstrate that the view of some existentialists that society is unnatural is incorrect. In fact, by some accounts these insects often have even more stringent societal hierarchies than we.
Most humans at one time or another will also naturally seek out other humans for some common goal, even if that goal is not reproduction. Humans, and even non-human creatures that are solitary by nature, will seek out mates at some point, thus creating a society of two for the common goal of creating a third or more. Of course, there are many reasons other than reproduction that humans seek each other out, but the result is the same—society.
Years ago, in the early years of the first decade of the 2000s, I first attempted to explain exostentialism. I exclaimed, “I am an exostentialist—I exist outside society.” Though living outside of that society may have been the case when comparing myself to other individuals living in that particular society at that moment and in that situation, that statement does not convey the definition of exostentialism. I may have existed outside that particular society in some respects, but we all do still exist within some society in some form or way. Exostentialism believes this to be true. We exist within a society, even if we just exist as a component or part of a system. Even simply existing in an environment makes us a component of the society of that environment, even if only temporarily. Even an individual with limited or no human interaction will affect the ecosystem around them, and thus the society of that environment. We can interact with different individuals or environments occasionally or regularly, and relatively simultaneously. Our actions and interactions affect others by causing or altering the actions and interactions of others, thus affecting all of humanity even without our knowing it or completely understanding how. We exist as individuals living independent and separate lives from society. However, we are at the same time components of society in some form. Even if we live in complete isolation, we are components of the society of our surroundings. And if we live in the most populated and densely packed city, we cannot avoid interacting in some way with some society, or multiple societies, within that city. Of course, with such an emphasis on society I feel the need to reiterate that I believe personal individuality is a crucial part of society. And individual societies (for example, ethnic areas that can be found in larger cities) are components of whole societies (for example, the entire society of that large city).
Exostentialism Changing and Affecting Ourselves and Society
The existentialist can believe that humans exist first, and then the individual spends a lifetime changing their essence or nature. The exostentialist sees society existing first, before the individual, because humans are born into society. And exostentialism takes the notion of a lifetime of change even further. Not only do we spend our lifetime intentionally or unintentionally changing our essence or nature, but we also spend our lifetime impacting and changing the essence or nature of a society somewhere and in one form or another. We affect a society and it in turn affects us; it is a cycle. We must remember that in the long-term, collectively remembered history of humans it is the individual that is most remembered for changing the essence, nature, or course of society. Yes, society affecting us and our essence or nature is what we most remember personally; however, in the larger collective history of humanity, it is the individual affecting the essence or nature of society that is most remembered. Yes, our history books may tell stories of how a society in the past affected citizenry. However, our history books primarily focus on how a single individual or group of individuals affected the larger society. And in reality, it is we who create the societies that are beneficial or destructive.
So, yes, we do intentionally or unintentionally change over our lifetime. But we also intentionally or unintentionally spend our lives attempting to change, or create society or a culture. And society/culture will eventually change us in one direction and to one degree or another. We can spend a lifetime not just changing ourselves but attempting to alter our surroundings to better suit us. Even abandoning the culture we are in to create a “culture of one” within someone who has succumbed to our definition of insanity has a result outside themselves. Our actions and inactions alter the society or culture that we are in; and our culture or society alters us. The many societies in between other societies that we intentionally or unintentionally inspire, influence, join, or completely abandon in favor of creating new ones will have effects not only on us, but on our surroundings. The individual spends their lifetime finding a place in society, finding a society to be placed in, or creating a new society. We spend our lifetime affecting a society somehow, and it in turn affects us.
Freedom, Freewill, Choices, and Options for the Exostentialist
I believe freewill and freedom of choices and options are important and vital to the human being. But unlike some existentialists, I do not agree with the assumption that people are entirety free. I do not believe we are entirely free because we have constraints set upon us. We are constrained in the sense that we do not have unlimited choices or options to choose from. There is an eventual limit to the choices and options available to us. The following are but a few of the reasons why I believe people are not entirely free.
•Just a few of these constraints placed upon us are our own human nature and physics, as well as constraints placed on us by societies or ourselves.
•We are limited in the sense that one choice may have to be abandoned, reduced, or set aside to explore or choose another. And the choices or options we make or take today set the stage for our available choices or options tomorrow.
