Posts tagged Existentialism
(Source: whyohwhykai)
(…)
Is man’s search for a meaning a farse? For the last time: yes.
(via kimfffunk)
Philosophy Bro: Existentialism →
Existentialism is a relatively broad movement, like empiricism or rationalism, that has a rich and wide-ranging history, so much so that people debate what is and isn’t existential. But here’s a brief history of the roots:
Sartre coined the phrase “existence precedes essence”, which has since been a rallying cry for existentialists. That is, there is no essential quality to being a human that we all share. There is no ‘essence of humanity’ we just are: from there you have to make yourself.
Existentialism is concerned with what it means to be, and it’s fiercely individualized. The central theme running through the whole movement is that there is no ‘universal’ human experience. It started out with Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, who don’t and do believe in God respectively, and who are equally vehement about the question.
So Kierkegaard takes this individuality to mean that we each have to relate to God on a personal level, that there is no universal set of rules or principles for salvation - we have to work it out with “fear and trembling”-which comes straight from Phillipians 2:12 and was the name of one of his major theological treatises. Nietzsche, on the other hand, thought that the Übermensch would forge his own way with brazen disregard for any imposed morality, any code that tried to tell him how to live; he made his own life because he was the only one living it.
Camus rejected any attempt to make meaning and he thought the Übermensch was a ridiculous project. Nietzsche thought we should breed an Übermensch, Camus was like, “Bro, what a waste of time, why even bother? SPOILER ALERT: The Übermensch is going to die too. And then his life will be as meaningless as everyone else’s.”
Since then, existentialists both theistic and atheistic have tried to figure out how to best represent our individuality. But this, first and foremost, is the requirement for existentialism—a rejection of any sort of universal definition of man beyond his need to make himself.
The end begins here. Thanos is God. He is Supreme. Anything he wishes to be, is. Anything he wishes, is. Within his grasp rests the Infinite. The moment is upon the Multiverse to realise that the absolute truth is Thanos’, for he is the holder of the Infinity Gauntlet composed of the six Infinity Gems.
You want to make all being thinkable, for you doubt with well-founded suspicion that it is already thinkable. But it shall yield and bend for you. Thus your will wants it. It shall become smooth and serve the spirit as its mirror and reflection. Thus spoke Zarathustra.
What choices were made to lead to such a situation? Apparently Mistress Death has long thought the fact that there are more people alive today than have ever died was a type of cosmic imbalance. This was an irregularity she sought to right using the dark powers at her disposal—she made the tragic mistake of reviving Thanos, the mad Titan, from the realm of the dead. Through him, Death would mold the universe to her liking. She gave Thanos greatly augmented power and asked him to destroy half the sentient population in this Universe. Thanos muses: “For months, I have contemplated the direction in which I should steer the destiny of this reality. I am now omnipotent. What would I do with such almighty power?”
The answer to that is really quite simple. Anything he wants, of course.
The Infinite Nietzsche: The Three Metamorphoses by Ram Samudrala.
And when it’s stopped being random, that’s when it started to go wrong.
FY Existentialism Contest 1.
Rules:
There are no rules, write as much or as little as you wish and turn it in by the submission deadline.
Winner:
The winner will receive The Stranger (a novel by Albert Camus).
Essays will be posted with the permission of the author.
Submission Deadline:
August 1st or before that.
Submit here: Submit.
Choose one of the following topics:
-
Compare and contrast any two (or more) of Nietzsche’s, Sartre’s and Hegel’s conceptions of the self. Point out similarities and differences between these conceptions. How does each conception relate to ideas of what is a good life to live? Which of these conceptions do you think serves better to live an ethical, good, worthy life? Why?
-
Sartre tells us that values come from our choices. This sounds like a subjectivist ethics. At the same time, however, he tells us that we feel anxious because we realize we are responsible for the message we send when we choose. This sounds like an objectivist ethics, since it seems there is an objectively superior choice which we should make and applies to everybody. Is his theory subjectivist, objectivist, or a mixture of the two? Explain your answer. If it is a mixture, is there an internal contradiction? Why or why not?
René Magritte, La condition humaine, 1933.
The Human Condition displays an easel placed inside a room and in front of a window. The easel holds an unframed painting of a landscape that seems in every detail contiguous with the landscape seen outside the window. At first, one automatically assumes that the painting on the easel depicts the portion of the landscape outside the window that it hides from view. After a moment’s consideration, however, one realizes that this assumption is based upon a false premise: that is, that the imagery of Magritte’s painting is real, while the painting on the easel is a representation of that reality. In fact, there is no difference between them. Both are part of the same painting, the same artistic fabrication. It is perhaps to this repeating cycle, in which the viewer, even against his will, sees the one as real and the other as representation, that Magritte’s title makes reference.
A Selection from Existentialism and Human Emotions.
Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism. It is also what is called subjectivity, the name we are labeled with when charges are brought against us. But what do we mean by this, if not that man has a greater dignity than a stone or table? For we mean that man first exists, that is, that man first of all is the being who hurls himself toward a future and who is conscious of imagining himself as being in the future. Man is at the start a plan which is aware of itself, rather than a patch of moss, a piece of garbage, or a cauliflower nothing exists prior to this plan; there is nothing in heaven; man will be what he will have planned to be. Not what he will want to be. Because by the word “will” we generally mean a conscious decision, which is subsequent to what we have already made of ourselves. I may want to belong to a political party, write a book, get married; but all that is only a manifestation of an earlier, more spontaneous choice that is called “will.” But if existence really does precede essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, existentialism’s first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.
