Always try to post at least three pertinent comments and/or questions about the assigned reading PRIOR to each class, in the comments space below my questions. I'll show you in class how to claim participation credit on the daily scorecard for doing so.
Your comments and questions can (but need not) respond to my dated questions, which will provide the content of our exams.
Not many questions today, we'll take some time before discussing them for you to introduce yourselves.
Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction by T. Flynn (Ex'm) preface
- The predominant mood of mid-20th century Parisian existentialists was always what? How did they prefer to do philosophy? In what mood do you find yourself, when philosophizing? Do you share their preference?
- What was Nietzsche's advice? Are "existential individuals" born, or made (achieved)? Do you think of your life as a potential succession of "stages," as Kierkegaard did? If so, how would you label/describe your present stage?
- What post-war essay by Sartre rocked Paris? If you've read it, what do you (dis)like about it? With what kind of philosophy was Existentialism then linked? How do you respond to this question?
- The supreme value and virtue of Existentialism are what? How do you define these terms? How do you attempt to realize them in your life?
- Any comment on any of these Existential comics?
2.1 Nietzsche sees life as a work of art where we are supposed to "become what we are" through creative self-overcoming. The idea is one of production rather than of discovery, but the dictum is oxymoronic--typical of Nietzsche. To become what one is presupposes an inclination of what one IS.
ReplyDelete2.2
I have always reflected on my life in terms of epochs, but primarily because I moved around a lot when I was younger. So eras of my life are demarcated by periods of stability. As far as Kierkegaardian development, I do recognize a time where my capacities were limited to the aesthetic domain as he describes. As years time progresses, though, I have found myself in the domain of the ethical. What I mean by that is, I understand myself much better as a relation to others which requires an ethical sensitivity.
2.3
I consider myself as bordering on the ethical and religious. Bordering, because I doubt I have a religious commitment such that I could readily suspend the ethical (could I sacrifice my son? unlikely). But I do practice having an open mind about the divine, the transcendent, and am inclined to suspect there is an ineffable element that informs the ethical.
And thus you've concisely demonstrated for the class just how easy it is to "touch 'em all" and shade every leg of the scorecard diamond before each class. Could be even easier, in fact, one or more of your comments could instead have been a question to class. For instance: "Could any of YOU 'suspend the ethical' and murder your son or daughter?" My own response to that: HELL NO!! And I'm a little unsettled whenever anyone responds with less than unequivocal, emphatic, outraged repudiation. No bond of trust is more sacred than that between parent and child. I would never risk damaging it by allowing my kids to think for a second that I might be remotely capable of considering such a "sacrifice"... no one else's life is less valuable to them than my personal convictions are to me. I think Kierkegaard's hierarchy is wrong. For purposes of conducting a functionally civil society, public ethics must never be allowed to be overrun by private conviction. That's why separation of church and state is such a big deal, and why we should be very concerned about how casually so many of our contemporaries in America are prepared to disregard it.
DeleteI really like your second point about relations and relationships being the heart of ethical life. Wm James (surprise) spoke to this in his essay "The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life":
"...we have learned what the words 'good,' 'bad,' and 'obligation' severally mean. They mean no absolute natures, independent of personal support. They are objects of feeling and desire, which have no foothold or anchorage in Being, apart from the existence of actually living minds.
Wherever such minds exist, with judgments of good and ill, and demands upon one another, there is an ethical world in its essential features. Were all other things, gods and men and starry heavens, blotted out from this universe, and were there left but one rock with two loving souls upon it, that rock would have as thoroughly moral a constitution as any possible world which the eternities and immensities could harbor. It would be a tragic constitution, because the rock's inhabitants would die. But while they lived, there would be real good things and real bad things in the universe; there would be obligations, claims, and expectations; obediences, refusals, and disappointments; compunctions and longings for harmony to come again, and inward peace of conscience when it was restored; there would, in short, be a moral life, whose active energy would have no limit but the intensity of interest in each other with which the hero and heroine might be endowed.
