Homosexuality is considered by many to be fully natural. To prove this point, examples of homosexual behavior in nature are often cited because animals do not reason as we do. But if they do it, it cannot be considered wrong for humans to participate it. In fact, denying that certain humans are homosexual is denying part of nature and denying that we, humans, are another species on Earth. Different developmental studies are often cited that show that homosexuals and heterosexuals differ in genetics, prental neurohormonal levels, response to pheromones, and brain structures. These all attempt to show that the orientation is something that cannot be controlled or influenced by the environment. This acts to seperate behavior from disposition towards behavior. This is a valid approach however, bcause accepting one's determined orientation is to accept the behaviors that flow from this. I know I will recieve criticism from people citing criminal examples (e.g. someone predisposed to violence), but this question is not the purpose of this post so it holds little sway in the argument.

When people consider homosexuality to be unnatural, they focus on the behaviors associated with homosexuality, and completely ignore the underlying orientation. To back of this claim "ex-gays" are often cited as examples where someone partook in homosexual behaviors at one point, but through conversion therapy changed. Again, there are many criticisms of this fact, but it is not pertinent to the post. Additionally, this side states that homosexuality is against nature because it does not allow for reproduction and the passing on of genetic material to subsequent generations. As such, homosexuality is deemed to be unnatural.

The debate over the origins of homosexuality comes from the need to have a valid reason for discrimination or thinking less of homosexuals. The only valid reason for this would be that homosexuality is a conscious choice by the individual. The free will of the individual must play a role in their homosexual behaviors. If homosexuality is a conscious choice, then the act itself can be deemed to be moral or immoral and right or wrong. This distinction lies in contrast to an act being determined or coerced. If an outside source influences the actions of an individual, it becomes bery difficult to assign responsibility and impose limitations. Some examples of this are a man pulls your finger on the trigger of a gun and kills someone or you are attacked and killed a man in self defense. In either case, it is incredibly difficult to assign responsibility for the death of another to the individual because the individual lacked completely free will. By stating that homosexuality is a choice, the actions of a homosexual in same sex relations can be judged easily. In being able to judge the actions of a homosexual, rules and laws can be ethically passed that control them because they are solely based on the conscious choices made by the individual. Homosexuality becomes something little different than robbing a bank. The individual who robbed the bank chose to rob the bank. He was not forced or coerced, so is able to be held accountable by the law for the action. The homosexual chose his behaviors so can be restricted by law the same as another individual who has chosen a behavior deemed wrong by society.

If homosexuality was natural or fully determined it would be impossible to ethically pass laws restricting its practice, acceptance, or equality because the individuals would have no responsibility for their homosexuality and such, could not be held accountable for it. It would become something little different than passing laws against an individual because the individual's gender or race. An individuals gender or race is determined so cannot be discriminated against because the individual did not act freely to be that way. Additionally, any restriction on homosexuality would likewise not be ethical if homosexuality is natural because it would punish the individual for being different. Any restriction would act to restrict the individual's liberty to act out their nature, or imposing a restriction on the individual's free will (free will here in a Humian sense).

The question of whether or not homosexuality is natural is a question of whether or not it can be constricted like other conscious choices. Is homosexuality closer to race and gender or acting asocially through things like robbing a bank? By ignoring the orientation and focusing on the free will of the behavior, the people who view homosexuality as unnatural say that it can be restricted ethically. By looking at homosexuality as the determined orientation and the behavior as only a result of it, the people who view homosexuality as natural say that it cannot be restricted ethically.

To try to combine these two views makes the question rather difficult: behavior as a choice and orientation as determined. However, the conclsuion is one that would support the view that homosexuality cannot be restricted ethically. The orientation determines the individual's behavior. It is the innate attraction to homosexual or heterosexual partners that lead to the behaviors. Here, the behaviors become choices, but not freely determined choices. If an individual was forced to fire a gun and kill another individual, the individual is not held responsible for the death. Much in the same way, the orientation of the individual is forcing the behavior so the individual cannot be held responsible for the actions. In this light homosexuality behavior cannot be seen as a choice and so cannot be considered as the responsibility of the individual. So homosexuality should not be restricted or judged. Despite this, the behavior can be resisted, but resisting does not change the underlying nature of the individual. A homosexual does not have to engage in homosexual behaviors. However, he would still retain the homosexual orientation. But the choice here is not one that is truly and completely free. The individual can choose to resist his or her determined nature or to realize his or her determined nature. That is a choice up to the individual, but it is suggested that it is a forced choice and cannot be judged as harshly as other, completely free choices. The individual had no control over the events that led up to the necessity of the choice. Having to choose is a matter of situational or dispositional luck and therefore judgments on this have little to no moral responsibility. So, restrictions cannot be placed on the individual, whether he chooses to be a homosexual or a heterosexual behaviorally, because the necessity to make the decision to act or not act was out of the individuals control. So, in these two different conbinations, we see the same end results, the homosexual cannot be held accountable and responsible for his or her homosexual behaviors so cannot be restricted by the law.

