Again, try to post at least three questions and/or comments, PRIOR to class, pertaining to today's reading. Try formulating discussion-oriented, open-ended questions related to these mostly-factual questions about the contents of our text.
Ex'm ch1-2
- Existentialism's deepest roots are in an ancient Greek practice called ___, with a focus on what kinds of questions and attitudes? What became of that practice, in the subsequent history of philosophy?
- What did Kierkegaard and Nietzsche both respect about Socrates? What view of truth did Kierkegaard think Socrates exemplified? Do you think Socrates would have endorsed Kierkegaard's account? [NOTE:This last question is discussion-oriented, in contrast to the other text-oriented questions which have a definitive answer in the text. Discussion-oriented questions are more open-ended.]
- What is ethical emotivism?
- What notion of space is illustrated by the tendency of students to self-assign their seating arrangements in class?
- Which (if any) of the five basic themes of Existentialism most resonates with you personally? Why?
- What have some misunderstood about Kierkegaard's "truth as subjectivity"?
- What did pragmatist William James say about "our passional nature" that echoes Kierkegaard's view of "conversion experience" and "leaps of faith"?
- Why, for the existentialists, is "my truth" not a self-contradictory oxymoron?
- What was Sartre's general thesis about the stance literature and art should take towardes social oppression and economic exploitation?
- Who are some prominent literary figures who exemplify existentialism?
- What is intentionality?
- What was Descartes' Pyrrhic victory?
- What is the point of Sartre's discussion of the voyeur at the keyhole?
- What do existentialists find objectionable in Husserl's phenomenological reduction?
- What are some different names existentialists have come up with to characterize conformists?
- By what criteria was Kierkegaard the epitome of a Nietzschean?
- What are Kierkegaard's three spheres or stages of existence?
- What are some ethical categories that apply only after a leap or conversion experience, for Kierkegaard? Do you agree that people who live entirely in the aesthetic sphere are not immoral?
- What Kantian precept is for Kierkegaard the essence of immorality?
- Do you agree that Kierkegaard's "teleological suspension of the ethical" is not its practical abandonment? How do you think such behavior as Abraham's would impact his relationship with his son Isaac?
- Is it plausible to deny free will and at the same time affirm individual freedom and "free spirits," in Nietzschean style? Is it an existential error to emphasize the importance of choice in fashioning a free and flourishing life?
- Was Nietzsche right to think that atheism naturally entails nihilism, in the absence of a philosophy like his own?
- If fatalism is correct, how can Nietzsche's eternal recurrence afford the possibility of life affirmation and amor fati? How can one choose to affirm life, when events are fated? And how can thought-events be non-arbitrarily exempted from such fatalism?
- What general 20th century calamity did Jaspers credit Nietzsche and Kierkegaard with anticipating? Do you think we're still suffering a version of that calamity, in the face of our own emergent technologies?
Repost because I got labeled anonymous by accident.
ReplyDeleteExistentialism’s roots lie in the Ancient Greek practice of self-care (epimeleia heautou). It is exemplified in Socrates who treated philosophy as a way of life. The idea is to be focused on how we should be in the world rather than just accumulating a knowledge base of abstract truths. Self-examination and discipline are important practices to this way of life (doing philosophy) if the philosopher is to conduct themselves congruently with their philosophy.The philosopher was a “doctor of the soul” and the cultivation of a principled life resulting in happiness is an existential endeavor. The notion of fostering the self would later be displaced in academic philosophy but it sublimated in the areas of activism, spirituality, and psychological health. Existentialism revivified epimeleia heauto by putting subjectivity back on a table that had been cleared by the empirical strains of philosophy.
Right. Subjectivity is the personal voice from from which we philosophize. INTER-subjectivity (a philosophy of Co, WJ would say) is the enabling platform that makes collaborative philosophizing, scientific research, and scholarship possible generally. It's how we put our heads together to correct our errors and advance our shared understanding. You could even call it a movement towards "objectivity" properly reconstructed. There's no better "self-care" to be had, and it's OTHERS-care (or community building) at the same time.