The word subjectivism has two meanings, and our opponents play on the two. Subjectivism means, on the one hand, that an individual chooses and makes himself; and, on the other, that it is impossible for man to transcend human subjectivity. The second of these is the essential meaning of existentialism. When we say that man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us does likewise; but we also mean by that that in making this choice he also chooses all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be, there is not a single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be. To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.
If, on the other hand, existence precedes essence, and if we grant that we exist and fashion our image at one and the same time, the image is valid for everybody and for our whole age. Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have supposed, because it involves all mankind. If I am a workingman and choose to join a Christian trade-union rather than be a communist, and if by being a member I want to show that the best thing for man is resignation, that the kingdom of man is not of this world, I am not only involving my own case-I want to be resigned for everyone. As a result, my action has involved all humanity. To take a more individual matter, if I want to marry, to have children; even if this marriage depends solely on my own circumstances or passion or wish, I am involving all humanity in monogamy and not merely myself. Therefore, I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a certain image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man.
Translated by Bernard Frechtman, from Existentialism and Human Emotions, Philosophical Library, 1957, pp. 9-16.
Certain characterists that most Existentialists (and precursors to Existentialism) seem to share:
- They are obsessed with how to live one’s life and believe that philosophical and psychological inquiry can help.
- They believe there are certain questions that everyone must deal with (if they are to take human life seriously), and that these are special — existential — questions. Questions such as death, the meaning of human existence, the place of God in human existence, the meaning of value, interpersonal relationship, the place of self-reflective conscious knowledge of one’s self in existing.Note that the existentialists on this characterization don’t pay much attention to “social” questions such as the politics of life and what “social” responsibility the society or state has.
- They focus almost exclusively on the individual. By and large Existentialists believe that life is very difficult and that it doesn’t have an “objective” or universally known value, but that the individual must create value by affiriming it and living it, not by talking about it. Existential choices and values are primarily demonstrated in ACT not in words.
- Given that one is focusing on individual existence and the “existential” struggles (that is, in making decisions that are meaningful in everyday life), they often find that literary characterizations rather than more abstract philosophical thinking, are the best ways to elucidate existential struggles.
- They tend to take freedom of the will, the human power to do or not do, as absolutely obvious. Now and again there are arguments for free will in Existentialist literature, but even in these arguments, one gets the distinct sense that the arguments are not for themselves, but for “outsiders.” Inside the movement, free will is axiomatic, it is intuitively obvious, it is the backdrop of all else that goes on.
- There are certainly exceptions to each of these things, but this is sort of a placing of the existentialist-like positions.
Bob Corbett
March 1985
Damnation (Bela Tarr, 1988)
Damnation is a bleak and nihilistic portrait of isolation, emotional betrayal, and ennui. Using a near static camera, slow pans, languid character motion, pervasive inclement weather, bleak industrial landscape, and a melancholic soundtrack by composer Mihaly Vig, Tarr reflects the desolation and spiritual lethargy of the directionless and morally bankrupt protagonists.
Charlie Brown and existentialism.
“… How does this apply to Peanuts? Like the existential human in a world of silent or absent deities, Schulz’s characters exist in a world of silent or absent adult authority. … The children of Peanuts are left to their own devices, to try and understand the world they have found themselves thrust into. They have to turn to each other for support – hence, Lucy’s blossoming psychiatric booth (at five cents a session, a very good deal).
An ideal example of abandonment is the relationship between Linus and The Great Pumpkin. Every Halloween, Linus faithfully waits by a pumpkin patch, in the hopes that he will be blessed with the holy experience of a visitation by The Great Pumpkin. Of course, The Great Pumpkin never shows up, and He never answers Linus’ letters. Despite this, Linus remains steadfast, even going door to door to spread the word of his absent deity. Does The Great Pumpkin exist? We can never know. But from an existential point of view, it doesn’t matter if he exists or not. The important thing is that Linus is abandoned and alone in his pumpkin patch.
…
Existence is problematic and disturbing. In one weekend strip, Schulz succinctly describes the horror of discovering one’s own existence in the world:
Linus: I’m aware of my tongue … It’s an awful feeling! Every now and then I become aware that I have a tongue inside my mouth, and then it starts to feel lumped up … I can’t help it … I can’t put it out of my mind. … I keep thinking about where my tongue would be if I weren’t thinking about it, and then I can feel it sort of pressing against my teeth …
Sartre devoted an entire book to this experience – his 1938 novel Nausea in which his character Roquentin is alarmed to discover his own actuality. But Linus sums the point up very well in a few frames.
via philosophynow and medicodellapeste.
What is Existentialism?
it is perhaps the most misunderstood of modern philosophic positions —- misunderstood by reason of its broad popularity and general unfamiliarity with its origins, representatives, and principles.
Existential thinking does not originate with Jean Paul Sartre. It has prior religious, literary, and philosophic origins. In its narrowest formulation it is a metaphysical doctrine, arguing as it does that any definition of man’s essence must follow, not precede, an estimation of his existence. In Heidegger, it affords a view of being in its totality; in Kierkegaard an approach to that inwardness indispensable to authentic religious experience; for Dostoevsky, Kafka, and Rilke the existential situation bears the stamp of modern man’s alienation, up-rootedness, and absurdity; to Sartre it has vast ethical and political implications.
