"If you're lonely when you're alone, you're in bad company."

How I’ve adored the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre. It was difficult for me to sit through this lecture without making stupid comments, for I love the man and wished I had the option to present on him. Sartre is a genius and his discussions of free will excite me. With god dead (as is of no contest to Sartre) there is no one to be responsible for your actions but yourself. You choose the actions for there is no higher power to choose them for you. 

His writing gives me such inspiration when he elaborates on his belief that “existence precedes essence.” Certainly I believe that a man makes of himself what he chooses to be. Sartre declares that morality is subjective, and with the lack of god there is no objective good and evil. What is good or evil for sartre is simply what a man thinks is good and evil. Personally I have done a lot of things that people may consider to be evil or wrong, yet with his philosophy in mind it has allowed me to reach the understanding that perhaps my way is the good way, at least to myself. 

Let me partake in Dionysian delights if I find it enjoyable and good. Perhaps that is what the ideal man should be, but there is no way to know for sure. For your ideal man may be different than mine. My favorite line from Sartre’s lecture on Existentialism is “If I hear voices, who can prove that they proceed from heaven and not from hell, or from my own subconsciousness or some pathological condition?” (Sartre, 209). What I believe Sartre is saying is that this inability to know for sure an objective morality and the abandonment into this world where we are left responsible for all of our choices gives us anxiety. So really, the atheist existentialist wants there to be a god, it would take away this burden. 

Doesn’t this echo “The Grand Inquisitor” by Feodor Dostoevsky and how the inquisitor wanted to relieve the burden of choice from the populace by placing it on his own shoulders? Sartre says that that the struggle for atheistic existentialists is to come up with moral values which everyone agrees upon with the absence of a god. Hopefully I can assume that most people don’t believe that murder and genocide cannot be considered good. There is difficulty in making this assumption when morality is subjective, for a murderer or an instigator of genocide might find his actions to be “Good.”

One revelation I had when reading Sartre was his explanation that all human actions are indeed human. This includes genocide, torture, imprisonment, and war. I came to the conclusion that I will never again use the word “inhumane” when describing social injustices. These atrocities are committed by humans, therefore they are all too human. It all demonstrates the power of humanity’s free will.

Lastly there was Sartre’s phenomenological explanation of emotions. Sartre strongly opposed the belief that emotions are largely instinctual. He instead favored a view that we are in control of our emotions. He says emotional responses are truly attempts to change the world when there is a difficult situation. Emotions are a way of denying or fleeing from this difficulty. Does this mean that we are able to choose our emotions? I think Sartre would say yes. This is the first time i’ve found myself disagreeing with Sartre. I would like to believe that some emotions are instinctual such as fear or anxiety. I was once told by my stepfather who was a psychoanalyst that fear and anxiety are necessary instincts from our evolution which allowed us to survive when there were threats. Maybe someone can help me to better understand his sketch of emotions, for I am obviously having trouble with it. I would like to believe that I have control over my emotions, but it seems to be the other way around.  

Anyhow, Sartre is a bold man. I love the fact that he refused the nobel peace prize. I watched a video where he said that the west wanted him to apologize for his marxist views and that was partly his reason for refusing the award. How can you not love the tenacity of this man?

When He Died I Was Hoping That It Wasn't Contagious

Death is an interesting subject to me, and I found it to be one of the best parts of Heidegger’s reading. Hopefully that does not sound morbid but I do believe it is an important subject that we seem to neglect in the west (and perhaps other parts of the world). Heidegger writes of “Being-toward-death” or in other words the human that is on his way to his inevitable death. Death is the only end and it is a very profound thing to think about. One day this thing that “I” am, this “Me” will one day cease to exist. Now many of my peers find this thought scary but it has a powerful effect on me, and somehow makes life seem a bit more significant. That is my understanding of what Heidegger might be trying to say, though i’m no expert. He speaks of the “they” or the other beings who are not “you” and he explains that the they tranquilize the Da-sein (the individual being) by saying death is nothing to worry about. They tempt the being-toward-death with illusions that death might not happen, and that you can continue to live your everyday life. The “they” make it a social faux pas for the Da-sein to even think about death. 