Marriage is centered around a choice. Two individuals meet, court, and decide to wed. The actual marriage, whether it is religiously based or civilly based requires the willingness of each individual. In a civil marriage, the two individuals consent to the marriage by signing a contract. In a religious marriage (Roman Catholic is used in this example) the individuals are each asked if they consent to the marriage. If both individuals do not consent, marriage cannot occur. The choice of marriage is whether or not each individual is willing to marry the other individual and it is in this choice that marriage is constructed.

The individual has the ability to choose who his or her marriage partner is if the partner also consents. In fact, an individual can choose not to enter into any marriage at all. This does not preclude the possibility of that individual's marriage, but recognizes that the individual has no one who he or she would consent to marrying and would also consent to marrying the individual. All people have the ability to make the choice of to marry another individual or not.

This in turn leads to the question of how can marriage be considered a right if it is centered on choice. A right is "legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society" (Wikipedia). Marriage can only be a right if it is not a duty or a privilege. Because someone can choose never to marry, marriage is not a duty because it is not all individuals enter into it. It might appear that marriage could be considered a privilege as individuals are limited in who they can marry.

Marriage is commonly not allowed when one or both of the individuals is under the age of consent. The reason is that they are deemed to be incapable of consenting properly to the union of the two individuals because they lack the maturity and understanding to enter into such an agreement. In fact, the younger individual may be more easily coerced into marriage. Not allowing such a marriage to take place, is not a prescription against these two individuals ever from marrying, but from the individuals marrying when at least one of them is under aged. Both individuals may choose to marry each other at some point in the future. The older individual may even consent to marriage with another of age individual. So society is seen as revoking marriage when it is not able to receive the valid consent of both parties.

It would appear now that for marriage to be a privilege, it is based on the consent of each individual. The marriage in that example was not allowed because of the age and subsequently the inability of one of the individuals to consent to the union. However, the idea behind marriage is that each party consents. In the example, the under aged individual was unable to consent so the marriage could not occur. Indeed, if it had occurred it would not be marriage as it is intended because of the lack of proper consent. We find that society here is enforcing the importance of consent in a marriage and not restricting marriages as they are meant to be.

Another example of a time when marriage is not allowed is same sex marriage cannot. Here, the ability for two individuals to marry is revoked because each is of the same sex. Each of the individuals can validly consent to marrying the other, but the marriage is still refused because of the restriction of sex. What made a marriage valid is present but the marriage is not allowed. The reason for the prohibition is that the two individuals are of the same gender. If one individual was to change genders legally, then the marriage could occur. The same individuals would have consented as the only difference is the gender of one individual.

This analysis presents two possibilities. Marriage could be a privilege only offered to heterosexual couples or it could be a right denied to homosexual couples. Homosexuals exist as a class of citizens as they share a common orientation. This class of citizens is singled out without regard to the individuals. It is seen through the fact that the consent of each individual in a same sex couple may consent to marriage, but would be denied that possibility because of only their gender. The important facts surrounding each individual’s decision to get married is not considered. It would be little different form saying that individuals with a height difference of 6 inches, tattoos, or blue eyes could not marry. The individual is lost in the class making it discrimination.

In the United States, privileges do not legally exist through discriminating against a group. Privileges exist through earning them and are lost by abuse or misuse. One has the privilege to get a driver’s license, but will loss this privilege upon repeated DWI offenses. In removing a privilege, the individual is considered. To say that anyone who drinks is not allowed to have a driver’s license would be viewed as unjust. In denying the ability for two consenting same sex individuals from marrying because they are of the same gender, the right of marriage is doing exactly that. Not allowing same sex marriage is denying homosexuals their civil rights because of the class of citizens that they belong to.

Marriage is constituted of the conscious and valid consent of two individuals forming a union. What lies at the heart of marriage is consent as is shown by what marriages are and are not allowed. One problematic marriage that is not allowed is that between homosexuals. Valid and conscious consent is present here, but the marriage is not allowed because the individuals are of the same gender. The question of whether marriage is a right or a privilege is present in this prohibition. Marriage is denied to homosexual couples not because of the individuals they are and the quality of their consent, but the class of citizens to which they belong. Because the class is being singled out and not the individual this is considered discrimination and is not considered a revocation of a right to marriage. This claim is strengthened by the fact that each individual could marry a person with a different gender immediately after their marriage refusal and assuming shared consent would be allowed to. As such, marriage exists as a right present to all individuals who can consent valid and it is denied to homosexuals because of the homosexual nature of their relationship.

