Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jpbrooks · 07-27-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luiseach

Hi jp! Thank you very much for the linked article. I'll read it, and respond to it in a separate post...an 'existentialist psychology'...yes, absolutely, the article should be enlightening!

...

Perhaps I'll understand better the negative emotions often associated with existentialism after I read the article jpbrooks posted (thanks again, jp).

You're very welcome, but let me stress that I am still very much a student of Existentialism, and will probably remain so for a considerable amount of time. So I will probably be doing more reading than writing in discussions in this area of philosophy.

Luiseach · 07-27-2003, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
Hi Luise, sorry and maybe I am pushing my conclusion to soon. For me his theory of negation was profound and that would be just opposite to "to thine own self be true" or "do not go gently into the night" or "my whole life I punish myself, my whole life I punish"(etc). The Greeks would have called it a theory for cowards because the unknown that is to be negated by Sartre comes to us so that we may be transformed by it (in the end).

Okay, I think you're saying this (let me know if I'm right or wrong):

You prefer to abide by the view that there is a moral/ethical reference outside of ourselves which provides the necessary check on free will?

Is it because Sartrean existentialism does not provide an external moral/ethical guide that you see the philosophy as a negation of freedom and responsibility?

Quote:

So yes, his freedom comes a price that we should never afford or the unexamined life would be worth living. But then, I am also a defender of "essence precedes existence."

Ah...so Sartre's idea that 'existence precedes essence' is what may be troubling for some folks: that is, the idea that we are a blank slate upon which we 'write' our own nature. That we are, in effect, the authors of our own destinies?

From my point of view, I am not troubled by the prospect of absolute freedom balanced by a strong sense of moral and ethical responsibility. I feel that existentialism, on one level of interpretation, could be developed into a highly moral approach to life, because of its insistence upon holding oneself responsible for one's life choices.

It has always been my impression that existentialism demands a high level of self-knowledge...what makes you feel that Sartrean freedom is based on the notion of an 'unexamined life'?

Luiseach · 07-27-2003, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by exnihilo
People familar with his work will know that one of the fundamental principles in Sartre's lexicon was that existence preceeds essence, i.e., that the essence of humanity (what many refer to as soul) isn't an infinitely extending force/being, but comes about as a result of our individual interactions with the world. As a result, this essence is not immortal but is also extinguished when the body dies.

Ah, yes...immortality is not a necessary ingredient in existentialistic philosophy. Good point. Do you think this is what may have troubled Sartre himself?

Quote:

Implicitly, such an ontology presupposses that metaphysics in the christian/religious sense is little more than fantasy and wishfulfillment. This is where the idea of responsibility is most important because if anything the type of metaphysical telos that Christianity imposes is precisely one that reduces personal responsibility in the noumenal world because of the overwhelming emphasis placed on the hereafter. The idea of belief only makes this distinction more apparent because even one's actions become largely irrelevant as a result.

Yes. Very well put!

I think that the removal of God from the world via the existentialistic framework, could, for believers in God and the afterlife, mean the removal of the possibility for a complacent (?) reliance upon external authority when it comes to morality and ethics.

Quote:

Stripped of this comforting mythology humans are faced with the absurd reality of having to make their own lives meaningful without any reference to higher metaphysical destiny. Thus, the idea that our life's meaning is completely contingent upon what we as individuals make out of it can be very distressing to some.

Again, I agree with what you're saying.

How strange that some people would find the idea of being their own 'authors' a distressing prospect! At first glance, I would think it possible for an existentialistic approach to be incorporated into a Christian (or other theistic) framework ---> after all, don't Christianity's dictates involve an emphasis on personal accountability? Or is it that the lack of either 'punishment' or 'reward' in the afterlife for one's life that makes it seem as if one's life is 'meaningless'?

As an atheist, I don't see morality, ethics, freedom, or anything as being contingent upon the dictates of an ultimate supernatural Authority; and life is definitely not part of a higher metaphysical destiny.

Hmmm...here's something I've always wondered about: How can life be called meaningless just because there is no God?

Quote:

Camus confronted just this problem in many of his works by posing the question that if there is no objective meaning is life itself even worth living. The Stranger, The Fall and The Myth of Sisyphus was his attempt to answer this in the affirmative.
De beauvoir in the Second Sex extended this line of inquiry to issues of gender and responsibility.

Excellent references to use. Even without a supernaturally-sanctioned 'meaning' to life (i.e. through the mythology of a creator deity and eternal life), there is the possibility for a naturalistically-based moral and ethical system, and 'meaning' (whatever that is...I would think meaning is what we define it to be) is not necessarily eliminated from existence.

Quote:

I think that if we consider the problem in such a way it is easier to see how such an array of problems are interconnected and manifest in such ideas of justice and freedom to begin with.

Yes, I agree.