Another thing Heidegger mentions, is that death is something only experienced by the Da-Sein, and the they never truly experience it. He says that people are always just “there.” As someone in class brought up, you can never really experience death until you die, until then it is just a phenomenon. Everything we know about death is from what we’ve seen, read, or heard. Another interesting point brought up by the lecturers in class is that once the Da-sein dies, it’s death becomes a part of the “they.” I can understand this by the knowledge that when people die, they no longer exist yet we have funerals and grieve for them. The irony is that these events are for ourselves or the “they” who have lost someone. We are the ones who are sad and require funeral services to help us in the grieving process. The Da-sein no longer exists to need such trivialities.

I find this all very relatable to American culture and perhaps i’m not the only one. Death is a very taboo subject here (other places too I suppose), and we never properly discuss it. Instead we worry about finances, or trivial drama about being called nasty things. We are sedated by material possessions and lousy entertainment. But when death comes around we are devastated. It should really be something we acknowledge in our day to day life and realize as an ultimate end to our time here on earth. Perhaps this understanding of death allows us to be “authentic” as Heidegger calls it. 

Now authenticity is a difficult thing to talk about, but Heidegger claims that the being-toward-death must acknowledge and understand his death in order to be authentic. Does this mean he has to experience it? No matter how hard I try to prepare for death, I know that I will never be prepared. On the other hand, I do understand that death is the end of the road so does this make me authentic? Perhaps it makes me authentic in one respect, however authenticity is such a broad topic. I have difficulty believing i’m ever authentic. Or maybe it’s more true to say that i’m always authentic, because everything I do is my own doing (or choice), even if the things I do are not how I would act ordinarily. This might be a more semantical approach to authenticity because I don’t believe Heidegger is specifically talking about this kind of authentic existence, but a more primitive or stripped down authentic existence which is merely concerned with “being” and “death.”

I am what I Is

For last monday’s class we read some writers who were unknown to men prior to the readings. These men were Karl Jaspers and Miguel de Unamuno. Unamuno seemed to favor a more subjective stance to truth very similar to Kierkegaard. He favored passion of rationality which is something I have a hard time understanding. To me, when one rejects god it is a rational rejection, but Unamuno insists that the rejection of god is a passionate rejection. While Unamuno’s writing is intriguing it did not leave me with the feeling that perhaps subjective truth is superior to objective truth in the way that Kierkegaard did.

The following reading’s were mainly focused on being. Jaspers for instance, attempts to systematically understand Existenz while Heidegger attempts to explain the Da-sein. Da-sein is the being who understands being. This has led me to believe that the Da-sein is the understanding of the being of a human being, for humans understand that they are “being.” Isn’t this one of the main themes of existentialism; The human analyzing his very existence, his essence, or his being? The Da-sein seems to me to describe the individual self who just “is.” Both of these works seemed to parallel each other as often is seen with these existentialist writers. Heidegger’s explanation of Da-Sein and his conception of the “they” seemed to describe Nietzsche’s herd mentality. As well as his conception of the falling pray being present in Camus’ The Fall. “It has not fallen prey to some being which it first runs into in the course of its being, or perhaps does not but it has fallen prey to the world which itself belongs to its being” (Heidegger, 128). Call me crazy, but I believe this is strikingly similar to Jean’s struggle in The Fall. Apparantly Camus was inspired by Heidegger, as well as Sartre being Heidegger’s pupil which i’m sure we will discuss later on in the semester.

Our class spent a large amount of time trying to understand what Heidegger meant by Da-sein and I’m still left with a feeling of uncertainty. The way in which he describes it is frustrating because he uses the same words to mean different things, but this may be unavoidable with such a complex concept as “being.” I fell in to the same trap earlier in this post trying to explain it. 

We were asked in class if we believe that we are our authentic selves to which I answered “No.” As I understand Heidegger’s claim of authenticity, a Da-sein would fully understand it’s own being, and I cannot confidently say that I fully understand “being.” Sure there are times when I have a heightened sense of being, where perhaps I transcend “averageness” as he calls it, but generally I slip back into the average. I am average no matter how much I would like to think otherwise. The “they” is too enticing for me, because it disburdens me of this struggle to understand myself. I try to be normal and average, because that is what is most comfortable. It’s easy to say I am different than the average or mundane “being” for taking an existentialist class, but there are at least 20 students in that class who share similar thoughts (not to mention in the entire world), so doesn’t that make us beings-among-one-another? “The they, which supplies the answer to the who of everyday Da-sein, is the nobody to whom every Da-sein has always already surrendered itself, in the being-among-one-another”  (126). It is just far too easy to give up the burden of this existential question of “Who am I?” although I must admit that this question will follow me to my grave, and I know I will ever come up with an answer. Therefore, I must deny that I will ever have an authentic existence and find it highly improbable that anyone could.