Introduction:

Science and religion have often times been at odds, each expressing their doctrine at the cost of the other. The arguments for each side are often laden with fallacies, especially the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy happens when a false scenario is created in order to attack the other side’s argument in hopes of being able to invalidate the other side’s argument. This is seen widely seen in the debate over evolution. The anti-science argument describes evolution on as only occurring by chance and questioning the feasibility of complex traits. The opposing argument, anti-creationism, paints a picture in which God controls all things. This type of argument between science and religion can be seen in many different instances, but some of the topics debated can exist in harmony with a little reinterpretation or different application of the concepts. Two such opposing beliefs are Christian judgment in its eschatology and quantum immortality. The question becomes, with a little reinterpretation, is it possible to satisfactorily match the theory of quantum immortality with Christianity’s view of judgment upon death.

Quantum Immortality:

Quantum immortality is a concept spawned by the quantum suicide thought experiment. This experiment consists of a nuclear device that a man activates and expects for it to detonate. However, it is feasible that the device will not go off, even likely as this type of nuclear reaction is probabilistic. However, because of the existence of multiple universes, a concept validated by quantum physics, the nuclear device would not be triggered in every universe, because of the nuclear reaction failing, and the man would survive on in some universes. Some universes would even exist in which one would never initiate the quantum suicide experiment. This creates a sense of immortality, but not true immortality, as the person would not live forever. However, it is immortality in the sense that a person’s initial being survives pasts its own death (Quantum Immortality).

The concept of quantum immortality relies heavily on the existence of multiple parallel universes. Multiple universes are believed to be possible by observing the behavior of a single particle. These parallel universes are independent, dependent on the history of the particular, and unable to observe the events in the other universes (Wallace 2002). It is important to remember that quantum physics is predictive, not descriptive. This is an important distinction because of the probabilistic nature of all interactions seen in the world. Quantum physics can only describe what is likely, not what will happen (Buddhism and Quantum Physics). The probabilistic nature of these interactions is what drives physicist Hugh Everett’s description of the possibility of multiple universes, and consequently quantum immortality (Wallace 2002).

The basic line of thought that spawned this came from the observation of the spin states of a particle. A spin state is similar to an object rotating clockwise versus counterclockwise. A single particle will be observed to determine what its spin state is. However, upon observation of the spin of a particle, the world of the particle is no longer in equilibrium and the state could change. It is here that probability comes into play. The change that the particle exhibits in its spin is probabilistic, so that the particle’s spin state has a chance of changing and a chance of not changing (Wallace 2002). According to the Everett interpretation, each possible spin state would exist at the same time, though in separate universes. The probabilistic nature of quantum physics allows for this possibility of more than one universe. Quantum physics can only provide a probability because multiple things can occur. If this sort of behavior was descriptive, only one possible outcome would exist. But because more than one outcome exists, each outcome is both possible and must logically occur (Wallace 2002).

Upon additional observation of the particle, the complexity of the overall set of universes increases. This is a result of the increasing complexity of the history of the particles. Each new chance for a spin state to change has not only its own possibilities, but has a unique set of past changes. This is the history of the particle, mentioned previously. At each time an observation is made, the universe would branch, or split, as a different possibility would be created. After each set of branches, the overall numbers of possible spin states, relative to the past spin states increases. This creates an almost tree like system of universes, all spawned from a single point but with multiple branches (Wallace 2002). This can be seen in the attached picture, image one (Splitting). However, each branch exists both independently and uniquely of the others, but all of the others still exist at the same time.

In the context of the quantum suicide experiment, an individual would both die and not die. It would be at the point when the device is triggered that the universe branches. We would have one universe in which the scientist commits suicide and another in which the scientist failed to commit suicide. It is because in one path, a person would still live on past a potentially life ending event that it is thought of as a form of immortality (Quantum Immortality). The scientist would survive past his own death. However, there is a problem in proving this view. In the example of the spin state of a particle, each observation would only trace a single path. The observer would only see one history of spin states. He would know of the possibility of the other states existing, but would have no firsthand knowledge of it. Similarly, a man attempting the quantum suicide experiment would not have knowledge of a successful, or a failed, suicide attempt. He would only know if he failed to commit suicide and would have no knowledge beyond that fact (Szul). The experimenter would not learn of the overall state of the universes in which he or she exists. Because of this, the possibility of the quantum suicide experiment being proven, with our current knowledge, is not likely (Quantum Immortality).

