Ex'm ch3-4
- Sartre's famous equation of Existentialism and humanism responded to what criticisms? What was his Kantian challenge to each human agent?
- What did Camus consider the intrinsic absurdity of the human condition? Why does he nonetheless consider Sisyphus happy?
- What's hopeful in the humanism of Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Camus?
- What was Heidegger's criticism of existentialists and humanists? Should his philosophical reputation be "secure," given his Nazi association?
- What can it mean to say that "death is God"? Must we elevate our mortality to divine status, in order to defeat nihilism?
- What was Marcel's view of "genuine hope"? Do you agree? Is his view anti-humanistic? Do you agree with Jaspers thatiTranscendence as "the absolute Other"?
- Can you relate to Sartre's character Roquentin's revulsion at nature's superfluity? Or do you find it, like the sheer existence of anything at all ("rather than nothing") wondrous?
- COMMENT?: "I do not have a body, I am my body."
- Existentialists are all concerned, each in their own way, with what?
- What is it to be "in-situation"? What, for Sartre, does it always include?
- To be in bad faith is to deny what? Heidegger's related notion is what?
- What's existentially problematic about being a "perfect" waiter [or teacher, or student, or whatever]?
- How did Tolstoy's Ivan Ilyich achieve authenticity?
- What did Sartre mean by existential psychoanalysis?
- What is the significance for de Beauvoir of an "open future"?
7. Although I really enjoyed the poetic nature of the passage, I find existence itself to be something astonishing and extraordinary rather than repulsive. I think words like bountiful or wondrously abundant feel more accurate to my view of existence than superfluity does.
ReplyDelete12. The existentialist problem with being a “perfect waiter” is the idea that one gets completely lost in a sort of role that they are playing to the point that they no longer see it as a role, but rather believe it to be their true identity. In such a state, you are not able to transcend yourself or become who you really are because you have lost yourself in a character, not realizing that you are far more than a waiter (or whatever role you want to apply this to).
15. When de Beauvoir spoke of an “open future,” she was referring to a humanistic approach to existentialist freedom. Instead of seeing freedom in an individualistic light, she pointed out that to be truly free as individuals, we must work toward the freedom of all. I think our text puts it quite nicely, stating “my freedom is enhanced, not diminished, when I work to expand the freedom of others” (79). This speaks to a perspective in which we see that we are part of the collective, and stands in contrast to a view in which one puts others down to reach their goals. I think, when your freedom comes at the cost of the freedom of others, rather than being “free” at the top, you are now held in a sort of bondage where you must stay hypervigilant so that others trying to rise up from the bottom don’t take your spot.
I was thinking some more and wanted to add to what I said in response to question 12: I think a primary problem with trying to perfect a role is that you miss out on the opportunity to live up to your own, personal values. For example, I do value being a good student, but if that were my primary identity, I would lose out on trying to live up to values that are more important to me personally, like being a kind person.
Delete1. Sartre’s famous equation of existentialism and humanism responded to the criticisms that this new philosophy was narcissistic and overly focused on the individual. This was especially a problem because such philosophies could divert the youth from the demands of social justice, especially in the wake of the Fascist tragedy. Sartre emphasized that existentialism was not only focused on responsibility at the individual level, but the global level. His Kantian challenge to each human agent was “Am I he who has the right o act such that humanity regulates itself by my acts?”
ReplyDelete2. Camus considered the intrinsic absurdity of the human condition to be that we long for meaning conveyed by a universe that cares, but discover only an empty sky. In other words, there is no ultimate hope. However, Camus suggests that this IS our ultimate hope. Sisyphus CAN be happy because he is able to rise above the futility of his life through deliberate choice. He is able to turn his given circumstances into something he has chosen and made his own. It is up to us to create meaning in our lives where there is none.
3. The humanism of Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Camus all share the hope that we can always make something out of what we’ve been made into.
Accidentally posted this anonymously. This was Caroline Humphries!
Delete2. In reading Camus's work, I appreciated his perspective regarding existence, and how humans must approach such a topic. His concept of intrinsic absurdity of the human condition stems from our innate desire to explain existence with themes of purpose and meaning. Despite this yearning, we are ultimately left without any clear answers, and must shape a meaningful life ourselves. He uses the example of Sisyphus, describing how even in a seemingly "bad" situation, he is able to accept his situation rather than seeking an eventual escape. In recognizing the absurdity and continuing anyway, Sisyphus maintains autonomy over his attitude towards existence.