We, on this terrestrial globe, so far as the visible facts go, are just like the inhabitants of such a rock. Whether a God exist, or whether no God exist, in yon blue heaven above us bent, we form at any rate an ethical republic here below. And the first reflection which this leads to is that ethics have as genuine and real a foothold in a universe where the highest consciousness is human, as in a universe where there is a God as well. 'The religion of humanity' affords a basis for ethics as well as theism does. Whether the purely human system can gratify the philosopher's demand as well as the other is a different question, which we ourselves must answer ere we close." https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26659-h/26659-h.htm#P184
FYI, all-If you'll post your comments and questions 24 hours prior to class, there's a much greater chance that I'll see them before we meet. If you wait to post 'til the night before, or on the day of class, I probably won't. I'll generally try to stay out of your conversation threads. But I'd still like to see your posts in advance, if possible.
ReplyDeleteThe supreme value for the Existentialist is freedom, and the virtue authenticity. These two rightly go together. I see authenticity as living one’s life in alignment with personal values. With freedom of thought, I can foster and develop values of my own, and through freedom of action, I can attempt to live authentically. With this freedom comes the burden of responsibility for my actions.
ReplyDeleteAuthenticity is something I strive toward, often thinking to myself that I desire to be “the most possible me.” For better or worse, it seems the more I learn about myself and the way the world works, the more complicated that authenticity becomes. I find myself being inauthentic more often than I’d like to admit. I have a deep moral repulsion toward the idea of giving my money to billionaires and supporting a corporation that treats its workers to abysmal working conditions and supports wars I don’t agree with. But sometimes I find myself making an Amazon purchase, and subsequently feeling guilty. And then I also value not being too hard on myself, so I promise myself to do better next time, and delete the app. I suppose authenticity is a process of growing into ourselves, akin to Nietzsche’s words. It can be hard to be authentic in a modern world that pushes comfort and convenience over humanitarian values, and asks us to close our eyes and imagine ourselves in an isolated bubble, where our small choices don’t have larger, sometimes devastating effects on the greater world.
My question to the class is where do you find yourself being inauthentic in your life? Do you value authenticity above comfort and convenience (or at least strive to), and if so, what do you do the combat this?
I completely agree with Sartre in the soccer comic; I think the referee giving up his authority in favor of the VAR just takes away some essence of the game. I think he has a responsibility to make the call as he saw it and not put the decision off onto a machine.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure the existentialists in Paris liked to hang out in cafes and talk and philosophize there. I'm a fan of older movies and have watched the movie Funny Face, where Audrey Hepburn's character goes to Paris and hopes to listen in on a lecture by her favorite philosopher at the cafe he regularly attends. They use a fictional philosophy called "empathicalism" in the movie, but I think they were trying to make fun of the existentialists at the time.
Responding to the question in #3, I would say yes I am a humanist, although I believe in God. But other than that, I think we have a responsibility to be good people and that the rest of humanity would benefit from it.
1. They were creative and enthusiastic to practice self analysis. Additionally, they preferred to do philosophy by practicing their ideas through taking responsibility for their actions and becoming existential. When I philosophize, I find my self in a reflective or introspective position, considering my actions based on their motive and outcomes, trying to learn how to better handle myself in the future. I do believe that I share their preference, as I believe a philosophy or ideology is useless if it is not implemented into action.
ReplyDelete4. The supreme value and virtue of existentialism is freedom and authenticity. I define freedom as exercising choice without the fear of consequence or control, and authenticity as a quality of not allowing outside factors to influence you in expression or choice. I try to realize these by thinking independently and taking responsibility for my actions.
Comment: I think Sartre's argument for freedom is both a burden and a blessing. We are burdened with the ability to choose, but we through this we are afforded the ability build our own existence.
1. I find the Parisian's mood of excitement and freedom within philosophy to be an interesting approach to such consequential thoughts. As much as I love thinking about many abstract existential ideas, they preferred to approach philosophy with real-life applicability in the forefront of the thought. I think this is absolutely the most productive and defensible perspective, as it gives a real meaning to how philosophy can become action, rather than simply abstract conceptual thoughts. Despite this, I philosophize pretty differently, as I'm often obsessed with metaphysics relationship to life, which often yields sort-of depressing results.
ReplyDelete2. Nietzsche’s advice regarding life is an emphasis on authenticity and self-expression, in the pursuit of becoming who you are. Existentialist are not born, but rather achieved by radical responsibility and autonomy, including autonomous thought. I do think I can agree with the ideas of life stages, and I definitely view my own life through this lens at most reflections. This "era" for me is clearly representative of my pursuit towards a more fruitful and desirable life, and acting accordingly now will help me get there.