The Structure of Christian Death and Judgment:

The goal of the life of a Christian is to be moral (Christianity). This sense of morality is exemplified in the Ten Commandments, but is expanded upon throughout the bible in the teachings of Jesus: “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation for when he is tried he shall receive the crown of life” (James 1.12.). This desire to be moral is also that which a Christian is judged by upon death. This can be quite difficult though, bordering on impossible. It is this difficulty that led to the belief of some Christians in purgatory (Christianity). No one is capable of living a completely moral life. Purgatory exists as the period of time directly after death during which man, in the form of his soul, atones for the sins committed in life: "fire will test the work of each one [i.e. individual person], of what kind it [the work] is" (First Epistle to the Corinthians 3:13). During this period, the prayers of others attempt to remove the sins of the past life. The path of atonement through prayer can be seen in a traditional Roman Catholic mass (Purgatory). However, purgatory also manifests itself as a time of discomfort, as is seen in Dante’s writings and described by St. Thomas Aquinas: "to cleanse us from the remains of sin...the pain of fire only is ascribed to Purgatory" (Aquinas). Though the path varies, the goal remains the same: to cleanse the soul of the recently deceased so that they can eventually ascend into heaven.

Once their time in purgatory has been completed, the person’s soul passes into a period of individual heaven or hell. This period is a time of waiting for the eventuality of the end of days. During this time, the soul “lives” out what is expected for the rest of its existence. It is upon the assignment to this temporary heaven or hell that the first judgment is made (Kohn 2005). During purgatory, the soul is assumed rightly to be impure and therefore is not judged (Purgatory). Now, at the completion of the cleansing period the soul is transferred to a new location. The location is assigned based on how one has lived one’s life and on the penance performed during purgatory. These forms of heaven and hell are only slightly different from the final heaven and hell in the sense that they are incomplete and temporary. This temporary heaven, for example, does not have any communion with God that marks final heaven, but maintains all of the other components of lack a lack of suffering (Kohn). It is for this reason that it is described as an individual heaven – individual in the sense that you are still separate from God

The soul waits in one of these locations until the end of days. The end of days is the time of final judgment that occurs at the end of humanity. Once the end of days occurs, there is no time left for penance. Despite this, the end of days is still seen as a positive event because it marks the end of worldly suffering. At this point, individuals are resurrected, or brought back from the dead, for the purpose of final judgment. Final judgment is the time when one’s time of existence is judged relatively to the entire length of human time. A person who lived what could be termed an average life would seem to be good in light of how others have lived, if his or her life was seen as particularly immoral. God assigns each individual to his or her eternal locations accordingly (Christian Eschatology). One who has lived his or her life well relative to others, attains heaven, which is a paradise where they can commune directly with God (I Corinthians 13:8-13). One who has lived a wicked life relative to others receives a sentence of eternal punishment in hell. Pope John Paul II describes hell as "more than a physical place, hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy" (Pope John Paul II 1999).

A Positive Interpretation of the Two:

The important concept of Christian judgment after death is the path that a soul takes to reach its final point, heaven and hell. A soul enters purgatory where it atones for its sins. After atonement, it is judged and placed in an individual hell or heaven that acts as a waiting period. The waiting period ends at the end of days, a time when the soul is resurrected and then judged by God relative to its role in humanity. God then assigns the final resting place: heaven or hell. However in quantum immortality, a person dies not once, but many times. Each of the universes can be unique with different paths that result from different choices and events found uniquely in a certain subset of universes. This creates a unique problem when looking at judgment through a Christian perspective. Christianity, in the literal interpretation, sees only one man existing. However in quantum immortality, there are multiple paths that are all spawned by the same individual. The different paths can be viewed as each path as a new individual or as the overall combination of paths as one individual. The question around how to integrate the Christian views and quantum immortality is a question centered on the judgment of an individual. Will a person’s being, single at birth, be split into multiple people or will it remain intact. The best compromise between these two will exist as the positive interpretation of quantum immortality and Christianity as it will allow for widest spectrum of beliefs from each viewpoint.

Christian judgment can be viewed from the sense that each quantum path is a unique individual. This would produce a view of judgment and life after death as very similar to the one described in Christianity. Each person would be judged in exactly the aforementioned process of normal Christian eschatology. A soul at the end of each path will face atonement, judgment, and punishment or reward independently of the others. The problem with reinterpreting the views of Christian eschatology and judge and quantum immortality comes from two locations. The first of these is the question of shared history. Each of the different paths of time that resulted from the creation of a new universe has at least one shared portion. This can be problematic, as the same portion of life would be judged repeatedly, even if the event after splitting were only judged once. The second problem with this reinterpretation exists because what started out as individual, an individual at conception, is judged more than once; it is feasible that one could run into oneself in heaven or hell. One’s initial, pre-branching essence, likewise, could be split into beings in heaven and beings in hell. What constituted oneself in the beginning could be deemed both good and bad, so that it exists in both heaven and hell.