ReplyDelete11. Sarte considers bad faith as denying our autonomy and choices, and living as if we are defined by our circumstances and their roles. Heidegger's concept of inauthenticity relates, as it describes someone as living within the expected norms of other people and society, instead of owning their life.
12. Sarte's issue concerning a "perfect waiter" comes from the complete adoption of the role, in turn forfeiting any authenticity and individuality outside of the part they're playing. He believes we are more than the roles we perform and identify with day-to-day, and ignoring the freedom is simply pretending otherwise. Basically, embracing any one role as completely who you are is a denial of autonomy, and should be avoided.
9) Existentialists are concerned with human existence, especially our freedom and choices. They ask how we should live, what gives our lives meaning, and what responsibility we have for the lives we create.
ReplyDelete14) Sartre’s existential psychoanalysis focuses on understanding a person through their choices, desires, and goals. He believed that our actions show what we want to become and what we value in life.
15) For de Beauvoir, an “open future” means that our lives are not completely predetermined. We have freedom to make choices, change, and create new possibilities for ourselves. Because the future is open, we are also responsible for the choices we make.
2. The intrinsic absurdity of the human condition is the idea that we look for meaning beyond the life we live. Instead, we look for universal meaning, but, as Camus says, we "discover only an empty sky." Yet Camus believes that Sisyphus, the immortal god punished to live eternity pushing a rock up a mountain, was happy. What Camus calls existential solace is to rise above our fate, not because we are forced to, but because we choose to. Camus argues that we must acknowledge that there is no ultimate hope and, like Sisyphus, accept that we must make do with our situations and limit our thoughts so we can be happy in this life.
ReplyDelete9. Every single philosopher in one way or another is concerned with the "moral fact." This idea states that we are flooded with moral obligations from the world that were likely created by personal facts down the line.
15. De Beauvoir believed that to have an open future is to be free, not only personal freedom, but freedom for others. One can have personal freedom, but it can't be fully personal freedom because others don't have the same freedom. To be free is to share that freedom with others, thereby enhancing our own freedom and creating what she calls the "open future."
1. Sartre mainly used his essay as a response to the criticisms from the Catholics and Communists who said his philosophy was too focused on the individual and came off as insensitive to a war-ravaged Europe, and encouraging others to ignore rebuilding a stable and just society. With that, Sartre, with reference to Kant, challenged every human agent to ask the question of: “Am I he who has the right o act such that humanity regulates itself by my acts?" as stated in page 46, paragraph 2.
ReplyDelete11. I believe that Sartre considered bad faith as how we are defined by our roles, and by denying our choices we are letting others, society, own our lives by conforming to the norm. The other form of bad faith, according to Sartre, is the collapse of our possibilities into our conditions. Basically, leading to an avoidance of responsibility because they deem it is just the way they are, as said in page 72, paragraph 1. Heidegger doesn't follow too far behind, as his concept of inauthenticity refers to someone living within the norms set up by society and refusing to take ownership of their life.
14. Sartre is referring to the understanding of someone through reviewing the individual choices of said person and, therefore, discovering how they attempt to "coincide with themselves" (pp. 77, paragraph 2)
2.) The intrinsic absurdity of the human condition, as described by Camus, is founded by humanity’s desire for meaning and purpose. Camus described that the universe is silent in giving humanity answers or a clear-set purpose. Camus’s description of Sisyphus being happy relates to this idea, describing that Sisyphus’s happiness stems from an embrace of struggle and mortality. In this view, Sisyphus doesn’t embrace the struggle in hopes of success, but ultimately chooses to push the rock as an act of defiance, to place himself as superior to the inanimate rock.
ReplyDelete9.) Existentialists all seem to be concerned with the idea of finding individual purpose or meaning in a world that seemingly provides no guaranteed purpose. Existentialism largely focuses on the purpose of the individual, focusing on personal authenticity in relation to the world and universe at large. Existentialism also focuses on freedoms and personal responsibility, placing importance on self-discovery and determination.
13.) Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilyich achieves authenticity upon realizing that their previous life was overly influenced by society’s expectations and customs, rather than pure human connection. This portrays authenticity as an ability to live by love and truthfulness, rather than a life focused on success that grants you conformity.
