Existentialism: What's It All About?: Philosophy & the Meaning of Life

Tuesday, July 14, 2026

What's It All About?: Philosophy & the Meaning of Life

“‘You’re T. S. Eliot,’ said a taxi driver to the famous poet as he stepped into his cab. Eliot asked him how he knew. ‘Ah, I’ve got an eye for a celebrity,’ he replied. ‘Only the other evening I picked up Bertrand Russell, and I said to him, “Well, Lord Russell, what’s it all about?” And, do you know, he couldn’t tell me.’ On which man is the joke in this true story? Is it Lord Russell, the great philosopher, who despite all his supposed intelligence and wisdom was unable to answer the cabby’s question? Surely if anyone can tell us ‘what it’s all about’, the world’s greatest living philosopher can? Or is it the taxi driver, who expected to hear the solution to such a big problem in the course of a short journey? Even if Russell knew the answer, wouldn’t it require time and patience to explain the secrets of the universe? Perhaps the best answer is that neither man merits mockery. Certainly not Russell, for if it were possible to answer the question properly in ten minutes someone would already have publicly done so and the taxi driver would not have needed to ask. But nor should we mock the taxi driver for his ignorance. His question is one almost everyone asks at some point. The problem is that it is vague, general and unclear. It is not so much a single question but a place-holder for a whole set of questions: Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Is it enough just to be happy? Is my life serving some greater purpose? Are we here to help others or just ourselves? What’s it all about? To answer these questions I believe we need to undertake a rational, secular inquiry. By ‘secular’ I do not mean ‘atheist’. I mean simply that our arguments must not start from any supposed revealed truths, religious doctrines or sacred texts. Instead they must appeal to reasons, evidence and arguments that can be understood and assessed by all, whether they have a faith or not. This is because even for many believers, the authority of established religions cannot be taken as absolute. As we understand the great diversity of faiths in the world, the historical events and forces that shaped their doctrines and sacred texts, and the fallibility of many of their leaders, the idea that they provide direct access to absolute truth loses its credibility. Divinely inspired or not, the human hand is all too clearly present. That means that even if we do believe, we cannot accept religious teachings unquestioningly. We must use our own intelligence to determine for ourselves whether or not the answers they provide stand up. And because at some stage most of us can’t help but wonder what it’s all about, we can’t avoid this kind of philosophizing for ever...” — What's It All About?: Philosophy & the Meaning of Life by Julian Baggini

No comments:

Screens down. Engage!

In other words, ATTEND class in more than just the literal sense of the word. Please always direct your attention to whoever is speaking, whether Prof or student, and be prepared to participate--above all by listening thoughtfully, and contributing appropriately to discussion. That, along with presence and posted comments/questions, counts as PARTICIPATION (which can be a difference-maker in terms of the final grade... and far more importantly in the long run, in terms of the quality of your education).

COURSE GOALS (I refuse to use the cliche "Learning Outcomes" lingo favored by academic bureaucrats)

Many self-avowed Existentialists have a not-entirely-undeserved reputation for being sad, solemn, pessimistic, cynical, despairing, and world-weary (and this goes for both the Atheistic and Theistic branches, from Nietzsche to Sartre and Kierkegaard to Jaspers et al). But we must recall what Camus said about Sisyphus: we must imagine him HAPPY. I usually teach a course called The Philosophy of Happiness in the Fall. This is the first time I'm teaching Existentialism instead. But a personal GOAL is to say many of the same things I would have said in that class. To wit: A philosophy that takes human freedom and responsibility seriously really SHOULD pursue and value happiness. On my reading, this is what Existentialists and Pragmatists share: a commitment to free and intelligent action in service of human flourishing. So a primary GOAL of our course is to show that Existentialists can and should be happy. Another GOAL is to show that the best of Existentialism is also the best of Pragmatism. (I call myself, when pressed to produce labels, a pragmatic-stoic/naturalistic/humanistic/democratic and pluralistic epicurean .) More broadly, one of our GOALS is to survey the roots and branches of a philosophy that has long historical antecedents going back centuries, that got its wings from Nietzsche and Kierkegaard (and Emerson and Thoreau, in the space of intersection between it and Pragmatism) in the 19th century, and that gained a name and a following in the 20th century and beyond with Sarte, de Beauvoir, Camus, Husserl, Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, Merleau-Ponty and others... while finding common ground with the likes of William James and John Dewey and (later) Richard Rorty. And of course, our constant GOAL is to love learning about all this, and consequently to live better lives. jpo

Texts Fall '26

We'll read surveys and commentaries. But I urge you all to dip into primary sources when presenting and posting your reports. The projected "outcome": you'll learn a lot about Existentialism, you'll come to understand some of the Existentialists' salient connections with other philosophies and traditions, and you'll be motivated to apply the insights thus gained in pursuit of your own and others' well-being. You'll find that philosophy again has enhanced your life. It makes sense that we begin with Nietzsche, and specifically with John Kaag's book: he will be our invited Fall Lyceum speaker on October 2. I'm giving us a day off in early September; I expect you all to repay that by attending the Lyceum and meeting our author at the after-party. That's October 2, 5 PM in COE 164 and at a reception site tba... OUR REQUIRED TEXTS: 1) Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction... 2) John Kaag, Hiking With Nietzsche: Becoming Who You Are... 3) Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails with Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, Martin Heidegger,... 4) Mariana Allesandri, Night Vision: Seeing Ourselves through Dark Moods... RECOMMENDED: 5) Irvin Yalom, When Nietzsche Wept...6) The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction... ALSO RECOMMENDED (& on library reserve): Todd May, A Significant Life: Human Meaning in a Silent Universe... Susan Wolf, Meaning in Life and Why It Matters... Samuel Scheffler, Death and the Afterlife... Soren Kierkegaard, tba... William James, What Makes a Life Significant; Is Life Worth Living; On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings; tba...