The treatment of a life, after the completion of all paths, can also be seen as an amalgamation of all of the individual paths into one overall being. In this view, the soul would exist as one after death, but in life as many parts. This can be validated religiously through the process of resurrection. The being that was conceived was conceived as a single person. Later on in life, it splits into multiple beings. Upon resurrection, after all paths created in the theory of quantum immortality have been closed, the soul could be resurrected as a single being. The soul would have joined with the other manifestations, or portions, of itself to create a single being. This event could feasibly occur at any point and even before the resurrection at the end of days.

The shortcoming of this interpretation is the question of the first judgment. The first judgment occurs after purgatory. However, if the combination of the soul into a single entity occurs before purgatory, then the paths that created a pure section of the soul would feasibly have to suffer the same fate as the wicked parts of the soul. The good parts would spend a greater time in purgatory, and may have to go to an individual hell just because of the bad fragments of the soul. The presence of multiple paths for a life to take also raises the question of what happens to the fragment when the individual paths close. Not every single path would end at exactly the same time. Consequently, in this interpretation of the two there is no place for the individual sections to remain while the rest of the sections live on. Furthermore, if all of the individual paths stopped at the same point, then quantum immortality would not truly exist, as one would not be able to survive on past one’s own deaths. Once one has died in one path, all paths must end at the same instant.

The combination of these two possibilities would present the best solution to the problem of a positive interpretation. The two judgments would benefit from sections of each of the two prior interpretations and could be structured so that none of the drawbacks exists. The main benefit of the split interpretation is seen in the first judgment. Each fragment of the soul can pass into the afterlife and commence judgment as is require for the unique sins. This means that at the closing of a path, that part of the soul would pass into a purgatory and would only have to atone for that soul’s own sins. Then, it would pass into an individual heaven or hell of its own creation. The location of the waiting period for a portion of soul would not be determined by some other path that that portion had no influence on. Furthermore, the term individual heaven or individual hell was previously meant as something of one’s own creation and without the interaction of God and soul. Individual could also be taken in the quantum context of being a path in the overall structure of one’s being, in the sense that each path is to be treated as a single individual, not as a composite of many individuals.

This description of Christian eschatology and judgment and quantum immortality transitions nicely into the occurrences around the second judgment. The end of days could take on two different meanings. It is generally understood as the end of humanity. All humankind is finished in this world upon the end of days and awaits judgment upon resurrection as to whether they will reside in heaven or in hell. This judgment is based on the life that has been led. The end of days, however, could also be read in the context of quantum immortality to be the end of a single being’s days. It would be seen here as being the time when all paths that spawned from a single conception are closed. Resurrection would occur and these different paths would be combined into a single being to be judged. Judgment would occur as it did in regular Christian eschatology then so that a soul would be judged relative to humanity and then placed in heaven or in hell. The individual sections of the soul that are least pure would have an opportunity to atone for the sins that have been committed in prior purgatory and would still have the possibility of reaching heaven upon final judgment.

Conclusion

Through the previous analysis, it has been shown that science and religion, in this case at least, can exist intermingled. The problem with many arguments constructed that argue for science or for religion over the other is in the fallacies used to construct them. But because of an objective view and careful construction, a happy merger of quantum immortality and Christian eschatology and judgment is possible. Quantum immortality, a scientific construct that argues for life beyond a single death is based on the existence of multiple universes and differing, independent worlds and histories in each. Because of these differing paths, Christianity had to be interpreted in a slightly different way. The individual paths remain separate through purgatory, the first judgment, and individual heaven and hell. It is only at the end of days, whether it is interpreted as the end of humanity or the end of that instance of a human, that the soul becomes reassembled into a single being and its whole is judged against the rest of humanity. This in no way argues for or against the existence of the Christian perception of an afterlife, but just explains how the path through afterlife according to Christianity is possible in light of what can happen according to quantum immortality. Heaven and hell may or may not exist, but the path can exist in light of this scientific belief.

Image One

(Splitting)
References

The Bible. The Bible Gateway. 12/1/05.

“Buddhism and Quantum Physics.” Buddhist Spirituality versus Materialism. 11/15/05.

“Christian Eschatology.” Wikipedia. 11/15/05.

“Christianity.” Wikipedia. 11/15/05.

Hanna, Edward J. “Purgatory.” Catholic Encyclopedia. 11/29/05.

