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
No comments:
Post a Comment