New Essentials of Unification Thought

The theory of the Original Human Nature is a study concerning the image of what the original human beings would have been like, if the human fall had not happened. As stated in the Theory of the Original Image and in Ontology, throughout the long period of history human beings have struggled to solve the fundamental problems in human life and the universe. Especially today, after the collapse of Communism, new confusion has appeared worldwide. Faced with such problems as the north-south problem, racism, religious conflicts, injustice, corruption, the spread of various kinds of crime due to the collapse of traditional values, and the subsequent struggles and wars, the world is in the midst of a whirlpool of confusion. These problems all can be classified into “problems of existence” and “problems of relationship.” How can these problems be solved?

Throughout human history there have been people who questioned the reality of human beings, and looked for answers about the original state of human beings, which they believed, even if vaguely, to exist. They were religionists and philosophers. They seriously grappled with the question, “What is the human being?” and looked for the way to recover the original way of life.

Gautama Buddha, who was born in the middle of the fifth century BC in the Kapilavastu castle, now in Nepal, spent several years of his life practicing strict asceticism, and finally immersed himself in deep meditation. As a result, he came to realize that human beings originally possessed Buddhahood, but that through ignorance, came to be bound by worldly desires, and fell into suffering. Buddha taught that the way to recover one’s original nature is through a life of spiritual discipline.

Jesus inquired deeply into the problems of human life prior to starting his public ministry at the age of thirty, and he taught that human beings are sinners and that everyone must be born again by believing in the Son of God, that is, in Jesus himself. He proclaimed to the Jewish people, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). He traveled around Palestine, spreading his teachings, but he was unable to move the hearts of the politicians and religionists who were in power and, in the end, he was crucified.

Socrates observed the decadent chaos of the polis (city-state), and taught that the true way of human life is to love true knowledge. He encouraged people to “know thyself,” to make an effort to bring one’s inner self into the light. For Plato, the supreme ideal of human life is to recognize the idea of the Good. For Aristotle, reason is what makes a person human. He said that virtue is best realized in the communal life of the polis, and that the human being is a social animal (or polis-animal). Greek philosophers, generally speaking, held the view that reason is the essence of human nature, and that if a person’s reason is allowed to operate fully, that person will become an ideal human being.

During the Middle Ages of Western society, Christianity reigned over the human spirit. The Christian view of human nature at the time was that human beings are sinful and can be saved only by believing in Jesus. In this view, reason was regarded as ineffective. In the modern period, however, currents of philosophy that emphasize human reason have again come to appear.

Descartes considered human beings to be rational beings, and said that correct knowledge can be obtained only by reason. He coined the well-known proposition “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am).

Kant claimed that human beings are persons of character who obey the inner voice of moral obligation, ordered by practical reason, and he argued that human beings should live according to their reason, without succumbing to any temptations or desires.

Hegel, too, regarded human beings as rational beings. According to him, history is the process of the self-realization of reason in the world. Freedom, the essence of reason, was to be realized along with the development of history. According to Hegel’s theory, human beings and the world should have become rational with the establishment of the modern state (i.e., the rational state). In reality, however, people still remain deprived of their human nature just as they always had been, and the world has continued to be as irrational as it was before.

Kierkegaard opposed extreme types of rationalism such as that offered by Hegel. Kierkegaard did not agree that humankind would become increasingly rational as the world progresses, as Hegel had claimed. In actual society, he said, human beings are no more than average people, whose true nature had been lost. Accordingly, only when a person carves out life independently as an individual, apart from the public, can that person’s true human nature be regained. Thus, the conceptual framework for dealing with people in actual society, who have lost their original nature, and for seeking to restore human nature independently, was subsequently developed as the thought of existen-tialism. This will be further explained later in this chapter.

Feuerbach, in opposition to Hegel’s rationalism, regarded the human being as a sensuous being. According to Feuerbach, humans are species-beings possessing reason, will and heart (love), which is their species-essence, but they have alienated themselves from their species-essence, objectified it, and have come to revere it as God. Therein, he argued, lay the loss of human nature. Thus, Feuerbach asserted that human beings must recover their original human nature, and that this can only be done through denying religion.

Departing from Hegel’s idea of actualizing freedom, Karl Marx called for the true liberation of human beings. In the early capitalist society of Marx’s time, the lives of laborers were indeed miserable. They were forced to endure long hours of labor, and were given wages that could barely sustain their lives. Disease and crime were rampant among laborers, who were deprived of their human nature. In contrast, Marx said capitalists were living in great affluence gained from their merciless exploitation and oppression of laborers. In his view, the capitalists themselves were also deprived of their own original human nature.

Determined to liberate humankind, Marx first adopted Feuerbach’s humanism as the way to restore human nature; later, however, he came to realize that human beings were not only species-beings but also social, material, and historical beings engaged in productive activity. This led him to the view that the essence of humankind is the freedom of labor; however, in capitalist society, laborers were deprived of all the products of their labor, and they labored not by their own will, but by the will of the capitalists. Therein, precisely, lay the laborers’ loss of human nature, according to Marx.

Thus, Marx concluded that in order to liberate laborers, what must be done is to overthrow capitalist society, wherein laborers are exploited. When such liberation occurred, capitalists could also regain their own human nature, Marx thought. Furthermore, based on the materialist view, Marx concluded that human consciousness is determined by the relations of production, which are the basis of society, and that the capitalistic economic system must be changed violently by force. Nevertheless, the Communist countries, in which revolutions took place in accordance with Marx’s theory, have become dictatorial societies wherein freedom is suppressed, and human nature is violated and neglected. Those are the societies in which people have increasingly been losing their original nature. This implies that Marx made a great error in his understanding of the cause of, and in his method for solving the problem of, human alienation.

Human alienation, however, is not the problem of Communist society alone. In capitalist society as well, individualism and materialism are rampant, and a self-centered way of thinking-whereby people think they are permitted to do anything they please-has become pervasive. As a result, in capitalist society, too, human nature is increasingly being lost.

Max Scheler (1874-1928), who considered anthropology to be the foundation of all studies, classified human beings into three categories in his Philosophical Perspective: the intellectual person (Homo sapiens), the worker who uses symbols and tools (Homo faber), and the religious person (Homo religiosus). There were other views, also, about the human being advocated by other thinkers: the economic man (Homo economicus), the liberal man (Homo liberalis), the national man (Homo nationalis), and so on. None of these views of the human being, however, has touched on the essence of being human.

In this way, throughout human history numerous religious people and philosophers have attempted to find answers to the questions of what the human being is, and what human life is. Yet, their efforts have never been completely successful. Therefore, many people, who strive diligently to live correctly, but still can not find the meaning of human life, become pessimistic. In the Orient, for example, sincere young persons like Yoon Shim-dok of Korea and Misao Fujimura of Japan are among those persons and tragically, they became so desperate as to commit suicide.

One person who has devoted his entire life to providing fundamental solutions to such unresolved questions in human history is Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whose thought is contained in this book. He has proclaimed, as is revealed in the Divine Principle, that originally human beings are children of God, even though, having lost their original nature, they have become miserable.

Human beings were created in the image of God, but due to the fall of the first human ancestors they have become separated from God. They can restore their original nature, however, by living in accordance with God’s Word, thus coming to receive God’s love. In this chapter, the problems of the human fall and the way to restore the original human nature will not be discussed (these topics are dealt with in the Human Fall and in the Principle of Restoration of the Divine Principle); our focus here will be on describing the original human nature itself.

From the original standpoint, each human being exists as a being with Divine Image, which means we resemble the Image of God, and as a being with Divine Character, which means we embody the character of God. We are also beings occupying a certain position, which means we assume positions taking after the subject-object relationship in the Original Image. Each of these characteristics will be discussed below.

I. A Being with Divine Image

In the Original Image (God), there are the Universal Image, which consists of Sungsang and Hyungsang, and Yang and Yin, and the Individual Image. Resembling the Original Image, an original human being possesses the universal image of Sungsang and Hyungsang, and yang and yin, and also an individual image. Such a being is called a “being with Divine Image.” First, we will examine the aspect of Sungsang and Hyungsang.

A. A United Being of Sungsang and Hyungsang

The resemblance of a human being to God’s Sungsang and Hyungsang means that a human being is a dual being of mind and body, namely, a united being of Sungsang and Hyungsang. There are four kinds of Sungsang and Hyungsang in a human being. First, each person is an integration of the universe, or the encapsulation of all the elements of the universe. Hence every person has all the Sungsang elements of animals, plants, and minerals, in his or her Sungsang, and all the Hyungsang elements of animals, plants, and minerals, in his or her Hyungsang. Second, each person is a dual being of spirit self and physical self. Third, each person is a united being of mind and body. Finally, each person is a being with a dual mind consisting of the united spirit mind and physical mind.

Now, when we consider a human being from the perspective of having lost the original human nature, the relationship between the spirit mind and the physical mind (the fourth kind of Sungsang and Hyungsang mentioned above) is especially important. Thus, a “united being of Sung-sang and Hyungsang” refers to a “united being of spirit mind and physical mind.” I can explain the relationship between spirit mind and physical mind as that between Sungsang and Hyungsang, in spite of the fact that both spirit mind and physical mind belong to the mind. The reason is that the spirit mind is the mind of the spirit self (Sungsang) and the physical mind is the mind of the physical self (Hyungsang), and, therefore, the relationship between the spirit mind and the physical mind is the same as the relationship between the spirit self and the physical self. Next, let us consider the functions of the spirit mind and the physical mind.

The function of the spirit mind is to guide us in pursuit of a life of truth, goodness, beauty, and love, namely, a life of value. Love is the origin of life and at the same time the foundation for truth, goodness, and beauty. Therefore, a life of truth, goodness and beauty, centered on love is a life of value. A life of value includes the aspect of pursuing one’s own joy by seeking values for oneself; nevertheless, the more essential aspect of a life of value is the effort to please others through realizing values. Therefore, a life of value is a life of love, of living for the sake of others, namely, a life of love in which one lives for the sake of the family, tribe, nation, humankind, and ultimately for God. In contrast, the function of the physical mind is to guide us in pursuit of a life of food, clothing, shelter, and sex, namely, a material life. Material life is a life centered on the individual.

