exnihilo

The death of god that Nietzsche heralded--brought about by the enlightenment and scientific revolution--despite its explicit claims hasn't really made life more satisfying or pleasant for the vast majority of people. As a competing system of ontology--what Sartre seems to be reracting to--the age of science has simply made the activity of killing more efficient and on a much greater scale than ever before. Obviously the freedom from repressive religious doctrine that the scientific revolution brought didn't have the effect that many had hoped for simply because the underlying drive for power over people and nature remained a part of the new system. If anything the burden of responsibility only increased after this shift due to the ever-increasing propensity for destruction that scientific advancement brought with it.
So, yes, i do think that there is a moral aspect to Sartre and Camus' philosophy, but it is an individual morality rather than a social one, which are always expressed through ideologies.
The ten commandenments is a perfect example in this regard as one can find a perfectly moral justification for breaking any if not all of these moral precepts. The individualized approach of existentialism is presented to guard against such universalist notions of good vs evil, and other such excuses as fate, bad luck, etc, illustrating that we as humans are responsible for every single one of our actions. When one fails acknowlede this freedom, Sartre is as acting in "bad faith". Although there are problems with this idea of morality, such as his use of what at times appear to be shallow stereotypes and what others have claimed to be his misinterpretation of Heidegger Zein Und Zeit (being in time), in which Heidegger introduces the concept of Dasein and the idea of being-in-itself as related to one's individual horizon--being-in-the-world.
Without going off topic any further, i'll just say that yes existentialism does imply a more mature sense of one's existence in the world, one that celebrates and condemns based solely onones individual actions or lack thereof.

phaedrus

Amos

Indeed everything is permissible when God *no longer* exists, and as a result man is redeemed to be united with the forlorn searcher who was looking for meaning in life. Our prior search for meaning in life is what caused humans to cling to each other and also to other valuable things so as to find a sense of self worth to justify our existence.

And how does this make existenialism "wrong". I can appreciate the mystic's thinking, but doesnt cut the chase

Man (as a solitary individual) is condemned to be nihilated because once subdued by the rational ego consciousness (wherein humans think that they can be free), man (as the non-rational animal) needs divine intervention to overtrhow and annihilate the lower hu-man identity that took charge over the body human. I used the words "divine intervention" but all we really need is a mystery religion to do this work on Gods behalf.

You will have to elaborate....how can a mystery or meta-religion/myth help a human being who can very clearly see the absurdity in life and accepts it?

There is no such thing as human reality and humans only try to define the essence of their existence after which they were formed. If there was no more to man then what we can see there would be no need to define our existence because what we can see is exactly what we are.

That is exactly what the quote says...we exist and then we define ourselves

Human reality is the illusion that we put to rest every night and shine up each morning so we can talke on the day. If, on the other hand, we can be what we are, the nothingness from which we are separated will be the fullness that we ever hoped to find

We dont put it to rest...dont we dream....it's a simulacrum alright, but that doesnt mean that such thinking can only lead to a nihilistic end. We all know for a fact that we are going to die, but that doesnt stop us from living today right?

Nothing is gratuitous for all is created after the essence of its existence and it would make you feel sick to suddenly realize that your whole life passed bye and you were never really part of it. That, I think, is the horror of nausea.

What you perceive as horror is reality to me. Acknowledging the absurdity of life frees the self.

jp

phaedrus

Hi Lui,

Wow... the view of morality being described in the excerpt --- as being completely contingent upon supernatural dictates...and hence as meaningless if God doesn't exist --- strikes me as a very elementary level of ethical understanding. I always thought of existentialism as having a more responsible view of morality and ethics...

It is an excerpt alright...but on the ethical side i would ask you to concentrate on the last phrase Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does As the quote says That is the very starting point of existentialism, man freeing himself of the notion of god and realising that he/she is free and hence there is no divine reason for the actions and doesnt have to cling to god. That is how my reading of the excerpt would go.