Delete5. I think the existentialist theme I resonate with most is humanism. I’ve always been a very inwardly focused person, with a tendency to relate external information to my personal life to understand it. It seems that, while there may well be fundamental truths or an objective reality, it is very difficult to grasp anything outside of my own perception. Although we share a certain level of reality, we all live in our own worlds. We may agree that a chair is red, but my red is probably different from yours. Finding a personal source of meaning in my own suffering, and finding resilience and a sense of identity within that meaning, has been a critical part of becoming who I am and who I want to be.
ReplyDelete13. The point of Sartre’s voyeur in the keyhole seems to be that the ‘other’ is a real force outside of ourselves, with its own perception. In the story, the voyeur starts as a subject who objectifies others for his own satisfaction, without realizing that those he objectifies are subjects themselves. That is the case until he hears a footstep (or the wind or whatever is causing a noise) which interrupts him, causing him to become self-conscious and realize himself as an object to others. This passage immediately reminded me of Berkeley’s “to be is to be perceived,” which is used as a proof for his subjective idealism. Upon some further research, it seems Sartre’s point was actually to disprove Berkeley’s point by asserting that others are themselves subjects, and not merely objects within the mind.
15. Existentialists seem to have many, somewhat derogatory words for conformists, such as the ‘herd,’ ‘plebs,’ or ‘bad faith.’ While I see where they are coming from, I don’t necessarily support this characterization or think it’s fair. I kind of think to characterize the masses as beneath oneself is to forget that you are part of the masses in the eyes of others. I think a better way to go about things is to try and lift up societal standards where we see them lacking, by example and on the ground, rather than by criticizing from above.
I too identify as a Humanist, but in my reckoning that's why I don't say "we all live in our own worlds"... I acknowledge that we all construe our world in ways that are idiosyncratic and peculiar to ourselves, but that's just a fact about what it means to be human. So, one world with a multiplicity of ways of expressing our separate humanity. Still ,we are one species. We really shouldn't find one another all that alien (with a handful of exceptions).
ReplyDelete"my red is probably different from yours" - I seriously doubt it, but pragmatically I don't see that this matters much. What practical difference will it make for you or me, if in fact your read isn't mine?
"others are themselves subjects" - Exactly. Something we should be able to relate to, reflexively.
"you are part of the masses" - Indeed. The challenge of authenticity is to be of the part that thinks, and acts from considered reflection, not the part that merely mimics and conforms. Be exceptionally human without being misanthropic. Not sure Nietzsche, for instance, pulled that off.
2. Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche both respected Socrates's individualizing leap across the gap in rationality between the proofs of personal immortality and his choice to accept hid death sentence. Kierkegaard thought Socrates exemplified the "truth as subjectivity", meaning a personal conviction on which one is willing to risk one's life. It is hard to say what exactly Socrates might have had to say about this. If Kierkegaard held more importance in the finding of that truth, rather than the actual truth itself, perhaps this is something Socrates would endorse. As a man who was constantly encouraging others to constantly question their values, purpose, and actions, it is hard to imagine he would not encourage Kirkegaard to question any "truth as subjectivity" he thinks he might have found. That being said, I do still think he would appreciate it as a cultivation of one's soul.
ReplyDelete5. The existentialist theme that resonates with me most is humanism, and believe is the one that is most aligned with authenticity. This is a concept I have always been wrapped up in, even before I had a name for it. I have always been fighting against superficiality and conformism, I have never enjoyed the feeling of mindlessly accepting what is around me. The only theme on this list I had never heard of before is "Time is of the essence". I find it very intriguing and appreciate the separation of measurable 'clock' time and lived time.
8. For existentialists, 'my truth' is not a self-contradictory oxymoron because existentialists such as Nietzsche insist that ALL truth is, in a way, subjective. It is impossible for any knowledge to exist without it having been interpreted by someone.
2. Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche respected Socrates because of his way of thinking, which was similar to that of an existentialist. He went beyond the rational and into subjective ideals of the universe and morals. Both existentialists respected how he challenged the gaps between the rational and proof of personal immortality, that the soul lasted far beyond our bodies, and continued after death. Socrates even ended his life testing his hypothesis when he was ordered to be killed by the Athenian Court. He lost his life preaching about the possibility of more after this life, a big question for existentialists.
ReplyDelete12. Descartes was a rationalist who tried to erase as much doubt and skepticism. So, Descartes noted that he could be sure of one thing: he was a thinker since he could doubt, and that was thinking. "I think, therefore I am." However, this argument left Descartes trapped in his mind, and facing a new problem of bridging the gap between the reality inside and outside. There was no way of extending his idea to the real world, which was seen as a Pyrrhic victory.
17. Kierkegaard had 3 stages of existence. The first being the aesthetic, which focuses on the present. It's immediate consciousness, without going much further. This stage is tethered to the external world. The 2nd stage is called the ethical stage. Also focused on the present, but instead of just going day by day, this stage emphasizes one's moral obligations. Deciding between evil and good. The last stage is the religious stage, where one's consciousness grows inward and takes the leap of faith towards the immortal God.
24. Jasper believed that Nietzsche and Kierkegaard most effectively influenced the Nazi Regime in the 20th century. I do believe we are continuing down this path even more than before. Everyone in power is willing to devalue Existenz in order to gain scientific knowledge, which is more power. We see this happen everywhere with higher-ranked officials, with the end goal of gaining more knowledge, which is equivalent to more power, and they are willing to devalue our existence as humans.
4) I think students choosing their own seats shows that we view space as more than just physical locations. We develop preferences for certain spaces based on where we feel comfortable or what we are used to. I also think it shows how people naturally create their own personal space even when nobody tells them where they have to sit.
ReplyDelete15) I understand why existentialists criticize conformists, since they believe people should think for themselves and make their own choices. However, I don't necessarily think conformity is always a bad thing. Sometimes following social norms can help people get along and function as a society. I think the important thing is being able to make your own choices rather than hopping on the bandwagon and blindly following everyone else.
18) Kierkegaard argues that ethical categories such as good and evil, duty, and moral responsibility apply after a person makes a leap or conversion into an ethical or religious way of living. I agree that people who live entirely in the aesthetic sphere are not necessarily immoral. Someone who focuses on pleasure and enjoying life is not automatically a bad person, especially if they are not hurting anyone. However, I think it could become immoral if their pursuit of pleasure causes them to ignore their responsibilities or negatively affect other people.
I agree with your answer for #4. I make an effort to get to some classes early just so someone doesn't take "my seat". Its interesting how personal spaces can become generated from routine.
Delete5) I found that living in authenticity and existence preceding essence resonated with me more than any other theme. Being able to have the perspective of creating my own essence is very empowering for being in a society that promotes and encourages many, at least in my opinion, rat races for the ideal life. If there is no ideal scenario, then being able to create one for oneself is very comforting.
ReplyDeleteAlso, after reading about Kierkegaard's "truth as subjectivity", I have been taking anything "objective" with a grain of salt. I think it's made me more skeptical on what should be concrete or subject to opinion.
3. Ethical Emotivism is the perspective that when making moral judgments, people are simply expressing personal feelings rather than concrete moral truths. Basically, claiming something as morally correct is actually just expressing approval of the question.
ReplyDelete4. When students choose their self-assigned seat, it is a clear demonstration of hodological space. In existentialism, space is subject to the opinions and actions of humans, rather than being a fixed and measurable distance. Meaning is projected onto these spaces through actions and choices, such as choosing where to sit in a class. This definitely made me unproductively question where I have chosen to sit this semester, but it's because the concept is very interesting.
6. Some people interpret Kierkegaard’s concept of "truth as subjectivity" as claiming beliefs themselves do not matter, and only the passion and conviction behind the belief is what's important. We learn that Kierkegaard’s view is not necessarily in favor of relativism, but rather an observation on the way an individual may assimilate a belief into their life. He emphasizes importance beyond the contents of the belief, questioning how a person may commit and live according to it.
