Contrary ideas can be simply contradictory or completely irreconcilable. When confronted with a potential contradiction of viewpoints, the ability to openly and objectively explore all possible perspectives gives one the opportunity to determine whether the conflicting viewpoints can be reconciled. If the point of intersection between the ideas truly and objectively ends up on one side or the other, the contradiction is reconcilable. If the point of intersection is found exactly between the conflicting ideas, which is often the case due to the nature of linguistic duality, then the opposing viewpoints are irreconcilable.Since Plato, the majority of Western thought has assumed that truth and God are of an absolute, unchanging, transcendental nature. For twenty-five hundred years Western civilization has clung to the notion of an absolute and transcendent God or truth by which reality is defined despite the grave implications that its existence would have on man's ability to be free.
Sartre rejected the existence of God due to the inability of man to have free will in a universe determined by a transcendent and absolute God. The seemingly irreconcilable contradiction between the existence of free will and God is a result of the tendency of Western thought to ignore contrary ideas. Man's freedom to define and create his own reality as revealed by Sartre's existential philosophy does not preclude the existence of God; only a God of an absolute and transcendent nature. The ultimate implication of existentialism is not that God does not exist, but that if there is God it is not the God of traditional Western conception. By this, I mean that God cannot be an unchanging entity outside of the universe by which all things receive their definition and value if man is to have choices or freedom. However, a God that is not transcendent, and is in fact continually changing would not only allow for human freedom but would seem to necessitate its existence in order to give meaning to God itself. In a universe inhabited by a non-absolute God, man would essentially take on the role played by a reader in relationship to the author: giving existence to the creative framework in which his perception exists through an act of conscious freedom and engagement. By examining the fundamental similarities that exist between Taoist and existential notions of freedom,responsibility, and suffering as espoused by their two leading proponents (Lao Tzu and Sartre) it becomes apparent that it is possible for God to exist within an existential framework. This is because Eastern thought has already arrived at a concept of God that both reconciles and requires Sartre's assertions of man's freedom with the existence of God.
In order to compare existential and Taoist philosophy we must keep in mind two key precepts. First, that the texts related to Taoism are not absolute in their authority or ability to express the foundations of Taoist thought:
"The original, if there was an original, has been jumbled, mistranscribed and reinterpreted many times over many thousands of years, and is here cast into a language that is incapable of presenting its poetic structure and philological connections. Even an original text, translated as faithfully as possible, might remain inaccessible to the modern reader unable to place it within its original context.Second, that while Taoism is compatible with Sartre's denial of man's ability to have a rational understanding of metaphysical truth, Taoism also accepts man's ability to directly experience metaphysical truth through mystical insight.This is due to the distinction between knowledge that is acquired by the mind and the awareness brought about by experience. As the following passage shows, Lao Tzu was very aware of the inability of reason to grasp truth due to its reliance upon linguistic consciousness, but indicates that by moving outside of the dualism imposed upon perception by language, man is able to experience "mystery" that escapes the normal mode of human perception.
"The Tao that can be followed is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the origin of heaven and earth while naming is the origin of the myriad
Therefore, always desireless, you see the mystery Ever desiring you see the manifestations. These two are the same--When they appear they are named differently. This sameness is the mystery, Mystery within mystery;the door to all marvels" (Lao Tzu)
By keeping these two precepts in mind, we can avoid many of the difficulties presented by the radically different languages and means by which existentialism and Taoism have arrived at their concurrent views of human freedom.
The key aspect of existential philosophy is man's creative nature. Through his free will man functions to create and give value to the world of experiences.The primary proposition by which existentialism establishes man's free will is that "existence is prior to essence".What exactly does this statement mean? Sartre answered this question himself during a lecture given during 1946:
"Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world -- and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing -- as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism." (Sartre)
This effectively solves the dilemma of free will that had plagued Western thought since the time of Plato himself. By rejecting the existence of God or the notion of transcendent truth, existentialism allows man true free will. Not only is he free to choose his actions, he is also free to define for himself the reality that he inhabits. However, Lao-Tzu effectively proposed the same notion of the limitless creative potential for human reality almost three thousand years ago:
"There is a mystery, beneath abstraction, Silent, depthless, Alone, unchanging, Ubiquitous and liquid, the mother of nature. It has no name, but I call it "the Way"; it has no limit, but I call it "limitless". Being limitless, it flows away forever; flowing away forever, it returns to my self: The Way is limitless, so nature is limitless, so the world is limitless, and so I am limitless. For I am abstracted from the world, the world from nature, Nature from the Way, And the Way from what is beneath abstraction." (Lao-Tzu)
Lao Tzu bases his perception of free will upon the boundless nature of existence. By doing so, he too arrives upon the conclusion that man is free to create his own perception and reality. The limitlessness of existence is inherent in man because man is simply a manifestation of that limitless nature itself. Man retains his freedom because the limitless existence expressed by Lao-Tzu is one of continual change inherent in nature. Unlike the Western concept of truth and God, the Taoist concept of "God" as indefinable and undefined is easily placed next to Sartre's theories upon the source of free will. They both allow free will because they are both based upon the preposition that man's free will arises precisely because man is not limited in the choices he takes or his perception of reality.
