Existentialism: Questions Sep 17

Tuesday, September 15, 2026

Questions Sep 17

Kaag 37-80

What do you think Nietzsche means by playing seriously, like a child? Does it have something to do with children's willingness to question everything? 37-8
Do you think parenthood changes people, or tends to hasten their own embrace of adult responsibilities? If so, why do you suppose so many of the famous dead philosophers were childless (and often partner-less)? Was Kierkegaard wrong to break off his engagement on the grounds of being too melancholy? Was Schopenhauer wrong about marriage being akin to dipping your arm blindly into a bag of snakes?
What would you say to the student who told Kaag she's been happy but "then I started reading Nietzsche"? 39 Any thoughts on this Nietzschean aphorism?: We [Hyperboreans] kept as far as possible from the happiness of the weakling, from “resignation”... There was thunder in our air; nature, as we embodied it, became overcast—for we had not yet found the way. The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, a goal.... The Antichrist
What in general would you say about any philosophy by which you "came to terms with life" but also became incapable of living with others? 41 Would you--unlike Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, evidently-- wish to seek other terms?
Is it an intrinsic objection to the standard experiential human pleasures (food, material consumption, travel, games, sex, ...) that they are transitory and not permanent? Do Nietzsche and Schopenhauer (for instance) exaggerate the prevalence and ubiquity of suffering in most human lives?
Is Kaag unfair to those of us who, like Kant, walk consistent daily neighborhood routes when he says this-- by contrast with distance hikers and mountaineers-- indicates "a constipated mind"? 45 Was Nietsche unfair to Kant when calling him a nihilist and idiot?
Was Kaag's shift from Nietzsche to American philosophy more morally-responsible? Is Emerson's version of self-reliance preferable to Nietzsche's? Any thoughts on any of these Emersonian aphorisms (below*)?
Is "the Last Man" wrong to value safety, comfort, and convenience? 51 Can you value those things and "beauty and risk"?
Can existence really only be justified as an "aesthetic experience"? 53 Why must it be "justified" at all, rather than just enjoyed and ameliorated? But does Kaag have a point when he calls out the beer-drinking Americans in the airport sports bars watching the Tour de France?
"Pessimism disabused him of the idea that everyday life was meaningful..." 55 Any comment on this? Or on this statement from Christopher Hitchens?: "A life that partakes even a little of friendship, love, irony, humor, parenthood, literature, and music, and the chance to take part in battles for the liberation of others cannot be called 'meaningless' except if the person living it is also an existentialist and elects to call it so. It could be that all existence is a pointless joke, but it is not in fact possible to live one's everyday life as if this were so."
Were the Romantics wrong about the point of life? 55-6
Are our values discredited by being contingent and historically rooted, rather than necessary and timeless? Should we "revalue" them, or just evaluate them in the light of our present conception of human circumstance and need? 66
What (again) is your response to the demon? 72 Do you find repetition in daily life inherently "crushing"? Do you find your "circles" an opportunity to grow and improve, with (for example) each pass around the sun? But does Nietzsche's fatalism ("nothing new") allow for such growth and improvement? And if you've seen Bill Murray's Groundhog Day, is this what makes his situation unlike Nietzsche's recurrence?
If, in response to eternal recurrence, you were to become more "well disposed to yourself and to life," wouldn't that then be something new? And if that sort of change is possible, why shouldn't a Nietzschean wish also to be a pragmatic meliorist like James and agree that “No fact in human nature is more characteristic than its willingness to live on a chance. The existence of the chance makes the difference… between a life of which the keynote is resignation and a life of which the keynote is hope.” (VRE)

“Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today.”
“the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.”
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.”
Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”
“To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart, is true for all men,—that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,—and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment.”
“Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of everyone of its members. Society is a joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs.”

Yalom 54-103

Do you share "the horror of living an unobserved life"? Could that account not only for our culture's resistance to aging, but also to our hyper-online activity? 55
Is it possible for a non-metaphysical dualist to say, with Nietzsche, that "my illness belongs to my body but it is not me"? Is it really true (as Elie Wiesel famously quoted Nietzsche in Man's Search for Meaning) that if you have a why, you can endure any how? 57
If you have a life's mission, does it follow that you are not suicidal? Does your nervous system also cry out for sun and dry air? 58
Do you also have your best thoughts while walking? 61
"It is not the truth that is holy, but the search for one's own truth." 68 But then Nietzsche insists that belief in God is "not a human choice." Any thoughts?
Is hope really "the worst of evils"? 69
"Perhaps by the year 2000, people will dare to read my books." 71 Is a popular philosopher an oxymoron?
Do you find young Freud's incipient talk of the Unconscious (82-3, 97) here persuasive? Or is Josef right, that the evidence for it is scarce?
"Whatever does not kill me..." (96-7) - Any thoughts?
Is loneliness "a breeding ground for sickness"? 101

7 comments:

PhilSeptember 16, 2026 at 4:07 PM
I think our class goes better when y'all post your thoughts in advance (and can then claim bases on the scorecard). But it's 4 pm Wednesday and no thoughts for tomorrow have been posted. Please try to post at least 24 hours prior to each class, if possible. Otherwise, I'll probably not get to see your posts ahead of time. But if you can't, better late than never. Go for it.
ReplyDelete
Replies
jacquez caldwellSeptember 17, 2026 at 3:02 PM
8. I don't believe that the "Last Man" is wrong in choosing safety and convenience. To me, it seems that with each scientific breakthrough comes inventions that make life more convenient. But if one is actively avoiding challenges and hardships in pursuit of constant leisure, they are missing out on the experiences that allow us to learn and grow. What comes to mind when thinking of the "Last Man" is being stagnant. For me, a balance of discomfort and risk is needed in order to justify leisure.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Natalie MorenoSeptember 17, 2026 at 3:05 PM
Do you think parenthood changes people, or tends to hasten their own embrace of adult responsibilities? If so, why do you suppose so many of the famous dead philosophers were childless (and often partner-less)? Was Kierkegaard wrong to break off his engagement on the grounds of being too melancholy? Was Schopenhauer wrong about marriage being akin to dipping your arm blindly into a bag of snakes? I think parenthood should change people, and I believe that is what the philosophers feared most. Consumed by their work, some of the greatest philosophers felt as though relationships served as an obstacle in the way of wisdom. Embracing a relationship requires someone to step outside of themselves and be present in a way that some philosophers sacrificed in their endeavor to understand the abstract. It’s dangerous to forsake interpersonal relationships in a pursuit of understanding existence, because it is inherently the core.
What in general would you say about any philosophy by which you "came to terms with life" but also became incapable of living with others? 41 Would you--unlike Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, evidently-- wish to seek other terms? If it takes isolation from the world around an individual to “come to terms with life”, I would argue that individual has become so far removed from existence; they have not accepted life at all. It reminded me of the critique that existentialists often ‘fail to see the forest for the trees’, in a general sense. Although Schopenhauer was not necessarily an existentialist, they both seemed to have written about existence from a disassociated, perch-like position. They both faced feelings of isolation because they felt deeply misunderstood, and they rationalized these feelings as though the connection was not something they desired all-along. I can’t help but wonder if the reason that they believed isolation was the ideal state for philosophizing was due to their own loneliness. I believe collaboration and feedback are critical to “come to terms with life”, otherwise the philosopher is bound to resort to isolation.
Reflecting on the isolation that so many philosophers endured, I am curious how different philosophy would be if Kierkegaard hadn’t abandoned his engagement, and if Nietzsche's affection for Salomé had been requited. Would they have discovered wisdom in these relationships, or would they would have neglected their loved ones in pursuit of understanding Being? The opposite? It’s impossible to know, but it’s consuming to contemplate.
ReplyDelete
Replies
MarissaSeptember 17, 2026 at 3:05 PM
4. I think it would be unbearable for me to try and live without others. In my view, others teach us so much about ourselves because of their otherness. I also find relationships to be a place where I am consistently invited to grow either with someone else or in myself. So, I think part of coming to terms with life is coming to terms with other people – life is full of them.

5. I don’t know that Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were necessarily exaggerating the prevalence of suffering. I do think it’s inherent to human life, although some experience more of it than others. But I wonder why, with it being so prevalent, we would be urged by Nietzsche to seek it out?
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2026 at 3:24 PM
13. I'd like to think that I would be okay with experiencing this existence multiple times over, but then I start to ask myself, "What am I even doing with my life?" The repetition of daily life can certainly be monotonous, especially when there is little to no time for leisure in between. That being said, time spent in leisure grants a rewarding aspect to the chores of the day. A cycle stops feeling like one when time and space for new experiences and choices is allowed.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Caroline HumphriesSeptember 17, 2026 at 3:26 PM
1. What do you think Nietzsche means by playing seriously, like a child? Does it have something to do with children's willingness to question everything? 37-8

I think that children's willingness to question everything could very well have something to do with it. The very idea of philosophy is to uncover truth and wisdom. Children refuse to go along with much of anything without knowing "why". I think another way to interpret this quote is that children have very active imaginations. They can spend hours entertaining themselves with an imagined scenario. Good philosophers must be able to do the same and chase seemingly answerless questions down the rabbit hole and see what they find.

13. What (again) is your response to the demon? 72 Do you find repetition in daily life inherently "crushing"? Do you find your "circles" an opportunity to grow and improve, with (for example) each pass around the sun? But does Nietzsche's fatalism ("nothing new") allow for such growth and improvement? And if you've seen Bill Murray's Groundhog Day, is this what makes his situation unlike Nietzsche's recurrence?

I do not find repetition to be crushing. In fact I am someone who needs a little bit of repetition in my daily life in order to feel grounded, and do see these an opportunities for growth. Life can very rarely be lived without repetition, maybe not at all. I do believe that Nietzche's fatalism of "nothing changes" damning to the idea that we could use the repetition to grow and change. I am making the assumption that the demon's offer includes us having the knowledge that we are repeating this life, as well as remembering the previous. Honestly, I think it would be an encouraging way to live life. It would be disappointing to lose that element of surprise, but getting through hard times would be easier as you have foresight of the good things to come. More importantly, I think this hypothetical is a reminder to make your life mean something to you, and make it something you wouldn't be devastated to repeat.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

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, September 15, 2026

Questions Sep 17

7 comments:

Questions SEP 22

Report Abuse

Labels