John Paul II, Pope. 7/28/99. Qtd in. “Purgatory: Its Logistics.” Religious Tolerance.org. 12/1/05.

Kohn, Livia.

“Quantum Immortality.” Wikipedia. 11/15/05.

“Splittings.” Wikipedia. 12/1/05.

St. Thomas Aquinas, "Whether it is the same place where souls are cleansed, and the damned punished?", in "Summa Theologica," Supplement (Appendix II), Article 2. 12/1/05.

Szul, Michael.“Quantum Immortality.“ Madghoul.com. 12/1/05.

Wallace, David. “Worlds in the Everett interpretation.” Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, Volume 33, Issue, 4 December 2002. Pages 637-661. 11/15/05.

Martin Heidegger was a philosopher who created a worldview that divided objects into two classifications. The first of these described objects that are encountered every day and are viewed as objects that fulfill a task or are tools and are inconspicuous to consciousness. The second classification of objects are present to active consciousness through inspection in certain, special cases. These two classifications are able to encompass all objects that one meets in life. However, there are problems that appear when analyzing these classifications. One such problem is the question of misusing an object, or rather using an object for a purpose for which it is not intended. With these two classifications of objects, it would appear that the use of an object for a purpose that it is not intended is impossible or without validation. However, upon further analysis, and through using the concept of fulfillment, created by Heidegger’s teacher Edmund Husserl, the possibility of this observable, real world phenomenon is brought to light.

Fulfillment, as Husserl describes, is an act that achieves a relation and leads to knowledge. In order to obtain knowledge, fulfillment has a number of requirements. Fulfillment first requires at least two mental acts. One of these acts is the signitive act - the internalized concept of something. A signitive is empty because it lacks reference to an object that is real, or exists in the world. The other required mental act is the intuitive act, which is the perception of the real object. Fulfillment also requires that these two acts knowingly refer to the same object in consciousness as it is meant. This is vital because a connection, or relation, will form between the two mental acts. If it is unknown by the individual that his perception is referring to a signitive act in one’s mind, then the perception would end there and be of no importance. No knowledge would have been created. Nevertheless, the connection made between the signitive and intuitive act can exist. This connection is the most vital part of fulfillment and explains how perception can allow for the creation of knowledge. After the connection has been made, the signitive act is no longer empty because it has a real reference. The higher order act of fulfillment provides substance to internal thoughts. Furthermore, perceptions can be used to reevaluate the signitive act to better match reality (Logical Investigations, Investigation VI).

Fulfillment occurs, but a single observation of the object does not necessarily provide exhaustive knowledge of an object. When the initial link is created between the signitive and the intuitive act, the fulfillment can be described as partial because not all of the information on an object is taken into the internalized model of the object. However, over time, experience, and investigation, a signitive act of an object can become known as more fulfilled. A more fulfilled signitive act for an object possesses a greater amount of information pertaining to that object as it has had a wider number of perceptions relating to it. Additional investigations can provide more information on an object making it more and more fulfilled over time, though it is still considered a partial fulfillment because the mental concept is not yet been completed. Eventually, once all available perceptions have been exhausted and everything that can be known about an object is know, then the designation of the signitive act changes. The signitive act, at this point, has become fully fulfilled (Logical Investigations, Investigation VI, Chapter 5).

Examples of Husserlian fulfillment occur in everyday life and can be seen in the following anecdote. One day, I went grocery shopping and picked up some sausage. I grabbed, for variety, a package of fennel sausage. I was grilling the sausages and my roommate came into the kitchen. I told him I was making some fennel sausage. He asked what fennel was. I replied, stating that it was an herb that tasted mildly of licorice. In this exchange, he developed a mental concept of what fennel would taste like; he had a signitive act to describe it. Upon tasting the sausage with fennel my roommate had a perception of the flavor, which was the intuitive act. He knew that what he tasted was fennel and so assigned the flavor he was perceiving to the signitive act of his concept of fennel flavor. As a result, he gains knowledge actual knowledge of what flavor fennel is. Despite the actual experience of tasting the fennel, this was only partial fulfillment. The taste of fennel was hidden behind pork and other seasonings found in the sausage. However, for him to try pure fennel, he would be able to repeat the process for the fennel in the fennel sausage, but have the act fully fulfilled because it would provide the true sense of the taste.