This conception of free will leads to the second pillar of existential thought; that human beings are responsible for the choices they make and actions they take. By accepting the free will of man, who is endowed with the freedom to create objective reality through his conscious perception, existentialism places the responsibility for his actions and choices firmly upon mankind's own shoulders:
"Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower. Before that projection of the self nothing exists; not even in the heaven of intelligence: man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be. Not, however, what he may wish to be. For what we usually understand by wishing or willing is a conscious decision taken -- much more often than not -- after we have made ourselves what we are. I may wish to join a party, to write a book or to marry -- but in such a case what is usually called my will is probably a manifestation of a prior and more spontaneous decision. If, however, it is true that existence is prior to essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders. And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men." (Sartre)
Sartre's conception of responsibility relies on the assumption that in the absence of God or absolute truth man becomes responsible for his own actions and beliefs. However, this responsibility does not require the absence of a higher truth to function. It only requires the existence of man's free will. Because of Sartre's reliance upon Western thinking, he was unable to perceive that this responsibility is also possible if man's free will arises from his relationship to a creative impulse without definition:
"Both praise and blame cause concern, for they bring people hope and fear. The object of hope and fear is the self - For, without self, to whom may fortune and disaster occur? Therefore, Who distinguishes himself from the world may be given the world, but who regards himself as the world may accept the world." (Lao Tzu 36)
Lao-Tzu's concept of responsibility is essentially the same as Sartre's. They both draw their existence from man's free will and his ability to create his own reality. This can be seen by Lao-Tzu's assertion that the object of hope and fear is the self: Without the existence of man's free will (self), hope and fear (perception) have no object (objective existence). Thus, our position as the creative agents by which the world is manifest is the source of responsibility for our actions "Who regards himself as the world may accept the world" (Lao-Tzu 36).
In both systems of thought, man possesses free will and the responsibility of his own existence inherent in his free will. Thus, man is the creator of his own reality. However, despite this freedom we have in creating our own reality we "find ourselves existing in a world not of our own making and indifferent to our concerns. We are not the source of our existence, but find ourselves thrown into a world we don't control and didn't choose." (Banach) The result of this is that man finds himself lacking any external source of value and determination. We are faced with the responsibility of choosing our own nature and values, and, in doing so, choosing human nature and values for all men in our free choices. The result of this position is despair and anxiety,
"In seeing the contrast between the world we are thrown into and which we cannot control and the absolute freedom we have to create ourselves, we must despair of any hope of external value or determination and restrict ourselves to what is under our own control" (Banach)
Taoism holds a similar view regarding the cause of human suffering, in that it derives from man's despair in regards to his lack of external definition, however Lao-Tzu simultaneously taught that man can overcome the despair that accompanies absolute freedom by bringing his actions into accordance with the continually changing nature of the Tao:
"Pacifying the agitated material soul and holding to oneness: Are you able to avoid separation? Focusing your energy on the release of tension: Can you be like an infant? In purifying your insight: Can you un-instruct it? The people and ruling the state: Can you avoid over-manipulation? In opening and closing the gate of Heaven: Can you be the female? In illuminating the whole universe: Can you be free of rationality?
Give birth to it and nourish it.
Produce it but do not possess it.
Act without expectation.
Excel, but do not take charge.
This is called Mysterious Virtue" (Lao Tzu 10)
While Lao-Tzu and Sartre both identify the source of man's despair as his lack of control or external value, Lao-Tzu is able to identify a way in which to rectify the situation. By detaching oneself from the world that we do not control, we lose the despair that accompanies our lack of control over it. This is perhaps the biggest deviation between existentialism and Taoism. While both philosophies recognize man's freedom, his responsibility as a result of that freedom, and the implications of his position as a conscious agent, existentialism states that there is no escape from the despair that accompanies them, while Taoism teaches a manner in which man can escape existential dread and anxiety.
Sartre was correct when he stated that the concepts of free will and a transcendent, absolute god are irreconcilable. If man is defined by an outside reference point, then he is not capable of either making choices or taking actions in accord with his own free will, nor have the burden of the responsibilities of those actions placed upon him. This is why Sartre was correct when he rejected the existence of god as perceived by Western civilization: absolute and transcendent. However, the existence of God within the universe, limitless, and manifest within creation itself is reconcilable with mankind's freewill. The God of Taoism is not a singular being or transcendent of creation but a "force" that is imbued throughout existence. This concept of God requires man's free will to obtain value. An analogy exists between the relationship of author to reader and of God to man that illustrates this. God, like the author, provides (is) the framework and creative impulse that discloses reality to the observer. Man, like the reader, is the creative agent by which this framework and creative impulse receive their existence. God and man are engaged in the ultimate collaborative act of freedom, that of existence itself.
The implications of the reconciliation of existential human freedom and the existence of God are staggering. No longer is man a puppet unable to choose his own actions or beliefs, likewise he is no longer consigned to despair and anxiety atheistic existentialism. He is a free conscious being partaking within the limitlessness nature of divinity itself. By accepting both his freedom and relationship to the divine the true role of man is revealed, the agent of perception by which God itself is given being.