In the original order of things, the spirit mind and the physical mind exist in the relationship of subject and object, since the spirit self is subject and the physical self is object. Accordingly, the physical mind should be subservient to the spirit mind. The union of the spirit mind and the physical mind constitutes the “human mind.” The human mind in which the spirit mind functions as subject and the physical mind as object is called the “original mind.” That the physical mind obeys the spirit mind means that a life of values (namely, a life of pursuing and realizing values) should be given priority and a material life (a life of pursuing material satisfaction) secondary. This means that a life of truth, goodness, beauty, and love is the ultimate purpose, or goal, and a life of food, clothing, shelter, and sex serves as the means to achieving that goal. Once the physical mind obeys well the spirit mind and fulfills its proper function, the spirit self and the physical self can resonate well with each other. This is the state in which one’s human character is perfected. This is the way in which human beings should originally have lived.

Due to the human fall, however, human beings failed to actualize the original relationship between the spirit mind and the physical mind. As a result, the physical mind, which should have functioned in a subservient position, came instead to stand in the subject position; and the spirit mind, which should have been in the subject position, came to stand in an object position. As a result, a life of food, clothing, shelter, and sex became people’s primary objective, whereas a life of truth, goodness, beauty, and love became no more than a means to that end. Love for others and deeds of truth, goodness, and beauty came to be carried out for such purposes as one’s gaining wealth and obtaining position. This does not mean that there are no values in the fallen world: values do exist there, but in many cases these values have meaning only in the context of a self-centered, material life. The reason for this is that the physical mind has become the subject, and the spirit mind has become the object.

Thus, in the actual life of human beings the original relationship between the spirit mind and the physical mind has been reversed. Therefore, in order to recover the original state of human life, this relationship must be returned to its original state. This is the reason why human beings should necessarily lead a life of spiritual discipline, and why, throughout history, the various religions of the world have taught and encouraged people to win victory in their battle against their own selves.

Confucius, for instance, spoke of a “return to the observance of the rites through overcoming the self.” Jesus said, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 16:24-25), and “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). In order to achieve a victory over themselves, people have often chosen a monastic way of life, which includes such practices as asceticism, fasting and vigils.

Thus, unity between the spirit mind and the physical mind refers to a way of life in which one places priority on living a life of truth, goodness, and beauty, and makes the life of food, clothing and shelter secondary, through having the physical mind subservient to the spirit mind. However, due to the fall, human beings have come to lead a self-centered, material life in which their physical mind dominates their spirit mind, and it is from this that all the pains, suffering, and unhappiness of human beings have come into being.

The original mind, in which spirit mind and physical mind are united through give and receive action, resembles the inner four position foundation within God’s Sungsang. The primary function of the original mind is to guide us in living a life of love, pursuing the values of truth, goodness, and beauty based on the spirit mind. Thus, the human being can be characterized, fundamentally, as Homo amans, or a loving person. A life of value refers to a true life, a moral and ethical life, and an artistic life. The secondary function of the original mind is to guide us in living a life of food, clothing and shelter, namely a material life, based on the physical mind.

B. A Harmonious Being of Yang and Yin

Yang and yin in the Theory of the Original Human Nature refer to a husband and wife as a yang substantial being and a yin substantial being, respectively. The problems of how a husband and wife should live and what a family should be like have been important issues since ancient times. Animals, plants, and minerals all exist and multiply through the union between yang and yin. Yet, to regard the union between yang and yin in human beings, namely, the union between husband and wife, simply as a physical union would be equivalent to regarding it simply as a biological union. In advanced nations today, men and women easily get married and easily get divorced; as a result, the sacredness and eternal character of marriage are being lost. This is not the original way for the relationship of husband and wife.

No satisfactory answers have yet been given to such questions as why a man and woman exist or for what purpose they get married. Hence, people many times prefer not to get married at all. To these problems, Unification Thought offers clear solutions.

First, a husband and wife each, originally, represents one of God’s dual characteristics of Yang and Yin; accordingly, their conjugal union signifies the manifestation of God. When a husband and wife love each other horizontally, centering on God, His vertical love dwells there, and life is created through the multiplication of love.

Second, the union of a husband and wife represents the final stage of God’s creation of the universe; therefore, the unity of husband and wife signifies the completion of the creation of the universe. If Adam and Eve had not fallen away from God, the creation of the universe would have been completed upon the occasion of their perfection. Since Adam and Eve did not perfect themselves, however, the creation of the universe was never completed. For that reason, God has been conducting the dispensation of re-creation. To re-create fallen human beings means to lead them to become perfected individuals, and further to become perfected husband and wife couples. Human beings were created to be the rulers of all things, but neither a man alone nor a woman alone can become a ruler. Only by being perfected as a couple, that is, as a husband and wife, can they become the rulers of all things. Only then will the creation of the universe be completed.

Third, since a husband and wife each, originally, represents one half of humankind, their union signifies the unity of humankind. To explain further, the husband represents all the men of humankind, and the wife represents all the women of humankind. The population of the world today is over six billion people. Therefore, a husband and wife each possesses the value of representing over three billion people.

Fourth, a husband and wife each, originally, represents one half of the family; therefore, their union signifies the perfection of the family. The husband represents all the men and the wife represents all the women of the family.

From the above perspective, that a husband and wife love each other signifies the manifestation of God in their family, the completion of the universe, the unity of humankind, and the perfection of the family. We can see that the union of a husband and wife is, indeed, a sacred and precious union.¹

The harmony of a husband and wife is accomplished through the formation of the family four position foundation. The formation of the family four position foundation refers to the completion of the second blessing given to human beings by God when He created them. This is achieved when a husband and wife, who have perfected their personalities, centering on God, establish a correlative standard and engage in give and receive action of love and beauty. The unity of the husband and wife resembles the harmony of subject and object within the Original Image; in other words, it resembles the identity-maintaining four position foundation within the Original Image, while the multiplication of children by a husband and wife resembles God’s creation of human beings; in other words, it resembles the developmental four position foundation within the Original Image. Through these accomplishments, a husband and wife realize harmony, while living in accordance with their original mind.

When one lives fully in accordance with one’s original mind one resembles the inner four position foundation within the Original Image, and when he or she lives in complete harmony with another person they come to resemble the outer four position foundation within the Original Image. When a man and woman grow and mature as persons of character, resembling the Original Image, and then marry and perform a give and receive action of love, centering on the purpose of creation, God’s love dwells in them. Thus, a family is the place where the horizontal love of a husband and wife and the vertical love of God are completely united. When such families, which are based on God’s love, converge to form a society, then a nation, and then a world, this will be the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, a world wherein God’s ideal of creation has been fulfilled.

The world in which God’s ideal of creation is realized is a world of love that has been realized through the original order. Here, let me explain about order and love. A human being is a miniature of the universe, but so too, is the family. More specifically, a human being is a miniature of the universe seen from the viewpoint of constituent elements; in other words, a human being is the integration of all the elements of the universe. On the other hand, a family is a miniature of the universe, seen from the viewpoint of order.

To say that the family is a miniature of the universe in terms of order means to say that just as there is vertical and horizontal order in the universe, so too there is vertical and horizontal order in a family, only in a more compact form. Vertical order in a family refers to the orderly positions of grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, and so on, and horizontal order in a family refers to the orderly positions of husband and wife, and brothers and sisters. Love is realized through such order. Thus, there is a vertical love and a horizontal love. Vertical love refers to the downward flow of love from parents toward children, and the upward love from children toward their parents. Horizontal love refers to the love between husband and wife, and the love between brothers and sisters.

Based on these forms of love, family ethics, which is the foundation for both vertical value and horizontal value, can be realized. Vertical value refers to the affection of parents toward their children, and the filial piety of children toward their parents. Horizontal value refers to the conjugal harmony between husband and wife, and friendship among brothers and sisters. Thus, ethics is the norm of behavior that is to be observed by each member of the family. (The details will be discussed later in the Theory of Ethics.) By extending family ethics to a society, an enterprise, or a school, social ethics, business ethics, and school ethics can, in turn, be established. Love for one’s neighbors, love for one’s nation, love for one’s enemy, the conservation movement, and so on, all will be based on family ethics.

In sum, if we were to describe an original human being in one word, it would be that of a person of love (Homo amans). Due to the fall, however, Adam and Eve failed to perfect their personalities. Hence, they could not become the husband and wife that they should originally have become. They could not become united, centering on God’s love, and so they lost God. Thus, until today, the creation of the universe has remained unfinished.

Today, family problems and social problems abound everywhere. The cause of all of these problems is due to the fact that husband and wife do not have a proper relationship. This is why families break down, societies are in disarray, nations become disorderly, and the world is chaotic. Therefore, for husband and wife to harmonize and unite through conjugal love is an indispensable prerequisite for world unity. Stated succinctly, the harmonious union of husband and wife is a key to solving social and world problems.

C. A Being of Individuality

In creating the universe, God first envisioned the image of a perfected human being, and then, with that image as the standard, He created all things as substantial objects. Accordingly, all things are individual beings that symbolically resemble the Original Image of God, the causal being, while human beings are individual beings that directly resemble the Original Image. An individual being refers to an individual truth being that resembles the individual image in the Original Image.

An individual truth being refers to an individual being that has the universal image and the individual image. When we emphasize the individuality of the individual truth being, we call it a “being of individuality.” The individual image of a human being is, unlike that in the case of animals and plants, peculiar to each individual person. That is the reason why the faces and characteristics of human beings are clearly distinguishable from one another. Thus, in the case of animals and plants, the individual image differs according to each species, while in the case of human beings, the individual image differs according to each individual person.