1. Socratic questioning. The questions asked centered around 'how should I live' and 'what is a good life' . It became more theoretical, then centered around the existentialist ideas of freedom, personal responsibility, and authenticity.
ReplyDelete3. An ethical emotivism is the view that moral judgements do not provice objective ethical truths, but rather reflect one's feelings.
5. I resonate most with the existentialist theme that existence precedes essence. I believe in freewill over predetermination or predestination, and agree that our existence is shaped by our choices and actions. We are free to choose how we may act, and can use it to pursue a life which we desire.
ReplyDeleteWhat is ethical emotivism? Ethical emotivism questions the legitimacy of ethical claims, because moral judgements are based on the feeling that something is wrong, not on objective truth. It may be referred to as the ‘boo/hurrah’ theory because society will either boo or hurrah an action or thought without concrete fact to back the claim.
Which (if any) of the five basic themes of Existentialism most resonates with you personally? Why? I I found the fifth theme to be the most critical theme of existentialism in my life: “ethical considerations are paramount”. In considering our freedom to develop an essence through our actions, we must also formulate a moral code that we stick by. It is a great responsibility to determine right from wrong, but the obligation to embody those values is even more difficult. Without a concrete set of morals, you must live by your own rules and accept that others will be guided by their own.
What was Descartes' Pyrrhic victory? While Descartes set out to become certain against skeptical doubt, his conclusion was that the only thing he knew for sure was that he was a thinker. If he could doubt, then he must think, and therefore he must exist. Although he succeeded in beating skeptical doubt, Descartes found himself questioning how to bridge his inner reality with outer reality.
3. From what I understood of ethical emotivism, the emotions expressed and felt through a result of moral situations are complex and should be interpreted through those lens.
ReplyDelete4. The notion of space / lived space illustrated by students self-assigned seats would be “hodological” space, assumed with comfort. Personally, there is slight discomfort in sitting at an unassigned assigned seat but not a feeling where I would refuse to do again. Living in discomfort is what makes me feel real.
17. Kierkegaard’s stages of existence are “the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious.” Religion I am not too versed on but I want to learn more about how others practice their beliefs; or, how religions influence both government and society… Some states do not separate religion and government and it’s shown in the culture. I often think about the restriction of following a religion extremely.
12. What was Descartes' Pyrrhic victory?
ReplyDelete- Descartes' Pyrrhic victory was in his finding of certitude against skeptical doubt in his claim "Cogito, ergo sum". This is considered a Pyrrhic victory because oh where Descartes' finds himself after. His certitude applies to thought within the mind and offers no obvious answers on how to bridge that truth from the "internal world" to the "external world".
12b. I am in the process (almost finished) of reading Descartes' "Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy" before I go into reading Antonio Damasio's "Descartes' Error". While his famous phrase "Cogito, ergo sum" is one that really resonated with me, the question of how he will bridge such a truth the external world is one I had been thinking about, and assumed would be covered in Damasio's book. It is cool to see others sharing what I'm thinking as I read.
17. What are Kierkegaard's three spheres or stages of existence?
- Kierkegaard’s three spheres of existence are “the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious.” I have not read much Kierkegaard, but I am excited, especially to see in what ways his faith impacts his existentialist mindset (if at all) and vice versa. Will he have any implicit bias?
Typing on my phone.
ReplyDelete3. Don't quote me on this because I used notes from a prior ethics class. Ethical emotivism is a metaethical idea that ethical propositions express emotional states. It relies on subjective experience to characterize good or bad moral judgement. Emotivism tends to be varied due to people's differing emotional responses and dispositions towards one idea over another.
10. Some prominent literary figures of existentialism are Dostoevsky, Kafka, and Camus.
12. Descartes Pyrrhic victory was his conclusion "I think, therefore I am" over radical skepticism. Even if everything is uncertain, he concludes that the very act of thinking confirms that the thinker himself exists. But this type of victory traps the thinker's beliefs in the external world solely on himself as the source of knowledge, not exactly as what the external world "truly" is. The inner mind is not truly interacting with the outer reality.