The Burden of Freedom

Oh, Dostoevsky.. How many times have I tried to read your “Crime and Punishment” and given up? This week we read excerpts from “Notes from the Underground” and “The Grand Inquisitor” which were much easier to get through and rather enjoyable. Especially the latter which had me choking up at the end. Dostoevsky seems to write with characters who have a particular philosophical view, but do not necessarily reflect those of Dostoevsky (who is apparently a Christian). 

First up was an bit from “Notes From Underground” where the narrator discusses free will versus determinism.  In this reading, Dostoevsky seems to argue that rationality and science have deprived us of our free will. A rational person wouldn’t choose anything which may end up hurting him, therefore his actions are all dictated by this rationality.  In this way they would be limited.  So in order for man to be truly free, he would need to make choices independent of rationality, even if it might end up hurting him in the end.  There seemed to be confusion in class on what Dostoevsky calls the most advantageous advantage, but I believe this is precisely it. Where typically advantages consist of “prosperity, wealth, freedom, peace,” (40) the most advantageous advantage is freedom. For Dostoevsky says that “man everywhere and always, whoever he may be, has preferred to act as he wished and not in the least as his reason and advantage dictated” (43). When trying to understand this in my head it seems a bit contradictory. Is Dostoevsky saying that in some cases, the most advantageous advantage would end up being a disadvantage because it proves to be injurious? 

Our next reading was “The Grand Inquisitor,” a parable from The Brothers Karamazov.  In this reading the rationalist, atheistic Ivan explains the story of an old Cardinal (The Grand Inquisitor) and his meeting with Jesus Christ to his naive christian brother Alyosha. In this parable, the Cardinal explains how Jesus has done something horrible to people. By allowing them to free, that is to decide for themselves what “right” and “wrong.” The Cardinal’s argument in this story is that men can’t be happy and free simultaneously, so what Jesus did wasn’t truly in their best interest. He left his followers alone with their conscience with only the image of christ as their guide. This has confused them greatly, and their freedom to decide good and evil will drive them to misery. To me this parallels Nietzsche’s belief that conscience is a bad thing. With this in mind, the Cardinal has taken it upon himself and the church, to take on this enormous burden of conscience. He has given his followers happiness and has decided good and evil for them. The church has taken away their freedom and he believes it to be in their best interest, and now he is upset that Jesus has returned. Has Jesus returned to stop the Cardinal after all his efforts to make them happy? Does Jesus wish to give the people their freedom back? It is revealed by Ivan near the end of the story that the Cardinal doesn’t really believe in god, but loves humanity so much that he is willing to take on this burden disguised as a believer. The only thing that Jesus does throughout this conversation (If you can even call it that when only the Cardinal is speaking) is give him an ambiguous kiss on the lips.

So is it true that man can either be happy or free? I believe that one could have this free will and still be happy, but I can certainly see why the Grand Inquisitor wanted to take this burden upon himself and the church. Don’t we humans want to be free though? No matter how convincingly rationality and scientific study will tell me that my life is predetermined, something inside me insists that I make my own decisions. This seems to be one of the underlying themes of existentialism: Freedom versus Fate.

Dosteovsky’s “The Grand Inquisitor” has reminded me of a poem by William Blake called The Everlasting Gospel.  I’d like to leave you with a few lines from this poem in the hopes that you might read the whole thing and understand the parallels that I see.

“THE VISION OF CHRIST that thou dost see

Is my vision’s greatest enemy.

Thine has a great hook nose like thine;

Mine has a snub nose like to mine.

Thine is the Friend of all Mankind;

Mine speaks in parables to the blind.

Thine loves the same world that mine hates;

thy heaven doors are my hell gates.”

- William Blake -

I Had This Exact Same Blog In A Previous Life

This week was interesting. I got the chance to nervously present a section on Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morality.  It was a difficult task to completely comprehend the material, my section on Bad Conscience in particular. I read through it many times, as well as interpretations of the text online, but I kept having new revelations on the material, even 10 minutes prior to the presentation. 