God endowed each human being with such a particular individual image so that He might obtain, from him or her, a unique, stimulating joy. Therefore, a human being is a being of supreme value who gives supreme joy to God through his or her unique individuality. This individual image is another aspect of the original human nature, and it is manifested as unique human characteristics in three aspects as follows.

The first manifestation of human individuality is the uniqueness in a person’s appearance; though there are over six billion people in the world, no two individuals have exactly the same face. The second manifestation is in behavior, which is different from person to person. If we regard appearance as the unique characteristic feature of one’s Hyungsang, then one’s behavior can be regarded as the unique characteristic feature of one’s Sungsang, because behavior is a direct manifestation of the mind. The third manifestation is creative activity. Not only artistic creation, but any activity in which one’s creativity is expressed is included in the concept of creation. This creative expression will differ from person to person. In this sense, if one lives one day to its fullest, expressing his or her creativity in everything they do, the footprints of that day become a work of art. Furthermore, the footprints of one’s entire life course become a life work of art.

Hence, God feels pleased when looking at the face, behavior, and creative activity of each human being with original human nature. That God becomes pleased by looking at each human being means that he or she gives unique beauty to God through his or her appearance, behavior, and creative activity. That is the beauty of a person’s individuality, which includes the beauty of appearance, the beauty of behavior, and the beauty of creative activity.

When parents look at their children, they perceive each child with his or her character as so beautiful and lovely, since children are the manife-station of their parents. In the same way, when God looks at human beings, He feels that the appearance, behavior, and creative activity of each human being is so beautiful and lovely, and He becomes pleased. Human indi-viduality originates from God, namely, it is God-given; therefore, it is very precious. This is why we should pay people the highest regard, and offer our utmost respect to their individuality.

Because of the human fall human individualities have largely been crushed or ignored, and human rights trampled upon, until today. This has been especially true in dictatorial societies. The paramount example of this is society under Communist rule. The reason for this is that Communism denigrates human individuality, regarding it as no more than a product of the environment-a viewpoint derived from material-ism. In contrast, humanism put emphasis on the importance of human individuality. However, humanism had no philosophical answer as to why human individuality must be respected; therefore, humanism could not contend with Communism, which is an influential philosophy.

In this respect, Unification Thought offers a clear and much-needed theological and philosophical foundation. Viewed from the perspective of Unification Thought, human individuality is neither something accidental nor a product of the environment; rather, it is derived from the Individual Image of God. In other words, it is something that comes from God and, therefore, is very precious.

II. A Being with Divine Character

The human being resembles the Divine Character of God. God’s Divine Character includes omniscience, omnipotence, heart (love), omnipresence, life, truth, goodness, beauty, righteousness, logos, creativity, and so on. Among these, the three most representative characters will be addressed here, as they are especially important for the solution of actual problems. These characters are heart, logos and creativity. Thus, the human being who resembles these three Divine Characters is a being of heart, logos, and creativity. These will be explained in the following section.

A. A Being of Heart

As explained in the Theory of the Original Image, Heart (Shimjung) is the “emotional impulse to seek joy through love.” It is the “source of love,” the “emotional impulse that can not but love,” and the core of the Original Image. Thus, Heart is the core of Sungsang, and therefore the core of God’s personality. Jesus said, “You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:18). In other words, Jesus taught that human beings should reflect God’s personality centered on God’s Heart.

In human beings as well, heart is the core of the personality. Accordingly, the perfection of one’s personality becomes possible only when one experiences the Heart of God. A person who has perfected his or her character by experiencing the Heart of God is, indeed, a being of heart.

When people continuously experience God’s Heart, they eventually come to inherit God’s Heart completely. Such people naturally come to feel like loving everyone and everything. Not to do so would cause their heart to feel a great deal of pain. Fallen people find it difficult to love others, but once they become one with God’s Heart, their life as a whole is transformed into one of love. Also, if love is present, those who have many possessions can not but want to share with those who have less. This is because love is not self-centered. Consequently, the gap between the haves and have-nots, between the rich and the poor, namely, exploitation in the world, will naturally disappear. Such a phenomenon is manifested due to the equalizing function of love. That human beings are beings of heart means that they live a life of love. Therefore, one can conclude that the human being is Homo amans, a loving person, or a person of love.

Heart is the core of the human personality. Therefore, the fact that human beings are beings of heart means that they are beings of personality. Such a person’s spirit mind and physical mind engage in harmonious give and receive action centering on heart, and their faculties of intellect, emotion, and will are all equally developed in a balanced way, centering on heart.

In a fallen person, the functioning of the spirit mind is often very weak and is dominated by the functioning of the physical mind. Also, in many cases a person may have a well-developed faculty of reason (intellectual ability) but lack the emotional maturity, or sufficient will power to do what is good or right. On the other hand, once a person is able to inherit God’s Heart and become a being of heart, then that person’s intellect, emotion, and will can develop in a well-balanced manner, and their spirit mind will have the power to take dominion over their physical mind, whereby they can properly engage in harmonious give and receive action.

Furthermore, as the core of Sungsang, heart is the motivating force that stimulates or empowers the faculties of intellect, emotion, and will to seek the values of truth, beauty, and goodness, respectively. Intellect is the faculty to cognize, and it pursues the value of truth; emotion is the faculty to feel joy, anger, sorrow, happiness, and so forth, and it pursues the value of beauty; and will is the faculty to determine one’s mind, and it pursues the value of goodness. Originally, all three faculties should function with heart as their primary motivation. When one pursues truth through intellectual activity, the result will be the knowledge of science, philosophy, and so on. When one pursues beauty through emotional activity, the result will be art. When one pursues goodness through volitional activity, the result will be morality, ethics, and so on.

Politics, economics, law, media, sports, etc. are also the results of intellectual, emotional, and volitional activities. Accordingly, heart becomes the driving force behind all cultural activities based on intellect, emotion and will. Particularly, it becomes the driving force of artistic activities. The totality of these intellectual, emotional, and volitional activities is culture. In the original world, persons of heart (persons of love) play the main role in cultural activities. This is illustrated in fig. 3.1.

In this way, heart is the driving force behind all cultural activities. Therefore, the culture which human beings should originally have actualized would be a culture of heart. Heart is the essence of what a true culture should be. The culture of heart, which God originally intended to realize through Adam, would have been the “Adam culture.” Due to Adam’s fall, however, a culture of heart was not realized; instead, until today cultures based on self-centeredness, or cultures in which the intellect, emotion, and will are separated from one another, have been established.

For example, in economic activities, in many cases, making money has, until today, been considered as the supreme purpose. In the original world, however, if someone were to live in isolated affluence while others lived in poverty, that person could never live comfortably, but would feel stricken by pain in his or her heart. Thus, those who earned a great deal of money would naturally want to share it with their neighbors or with society. In other words, people would feel like actualizing God’s love through their economic activities. Not only in the economy, but also in other fields, people would want to actualize God’s love. Thus, the culture of heart, or culture of love, will certainly be established, wherein intellectual, emotional and volitional activities will be united, centering on love. Hence, a culture of love is a unified culture.

To date, humankind has tried in many different ways to actualize the true culture, but all attempts ended in failure. The reality that, in human history various cultures have aisen and declined, illustrates this fact. The reason for this is that people did not understand what a true culture is like. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China is one example. The leaders of that revolution attempted to build a culture based on labor, in accordance with the materialist dialectic, but their efforts resulted only in the oppression of human nature and the delay of modernization. The true culture is a culture centered on heart. The New Cultural Revolution advocated by Rev. Sun Myung Moon aims precisely at the establishment of the culture of heart.

At this point, it may be opportune to elaborate on the concepts of culture and civilization. The sum total of the results of intellectual, emotional, and volitional activities, when considered from their material or external aspects, is called, “civilization”; and when those results are considered from their spiritual or internal aspects (especially in religion, art, and so on), they are called “culture.” Since it is difficult to clearly distinguish the spiritual aspect from the material, however, these two terms are generally used with the same meaning. Therefore, in Unification Thought as well, culture and civilization are often used interchangeably.

B. A Being of Logos

As explained in the Theory of the Original Image, within the Original Image, Logos refers to a product or a new being appearing through inner give and receive action, centering on the purpose of creation. Here, the purpose of creation is based on Heart; therefore, Logos is based on Heart.

The universe was created through Logos and performs its movements in accordance with Logos; in other words, the universe is supported by Logos. Human beings also were created through Logos, and their lives should be in complete accordance with Logos. Thus, the human being is a being of logos.

Logos came into being within the Sungsang of the Original Image through the give and receive action between the Inner Sungsang and Inner Hyungsang, centered on purpose. Since “reason” plays a particularly important role in the Inner Sungsang, and “law” plays an equally important role in the Inner Hyungsang, Logos is referred to as “reason-law,” the unity of reason and law. Thus, a human being, as a being of logos, is a being of reason-law. Since the characteristic feature of reason is freedom and the characteristic feature of law is necessity, a being of logos refers to a being in which freedom and necessity are united. This means that human beings are both normative beings, living according to laws (or norms), and rational beings, behaving according to their free will.

It is commonly held today that since human beings are free, they should not be restricted by any laws or norms. True freedom, however, consists in obeying certain laws-or, more precisely-in willingly observing certain laws. People may think that “freedom” allows them to ignore laws, but this becomes license, rather than freedom, and results in nothing but chaos and destruction. For example, a train, as long as it remains on its tracks, can run rapidly or move slowly, go forward or move backward. If, however, it leaves the tracks, it will not move at all. In other words, the train has freedom only insofar as it remains on the tracks. If it derails, it will destroy itself and may cause damage to people and property.

In like manner, people can enjoy genuine freedom as long as they live in accordance with certain (moral and ethical) norms. Confucius said in The Analects, “At seventy I followed my heart’s desire without over-stepping the line.”² He meant that at the age of seventy he was able to become a perfected being of logos, in which free will and law are united.

Since human beings are beings of logos, their original nature is to try and follow the law. The law that they should follow is the same law that operates throughout the entire universe; specifically, it is the law of give and receive action. When Logos was formed in the Original Image, it was motivated by Heart, which is the root of love. Therefore, originally, the law of the universe is motivated by Heart, and the purpose of the law is the actualization of love.