It seems to me that a lot of the angst that is supposed to be associated with existentialism seems to be some sort of a holdover from a 'believing' mindset. A sense of fear at the prospect of having to develop our own ideas of justice, freedom, ethics, responsibility, humanity, and so on.

Thanks for your contribution!

Luiseach · 07-27-2003, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mexicola
What you'll probably feel is something similar to the vertigo Sartre discusses, in which what you are afraid of when looking over a precipice is not the possibility of accidentally falling off but rather the possibility of throwing yourself off. The 'freedom' part of this is that there is of course nothing stopping you from going to do these things. There's no law which states that you can't do them. In fact, according to Sartre there is also no sufficient justification you can give for choosing not to do them. Simply saying 'I don't want to' doesn't work, because it is precisely this judgment which is being questioned. No fact about your past history can justify your future action; there's always another option which can't be ruled out.

Yes...that's a helpful illustration of what 'angst' is. Are you saying that for Sartre, existentialistic freedom removes the possibility of any given action being either 'right' or 'wrong'? I wonder if his distress was based on a residual reliance upon external (and maybe even supernatural) checks and balances on freedom?

Luiseach · 07-27-2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jpbrooks
...I am still very much a student of Existentialism, and will probably remain so for a considerable amount of time.

lol
Aren't we all just perpetual students?

Luiseach · 07-27-2003, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jpbrooks
this article

A most interesting article.

The following three excerpts are drawn from The Impact of Existential Philosophy on Modern Psychology, by Sheldon Litt, Ph.D.

Quote:

'One of existentialism�s key gifts to the contemporary psychologist is perhaps the basic notion that existence precedes essence; thus, a philosophical slap in the face of those who would have the psychologist classify people into neat compartments. Instead, the existentially-aware psychologist avoids pinning fixed labels on patients.' (by Sheldon Litt, The Impact of Existential Philosophy)

I like the idea that existentialism seems to have influenced how some psychologists define people. I have always been wary of compartmentalising people (and Jungian and Freudian psychology tends to do this).

Ah, and this excerpt from Litt's article is definitely relevant to the discussion:

Quote:

'But the salient principle taken from Sartre is that elusive existential concept of freedom, which he brought to bear on human psychology. Man tries to conceal from himself his endless freedom, attempting instead to take refuge in the notion of a fixed or determined self (viz. �id�, �unconscious�) but the Sartrean view is that man makes himself by his choices...Man deceives himself when he hides his freedom.' (by Sheldon Litt, The Impact of Existential Philosophy)

I completely agree with this development in psychological thinking (and by extension, in morality and ethics).

An awareness of freedom necessitates an acknowledgement of responsibility for that freedom.

And anyway, I've always been wary of notions of the 'id' and 'unconscious'...

Finally, the following extract from Litt's article contains an interesting definition of 'angst':

Quote:

'Whether to go along passively with society and �do what everyone else expects� (Heidegger�s Das Man, following the crowd) or to resist the others and risk suffering existential anxiety of uncertainty (and freedom).' (from Sheldon Litt, The Impact of Existential Philosophy)

So it seems that 'angst' (or 'existential anxiety') derives from non-conformity.

What are your views on Litt's article, and on the influence of existentialism in general, jp?

07-27-2003, 10:34 PM

Hi again Luise. Yes there are moral and ethical restrictions on our freedom but was not the cause of Sartre's absurd. For him it was the rising essence of our soul nature that must be negated before we can feel free because that is really the cause of our angst. I actually thought that Sartre called it the 'unknown' that could never become fully known and without negation it could/would increase and become the visible smoke of our torment (angst).

We are more than the authors of our own destiny because we are also contributors to the next generations soul nature by which they are predetermined. If this was not true there would never be an "unknown element" in our life (wherein is contained the folly and wisdom of our ancestors) nor would there be a search for freedom and indeed we would be the sole author of our destiny. That is, without a determinstic side to life there could never be a search for freedom. Worse yet, there could be no inspiration nor determination and life would not be worth living.

So in a sense we are in charge of our own destiny and we are in charge of God if God is said to be the cause of our soul nature, inspiration and omniscience.

I hold that your "blank slate" exist only in our conscious mind and whatever we write on it must be tied to reality and this can only can exist in our soul (we are temporal in our blank slate and eternal in our soul). In the bible our soul would be called the Alpha and whatever we write on our blank slate is written between the Alpha and the Omega, which is where we arrive when we come full cirlce in the Alpha (know who we are as if for the first time).

The "unexamined life" is when we fail to arrive at the place we first started (come full circle in the Alpha) and never get to know who we really are and what it was that caused us to chose the way we did. Yes I am a Determinist.

xorbie · 07-27-2003, 10:57 PM

Although I find a lot of existentialism interesting, and even agree with some of it, I have serious issues with the "existence preceeds essense" bit. To me, this means two things. One is that people have no specific purpose (which IMO is a direct rebellion against the Church's stance) and that what a person is is defined purely by what they do, not some arbitrary "essence" that is defined and set before birth.