4. So much of existentialism's appeal (at least for me) comes from the core tenants of freedom and authenticity. My perspective of these have been shaped by philosophy readings throughout my life, as freedom is the radical autonomy and acceptance of my actions and their consequences, while authenticity is highlighting the value of becoming who you are, and acting in accordance with who you know yourself to be. I do try to practice both, but of course it's not always the easiest thing to do day-today,
I forgot to stop being anonymous, this is Aiden.
DeleteThe supreme value and virtue of Existentialism are what? How do you define these terms? How do you attempt to realize them in your life?
ReplyDelete4.1
The supreme value of Existentialism is freedom, with its supreme virtue being authenticity. I would define "authenticity" as, living in alignment with the truest desires of oneself and one's personal values, as opposed to conforming to external pressures or inherited expectations. "Freedom" I would describe as the lack-of confines that we experience that allow us the capacity not only to pursue (or not) authenticity based on what we currently believe, but also to continue that pursuit (or not) as new experiences, information, or criticisms challenge and reshape our understanding of ourselves.
4.2
I would love to say that in my own life I have always used my freedom to remain in a state of complete and utter authenticity. This would be a lie. I believe that the journey towards authenticity is one that is always ongoing, a goal that is never fully obtainable, but one worth striving towards all the same. Ever since I fostered an interest in philosophy after of first intro class freshman year, I've found it be a great aid to this unachievable goal. I often return to Descartes' first principle "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"). Although Descartes used this idea to establish certainty rather than authenticity, I’ve come to see it as a reminder that my existence is bound up with my capacity for reflection. If thinking is the grounds of my being, then what a disservice to myself to not do so, to stop questioning, learning, or examining the values I claim to live by.
4.3
How important is authenticity relative to other human values? Should it be pursued even when it conflicts with things like comfort, relationships, or survival? Would the world be a better place if everyone was constantly in pursuit their complete authenticity?
This was done by me, Evan
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe predominant mood of mid-20th century Parisian existentialists was always what? How did they prefer to do philosophy? In what mood do you find yourself when philosophizing? Do you share their preference? The predominant mood of the 20-th century Parisian existentialists can be described by enthusiasm, creativity, and an emphasis on freedom. Flynn paints an image of the Parisian existentialists lounging to smooth jazz and philosophizing between cigarette drags. While they may have preferred to ‘do’ philosophy through casual cafe debates, it’s important to recognize that they embraced existentialism as a way of life rather than just a topic of discussion. If I had to pinpoint a mood, I often find myself philosophizing in, I think it would have to be in similar bursts of creative, ruminative, or just reflective moods. In that way, I absoluitely share a preference for the mood and social setting that Parisian existentialists practiced.
What is Nietzsche's advice? Are "existential individuals" born, or made (achieved)? Do you think of your life as a potential succession of "stages," as Kierkegaard did? If so, how would you label/describe your present stage? Nietzche’s advice was to ‘become what you are’, and he believed that existentialist individuals are achieved. I believe that existentialist individuals are absolutely made, and it makes sense that many would rather evade existentialism in conformity. I can understand imagining life in a succession of “stages”, although I struggle to categorize my own life in steps or cycles.
I find Flynn’s emphasis on existentialism as a philosophy rather than a symbol of culture to be intriguing. It has made me consider each of the philosophies we have reviewed in previous courses, specifically the impact that historical context and practical application have on how we examine them. I think I’m guilty of trying to understand some philosophy as a concept as thought, rather than a way of life or general framework.
1. Of the five themes of existentialism, I find existence precedes essence the most interesting, just because I think it can even be applied to situations that don't have to do with existentialism. A core belief I feel many share is the idea that we are here for a reason and that every step in our lives has meaning; we just have to be patient. The healthier way to look at life isn't by waiting or expecting for something to happen, but taking our own actions towards it.
ReplyDelete2. The idea that existentialism is seen as a literary movement is something I have never thought of. Now, looking at it through a new lens, art, for most people, serves to question this world. I think good art makes you question the world and our position in it.
3. There is a lot that is unclear to me about the phenomenological method. Mainly the principle of intentionality. What can we refer to as the "other"
3.1 I believe, as said in the preface, that Sartre's public lecture shortly after the end of WWII, 'Is Existentialism a Humanism?' rocked Paris and became sort of a manifesto for the movement itself.