As mentioned in Ontology, a family is a miniaturization of the orderly system of the cosmos. Therefore, just as the universe exhibits vertical and horizontal order, so too, the family is, likewise, endowed with vertical and horizontal order. The norms (values) that correspond to these two dimensions of order are the vertical norm and the horizontal norm. The vertical norm in the family is the norm for the relationship between parents and children. The horizontal norm in the family is the norm for the relationships between brothers and sisters, and between husband and wife. Furthermore, in human beings there is a norm for an individual to observe, namely, an individual norm, which is the norm prerequisite to perfecting the personality of each person. The vertical norm, horizontal norm, and individual norm will be explained in detail later in Axiology and Ethics.

The norms of the family, as mentioned above, can be extended directly to the society and nation. Ultimately, the norms of the family become the foundation of the norms to be observed on all the levels of the society and nation. Because of the human fall, however, people failed to become beings of logos. As a result, the breakdown of the family is becoming increasingly noticeable today, and societies and nations are in a chaotic situation. When people restore their original nature as beings of logos, then families, societies and nations will be able to return to their original, orderly status.

C. A Being of Creativity

God created the universe by virtue of His creativity, namely, His ability to create. He then endowed human beings with creativity through which they have been developing science and technology. What, then, is the essential nature of this creativity?

God’s creativity is the ability to create, based on Heart. As was made clear in the Theory of the Original Image, at the time of creation a two-stage give and receive action takes place within the Original Image. The first stage is the inner give and receive action and the second stage is the outer give and receive action. In the first, Logos is formed through the inner give and receive action between Inner Sungsang and Inner Hyungsang centering on the purpose which is established by Heart. In the second, all things are created through the give and receive action between the Logos and the Original Hyungsang centering on the same purpose. Through this two-stage give and receive action, the two-stage developmental four position foundations are formed. Therefore, we can say that God’s creativity is the ability to form these two-stage developmental four position foundations, namely, the inner developmental four position foundation and the outer developmental four position foundation.

In human creative activities, likewise, we first establish a purpose and then make a design or a plan with which to implement that purpose. In other words, an inner give and receive action is first carried out. Then, on the basis of that design or plan, we produce things through carrying out an outer give and receive action. God endowed human beings with creativity in order to empower them to have dominion over the creation with love, centered on heart. Dominion refers to dealing with or controlling material objects (all things in nature, and manufactured properties) and human object partners. The notion of dominion incorporates the meaning of managing, processing, preserving, and so on. Hence, various kinds of activities involving matter, such as primary, secondary, and tertiary industries, as well as the activities to govern society, including politics, art, and science, fall under the activities of having dominion over creation. It was the original nature of dominion that people carry out such varied activities of dominion with God’s love. If, from the beginning human beings had completely inherited God’s creativity, they would have been carrying out all of these activities centering on God’s love.

God created human beings and said to them “Have dominion over creation” (Gen. 1:28). In order for human beings to have dominion over the creation in accordance with God’s Words, however, human beings should have responsibly acquired the qualification to be the lord of creation. God, the Greatest Lord, has creativity as the qualification to have dominion over human beings; therefore, human beings were to have been given God’s creativity in order to have dominion over creation. Hence, God intended to endow human beings with His creativity on the condition that they would have fulfilled their portion of responsibility for their perfection throughout their growth period. Thus, human beings could have received God’s creativity and the qualification to have dominion over creation once they had perfected themselves “by accomplishing their own portion of responsibility until the end of their growing period” (DP , 78).

In its original meaning, dominion may be exercised over something only by the person who made that thing; thus, we can not, by our own will, exercise dominion over something made by someone else. Therefore, human beings can not, by their own will, exercise dominion over the creation, since human beings were created after all things had been created by God. However, human beings were created as God’s children, and therefore, they should be allowed to inherit their parent’s property and rights once they have grown up. Accordingly, God desired that Adam and Eve establish a condition to inherit His dominion: God directed them to grow, while accomplishing their portion of responsibility. The condition set for them was that they should perfect themselves through fulfilling their responsibility, whereby the condition would be regarded as equivalent to their having participated in God’s creation of the universe.

Human beings are the integration of all things, a microcosm: the value of one human being is equivalent to that of the entire universe. Therefore, if human beings had perfected themselves, it would have been regarded as having the same value as if they themselves had created the universe. That is why God directed Adam and Eve to fulfill their portion of respon-sibility. In sum, God bade them fulfill their portion of responsibility in order for them to establish the condition that they had participated in God’s creation. For this purpose, relevant to the process of growth of Adam and Eve, God gave them the commandment not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which meant they were not to engage in sexual love before the proper time (DP , 60). After God gave them this commandment, He did not interfere with their behavior. The reason for this is because, if God had interfered, then God Himself would have ignored the human portion of responsibility, which would have resulted in the contradiction that He would be allowing an unqualified Adam and Eve to exercise dominion over creation. As it happened, Adam and Eve did fail to comply with God’s commandment, and humankind ever since has been unable to obtain the qualification necessary to exercise dominion over all things.

As a result, human beings have become unable to inherit God’s creativity and, instead, have come to engage in creative activities based on their self-centered reason. Thus, in the case of creative activity on the individual level, people have come to place priority on personal interests; a family places priority on its own family interests; on the national level, each nation places priority on its own national interests, etc. Thus, for the most part, creative activities have become self-centered. Moreover, people have also become quite unconcerned about what happens to the environment or to other people. This has resulted in diverse problems, such as the destruction of nature, pollution, the development of weapons of mass destruction, and so on.

In order to solve these problems, people must become able to acquire the original creativity, which is centered on heart. That heart becomes the center of creativity means that creative activities should be made with love as their motivation, and on the basis of proper values. Therefore, scientists must first be persons of values, or persons of character, before being scientists. In other words, ethics must become the basis of natural science.

In this modern age, however, scientists have limited themselves to the pursuit of objective facts, disregarding values of any kind. The result is the chaotic situation we see today. To solve this problem, Rev. Sun Myung Moon sponsored the International Conferences on the Unity of the Sciences (ICUS) and encouraged scientists to deal with values, so that they might restore true creativity. In other words, he encouraged scientists to manifest true creativity under the ethic which requires us “to love nature, to reconsider the dignity of human beings, to seek love among all humankind, and to search for God as the origin of love.” ³

III. A Being with Position

Resembling the relationship of subject and object in the Original Image, human beings exist in the positions of subject and object. When people are born, they start out as children in the position of object to their parents. After growing, they become parents themselves and stand in the position of subject to their children. In social life, too, people start out from a lower position and gradually rise to a higher position. Thus, human beings stand first in the object position, and then gradually grow to stand in the subject position.

A. Object Position

The object position is the position from which to receive the dominion of the subject figure, and at the same time it has its significance in being the position from which to return joy to the subject figure. The human being was created as the object partner of joy before God. Accordingly, the primary significance of the life of a human being, who is in the object position to God, is to please God.

Human beings stand first in the position of an object before God; therefore, they come to stand in the object position to those who stand in a position representing God. Those who stand in a position representing God are, for example, the president or king (to the people), parents (to their children), teachers (to their students), superiors (to their subordinates), the whole (to the individual), and so on. In other words, just as human beings are the object partners to God, so too the people are the object partners to their president or king, children are the object partners to their parents, students are the object partners to their teachers, subordinates are the object partners to their superiors, and individuals are the object partners to the whole.

A human being lives engaged in relationships with various subject figures. Since a person in the object position is to receive the dominion of his or her subject figure, a certain mental attitude, an “object consciousness” toward the subject figure is necessary. Object consciousness toward God is a heart of attendance and loyalty. Object consciousness toward the sovereign or chief of state is loyalty. Children’s object consciousness toward their parents is filial piety. Students’ object consciousness toward their teachers is a respectful heart and obedient mind. Subordinates’ object consciousness toward their superiors is obedience. The object consciousness of an individual to the whole is having a mind of service. What these various types of object consciousness have in common is a heart of meekness and humility and an attitude of living for the sake of others.

In the fallen world, many dictators have appeared throughout history. They took advantage of people’s object consciousness by behaving as though they were the true subject figures before the people, and thus they came to receive people’s respect and support. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Ze- dong and Nicolae Ceausescu were major examples of this type of person. Yet, although false subject figures may be welcomed and prosper for a certain time, in the end they inevitably lose the support of the people. This is a fact proven by history.

Since human beings were created as the children of God, they have in the depth of their hearts, consciously or unconsciously, the object consciousness of attending, being loyal to, and pleasing God. Such object consciousness can lead them even to the point of sacrificing their lives for God’s will. The spirit of martyrdom possessed by many religious people is a prime example. There is often the case in which some followers are even willing to offer their lives for the sake of their leader. This is a case in which the object consciousness is expressed to the extreme.

Unfortunately, people are often mistaken about who their true subject figure is; thus, they have often been deceived by false subject figures such as dictators, and have sometimes followed them blindly, bringing disastrous social results. Therefore, for people to meet a true subject figure is a very difficult, but very important, matter.

Object consciousness is an essential element in ethics. In today’s society, however, object consciousness has almost become paralysed, and there is a growing tendency for people to ignore the authority of subject figures. As a result, the order of subject and object is neglected, throwing society into confusion. Therefore, in establishing an ethical society, what needs to be done first, and foremost, is a reform of consciousness in order to establish true object consciousness.

B. Subject Position

The subject position refers to the position of the subject figure in exercising dominion over the object. Originally, as human beings grew and became perfected, they were to come naturally to stand in the position of subject, or the “subject position,” from which they were to have dominion over all things. However, the subject position referred to here is the position of subject in the various relationships among human beings. As already stated, examples of a subject figure in human life are as follows: In a family, parents are in the subject position to their children; in schools, teachers are in the subject position to students; in business, executives are in the subject position to subordinates; in a nation, the government is the subject to its people; furthermore, the whole is the subject to the individual. In exercising appropriate dominion over the object, it is necessary for the subject to have a certain mental attitude. The mental posture required of the subject toward the object is “subject consciousness.”