Nietzsche can be a bit ambiguous in my opinion. I was unaware, for instance, that he was writing with a sarcastic tone when he referred to “free will.”  Apparently Nietzsche would be a proponent of determinism, as demonstrated by his theory of Eternal Recurrence.  What a heavy topic eternal recurrence is. It makes theoretical sense that if time is infinite, then eventually our lives would repeat themselves. He asks us to imagine that at some point in our life, some demon comes down and tells us we will live our entire life over again exactly how it was. The question is would this information please you or cause you despair. Personally, the idea is frightening for I have experienced some things that I would never want to go through again. But at the same time there are the pleasantries i’ve experienced in my life. For me, this information is simply an opportunity to re-evaluate your life, perhaps change the way you live, and also to change the way you appreciate your past. 

One thing that’s daunting, however, is the idea that your life really is predetermined.  That everything you have done and everything you were going to do, was going to happen regardless of any choice that was made. I’ve been in arguments with my brother about free will versus determinism and it typically seems like an endless debate.  Does it really make a difference if we choose our actions or were destined to make those actions?  One might argue that if everything is predetermined, then what is the point of getting out of bed if you have no choice?  But then if you followed up on that though, would you have been destined to come to this conclusion, or did your belief influence your choice of staying in bed all day? Either way the end result is the same, it becomes a frustrating brain exercise.

Finally I would like to talk a bit about morality and this bad conscience Nietzsche describes. First off, he makes the bold claim that there are only two types of morality, that of the Master and Slave. Master moralists consider their own virtues to be what’s good, and everything that’s weak, poor, and ugly to be bad. The slave moralist on the contrary sees everything that the master moralist considers good to be evil, and good is to be compassionate and selfless. My problem with this, is that it is hard for me to believe that the history of morality can be clumped in to two categories.  There is much more to morality than two “cliques.”

My favorite part of Nietzsche this far has been his theory of bad conscience. The very thing that makes the human animal such miserable and cursed creature. The fact that we have this conscience that obstructs our animal instincts. Sometimes I like to think i’ve experienced this bad conscience. Every time I make a statement and think to myself, “wow, that sounded egocentric.”  Why should that bother me? Why shouldn’t I be egocentric? Why should my conscience tell me it’s wrong to be selfish, when my instincts beg for it. Nietzsche calls bad conscience a sickness, and he gives it a bad rap, but there is some promise in it. Like the title of one of his books, Nietzsche wants to move beyond good and evil. Although it might seem like he prefers the natural human, I believe Nietzsche believed that man would eventually evolve, and have no need for morality. Would the next step in man’s evolution be the ubermensch? If so when will this  next step take place?  It’s been over 100 years since his death, yet we still seem stuck in this “bridge” phase.

Oops... I think we just murdered God.

Finally back to somewhat familiar territory as we move from the Christian Kierkegaard to the atheist Nietzsche, who’s intelligence inevitably led to his insanity which scholars still debate.  He is most famously known for his line “God is dead” and of course the “Ubermensch” (overman) which is mainly what we focused on this week.  We read a bit from “The Gay Science” and “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” which introduced to us his philosophy on the death of God.  As I understood it, Nietzsche is describing the death of the Christian god, which after time will christian morality from ruling our lives. In the future the belief in god will become less and less, allowing humanity to overcome the prison we have made for ourselves by clinging to Christian morals that are still engrained in our society. Although god is dead, Nietzsche believed that it would take a long time for god’s death to be accepted by people, for “This tremendous event is still on its way still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men.” 

We also read about the Ubermensch.  It is his concept which could replace the void of god.  The Ubermensch is the next step in the evolution of man. As man was once ape, the ape is nothing but a primitive being and soon Man will be a primitive being to the Ubermensch.  To me the Ubermensch is something to be strived for but can never be reached.  He does not follow herd mentality, his mentality is individual and unique.  When I consider this, it becomes unfathomable.  How could a person possibly stray from the herd and act in a completely unique manner?  I enjoyed how Nietzsche explained that we are like “No shepherd and one herd.”