'Everything is gratuitous'...I'm not sure what's being said here. At the moment, I take the use of 'gratuitous' as meaning 'free and voluntary.' There are more negative connotations, however, such as 'unnecessary, unwarranted, wanton' and so on.

Roquetin was bothered by the latter connotation i would imagine As camus pointed out...the whole idea is to accept the absurdity and get along with life...

jp

Amos

Notice my distinction between "God does not exist" and "God no longer exists." The difference here is that Sartre negated the influence of God and in God-no-longer-exist we have become one with God. For Sartre there are no internal or external obligations but he is left with the absurd while in my view we have become one with God to leave us without internal or external obligations and also without the absurd (there is no absurd in heaven).

The wrong here is that Existentialism as a religion (or philosophy) does not include an end to its own purpose. In other words, it is not a means to the end. Yes I understand that Kierkegaard preached "faith seeking understanding" but he also failed to arrive at a workable plan to get to that point in life.

That's not easy but I will try. In my view are we divided between our [animal] man identity and our rational human identity. In our man identity are we equal to God (yes) and in our human identity are we alienated from this surpreme God identity. As humans are we left to be on our own and are given a blank slate to write our life story on which will always be as an outsider to our man-in-the-image-of-God identity. It is because we are outsiders that it is possible to have internal connections with God ("hard wired") and to negate this would be a life long hindrance to our freedom.

Catholics are indoctrinanted to become blind followers of the faith and therefore do not clearly see the absurdity in life until they have exhausted all possible ways to improve their status as human individuals. Once they have exhausted all their human earthliness the innate animal man identity is much more likely to win the final battle that is fought outside of religion and inside their own mind (this is where religion is put to the test and is therefore outside religion and inside their own mind, ie. here we enter into the end of religion stage of life). So really then, a well focussed religion should lead man away from God and never towards 'earned righteousness.'

Ya well, that just means that he is wrong. Humans would say that but that only proves that we are still human really don't know who we are.

Yes, and we have to keep on living as if there is no tomorrow for tomorow is also the day that we will die. My objection is to Heidegger's "human reality" which cannot be real except for the fact that humans will die and that only humans will die. The point here is that man as man will never die because tomorrow never comes. The difference here is between the presence and absence of the absurd.The Church would say that what comes across as the horror to some can be like a Beatific Vision to others.

foolsparade

I recently had a conversation with a relative on existentialism and discovered that she thought of it as being essentialy pessimistic. I argued that is was more actualistic with elements of optimism. With regards to the god concept, I think this philosophy really makes god irrelevent and I think this is a good thing. "Man must resolve to act in order to exist" as Camus wrote. We are the creators and we are the magic makers.

DOLBAC DENIS

Regarding the stones thoughts, to have some kind of reply, just look at G.W.B.
Sartre on one hand is an extremely bright thinker, philosopher but as many philosophers of his calibre, his main philosophical problem was himself.
He could never put together the fact that he was seducing women so easily (men too but it does not seem he was really bisexual) His physical appearance was a problem all along.
As a sympathizer in the 1968 period, I would have never suspected Sartre to be a mystic, his books, his declarations, his support to the communist party were incompatible with the idea of mysticism.
Unfortunately, we know to-day that under the influence of his secretary whos has become a kind of integrist rabbi, sartre was a sympathizer of mysticism.
So when you have such a gap between what you say, what you write, your actions and who you really are, no wonder that "nausea" is part of your life.
Sorry for the demystification....

Luiseach

So Amos, do you agree with the idea that the choices we make will have a sort of 'knock-on effect'?

How is it we are held accountable? Do you mean by the consequences of our choices, or something else?

I don't understand what you mean by 'soul nature' (at the moment, I think it has something to do with the idea of the 'human condition'...am I right?).

I think I see what you're saying about our freedom being conditioned (maybe not exactly predestined) in some way...limited perhaps by the fact that we are finite beings? We're not free to do anything at all, after all...so perhaps, within the existentialistic framework, the idea of 'freedom' is not as absolute as we could imagine it to be.