First, the subject figure must have a genuine concern for an object partner at all times. Human alienation, which is a serious problem today, results from the fact that the subject figure is not sincerely concerned for every aspect of life of their object partner. A lack of concern means that the subject figure does not assume responsibility for their object partner. When that happens, the object partner can easily come to distrust and disobey the subject figure. Therefore, on the part of the subject figure, there can be no excuse for neglecting an object partner.

Second, the subject figure must love the object partner. Traditionally, ruling over the object partner, or giving orders to him or her may have been considered the way of showing subject consciousness, but in reality that is not the proper way. True dominion over an object partner is to actively love him or her. Love is the source of happiness, ideals, joy, and life. Therefore, when a subject figure loves an object partner, he or she becomes loyal and obedient to the subject. Therefore, just as God loves humankind, the object partners of God, so too must every subject figure love his or her object partners.

Third, a subject figure must exercise proper authority. The subject figure should love the object partner, but if a leader is always lenient when dealing with subordinates, authority can not easily be established. If the leader does not exercise authority, the subordinate will lose his or her seriousness and willingness to work. Therefore, it is necessary for the subject figure to maintain proper authority while loving the object partner. This means that love has not only a warm aspect, like spring, but also a strict aspect, like winter. Such a strict love, integrated with authority, enhances the trust, the sense of belonging, and the heart of obedience of the object partner toward the subject figure, and their desire to work. “Strict love with authority” is, in other words, an “authority with love.”

Thus, the subject figure needs a certain authority, and yet it is not good for him or her to have an excessive consciousness of such authority. Love can not dwell in such authority. If authority is exercised too strongly, the subordinate will be intimidated and thus become unable to exhibit creativity. True authority makes those in the subordinate position feel thankful, even when they might be reprimanded by their superiors. This kind of authority is true authority, namely, an authority with love.

This is certainly true of God. God is a being of love, while at the same time, a being of authority. For example, we see in the Bible the classic case that when Abraham failed in his attempt to offer a heifer, a ram and a she-goat, a dove and a pigeon, God ordered him to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. But when Abraham, in obedience to God’s order, was about to make the offering of Isaac, God stopped him and said, “Now I know that you fear God” (Gen. 22:12). This has the same meaning as, “since you ignored my authority, I asked you to offer your son as a sacrifice, in order to let you acknowledge it.” In this way, God never wishes us to look upon Him easily as the God of love, or to call on Him without good reason. Rather, He wishes us to fear Him, as He is the God of authority.

As a final point, let us consider the subject position of human beings toward all things. As mentioned before, once human beings perfect themselves and inherit God’s Heart, they will exercise dominion over all things by expressing their creativity based on heart. In other words, with God’s love they come to have dominion over all things. When that happens, human beings will stand in the subject position over all things, in a true sense. This is in sharp contrast with the Marxist assertion that, when the means of production are nationalized and a planned economy is put into practice, then “[man] becomes the real, conscious lord of Nature.” ⁴

According to Marxism, human beings come to stand in the subject position of dominion over all things by implementing a planned economy. In other words, human beings come to stand in the position of dominion over all things through reforming the economy, not by means of love. In the past few decades, however, in the former Soviet Union, in China, and in other Communist countries, the economies collapsed due to unsuccessful economic policies and the resulting industrial stagnation. This tells us that Communism totally failed in its attempt to achieve dominion over all things. This highlights the limitation of the Marxist materialistic view of human nature; in other words, with such a material-istic view, people can not, in the true sense, stand in the subject position toward the creation.

C. “Connected Being Consciousness” and Democracy

Every person exists as a connected being in social life; so, everyone is both subject and object at the same time. In other words, every person is a being of both subject and object positions, or a being with a dual position. This fact can be summed up by the phrase, every person is in a “connected being position.” The connected being position possesses dual purposes, namely the purpose for the whole and the purpose for the individual. For example, in a working place, a person is in the subject position to his or her subordinates while, at the same time, in the object position to his or her superiors. Though someone may be in the highest possible position, that person still is in the object position to God. Therefore, in a strict sense, everyone is always a connected being. The mental attitude that a connected being should take is that of possessing both object consciousness and subject consciousness: this is called “connected being consciousness.”

As mentioned earlier, every person first stands in an object position, and then stands in a subject position. Therefore, in the connected being consciousness, priority should be given to one’s object consciousness. In other words, subject consciousness should be established only on the basis of object consciousness. This is what was originally intended. In fallen persons, however, when one stands in a subject position, he or she easily forgets the importance of object consciousness and, instead, gives priority solely to subject consciousness. Dictators are typical examples of this tendency. They consider themselves supreme, and then seek to do everything according to their own will. In contrast, in the original society, leaders would be very conscious that they are always in an object position before God-even if they might be occupying the highest social position-and so would never lose their humble attitude.

Next, let us give some consideration to the connected being con-sciousness in a democracy. The fundamental principles of democracy are majority rule and the equality of rights. These principles are based on natural rights, as proposed by John Locke (1632-1704). Contrary to Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), whose view was that the natural state of human beings is “the war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes), Locke argued that, since natural law exists in the natural state, people are free and equal by nature. He held that in the natural state people have natural rights, i.e., the power to preserve one’s life, liberty and estate.⁵

The concept of natural law, upon which the concept of natural rights is established, originated from the Stoics in the ancient Greek period. One’s natural rights, under natural law, became the model for the establishment of the principles of modern democracy. Needless to say, natural rights here refers to those of the individual.

The theory of the equality of rights was originally derived from the Christian concept of “equality before God.” In other words, the equality of the rights of people is given by God, not by the state. The theory of the equality of rights is also the foundation upon which modern democracy was established. Equality before God refers to the “equality of all people as objects before God, the Subject.” Therefore, the theory of the equality of all people was originally based on object consciousness and, therefore, a consciousness of order.

Thus, democracy originally arose based on object consciousness. Yet, as it developed, the consciousness of God gradually faded in peoples’ minds and, with an excessive emphasis on individual rights, object consciousness gradually disappeared. Today, people are mostly interested in subject consciousness alone. As a result, human relations have generally developed among those with a strong sense of subject consciousness; in other words, relationships between subject and subject. This is an age in which any sense of order has largely been lost. A relationship between subject and subject is essentially that of mutual repulsion.

For a time, after its beginning, democracy achieved a comparatively sound development. The reason for this is that people maintained an object consciousness before God, in virtue of their Christian spirit. As time passed, however, Christianity gradually became more secularized, influenced by scientific developments and materialistic ideas, and lost its ability to guide the human spirit. In addition, along with the rapid industrialization of society, value perspectives were gradually shaken.

Along with these changes in the social environment, the foundation for the equality of rights was transformed from that of “equality before God” into that of “equality before the law.” As a result, the repulsive action between subject and subject, which has its seeds in democracy, surfaced, and various kinds of social confusion appeared. As stated above, the relationship between subject and subject is that of conflict. An example, from the natural world, is the repulsive action between positive electrical charges.

Therefore, equality of rights inevitably gives rise to conflicts, unless there is a buffering agent, like Christian love. Such disharmonies as conflicts, clashes, wars, and hatred occur in all parts of the world today. These are all manifestations of the repulsive action between subject and subject.

In other words, democracy, which claims an equality of rights, was imbued with elements of conflict from its very beginning. Consequently, the repulsive action was destined to surface eventually. Today, this latent conflict has fully surfaced: Murder, burglary, arson, terrorism, destruction, narcotics, injustice, corruption, deterioration of sexual morality, increase in divorce, collapse of the family, the AIDS epidemic, and sexual crimes are spreading to every democratic society. These are all phenomena arising from the collapse of values caused by the repulsive actions within democracy.

The key to solving this problem of the collapse of values in democratic societies lies in reviving a sense of object consciousness. In order to do so, we need to bring a sense of God, the true subject of humankind, back into peoples’ daily experience. We must also return to the original spirit with which modern democracy started, namely, the idea that all people are equal before God. To achieve these objectives, the first and most important step is to provide reasonable proof for the existence of God, so that people in our contemporary age can believe in and embrace Him.

A. Søren Kierkegaard (1813-55)

1. Kierkegaard’s Analysis of Human Existence

Søren Kierkegaard asked himself the question, “What is the human being?” His answer was, “A human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation that relates itself to itself.” ⁶ Then, who is it that establishes such a relation? It must be a third party, a reality other than one’s own self, and that reality is none other than God Himself. Therefore, Kierkegaard concluded, the original self is the self that stands before God.

Yet, human beings, who should thus live in a relationship with God, have become separated from God. Kierkegaard explained the nature of that separation, in his analysis of Genesis outlined in his book, The Concept of Dread, as follows: In the beginning, Adam was in a state of peace and comfort, but at the same time, he was in a state of dread (Angst). When God told Adam, “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat” (Gen. 2:17), the possibility of freedom was awakened within Adam. This possibility of freedom caused Adam an extreme sense of dread. As Adam looked into the abyss of freedom, he became dizzy and clung to his own self. That was the precise moment when the original sin first came into being.

As a result, a division arose in the “relation that relates itself to itself,” and human beings fell into despair (Verzweifelung). People tried to remove this despair, regarding it as something that has come from the outside, but they can never remove it with such an understanding. Only through faith, by rediscovering their relationship to God, can they restore their original relationship to themselves, and escape from despair.

Kierkegaard criticized the public for its irresponsibility and lack of conscience, saying, “A public is everything and nothing, the most dangerous of all powers and the most insignificant.”⁷ He asserted that, in order for people to actualize their true human nature, they must depart from the world of the public and stand before God all by themselves-each as an individual. He explained the stages through which people return to their original selves in terms of three stages of existence.

