The End Is Nigh

What more is there to say? This was possibly the greatest class i’ve taken at ASU. I’ve certainly enjoyed the readings and it’s unfortunate that I didn’t get to know a lot of the students. I was just beginning to meet some of them and they all seem brilliant in their own unique way. 

I know there is a great deal about existentialism we did not learn. There is Herman Hesse and Kafka whom we barely spoke of. We were just beginning to learn about Sartre whom I admire as you may already know. We reread the intro to Solomon’s book on existentialism and it was completely transformed the second time. I do remember it being inspiring, but now that I have a better understanding of existentialist authors the intro helps me grasp what just happened throughout the semester. I’m beginning to think existentialism has given me this “Bloated” ego Solomon is talking about if I didn’t already have one before I began this class.

I’m left with more questions about myself, and more doubt. Have I become more pretentious or am I just more aware of my pretense? Am I just more aware of my ego? I don’t mean to sound negative, as I’ve enjoyed this class very much. It was surprising to see how many classmates found existentialism to be empowering and uplifting. I would agree with them but I don’t think reading and understanding existentialism is a cure to what I believe the existential question to be: Who or what am I? 

Among the various authors we have read there have been reoccurring themes. I like to think of the word Malaise with it’s latin roots mal (bad) and aise (ease). These authors who spit contradictions and seemingly enjoy doing so. They remind me of a Walt Whitman who says in his song of myself “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes?” That’s very existential of you Walt. Contradiction is important to philosophy from Sartre’s “Bad Faith” to Nietzsche’s “Bad Conscience” and Camus’ “Absurdity.” Each author is tackling this same feeling of malaise and attempting to identify where it comes from.

I believe the last group asked whether the authors religious preference had anything to do with our appreciation of them. While some nobly argued that it didn’t, I would (to my dismay) have to answer yes, it did. My favorite authors throughout this course were Albert Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Jean-Paul Sartre (I guess Heidegger too) who were all atheists. Perhaps I am severely biased since I lean towards atheism but I definitely did not favor the views of Kierkegaard or Unamuno. I did however respect Kierkegaard and found his passionate faith based philosophy to be unobtrusive. It just wasn’t for me though. It is rather interesting to see how these theistic existential writings often parallel the atheistic existential writings. You wouldn’t think it would be so given such a drastic difference in religious belief but perhaps it doesn’t make much of a difference in the existential world. Even Sartre favored certain aspects of subjectivity similar to those of Kierkegaard.

If there is one that will stick with me from this course, and there are many, it’s the conceptualization of death. Before taking this class I was somewhat obsessed with death, but not in a morbid way. I find it intriguing that we are all inevitably going to die, yet we refrain from discussing it. Some of us are even afraid to discuss such things. I am thankful that existential authors such as Camus and Heidegger will take on the task of discussing these seemingly taboo subjects. Camus and Heidegger both understood death as an inevitable end. I hope to understand it as such, and incorporate this fact in to my daily life. Instead of death weighing me down I want to embrace it. I will end with a beautiful quote by Sartre. “I refuse to let death hamper life. Death must enter life only to define it.” - Sartre

Hi, I'm Navid. I'm Also Not Navid.

Sartre, you brilliant sly old dog. I work in a café/bakery and found Sartre’s example of the café waiter very relatable. I too am a bit eager with customers, and sometimes feel like i’m playing a game at work, a game I’m quite bad at. Sartre would call it the dance of the barista. I am always acting in bad faith when at work for I play the role of the barista. Waking up most mornings at 4am I get ready being sure to wear appropriate clothes, comb my hair, and drive to work. When I arrive at work I start the first pot of coffee and put out the chairs. 

This is something I do without being conscious of the fact that it is my choice to wake up at 4am and do this. Surely if I didn’t I would be fired lose my wages which I earn, but it is still my conscious decision to do so. This is something that i’ve forgotten over time. As Sartre says so candidly, I feel like an “automaton” and I probably look like one as well. I have several phrases I say to customers such as “what are you having today?” and “have a nice day.” I repeat these phrases to excess day after day and I truly feel very inauthentic playing this role. It gave me some comfort to read someone who shared similar thoughts to mine. The clientele demand of me a certain behavior, for the things I do in my private life have no place at the bar. I can’t sing Bob Dylan songs or make inappropriate jokes in front of customers. I’m required to put on a smile and wait patiently while they look at the menu while inside I might be wearing a grimace and think of them an *expletive.* I believe that I’m a great example of bad faith, which I like to think of as inauthenticity. 

What I find most interesting is Sartre’s explanation of the contradictions of “being.” Like many existentialist philosophers we’ve read this semester, Sartre too is a fan of contradictions. “We have to deal with human reality as a being which is what it is not, and which is what it is” (228). I understood this as Sartre saying that the essence of a human is everything it has been in the past as well as everything it has not yet been in the future. Our lives are not yet complete for we are freely changing, but our essence also includes all of our past actions which we are responsible for choosing. Bad faith as I understand it is also a contradiction because in an attempt to achieve sincerity, we are being insincere. A barista who sings Bob Dylan and insults customers is fleeing from his essence as a barista. In an attempt to be who I am, I am not being who I am not. Sartre says we must be who we are while being who we aren’t. This can be rather conflicting, but I suppose that is the very essence of bad faith.

Later we discussed No Exit and what struck me is the idea that people are like mirrors. Most of what we do is a reaction to what other people will or already do think of us. The reason I wear what I wear or act how I act is for the acceptance of others. An interesting point that a student brought up in class is that we don’t fully know how others view us, but we make assumptions. So really it’s our perception of how others perceive us which cause us to do most of what we do. After the readings I have a much better understanding of Sartre’s plays which I had enjoyed before I took this class. His philosophical views are embedded in No Exit and The Flies.