So you're saying that Sartre ignored the influence of limitations on our freedom? Hmmm...how interesting. I hadn't realised this.

Goodness...I've never read anything about Sartre's return to Catholicism! How odd...

Luiseach

This is actually a good point...although it would be difficult to quantify 'quality of life,' I see what you're saying. The enlightenment, science, etc. are not in themselves a source of 'happiness.' It's the choices that are made in reaction to them that could lead to whatever 'happiness' is.

Ah...so it may be power that undermines the potential of the human race to balance their freedom with moral/ethical responsibility.

Basically, then, what Sartre may have despaired about was this: despite the many advances in science, knowledge, philosophy, politics, etc., and despite the gradual move away from superstition, faith, etc., the human race has nonetheless inherited or clung to the old 'habits' of power...

Hmmm....I sometimes wonder if the angst that Sartre et al felt as they pursued the existentialistic enquiry was from their belief that the human race was, basically, incapable of any substantial moral improvement?

Yes, I see what you're saying here. I agree. I have heard it said that existentialism is not realisable on a grand scale, but is perfectly viable on an individual basis. How strange!

Glad you brought up the issue of ideologies...they are very difficult to conceptualise, never mind rebel against. Therein lies their power, yes? We can't escape societal forces...they intersect and constitute our identities to such a great extent. At the same time, however, I think we can resist ideologies to some degree by exposing them, and analysing how they function. So, in a sense, we (as individuals) can only remain 'free' and 'responsible' if we understand how we are compelled by the ideologies which form the fabric of 'society'. I sometimes wonder if true freedom only lies in our ability to resist (as Sartre seems to suggest).

What say you?

DOLBAC DENIS

"Existentialism is a good improvement over fundamentalism but did Sartre not return to the Catholic Church in the end to get rid of that nausea? "
"
"If Sartre returned somewhere it's to the synagogue" because of his jewish origins.
As a philosopher of his calibre, he could not do less than go to the first monotheistic religion, first expression of "god's abstraction concept" , the followings;christian, islam are just ersatz, pale copies.

phaedrus

Amos

The wrong here is that Existentialism as a religion (or philosophy) does not include an end to its own purpose. In other words, it is not a means to the end. Yes I understand that Kierkegaard preached "faith seeking understanding" but he also failed to arrive at a workable plan to get to that point in life.

Let me ask you a question. What is the "end"? Would you say => death? There is the end that existentialism recognises and through which it derives the absurdity of life. As means to end => it would mean understanding the absurd nature of the world around you so that you can live your life and not merely exist

That's not easy but I will try. In my view are we divided between our [animal] man identity and our rational human identity. In our man identity are we equal to God (yes) and in our human identity are we alienated from this surpreme God identity. ..............So really then, a well focussed religion should lead man away from God and never towards 'earned righteousness.'

Well then you got your religion => existentialism or maybe you could also look at oriental religions(vedas, koans ..etc) which do a much better job at handling the life-is-an-illusion-part

Ya well, that just means that he is wrong. Humans would say that but that only proves that we are still human really don't know who we are.

Umm...that is exactly what you said ....(That is exactly what the quote says...we exist and then we define ourselves

And in any case.....knowledge being provisional doesnt make all knowledge redundant

My objection is to Heidegger's "human reality" which cannot be real except for the fact that humans will die and that only humans will die. The point here is that man as man will never die because tomorrow never comes. The difference here is between the presence and absence of the absurd

Why doesnt tomorrow come? What is the absence of the absurd?

The Church would say that what comes across as the horror to some can be like a Beatific Vision to others

Well i didnt like it a horror, for me its just a fact of life

jp

Oh btw noticed this particular comment of yours...

Existentialism is a good improvement over fundamentalism but did Sartre not return to the Catholic Church in the end to get rid of that nausea?

Where did you get this from?