The first stage is the stage of “aesthetic existence.” Persons in this stage simply follow their sensual desires exactly as they are, and live just as they please. The purpose of this kind of life is pleasure. The position of someone in the stage of aesthetic existence is that of a seducer, a pursuer of erotic love. But since the moment of pleasure is not something that can be maintained continuously, persons in the aesthetic stage are trapped by fatigue and dread. They become frustrated and fall into despair-but, through their making a decision they proceed to the next stage.

The second stage is that of “ethical existence.” Persons in this stage seek to live according to their conscience, with good and evil as their standard of judgment. They seek to live as good citizens with a sense of responsibility and duty. Yet, no matter how hard they may try, they can not live totally in accordance with their conscience. So, they become frustrated and fall into despair. Again, through making a decision they can proceed to the next stage.

The third stage is that of “religious existence.” Here, each person stands alone, with faith in the presence of God; only by doing so can the person become a true existential being. In order to enter this stage, a leap of faith is required. Such a leap is possible if one believes in a paradox that can not be understood with the intellect. It is to believe that which is irrational, such as Abraham’s obedience to God’s commandment to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, or the irrational statement that the eternal God became incarnate in the finite time spectrum and became a man (Jesus). Only by such a leap of faith can people truly recover their relationship to God. Kierkegaard considered

Abraham’s obedience to God’s commandment to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, which seems contrary to any sense of human ethics, as a typical model of the religious life.

This being the case, when individuals who have become true existences centered on God-in other words, who have become their original selves-come to love one another, through the mediation of God, by following Jesus’ words to “love your neighbor as yourself,” only then, said Kierkegaard, through such “works of love,” can a true society be established.

2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Kierkegaard’s View of the Human Being

According to Kierkegaard, as people separated from God, a division arose in the “relation that relates itself to itself,” causing people to fall into despair. From the perspective of Unification Thought, this “relation that relates itself to itself” can be regarded as the relation between one’s mind and body or the relation between one’s spirit mind and physical mind. This means that, as human beings are separated from God, our mind and body have become divided. This implies that the mind and body, in an original being, are united, centering on God. Then, how can one’s mind and body become one? This is possible once the spirit mind and the physical mind restore their proper relationship of subject and object, and perform harmonious give and receive action.

Søren Kierkegaard said that “when someone stands before God as an individual,” that person stands in an absolute relationship to the Absolute Being (or God). This corresponds to the concept of a “being of individuality” referred to in Unification Thought. Yet, Kierkegaard did not explain why this individual can be considered to be absolute. From the Unification Thought perspective, the reason why a human being, as a “being of individuality,” can be considered as absolute is that a human being resembles an Individual Image in God, the Absolute Being. Thus, Kierkegaard’s views of a human being as a “relation that relates itself to itself” and as an “individual” correspond easily to the “united being of mind and body” and the “being of individuality,” respectively, as found in Unification Thought.

Nevertheless, this is not all there is to the original human nature. The most essential aspect of the original human nature is that of heart. Moreover, it would only be a partial understanding to say that a person stands before God alone as an individual, namely as a being of individuality. When man and woman get married and stand before God as husband and wife, they truly become perfect as human beings, namely as a harmonious couple of yang and yin. They are also beings of logos and creativity. Moreover, they are beings with position, endowed with both the nature of a subject and the nature of an object. An “individual” standing before God, as proposed by Kierkegaard, although sincere, is but a solitary and lonely figure.

Why have human beings become separated from God? Unless the cause of this separation is clarified, it will be impossible for one to return to one’s original self, that is, to the person of the original ideal of God. Kierkegaard said that Adam fell into sin through the dread that arose from the possibility of freedom. Can this be true? According to the Divine Principle, neither freedom nor dread was the cause of the human fall. The first human ancestors, Adam and Eve, did not observe God’s Word, but followed the temptation of the Archangel instead, thus misdirecting their love. The force of the non-principled love that arose as a result is what made them fall away from God. As Adam and Eve began to deviate from the right path, in violation of the Word of God, the freedom of their original mind is what gave rise to their dread, the dread of having violated God’s Word. Thus, freedom and dread worked, instead, in the direction of trying to prevent them from deviating. Yet, the power of their non-principled love suppressed this feeling of dread, making them cross the line of the fall. As a result, human beings became separated from God, and dread and despair came into being due to the guilt they experienced as a result of their disobedience to God’s Word, and their separation from the love of God. Accordingly, unless the problem of the fall is correctly solved, it is impossible to fundamentally solve people’s dread and despair.

Kierkegaard’s concept of God’s love is also ambiguous. God’s love arises from Heart, which is the limitless emotional impulse to warmly give everything to His object partners. When God’s love appears on earth, it manifests as various directional loves. In a family, it manifests as the directional, divisional loves of parents’ love for children, husband’s and wife’s mutual love, brothers’ and sisters’ love, and children’s love for parents. When these basic loves are extended or expanded in various ways, they manifest as one’s love for humankind, one’s love for one’s nation, one’s love for one’s neighbors, one’s love for animals, one’s love for nature, and so on. Thus, God’s love is not an ambiguous love, but rather it appears as various concrete and directional expressions of love.

Kierkegaard asserted that in order for us to recover our authentic state we must fight against the falsity of the crowd and return to God. This reflects his own personal path in seeking to encounter God, a path which he walked while enduring persecution and ridicule from his contempo-raries. It was, moreover, his appeal to the religious people of his time to become true persons of faith. His efforts should be deeply appreciated.

At the age of twenty four Kierkegaard fell in love with, Regina Olsen, who was fourteen, and three years later became engaged to her. The next year, however, out of fear that he might plunge her into unhappiness through marriage, he unilaterally broke off the engagement and began looking for a love of a higher dimension than mere romantic love. Because of this, he was criti-cized by his society. From the viewpoint of Unification Thought, we can understand that his desire was to realize a true love between man and woman centered on God, after having perfected his character. It can be said that the original image of the human being pursued by Kierkegaard was basically in accord with Unification Thought in terms of its direction.

B. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

1. Nietzsche’s View of the Human Being

In contrast to the view of Kierkegaard, who held that only by standing before God can people become their original selves, Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that it is only when they free themselves from faith in God that they can become their original selves.

Nietzsche deplored what he saw as the leveling and demeaning of people in the European society of his time, and he attributed that to the Christian view of the human being. Through its preaching of asceticism, Christianity denied life in this world and, instead, placed ultimate human value in the next world. Moreover, it preached that all people are equal before God. For Nietzsche, such views deprived human beings of their vitality, pulled talented human beings down, and tended to equalize everyone.

In response, Nietzsche proclaimed that “God is dead,” and vehemently attacked Christianity. He felt that it was Christian morality which oppressed human life and the physical body, by means of such concepts as “God” and “soul,” and as a result of its negative view of the reality of life, blocked the way toward the development of stronger people. He felt that Christian morality aided only the weak and the suffering, and he called it a “slave morality.” He also rejected the Christian life of love and spirituality, wholeheartedly affirming, on the contrary, one’s instinct and life.

For Nietzsche, life is the force to grow, or the force to develop. He argued that behind every human action there exists a “will to power” (Wille zur Macht), a will which seeks to increase the individual’s strength. In his words, “Where I found the living, there I found will to power; and even in the will of those who serve I found the will to be master.” ⁸ He thus rejected Christianity’s “slave morality” and promulgated instead a “master morality,” which made power itself the standard of all values. Nietzsche described the standard of good and evil as follows:

What is good? Everything that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? Everything that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome…. The weak and the failures shall perish: first principle of our love of man. And they shall even be given every possible assistance. What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and all the weak: Christianity.⁹

The ideal of the human being, according to master morality, is the “superman” (Übermensch). The superman is a being that has realized all human potentiality to the utmost limits, and is the embodiment of the will to power. The possibility of the superman lies in the endurance of any kind of pain in life and in the absolute affirmation of life itself. The absolute affirmation of life comes about through one’s acceptance of the idea of “eternal recurrence,” which Nietzsche expresses as, “Everything goes, everything comes back; eternally rolls the wheel of being.”¹⁰This is the idea that the world repeats itself forever, without any purpose or meaning. The absolute affirmation of life means the endurance of any kind of fate. He said that this becomes possible through “regarding the inevitable as beautiful” and through “loving one’s fate”; thus, he preached the “love of fate” (amor fati).

2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Nietzsche’s View of the Human Being

Nietzsche asserted that Christianity’s extreme emphasis on life after death crippled people’s ability to value their actual everyday life, and so weakened it. His sincere effort in endeavoring to understand the original human nature merits our esteem. His views were an accusation towards, and a warning to, Christianity, which he regarded as having deviated from its original spirit. Nietzsche saw the God of Christianity as a judgmental and otherworldly being, sitting on the high throne of heaven, promising resurrection after death to those who did good, and meting out punishment to those who did evil. What Nietzsche was denouncing, however, was not the teachings of Jesus himself, but rather the teachings of Paul, who had transformed Jesus’ teaching into a teaching that placed too much emphasis on life after death.¹¹

From the perspective of Unification Thought God is not an otherworldly being who denies reality, while situated in a high place somewhere in heaven. God’s purpose of creation is not only the realization of the King-dom of Heaven in the world after death, but, more importantly, the prior realization of the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth. Once the Kingdom of Heaven is established here on earth, those who have experienced life in the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth will subsequently build the Kingdom of Heaven in the spirit world. Jesus’ mission, originally, was the realization of the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth. Therefore, Nietzsche’s assertion is reasonable in that Jesus’ teaching was changed by Paul into a teaching placing too much emphasis on one’s life after death. Nevertheless, it is also true that, since Jesus was crucified, as a result of the chosen people’s disbelief in him, the extent of the salvation that he was able to accomplish was limited to spiritual salvation, which means that people here in the real, day-to-day world of the flesh continue to live under the yoke of Satan, the subject of evil. Therefore, it was a serious misjudgment for Nietzsche, beyond criticizing Paul, to go so far as to deny Christianity itself, even declaring the death of God.