•We also are not entirely free because we have responsibilities. Responsibility in itself, although necessary, implies constraints on total and complete freedom and freewill. But in addition, we must also accept responsibility for the choices of our so-called freewill. Even if someone ignores their responsibility, chances are that others will not. And the availability of future options or available choices will be affected if a person ignores the responsibilities of the present. It is important to also remember that along with ensuring freedom comes the acceptance of the consequences thereof. And being dictatorial comes with even more consequences.
The responsibilities we have for our actions, and the results from those actions, may conflict with freedom and freewill. However, the human species must have freedom, freewill, and choices, as well as some responsibility, to survive.
Responsibility and the Exostentialist
Our limitations, in the sense of our not having unlimited choices to choose from, do not negate the fact that we must accept responsibility for what we choose from the choices we do have and the results therefrom. We must accept personal responsibility for choosing from our choices and options, for the consequences of the decisions we make, for our actions and inactions and their results, and for the extenuating circumstances that arise from all these things for ourselves and others. It is also our responsibility to ensure that we, and others, are offered a variety of choices and options—and to create them if need be. We are responsible for making sure that those choices and options are visible to ourselves and others and also obtainable. I believe it is a responsibility of all to ensure that all have available choices and are able to create additional choices and options. I believe this is something that we all can, and sometimes do, fail in, resulting in many of the current issues that we have. So, we must make efforts, and practice diligence, and ensure that there is no faltering in this endeavor.
Yes, I agree with the existentialist that the individual should be responsible even without the help of laws, ethnic rules, or traditions. However, we must also not forget that these are often guidelines over a society for a reason. Some may need outside clarification of responsibilities or may need to be forced to accept their responsibility. Yes, it may not seem like it sometimes, but there are eventually consequences for the irresponsible. And even those who are the most irresponsible and self-satisfying still make decisions based on responsibilities, even if those responsibilities are only to themselves or their own wishes. They are still not entirely free, due to the responsibilities of fulfilling their own personal desires. They are not free in the sense that they must make their actions or inactions fulfill their own goals.
There are some circles of existentialists that believe the attitude of “It is not my fault” is not acceptable. I agree, but I go even further and believe that, in some way and to some degree, we all are responsible for more than we admit, understand, or even know. We may not be able to perceive all of the “degrees of separation” that contribute to one action affecting another. I believe the average individual must accept more personal responsibility for the world around them. I believe that the average individual is in reality more personally responsible than they may even understand. We must even extend our acceptance of personal responsibility to that which we may think we have no direct control over. We set the stage for the future. We must make the honest effort to accept some responsibility for even that which may seem to be beyond ourselves. For we do have an effect, even if at the time the effect appears to be insignificant. It is still an effect.
Exostentialism and the Forcing of Choice
I also take issue with the belief of the individual being at their best when being forced to choose, which is held by some existentialists. And also, with the concept that the individual should be forced to choose at all. Exostentialism believes that the individual should not be forced to choose. Yes, sometimes it is necessary to encourage a choice being made, but choice should not be forced. Sometimes, being forced to choose clouds judgment and results in rash decisions.
Plus, we must not forget that being forced to choose is itself a reduction in freedom. Being forced to choose diminishes freedom. For starters, being forced to choose can take away your freedom to postpone your decision or even to choose whether or not to make the decision in the first place. I also believe forcing a choice can erode or destroy individualism and creativity. When someone or a society tries to demand choice, it can be just as dehumanizing as demanding beliefs and values or demanding that rules be faithfully accepted and obeyed without question. It reduces the validity of the individual to a part of an existing collective.
We must have the choice of not accepting the available choices. For example, the options of either to stay or to go should at minimum be offered, but to be forced to choose only between those options limits freedom. We must have the freewill to choose at times to not accept the choices that are offered, and at other times to accept the choice of choice. People should have the individual freewill not to choose, for one example, abstention. But more importantly, the individual should have the choice to choose from their own choices as well as to not be bound to strictly choose only between the available choices that seem to be offered to them. The freedom to not choose and the freedom to choose differently from the choices that are offered them can bring out qualities that are not yet discovered in the individual and the situation. Of course, I feel obligated to give at least one counterargument. One counterargument in favor of the existentialist forcing a person to choose is the situation of forcing a person to choose when to pull the rip cord when skydiving, which will cause a greater probability of the survival of the skydiver.