Going Back to an Existentialist Post-Humanism

I want to open this post by explicitly stating that I am aware there are deficiencies in my understanding of humanism and post-humanism, as well as modern philosophy. That being said, I hope that someone could expand upon the questions I raise here. I also want to point out that by post-humanism I mean the interpretation of it as a critique of liberal humanism.

There were two questions brought up in class concerning the nature of post-humanism and its connection to existentialist philosophy. These two – “can there be such a thing as existentialist post-humanism?” and then what such a philosophy might be composed of – while thought provoking during the expansion that took place within the lecture seem to be rely heavily upon the interpretation of those within the discussion – the specific dialogue being made.

The problem that I found to result from this was that the very nature of existentialism and that of post-humanism are neither entirely opposed nor able to be combined to create a new philosophical perspective. Rather, it seems that these philosophies -- separate from one another -- can be interpreted in light of one another. Existentialism can be interpreted with an understanding the justifies the basic components of post-humanism that were discussed in class (though the exact distinction between post- and regular humanism is not entirely clear and therefore all that can be affirmed is that Existentialism in intrinsically related to the human or human experience but not that it belongs in either camp specifically), or post-humanism can critique liberal humanism with justifications it finds in existentialist texts. For instance, existentialism can be interpreted knowing that the human, or other subject, possesses these qualities while maintaining a dependence to a sort of actuality – or the facticity – of its existence. Similarly, post-humanism can find justification in the, for the current lack of a better word, ambiguity of existentialist philosophy – freedom, essence, and the questioning of one’s own being not being inherent only to humans (though clearly the existentialist philosophers only knew of human beings processing the ability to be aware of their own death and deal with the angst that then caused).

Following this though, to attempt to combine both philosophies together into a new branding would cause major ideas within both to be disavowed in order to create continuity. Post-humanism, as it was discussed in class, transcends the “merely” human. As it does this more and more – even as a critique of liberal humanism – it denies death as being the main concern in human existence – contradictory to the whole of existentialism -- and the individualism that is inherent to humanism (though arguably present in much of existentialism as well – running the risk of oversimplification). Existentialism has a quality of thrust humanity, mortality, and an understanding of the experience of being human – as being that being which can question its existence and essence – which post-humanism attempts to move past.

This is not to say specific concepts, texts, etc. cannot coincide and work within both contexts, but I fail to see how these philosophies could ever congeal entirely.