We can next examine Nietzsche’s assertion that all living beings have a “will to power.” According to Genesis, God gave human beings the blessing to “have dominion over all things” (Gen. 1:28). In other words, God gave human beings the way to become qualified to rule. This implies that the desire to rule (or desire to dominate) is one of the characteristics of the original human nature as endowed by God. The “position” to rule corresponds to the “subject position” among the characteristics of the original human nature, according to Unification Thought. With regard to the subject position, however-as mentioned earlier-true dominion is based on love rather than power. The condition for a human being to exercise dominion is that they must first perfect their personality, centering on God’s Heart, and practice the ethics of love in family life. It is upon that basis, and that basis only, that true dominion can be expressed. Nietzsche, however, was not able to understand about that basis, and thus he stressed only the “will to power.” This is another part of his misunderstanding.

Nietzsche asserted that Christian morality is the morality of the weak, which denies the strong -but this view is misleading. Christianity taught true love in order for people to come to exercise true dominion. People must first fight against the evil forces coming through the instinctive desires of the physical body. These instinctive desires of the body are not evil in themselves, but if fallen people, whose spiritual level of heart is not yet perfect, live according to the instinctive desires of their body, they tend to be dominated by evil forces. Only when the level of heart of the spirit person is raised, whereby the spirit mind comes to have dominion over the physical mind, can the activity of the body be considered good in the true sense.

Emphasizing only the values of the body, instinct and life, Nietzsche neglected the aspects of spirit, love, and reason. In other words, he disregarded the human spirit self. If the spirit self is disregarded, what will remain of the human being? What will remain is nothing but the animal-like physical self. This would certainly drag people down to the level and position of animals. Therefore, even though Nietzsche may be calling on people to become strong, in reality he is actually encouraging them to become animalistic. That is definitely not the level for which God created human beings. Nietzsche’s effort to try to guide people back to their original image should be respected, but the method he proposed for doing so was wrong. A human being is a united being of Sungsang and Hyungsang, with the Sungsang as the subject and the Hyungsang as the object. Nietzsche, however, emphasized only the Hyungsang aspect, neglecting the Sungsang aspect. Still, Nietzsche is to be respected for having issued a warning against those Christians who, because of their ignorance of Jesus’ original purpose of realizing the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, had a tendency to think too lightly of the importance of our human life on earth.

C. Karl Jaspers (1883-1969)

1. Jaspers’ View of the Human Being

For Karl Jaspers, existence refers to the state of a human being truly awakened to oneself as an individual. He says, “Existence is the never objectified source of my thoughts and actions…. It is what relates to itself, and thus to its transcendence.” ¹² This way of thinking is basically the same as Kierkegaard’s.

An existence that is in the process of attaining the original existence, having not yet encountered Transcendence, or the Comprehensive (das Umgreifende), is called a “possible existence.” Usually, human beings are only possible existences that live in various circumstances; but by acting upon their given circumstances, they can live positively. Jaspers points out, however, that there exist certain situations beyond which we can not go, and which we can not change, including “death,” “suffering,” “struggle,” and “guilt.” These he calls “boundary situations.” ¹³ Even though people may wish to live eternally, yet not a single person can escape death. Death is the denial of one’s own existence. Also, human life involves various kinds of suffering, such as physical pain, disease, senility, and starvation. As long as people live, such struggles can not be avoided. Moreover, people live with the unavoidable guilt that their own existence can not but reject others.

In the face of such boundary situations, people can not but despair and eventually become frustrated, becoming aware of their own limitations. At such times, the way people experience and respond to that frustration will determine what will become of them. If they face their frustration head-on, and endure it silently, honestly, and without trying to escape from the situation, then they will come to experience the reality that “originally exists, transcending the world of existence.”¹⁴

In other words, they will come to realize that behind nature, behind history, behind philosophy, and behind art-all of which seemed meaningless until then-there is Transcendence, or God, who embraces us and speaks to us. On that occasion, Transcendence will appear to us, not directly, but by means of coded messages. In the form of such codes, Transcendence reaches out to us through nature, history, philosophy, art, and so on. Those who have experienced frustration in boundary situations will be able to interpret those coded messages. This he called the “reading of ciphers”(ChiffredNeutung). By interpreting or reading such coded messages, a human being, alone, comes to stand face to face with Transcendence. This is what he means by awakening to one’s true self.

After encountering God in this way, a human being engages in the practice of love in their communication with others. The original way of life for human beings is to stand in an equal position with one another, loving one another, while yet recognizing one another’s independence. Through fellowship with others, existence is perfected. Jaspers said, “The purpose of philosophy, which alone gives a final ground to the meaning of all purposes, that is to say, the purpose of perceiving existence internally, elucidating love, and perfecting comfort, is only attained in communica-tion.” ¹⁵ Communication is the relationship of loving struggle.¹⁶

2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Jaspers’ View of the Human Being

Jaspers said that human beings are normally only possible existences that are unable to perceive Transcendence, but that once they pass through boundary situations, they can become existences that relate to Transcendence, that is, original selves.

But why do human beings normally remain only as possible existences, separated from Transcendence? And why do they become connected with Transcendence only after going through such boundary situations? Jaspers is quiet concerning these questions. Yet, unless these questions are answered, we can not understand concretely what the original self is, or how to recover it.

According to the Divine Principle, human beings were created to fulfill the purpose of creation. The fulfillment of the purpose of creation means fulfillment of the three great blessings (Gen. 1:28), that is, perfection of one’s personality, perfection of one’s family, and perfection of one’s dominion. However, Adam and Eve, the first human ancestors, failed to keep the Word of God during their growth period, and while their personalities were still imperfect they fell, becoming separated from God, becoming husband and wife centering on non-principled love and giving birth to sinful children. As a result, all humankind came to be separated from God. Therefore, the true path for recovering the original self is for people to separate themselves from non-principled love and return to God, thereby fulfilling the purpose of creation centering on God’s love.

The original human nature is meant to manifest itself fully once people fulfill their purpose of creation. Like Kierkegaard, Jaspers said that existence is to become a being that relates to Transcendence, while at the same time relating itself to itself. In saying this, Jaspers was referring to the perfection of one’s personality, which is the first among the three great blessings. Among the various different aspects of the original human nature discussed in Unification Thought, Jaspers was concerned only with the “united being of Sungsang and Hyungsang,” while neglecting the others. Jaspers does say that we must practice love in our communication with others, but just as with Kierkegaard, his concept of love is vague.

True love (God’s love) is an emotional impulse, in accord with which one can not help but giving, with a warm heart, what one has to others. This love is manifested divisionally through the family, as different ways of loving one’s object partner: children’s love for their parents, conjugal love for one’s spouse, parental love for one’s children, and siblings’ love for one’s brothers and sisters. Truly harmonious love in one’s communi-cation with others can be realized on the foundation of these four types of love. Jaspers said that communication among existences is a relationship of loving struggle. According to Unification Thought, however, the essence of love is joy. Original love is not something that can be described as any kind of struggle.

Another question is why human beings become connected with Transcendence only by passing through boundary situations. Jaspers said that people encounter God by facing the frustration of a boundary situation head-on and by honestly accepting it. Yet, among those who have, indeed, faced the frustration of the boundary situation head-on and have, indeed, honestly accepted it, there are some who, like Nietzsche, became further separated from God and some who, like Kierkegaard, became even closer to God. Why do such different results come about? The reason for this difference is not clarified in Jaspers’ philosophy.

In contrast, Unification Thought provides a clear rationale behind these different results. In failing to observe God’s Word, human beings became separated from God and fell under the dominion of Satan, the subject of evil. Because of this, they can not go back to God unconditionally. Only by establishing some condition of compensation, that is, some condition of indemnity, can human beings return to God. Accordingly, what Jaspers described as the despair and frustration experienced in boundary situations corresponds to a condition of indemnity. Once that condition is successfully fulfilled, human beings come to be in a position closer to God. To achieve this, however, one must, while enduring the pain inherent in the boundary situation, remain humble and must maintain an attitude of object consciousness in seeking the absolute subject, as is taught in the Bible, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you” (Matt. 7:7). Those who maintain an attitude reflecting a self-centered subject consciousness, or who continue to harbor a spirit of revenge, can never encounter God, even though they may experience such boundary situations. Jaspers believed that we can meet Transcendence through reading the cipher of frustration; but the God we come to know in this manner is merely a symbolic God. We can not comprehend or appreciate the true image of God through such means alone. We must learn about the human fall and God’s purpose of creation, and must endeavor to realize the three great blessings through a life of faith. When we do these things, we will be able to experience the Heart of God and become a true human being with a genuine existence.

D. Martin Heidegger (1899-1976)

1. Heidegger’s View of the Human Being

Unlike much of modern philosophy, the philosophy of Martin Heidegger did not regard the human being as a self facing the world. For him, the human being is “Dasein.” Dasein refers to a being (Sein), an individual human being, who lives in the world. A being relates to other beings, attends to the environment surrounding itself, and cares for other people. This is a being’s fundamental way of existence, which Heidegger described as “being-in-the-world” (In-der-Welt-sein). Being-in-the-world means that human beings have been cast into the world without being informed as to the origin from which they came or the destination towards which they are going. Such a state Heidegger calls “throwness” (Geworfenheit), or “facticity” (Faktizitat).

Normally, people come to lose their subjectivity (or independence) when they strive, through their daily lives, to adjust themselves to their external circumstances or to other peoples’ opinions. This is the situation of the “they” (Das Man) who has lost the original self, according to Heidegger.¹⁷ Such a “they” spends its daily life indulging in idle talk, distracted by curiosity, and living in peaceful ambiguity. This is called the “falling” of Dasein.

This Dasein, which has been thrown into the world, seemingly without any reason, exists also in anxiety (Angst). If we inquire deeply into the nature of this anxiety, we eventually reach the fundamental anxiety one experiences concerning death. When, however, a person does not simply spend time waiting, in anxiety, for some vague future, but rather positively accepts the fact that he or she, as a human being, is a “being-towards-death” and, with that in mind, lives with a serious determination toward the future, that person can progress toward the original self. In this way, human beings project themselves toward their future; in other words, they put stake in their future. Heidegger calls this “projection” (Entwurf). This nature of the being he calls “existentiality.”