Understood backwards, lived forwards

"Poor Nietzsche's antipathy"

For Nietzsche the saint represents little but sneakingness and slavishness. He is the sophisticated invalid, the degenerate par excellence, the man of insufficient vitality. His prevalence would put the human type in danger. “The sick are the greatest danger for the well. The weaker, not the stronger, are the strong's undoing..." Poor Nietzsche's antipathy is itself sickly enough, but we all know what he means, and he expresses well the clash between the two ideals. The carnivorous-minded “strong man,” the adult male and cannibal, can see nothing but mouldiness and morbidness in the saint's gentleness and self-severity, and regards him with pure loathing. The whole feud revolves essentially upon two pivots: Shall the seen world or the unseen world be our chief sphere of adaptation? and must our means of adaptation in this seen world be aggressiveness or non-resistance? The debate is serious. In some sense and to some degree both worlds must be acknowledged and taken account of; and in the seen world both aggressiveness and non-resistance are needful. It is a question of emphasis, of more or less. Is the saint's type or the strong-man's type the more ideal?" --William James, Varieties of Religious Experience, Lecture XV

Spinoza and James on true slave morality: to be free, don't just negate the bad; affirm the good

Spinoza long ago wrote in his Ethics that anything that a man can avoid under the notion that it is bad he may also avoid under the notion that something else is good. He who habitually acts sub specie mali, under the negative notion, the notion of the bad, is called a slave by Spinoza. To him who acts habitually under the notion of good he gives the name of freeman. See to it now, I beg you, that you make freemen of your pupils by habituating them to act, whenever possible, under the notion of a good. Get them habitually to tell the truth, not so much through showing them the wickedness of lying as by arousing their enthusiasm for honor and veracity. Wean them from their native cruelty by imparting to them some of your own positive sympathy with an animal's inner springs of joy. And, in the lessons which you may be legally obliged to conduct upon the bad effects of alcohol, lay less stress than the books do on the drunkard's stomach, kidneys, nerves, and social miseries, and more on the blessings of having an organism kept in lifelong possession of its full youthful elasticity by a sweet, sound blood, to which stimulants and narcotics are unknown, and to which the morning sun and air and dew will daily come as sufficiently powerful intoxicants... And if, in addition, you can also see him sub specie boni, and love him as well, you will be in the best possible position for becoming perfect teachers. --William James, Talks to Teachers XV

The Essence of Humanism (1905)

Humanism is a ferment that has ’come to stay.’ It is not a single hypothesis or theorem, and it dwells on no new facts. It is rather a slow shifting in the philosophic perspective, making things appear as from a new centre of interest or point of sight. Some writers are strongly conscious of the shifting, others half unconscious, even though their own vision may have undergone much change. The result is no small confusion in debate, the half-conscious humanists often taking part against the radical ones, as if they wished to count upon the other side... William James, continues: https://www.authorama.com/meaning-of-truth-6.html

Existentialism is a Humanism (1946)

My purpose here is to offer a defence of existentialism against several reproaches that have been laid against it. First, it has been reproached as an invitation to people to dwell in quietism of despair. For if every way to a solution is barred, one would have to regard any action in this world as entirely ineffective, and one would arrive finally at a contemplative philosophy. Moreover, since contemplation is a luxury, this would be only another bourgeois philosophy. This is, especially, the reproach made by the Communists... J-P Sartre, continues: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

Essentially everything? Bad Faith!

"Tech billionaires have decided that they should determine our futures for us. According to Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Sam Altman, and more, the only good future for humanity is one powered by technology: trillions of humans living in space, functionally immortal, served by superintelligent AIs. In More Everything Forever, science journalist Adam Becker investigates these wildly implausible and often profoundly immoral visions of tomorrow—and shows why, in reality, there is no good evidence that they will, or should, come to pass."

Simone and Henry

“Few tasks are more like the torture of Sisyphus than housework, with its endless repetition: the clean becomes soiled, the soiled is made clean, over and over, day after day.” ― Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex ///// "By the blushes of Aurora and the music of Memnon, what should be man’s morning work in this world? I had three pieces of limestone on my desk, but I was terrified to find that they required to be dusted daily, when the furniture of my mind was all undusted still, and I threw them out the window in disgust. How, then, could I have a furnished house? I would rather sit in the open air, for no dust gathers on the grass, unless where man has broken ground." --Henry David Thoreau, Walden

HDT

“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion.”...I left the woods for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one.”

Revel and Ricard

"Jean Francois-Revel, a pillar of French intellectual life in our time, became world famous for his challenges to both Communism and Christianity. Twenty-seven years ago, his son, Matthieu Ricard, gave up a promising career as a scientist to study Tibetan Buddhism -- not as a detached observer but by immersing himself in its practice under the guidance of its greatest living masters. Meeting in an inn overlooking Katmandu, these two profoundly thoughtful men explored the questions that have occupied humankind throughout its history. Does life have meaning? What is consciousness? Is man free? What is the value of scientific and material progress? Why is there suffering, war, and hatred? They ask each other questions about ethics, rights, and responsibilities, about knowledge and belief, and they discuss frankly the differences in the way each has tried to make sense of his life..." g'r

Existentialism

Tuesday, July 14, 2026

What's It All About?: Philosophy & the Meaning of Life

No comments:

Post a Comment

Questions SEP 22

Report Abuse

Labels