Existentialism: Questions Oct 15

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

Questions Oct 15

Finish midterm report presentations...

Are you now, or were you ever, "perplexed about Being"? If that's not the word, how would you characterize your attitude towards the fact that something (anything at all) exists? Amazed? Astonished? Mystified? Delighted? ...? Do you agree with Heidegger that physics and cosmology are irrelevant to the great question of Being?
Is "navel gazing inwardness" a fair description of Husserl's phenomenology? 51
Does young Heidegger (as represented in the photo on p.54) look like someone commanding? Or that Hannah Arendt might have been attracted to?
Is symphilosophein a good thing? Is it another name for "CoPhilosophy," a philosophy of 'co'"? ["Ethically the pluralistic form of it takes for me a stronger hold on reality than any other philosophy I know of—it being essentially a social philosophy, a philosophy of ‘co’..." --William James, The Essence of Humanism]
Do paths (and walking) help you think? 56 Is philosophizing alone in a hut in the woods compatible with the symphilosophein ideal? Is this what Jaspers meant by "communion"? 83
Do you like the Philosophical Lexicon's definition of a "heidegger"? 57
Do you grasp the distinction between Being and beings? 59. If we knew why the latter exist, would there still be a question about the former? Are beings "totally strange"? 73
Do you see a value in H's "frustrating" language? Is "Dasein" a useful term? 60-2. If Heidegger is a poet, is he a good one?
Is there anything wrong with "everydayness"? Is it the right starting-point for philosophy? 63
Is it accurate to say that the classic American pragmatists "did not share H's grand philosophical vision"? 65 Would it be more accurate to say their vision was different from his? What were their respective visions?
H and others have repeatedly said that no one knows what phenomenology is. 66 What do you think it is? Is it a futile search for certainty? 68
Philosophy begins in questions and discomfort, 70 but shouldn't philosophers try to dispel this? Does H do so?
Are Enlightenment values really "outmoded"? 71 Do our times call for a new "heroism of reason"? 97
"Once a fringe figure of ridicule... Sometimes the best educated people were those least inclined to take the [extremists] seriously." " 75-6 Comment?
Does Arendt's phrase "banality of evil" continue to apply to events of our day? Do we suffer "a lack of imagination and attention"? 77 Have we become H's "they"?" Can we only free ourselves from "them" by "giving ourselves up" etc.? 88 What does that mean? 78
What do you make of H's comment on education and Hitler's "wonderful hands"? 85
Have philosophers in our time "stayed awake" and "sounded alarms"? 87
If H had "no character," is his wisdom over-rated? 92
[ch5] Does contingency (as somehow symbolized by trees and other material objects, for Sartre) horrify you? 100f. Or do you find necessity more troubling? Isn't contingency a condition of possibility, without which we would be unfree?
"...[de Beauvoir's] decision not to have children... spoke of total dedication to freedom." 110 Comment?
" [Merleau-Ponty's] tranquility offended me." 113 "Sartre had none of the off-putting tranquillity of M-P: he was a loud-mouthed and uncompromising extremist." 116 Comment?

5 comments:

MarissaOctober 14, 2026 at 1:16 PM
4. I do like the idea of “symphilosophein,” and see it as a beneficial and even necessary practice. I think communicating and philosophizing together, bouncing ideas off other people, helps both clarify your ideas and expand them through other perspectives. The picture it paints in my head is also just much more pleasant than the kind of sequestered philosophy that characterized thinkers like Nietzsche.

6. I thought the definition of a heidegger was a pretty funny and accurate way to describe his process. Even after several chapters on him, I’m still not sure I know what phenomenology means or how to practice it. So, digging sounds about right to me.

Comment on Simone de Beauvoir/Chapter 5: I really enjoyed the focus on Simone de Beauvoir in chapter 5. She’s fascinating to me. I found it kind of funny that she essentially “friend-zoned” Merleau-Ponty for being too happy and unsuffering. Although I do understand that you’d want to be in a relationship with someone who understands your struggles and pain. I really like learning about her as a feminist force, and find her alternative lifestyle and open relationship with Sartre really interesting as a way of rejecting traditional roles and kind of living out her feminist philosophy.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Aaliyah HendersonOctober 14, 2026 at 7:10 PM
2) Husserl’s phenomenology isn’t about staring inward, its core idea is that consciousness is always of something, so it points outward at the world. The method looks inward, but the goal is to describe how things actually appear to us.

7) Being is not just another thing that exists, it’s what makes any thing show up as existing at all. Even if we could explain why every individual being exists, we’d only be pointing to other beings, so the question of Being itself would still remain. Beings aren’t “totally strange” in everyday life, but in moments of wonder or anxiety, their familiarity falls away and the bare fact that they are becomes startling.

17) Yes, some have. Existentialists like Heidegger, Sartre, Beauvoir, and Camus urged people to wake up from autopilot and take responsibility for their freedom, and several spoke out against war, colonialism, and totalitarianism. But philosophers aren’t perfect: Heidegger joined the Nazi party in 1933, so even the ones who sounded alarms sometimes failed to heed them.
ReplyDelete
Replies
PhilOctober 15, 2026 at 9:28 AM
2. Right!

17. Indeed. Who rings the alarm about negligent alarmists?
ReplyDelete
Replies
EvanOctober 15, 2026 at 3:29 PM
1) Are you now, or were you ever, "perplexed about Being"? If that's not the word, how would you characterize your attitude towards the fact that something (anything at all) exists? Amazed? Astonished? Mystified? Delighted? ...? Do you agree with Heidegger that physics and cosmology are irrelevant to the great question of Being?

I think it is fair to say that anyone who has philosophized any amount of time would relate somewhat with Gottfried von Leibniz’s question of “why is there anything at all, rather than nothing?” Even as someone who would identify with Christianity, I still find myself perplexed and amazed at the sheer fact of my own existence, and the existence of anything for that matter.
I don't know if I agree so much with Heidegger’s idea that physics and cosmology should be completely null and void when approaching this subject. To ignore these two subjects would be to relegate oneself exclusively within the confines of astonishment. It feels similar to Descartes after his “Cogito”: he had a profound insight, but struggled to connect it to the actual world. If we follow Heidegger too strictly here, we risk doing the same thing — holding onto a powerful sense of wonder without letting it interact with what science tells us about the universe.
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

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

Questions Oct 15

5 comments:

Questions OCT 29

Report Abuse

Labels