Husserl’s view on fulfillment is very important because it allows perception to affect or create knowledge. This will play an important role in the description of fulfillment within Heidegger’s worldview. In Heidegger’s world, there exist two types of objects. The first type of objects is seen upon entering into the world and in everyday interactions with the world. One is born in the world of equipmental totalities. These are the ready-to-hand objects. Ready-to-hand objects are objects that exist in-order-to. We have little knowledge of their deeper sense, but merely a matter of what they are useful for. Their existence and purpose are derived from their function. We initially see a world full of such objects, each of these objects equipment for our interaction with the world: a hammer hammers; a door keeps people out; food feeds. Equipmental totalities describe this interaction between objects in the world and the individual. An equipmental totality sees an object existing for the sole purpose of being used to complete a task. Because an object in its ready-to-hand form exists in order to, equipmental totalities are constructed between objects – a hammer exists to hammer a nail. This sort of relationship is still functional is an equipmental totality, but expresses how objects can interact. Knowledge of the objects is limited in all cases to equipmental totalities as the meaning of the objects is only the purpose that the object fulfills. This meaning is one that is not a property derived through inspection, but known and utilized intuitively. The objects only have this equipmental totality. Consequently, ready-to-hand objects are described as being inconspicuous and escape deeper inspection. Knowledge of their properties does not exist (Being and Time, Section 15).

Knowledge of an object does exist if a ready-to-hand object exists. The knowledge exists because of and through an equipmental totality. As Husserl described knowledge, understanding of a ready-to-hand object is a product of fulfillment. However, this form of knowledge can only exist as an empty fulfillment because extensive and exhaustive knowledge does not exist. The signitive act is created because one saw a new object, for example a hammer. In learning the purpose of the hammer, one has created an intuitive act, which is then assigned to the object present to perceptions. This explains how the basic concept of what a hammer is, hammerness, is created. The link is made from the knowledge of the purpose of the object, a hammer hammers, and leads to the creation of knowledge relating to this object. It also explains how upon having the experience of the hammer, that one can hold the concept in ones mind and draw on it from time to time, such as the next time one needs to hammer use a hammer. Additional knowledge can exist concerning an object that is being viewed as ready-to-hand, but does not exist because of the nature of an object that is ready-to-hand. Such an object escapes one’s active consciousness and inspection, so that one does not have knowledge of the object beyond intuitively knowing what its purpose is. One will not know that this hammer is best used for a certain function or even the traits beyond the use that makes up hammerness. To obtain knowledge beyond this level, one must view the object in a different manner.

Viewing the object in a different manner creates a different type of object, an object that is present-at-hand. Present-at-hand objects are understood in a markedly different way from ready-to-hand. These are objects inspected deeply and which are conspicuous to one’s active conscious. This difference is best illuminated in the conversion of an object from ready-to-hand to present-at-hand. Objects gain their designation as present-at-hand, as Heidegger describes, from an exceptional experience of the object. The exceptional experience is something that brings the ready-to-hand object to the forefront of active consciousness and can be a missing object or an object that fails to function as expected. To continue the example of the hammer, imagine trying to hammer a nail into a wall to hang a painting with a forty-pound sledgehammer. This will obviously fail, as a sledgehammer is too large to hammer the nail properly. This fact is marked by the new, sledgehammer shaped, hole in the wall. Because of the failure of this hammer to work as a hammer, we are forced to try to understand why it failed. In doing so, the object is no longer viewed as ready-to-hand, but has come to our active, conscious analysis as present-at-hand (Being and Time, Section 16).

This additional analysis of the object expands the available knowledge of an object’s properties, and in so produces a more fulfilled concept of the object. As it stood before the investigation, we had a signitive act of an object, a hammer. We merely knew what the equipmental totality of the hammer was. We know nothing but how to use intuitively an object to fulfill a purpose. However, upon the conscious investigation, one learns of the properties associated with the object. For the case of the sledgehammer, we learn that this hammer is not used for driving small nails into a wall because it is too large and unwieldy. We can even gain understanding of what makes up a hammer - its head and handle with each made of a hard substance to withstand the stress of hammering something. The properties of other hammers can also become known, such as the desirable size for a hammer to use on nails. This, in a sense, is learning through failure. However, because one now has this conscious experience of the properties of this and other hammers, derived from an intuitive act, one can create a greater level of knowledge by reevaluating and expanding on our previous definition, or signitive act, of hammers.

The fulfillment of the signitive act of a present-at-hand object is the result of the active, conscious inspection. Upon the additional features of the object - the size and structure of a hammer for example - being brought out by active consciousness, one can assign more traits to an object. Husserl’s account of knowledge required that the object for which knowledge is created be conscious to the mind. This was a requirement so that a reference between the intuitive and signitive acts could be established in order to increase knowledge. An object that is ready-to-hand, by comparison, only has the intuitively accessed information of the function, but not of the features. Additionally, the object cannot be fully fulfilled through a single failure of the object to function. But with each failure, new, additional features of the object, now present-at-hand, are brought to light. As time passes, our concept, or signitive act of the object becomes fuller.