There are so many people in the world that I believe individuality is nearly impossible. As soon as we communicate our thoughts, they no longer become individual and Nietzsche addresses this in his writings when he discusses consciousness. To Nietzsche, consciousness arose from the need to communicate.  If a man were living in isolation in the woods, it would perhaps be possible for him to not have consciousness, for he could be a beast acting on his own animalistic passions and needs. Consciousness was something that came out of societal needs to communicate for survival.  For Nietzsche, consciousness is a bad thing, a sort of curse that has fallen on man.  The only form of consciousness, or rather self-consciousness to exist in the Ubermensch is that of the will to power.  The will to power is merely the strive to become a better person, the best type of man that can be achieved, the ideal man. The Ubermensch would be above self-consciousness as he is above man.

Our final reading and class discussion was about Nietzsche’s view on “truth,” which was much more befuddling than I initially thought.  In the Twilight of the Idols, he accuses Socrates and other wise thinkers as being unhappy. Is it truly worth it to analyze your life and the world around you if it just makes you “sick”? Nietzsche then argues that morality goes against the nature of man, and confines his passions.  Should a man be able to tell you how you ought to be morally?  In my interpretation, Nietzsche says no, that we should instead act on our own passions, which christian morals have imprisoned. Our passions are our nature, but morality has told us that we mustn’t do this or that.  We mustn’t have sex with those we find attractive, we should find one person and remain faithful to him or her.  Nietzsche insists that “there is only perspective knowing.”  Therefore morality would be a perspective too, right?  If so then we simply need to change our moral perspectives.  Sex is a passion which exists beyond marriage, and I find that acceptable. Now can I act on this passion without feeling guilty?

Let's Get Ethical, Ethical.

Three dialectics, the holy trinity, the ego the id and the super-ego. What is the fascination with the number three?  In the last class discussion we mostly talked about the importance of Kierkegaard’s three dialectics; the Aesthetic, the Ethical, and the Christian.  Though he doesn’t necessarily say it, he puts a heavy emphasis on the fact that the Christian dialectic is the most gratifying.  Although god can not be understood objectively, the passionate faith of god, the never-ending struggle of faith in god is what drives a man through life according to Kierkegaard. At least that was how I interpreted it.  That a man would be happiest through his passion in life.  A true Christian is very different to Kierkegaard, for he says that it is easier to become a true Christian when not already a Christian.  Many can claim to be christian’s yet not truly have faith in the idol,  therefore not truly be a christian.  It is the passionate exertion of faith, the true worship of an idol that makes someone a Christian.  This leads me to wonder how Kierkegaard would feel about someone’s faith in other idols.  Such as Krishna or Buddha.  Would this person be a Christian to Kierkegaard?  Perhaps i’m misinterpreting the writings, but to me it seems that the honest passion of faith is what truly matters to him.

The Aesthetic life, the Dionysian pleasures of art, beauty, wine, and women would soon bore a man. For an aesthetic, there is no good or evil, no morality, for he lives only to please himself in the moment. One could live an aesthetic life in ignorance for many years (perhaps a lifetime) and be happy, if they never realized the lack of meaning.  Once he looks back on his life and realizes it was meaningless, however, he would seek a different road, the road of the ethical.  An ethical life is rational.  It follows an objective morality.  There is purpose in an ethical lifestyle, and many would be content for a lifetime.  But the ethical too is flawed.  Though it has meaning, the ethical life is lacking the awareness of sin.  Once a person glimpses the fact that they are living in sin, they must move on to a better dialectic. The revelation that you are a sinner, that you are guilty (as Camus would suggest) throws a person in to despair.  What can you do with this knowledge of sin, with this despair?  One can repent, and passionately give their life to God.  You may kneel to god’s infinite power, and you must simultaneously fear him while trusting in his benevolence.  The relationship with god however is not objective for that cannot be proven.  What matters more is the direct relationship a person has with god.  It is not reading about the holy trinity and believing it as fact, for the holy trinity is a paradox.  God cannot be man and more than man at the same time.  Instead it is how one interprets the concept of the Holy Trinity and the concept of God.  The passion one exerts to the faith in it.

I know we haven’t quite read Nietzsche yet, but as I was partaking in my seemingly aesthetic lifestyle, I was discussing with my friend the concept of Ubermensch.  During our conversation I asked him if the Ubermensch (overhuman) could actually exist.  He replied by saying that I missed the point entirely.  The Ubermensch is something for people to strive for.  It is a never-ending attempt to become a better man than one is at the current moment.  To me this is strikingly similar to Kierkegaard’s passion for God.  Through passionate faith in god, one strives to become a better person.  One would follow the morals of God and attempt to repent for his sins.  His life would change for the better.