At such a time, based on what do people project themselves? They project themselves based on the “call of conscience.” The call of conscience is that inner voice that calls people to abandon their fallen selves and go back to their original selves. Heidegger speaks of the call of conscience as follows: “The call undoubtedly does not come from someone else who is with me in the world. The call comes from me and yet from beyond me.” ¹⁸

Heidegger grasps the meaning of being in terms of temporality (Zeitlichkeit). When being is seen from the perspective of casting itself, it can be grasped as “ahead-of-itself,” and when seen from the aspect of having already been cast, it can be grasped as “being-already-in”; and when seen from the aspect of tending the environment and caring for others, it can be grasped as “being-alongside.” Human beings do not proceed toward a solitary self, separate from the world. If these aspects are seen in the light of temporality, they correspond, respectively, to the future, the past, and the present. Human beings proceed toward the future potentiality by listening to the call of conscience, in order to save the self from present falling, while taking on the burdens of the past. This is Heidegger’s view of the human being seen from the viewpoint of temporality.

2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Heidegger’s View of the Human Being

Heidegger asserted that the human being is a being-in-the-world, a “they” who has lost the original self; he also said that the characteristic feature of that situation is anxiety. He did not, however, clarify why human beings have lost their original selves, or what the original self is like. He speaks of projecting oneself toward one’s original self, but if the image of the self to be attained is not clear, there is no way we can verify that we are indeed proceeding toward the original self. Heidegger said that the call of conscience guides human beings to go back to their original selves, but this is not an adequate solution to the problem. Actually, this is little more than a philosophical expression of the common knowledge that people ought to live in obedience to their conscience. In a world that does not recognize God there can be only one of two possible ways of life, namely, living according to one’s instinctive life, as proposed by Nietzsche, or according to one’s conscience, as Heidegger proposed.

From the perspective of Unification Thought, however, it is not sufficient merely to live in accordance with one’s conscience. Instead, people should live in accordance with their “original mind.” Conscience may be oriented toward what each individual person regards as good and, therefore, the standard of conscience and of what is good, will vary according to each individual. Hence, when people live according to their conscience, there is no guarantee that they are indeed moving toward their original selves. Only when people live in accordance with their original mind, which possesses God as its standard, will they indeed be moving toward their original selves.

Heidegger said that human beings can be saved from anxiety when they become seriously determined to accept the future, instead of aimlessly waiting for the future to come to them. But, again, how can we be saved from anxiety when the original image of the self is not clearly defined? Seen from the viewpoint of Unification Thought, the cause of anxiety lies in our separation from God’s love. Therefore, when human beings go back to God, experience the Heart of God, and actually become beings of heart, only then will they be delivered from anxiety and be filled with peace and joy.

Heidegger also argued that the way for human beings to transcend the anxiety of death is for them to accept death positively as part of their destiny. This, however, is not really a true solution to the problem of the anxiety of death. Unification Thought sees the human being as a united being of spirit self and physical self, or a united being of Sungsang and Hyungsang in such a way that the maturation of the spirit self is based on the physical self. When human beings fulfill the purpose for which they were created, during their physical lives on earth, their perfected spirit selves, after the death of their physical selves, will go on to the spirit world, where they will live eternally. Therefore, a human being is not a “being-towards-death,” but rather a “being-towards-eternal-life.” Therefore, the death of one’s physical self corresponds to the phenomenon of ecdysis as found among insects. The anxiety one has of death originates from the ignorance of the meaning of death not to mention the feeling, either conscious or unconscious, that one has not yet perfected oneself.

Heidegger further stated that the human being (Dasein) has temporality. In other words, he said that they must take on the past, must separate themselves from the present falling, and must project themselves toward the future. But, why should they do so? Heidegger did not clarify the reason for all this. According to the Divine Principle, ever since the fall of Adam and Eve, human beings, in addition to inheriting the original sin, have also received through heredity the sins committed by their ancestors; They also have collective sin for which the nation or humankind as a whole bears responsibility, as well as committing their own personal sins. Therefore, fallen people have been given the task of restoring their original selves, and the original world, through establishing conditions of indemnity which can pay for these various sins.

Such a task can not generally be accomplished in only one generation; it is accomplished after being passed on from generation to generation. Specifically, in the present generation, we are entrusted with those conditions of indemnity that were not completed by our ancestors. Hence, we attempt to establish those conditions in our own generation, thus bearing responsibility for the future and for our descendents. This is the true meaning, seen from Unification Thought, of the fact that human beings have temporality.

E. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-80)

1. Sartre’s View of the Human Being

Dostoevski said, “If God did not exist, everything would be possible.” ¹⁹ The denial of the existence of God is the very starting point of the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre. In contrast to Heidegger, who asserted his existentialism without any reference to God, Sartre went further and advocated an existentialism that altogether denied God’s existence. He explained that, in human beings, “existence precedes essence,” as follows:

What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no original human nature, since there is no God to conceive it.²⁰

The use or purpose of a tool, that is, the essence of that tool, is already determined by its manufacturer even before it is produced. In this case, essence precedes existence. In the same way, if God exists, and if He has created human beings based on His idea, then it must be that, in the case of human beings, essence precedes existence as well. But Sartre denied the existence of God; therefore, for him, the essence of the human being is not determined from the very beginning. According to him, people appeared not from essence, but rather from nothing.

Moreover, Sartre says that “existence is subjectivity.” Human beings are accidental beings that appeared from nothing. They are not defined by anyone. Therefore, they themselves plan what they will be like. They choose themselves. This is what Sartre means by “subjectivity.” In other words, human beings choose what they will become -whether they will be Communists or Christians; whether they will choose to marry or remain single.

The fundamental feature of such an existence is “anguish,” according to Sartre. Man chooses himself, which means, at the same time, that “in making this choice, he also chooses all men.” ²¹ Therefore, to choose oneself means to take responsibility for the whole of humankind-a responsibility that incorporates anguish, according to Sartre. Anguish, however, does not prevent human beings from acting; on the contrary, it is the very condition for their action, and it is a part of that action itself.

In Sartre’s view, human beings are “free” beings. Since existence precedes essence, they are not determined by anything, and are allowed to do anything. Being free, however, implies that the entire responsibility for their deeds lies with themselves. In that sense, being free is a kind of burden for them; therefore, human beings are “condemned to be free.” In other words, human beings experience anguish because they are free. Sartre explained it this way:

Man is free, man is freedom. On the other hand, if God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our con-duct. So, in the bright realm of values, we have no excuse behind us, nor justification before us. We are alone, with no excuses. That is the idea I shall try to convey when I say that man is condemned to be free.²²

A human being, who is subjectivity, will exercise his or her subjectivity. In order for a human being to exercise subjectivity, there must exist an object that can receive dominion from him or her. Among the types of beings, there are the “being-in-itself” and the “being-for-itself.” The being-in-itself refers to all things and the being-for-itself is the being which is conscious of itself, namely, the human being. When a person exercises subjectivity, there is no problem so far as he or she deals with a being-in-itself as his or her object. But, once a person faces another person (i.e., a being-for-itself), problems arise. The reason for this is that in such a relationship both will assert their subjectivity.

When one person faces another, their human existence becomes a “being-for-others”; that is, a being that is opposite to another being, according to Sartre. The fundamental structure of the being-for-others is the relationship in which one is either a “being-looking-at” or a “being-looked-at”-that is, a relationship in which “the Other is an object for me” or “I myself am an object-for-the-Other.” ²³ This means that human relationships are in constant conflict. As Sartre explained it,

It is therefore useless for human-reality to seek to get out of this dilemma: one must either transcend the Other or allow oneself to be transcended by him. The essence of the relations between consciousnesses is not the Mitsein [co-existence]; it is conflict. ²⁴

2. A Unification Thought Appraisal of Sartre’s View of the Human Being

Sartre said that “existence precedes essence,” and that human beings create themselves. Along this same line, Heidegger contended that people must project themselves toward the future. For Heidegger, the “call of conscience,” though vague, guides people toward the original self. For Sartre, however, the original self is totally denied. According to Unification Thought, the absence of the original self is a natural consequence of the fact that human beings have become totally separated from God. If we were to accept Sartre’s views, we would be left without any standard at all to judge between good and evil. In that situation, no matter what people did, they would always be able to rationalize their actions by saying that they had acted on their own volition. That would necessarily create a society without ethics.

Sartre also said that the human being is subjectivity. In contradistinction to that, Unification Thought asserts that the human being is both subjectivity and objectivity, at the same time. In other words, a person of original nature is both in the subject position and in the object position. What Sartre calls subjectivity refers to the fact that human beings are free to choose themselves and to objectify others; in contrast, what Unification Thought calls subjectivity refers to the human ability to have dominion over an object being, with love. In order to exercise true subjectivity, people must first establish their own objectivity. In other words, they must first have object consciousness in an object position. Going through the experience of being in an object position, they grow and are promoted to stand in a subject position, and thus become able to exercise subjectivity.

Furthermore, according to Sartre, the characteristic of a mutual relationship between human beings is that of conflict between subjectivity and subjectivity, or a conflict between freedom and freedom. This is similar to Hobbes’ concept of a “war of all against all.” Needless to say, such concepts of subjectivity and freedom are mistaken. Unless such mistaken views regarding subjectivity and freedom are corrected, the confusion now existing in democratic society can not be resolved. Only when people learn to establish both subjectivity and objectivity, whereby harmonious give and receive action between subject and object takes place in every sphere, can a world of love and peace be actualized.

Moreover, Sartre says that human beings are “condemned to be free.” From the viewpoint of Unification Thought, however, freedom is anything but such a sentence. Freedom can not exist apart from the principle, and the principle is the norm for actualizing true love. Accordingly, true freedom is freedom for the sake of actualizing true love.