ReplyDelete3.2 While I wish to read it at some point, I have not read it just yet, and have no time to at the moment, leaving me to not be able to comment on this portion
3.3 The preface says that 'Is Existentialism a Humanism?' gave existentialism the association a humanistic philosophy that showed importance to pride of place and human values. Alternative views on humanism were also criticized around that time, and Sartre grew to regret the lecture.
3.4 While I may need a bit more thought on it, as religion has played a role in my upbringing, I do believe in affirming myself and others to live towards the greater good and should live to our fullest extent regardless if there is a supernatural force or life after death
2. Nietzsche advice follows “become what you are,” and I interpret that as what you experience and how you respond to it affects you as a whole. Your response is a part of your freedom to react the way you do.
ReplyDelete4. Tying into the previous comment, the supreme value of Existentialism is freedom whilst the virtue is authenticity. I define freedom as choice, including choice even in the face of adversity. Authenticity reminds me of genuineness - true to oneself or word. In my life, I employ freedom by choosing each and every little action I take. While authenticity is a bit harder for me to wrap my brain around, I find it slightly difficult to discern what is reality versus imagined. I often wonder if others (people I interact with) have ulterior motives and a bit of skepticism, even though I do not necessarily want to negatively attach those feelings upon others.
5. The comic “The Asteroid and the Meaning of Life,” caught my attention as it reflects on the behavior of humans arguing with one another on the topic of life. The ending of the comic reminded me of a scene in the sitcom “The Good Place,” in which a character, Matt from accounting, who had to assign good/bad points for the afterlife but was not so covertly tortured under the “weird sex things” department. It seems like humans are constantly going back to that topic! https://existentialcomics.com/comic/654
I appreciate the reading’s context that Existentialism is generally considered to be a movement following the aftermath of WW2 and the liberation of Paris from the nazi party; moreover, while I understand and agree that this is a very small period of Exiatentialism, I think this draws important connections between existentialism, freedom, and liberatory politics. Though, admittedly this is a standpoint that I am going into this class with, but I appreciate that the text illuminates existentialism as “ a manner of doing philosophy and a way of addressing the issues that matter in people’s lives and is at least as old as philosophy itself.” Some of the distinctions made between concrete and abstract in terms of “doing philosophy” and “ the concrete individual”. I am honestly not at all sure how philosophy can be done in a concrete as opposed to an abstract manner, maybe because I myself am more inclined to the abstract. Similarly, I do not understand what aspects of the individual are concrete or what type if that is the use of the term.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the last point made about Sartre’s life as lived exemplifying the union between the two dichotomies presented, which i dont totally understand yet but to me this makes some sense in the context of Sartre’s foreward in “Wretched of the Earth” by Fanon. That was a bold stance of him to take (for the liberation of francophone West Africa) and I gather that he took it in the name of living philosophy as a way of life.
*i am PERPLEXED by some of the distinctions made between concrete and abstract
Delete2.1 I am finding Nietzsche's advice of "become what you are" very interesting within the context of achieving, or perhaps evolving, from a biological being to an existential one. Of course, it is a phrase that is self contradictive. Is this suggesting that there already is a sleeping existential being within us all? Is it something that is slowly formed within us as children as cultural morals are instilled in us, and only something that is awoken once our own free wills and subsequent responsibilities are acknowledged? I am interested to know other takes on this quote.
ReplyDelete4. The preface insists that the primary virtue of Existentialism is authenticity (though it is often mistaken for freedom). I believe freedom is a crucial part of Existentialism BECAUSE Existentialism's end goal (if you will) is authenticity. First one must realize they are free before they can accept responsibility for their actions. And it is only that responsibility that defines a man. From then on, and only then, is it possible to live authentically. The daunting thing about this, to me, is that one does not simply become this way and never revert back into a "biological being". In fact, is it true that one must achieve existential individualism not only every day, but through every decision?
The comic "At The Existentialist Cafe" got a laugh out of me. I do think it was interesting how this media, as well as many other commentary medias, seemed to insist on the idea that existentialism is a philosophy of despair. If you make an authentic choice that defines you from then on (ordering avocado toast), why should that cause despair? As Sarte once lectured "you are free, so choose; therefore invent".