What did Camus consider the intrinsic absurdity of the human condition? Why does he nonetheless consider Sisyphus happy? Camus considered the intrinsic absurdity of the human condition to be our perpetual longing for purpose and explanation that conflicts with the lack of an inherent meaning provided by the universe. Nonetheless, Camus figures that Sisyphus can only be happy, because he has not simply accepted his fate, but he has made the decision to rise above his fate and embrace the futility of his life for precisely what it is. Sisyphus does not long to understand why he is condemned to push the boulder but rather has taken ownership of the absurdity. This ties into Camu’s assertion that false hope is a trap that has an entirely opposite effect. When we take pride in the absurdity of our situation, we strip away the expectation and hunger for meaning. We have the opportunity to embrace our mortality when we first accept the reality of it.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it to be "in-situation"? What, for Sartre, does it always include? Being ‘in-situation’ means to acknowledge that we are not above the world that we examine, but instead we are deeply intertwined. Sartre believed that there were two parts of Being in situation: facticity and transcendence. Facticity is related to our circumstances, essentially the cards that we are dealt in life. Transcendence is the emphasis on our ability to face the facts of our situation.
How did Tolstoy's Ivan Ilyich achieve authenticity? In The Death of Ivan Iyich, the protagonist only becomes authentic when he takes ownership in his impending death instead of waiting passively for it to happen. In the acceptance of his own death, he is no longer misled by false hope or the pressure to derive meaning. He can finally live authentically by embracing his circumstances and the meaning will begin to follow his actions.
11. To be in bad faith is to deny your transcendence and to remain stagnant in your facticity. It is to prereflectively make choices and to make excuses for yourself without take accountability for your actions. Heidegger's notion of "ek-sistence" implies the temporal future as one of the three spheres of ekstatic temporality. With us being creatures of the possible, we have the ability to make our own choices of our own accord. Giving blame, or to deny, our self-induced situation to be considered bad faith.
ReplyDelete12. I wanted to add my take on this question as well. The idea of being "perfect" is to assume full embodiment of the object and to forfeit your individuality as a human. Authenticity is lost when you deny your free will. Being a "perfect waiter'' in Satre's analogy is in bad faith because it diminishes the freedom and anguish that makes us human.
Delete2) What did Camus consider the intrinsic absurdity of the human condition? Why does he nonetheless consider Sisyphus happy?
ReplyDelete- For Camus, the intrinsic absurdity of the human condition is the clash between our longing for "meaning conveyed by a universe that cares" and the realization that all there is a silent, indifferent, "empty sky." He relates our solution/escape for this realization to the myth of Sisyphus and subsequently claims he considers Sisyphus happy. Sisyphus is "happy", he claims, in fully recognizing this condition without illusion, he transforms his futile labor into an act of lucid freedom and revolt. Camus believes this too, is how we must approach the austerity of this life.
2. Humans long for meaning and reasoning behind existence and the Universe but there is no such black and white answer. We humans attempt to define and shape our way of living to whatever absurd goings that float around. Camus considers Sisyphus happy because even though Sisyphus is aware that the rock will once again roll to the bottom, he chooses to continue pushing it up the mountain. Sisyphus is happy because of choice.
ReplyDelete5. How I interpreted “death is God” was that death is at the for everything; symbolically surrounding and staying. Precisely being mortals is why we should live because although death is near, we have the ability of being present. Elevating our mortality to a higher state can help others cope with their short time sure, but it is not necessary.
8. My body is what I make it to be (within… limits such as genetic makeup). Merleau-Ponty saying “I do not have a body, I am my body,” makes me think of another saying, that being “you are what you eat.” Physically, the bodily functions that MY body carries out are allowing me to live… But living is also in the mind, if I did not feel emotions and think, I would not be doing anything with the life I have…
1. It responded to the criticisms that existentialism is nihilistic, ignorant of morals, and overly promotive of individualism. His Kantian challenge is to analyze if we can universally will our actions.
ReplyDelete8. "I do not have a body, I am my body": This statement rejects the Cartesian idea that our mind possesses and exhibits itself through the body. Additionally, the body is part of our facticity from which we perceive.
11. To be in bad faith is to deny freedom. This is closely related to authenticity.