The interesting case of misusing an object becomes clear in the light of this view of Heideggerean objects. The example comes from a time when needing to use a hammer to hammer a nail. No hammer was present to complete this task, but a wrench was present and was successfully used to hammer a nail. Misusing an object, such as using a wrench to hammer a nail, seems impossible with objects existing only as present-at-hand and ready-to-hand. As an exceptional experience of a hammer, this event could bring to active consciousness and conspicuousness the properties of a hammer through the search for the hammer: a quest for the hammerness of the hammer. This explains how knowledge of the hammer increases through the object’s absence. However, it does not explain how the object that is misused takes the functional place of the object that is absent. The validation for this possibility cannot be seen directly in the presence of the categories of objects themselves. The properties of the wrench are not known when it is ready-to-hand. This is because the wrench is ready-to-hand in the room but is not failing to perform its function. It is not performing any function, so it cannot be present-at-hand and therefore it is not present to consciousness in a way that its properties may be determined through analysis. Despite these facts, this phenomenon of misuse still exists.

The answer to this problem comes in Husserl’s form of fulfillment. Initially the hammer is in the ready-to-hand form and so its fulfillment is lacking, but from experience, one is placed in situations in which the hammer fails to function. In the specific case of misuse, its absence creates the failure. Such failures act to increase our concept of a hammer, and over time, slowly making our signitive act of hammer more fulfilled to the point, when necessary, where one can see a hammer as more than just an object that hammers. However, in its common everydayness we still view and interact with a hammer by its equipmental totality. Over time, experience adds to our understanding of what a hammer is beyond its function and the understanding can be drawn on whenever it is needed. A similar series of occurrences would cause for the properties of the wrench to become a more fulfilled signitive act. These two mental acts would then interact. One would inspect the objects in the world looking for objects with similar properties to a hammer, notably the weight, the general size, the material of construction and other such important traits. The two objects that share these properties could be used interchangeably for a certain purpose – one would not use a block of cheese to hammer a nail. The wrench has the properties that hammer needs to function as a hammer, though it is not specialized for that specific function, so that in the absence of a hammer a wrench could hammer a nail.

The final question concerning how misusing a tool is possible is what drives the interaction of these mental acts that constitute our signitive acts of a hammer and a wrench to interact. In other words, what makes this interaction possible with two unrelated objects and without prior experience? The possibility of this becomes known through Heidegger’s exploration of the concept of dasein. Dasein’s translation is literally being there, or existence. Heidegger used dasein to describe the part of an entity that is concerned with Being. Being is the concern for the nature or meaning of something. Dasein would allow for questioning what it means to be a hammer. Through an analysis of our concept of a hammer and the task that needs to be completed, one would find the appropriate traits that make up Being-a-hammer-as-itself. The traits that allow for something Being-a-hammer are found present in other objects. Dasein would drive the mind to view other objects in a different manner than just its function and one would then develop a concept of how different objects could perform the task of being a hammer. These objects would have the potential of Being-a-hammer. This analysis would in turn lead to the realization that a wrench could perform this task - Being-a-wrench-as-a-hammer - and would facilitate our misusage of this object to fulfill our goal of hammering a nail (Being and Time, Sections 12 and 13).

Husserl’s view of fulfillment becomes vital to Heidegger’s view of objects in the world because there is a necessity for gaining knowledge about the objects for them to serve a purpose and for interactions to take place. The world is full of objects that are ready-to-hand. However, to prevent one from having to relearn the purpose of each of these objects every time one is viewed, fulfillment must occur to construct lasting knowledge. This knowledge validates the ease that one can operate in a world of known equipmental totalities. However, when one of these objects, and its equipmental totality, fails to function, an object comes to the forefront of active consciousness. The object is inspected and the properties of the object, beyond its equipmental totality, are ascertained. These properties are added to the mental concept of an object as the signitive act is further fulfilled. Though one operates in a world of equipmental totalities, knowledge beyond the intuitive use of the totality is stored for future use and available when needed. This can be seen in misusing a tool when the proper tool for the task is not available. Because both the tool for the task and the tool that is misused to complete the task have signitive acts that were further fulfilled when the objects were present-at-hand, these properties can be compared through dasein in order to determine another object that would suit the task needing to be completed. The potential for the misused object as Being-as-another-object would be discovered so that the object can then be located and used in the world to fulfill a task outside of that object’s equipmental totality.


Work Cited
Heidegger, Martin. Trans: Macquarrie and Robinson. Being and Time. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1962
Husserl, Edmund. Trans: Findlay. The Shorter Logical Investigations. New York: Routledge, 1970.