My problem with this is that it is circular. When a person makes his or her first choice, what causes this choice? At this point, the slate is clean or blank, and thus the person has no essence.... it seems that the first several decisions we make are totally arbitrary as we have not yet defined ourselves.

Maybe I am just viewing this problem in the wrong way, but I think this theory needs some tinkering.

miss djax · 07-28-2003, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xorbie
Although I find a lot of existentialism interesting, and even agree with some of it, I have serious issues with the "existence preceeds essense" bit. To me, this means two things. One is that people have no specific purpose (which IMO is a direct rebellion against the Church's stance) and that what a person is is defined purely by what they do, not some arbitrary "essence" that is defined and set before birth.

My problem with this is that it is circular. When a person makes his or her first choice, what causes this choice? At this point, the slate is clean or blank, and thus the person has no essence.... it seems that the first several decisions we make are totally arbitrary as we have not yet defined ourselves.

Maybe I am just viewing this problem in the wrong way, but I think this theory needs some tinkering.

xorbie,

sartre is talking about the essence of humanity, so to speak, rather than the more granular approach of the individual. you are right in your first point, that people have no specific purpose. sartre is prefectly clear that existentialism means no god. not all existentialist think that *ie kierkegaard*, but most do..

christians would say mankind, or personkind, whatever

, point is to serve and worship god. sartre says not only is there no god, theres no point to life itself.

so there is no essence of humanity, no check list of qualities that make you human per se. essence is a big fat zero....its EXISTENCE that's important..being now, ....

miss djax · 07-28-2003, 03:05 AM

of course im at this thread way late and a dollar short, but bear with me, i moved and just got bandwidth

so what i think sartre is referring to in the angst and freedom portion is the fact that NOT having a religious worldview/strict parents/astrology/prophetic cat to make decisions for you, once stripped of that burden, is scary as all hell. one could say its cognitive dissonance, warp factor 5....

if you one day wake up and decide that there is no meaning, that there is nothing controlling your destiny, that you are truly free to make your own decisions about everything because there is NOTHING you can do to impact anything really, nor is there anything or diety who can do that to YOU, it would be freaky. i would think that 'angst' would be an understatement.

it is at that point when you stare into the abyss and truly know there is no meaning in it all when i believe the existential crisis exists.

its not so much that you no longer have anyone else to blame, but rather that you must now find meaning and solace in YOURSELF...that's infinitely more terrifying that not having someone to blame....

and its not until you make your peace with it that you can move out of any sort of existential crisis....

07-27-2003, 10:34 PM	#17
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sartre, anyone? Hi again Luise. Yes there are moral and ethical restrictions on our freedom but was not the cause of Sartre's absurd. For him it was the rising essence of our soul nature that must be negated before we can feel free because that is really the cause of our angst. I actually thought that Sartre called it the 'unknown' that could never become fully known and without negation it could/would increase and become the visible smoke of our torment (angst). We are more than the authors of our own destiny because we are also contributors to the next generations soul nature by which they are predetermined. If this was not true there would never be an "unknown element" in our life (wherein is contained the folly and wisdom of our ancestors) nor would there be a search for freedom and indeed we would be the sole author of our destiny. That is, without a determinstic side to life there could never be a search for freedom. Worse yet, there could be no inspiration nor determination and life would not be worth living. So in a sense we are in charge of our own destiny and we are in charge of God if God is said to be the cause of our soul nature, inspiration and omniscience. I hold that your "blank slate" exist only in our conscious mind and whatever we write on it must be tied to reality and this can only can exist in our soul (we are temporal in our blank slate and eternal in our soul). In the bible our soul would be called the Alpha and whatever we write on our blank slate is written between the Alpha and the Omega, which is where we arrive when we come full cirlce in the Alpha (know who we are as if for the first time). The "unexamined life" is when we fail to arrive at the place we first started (come full circle in the Alpha) and never get to know who we really are and what it was that caused us to chose the way we did. Yes I am a Determinist.

07-28-2003, 03:05 AM	#20
miss djax Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: phoenix Posts: 342	angst and freedom ;) of course im at this thread way late and a dollar short, but bear with me, i moved and just got bandwidth so what i think sartre is referring to in the angst and freedom portion is the fact that NOT having a religious worldview/strict parents/astrology/prophetic cat to make decisions for you, once stripped of that burden, is scary as all hell. one could say its cognitive dissonance, warp factor 5.... if you one day wake up and decide that there is no meaning, that there is nothing controlling your destiny, that you are truly free to make your own decisions about everything because there is NOTHING you can do to impact anything really, nor is there anything or diety who can do that to YOU, it would be freaky. i would think that 'angst' would be an understatement. it is at that point when you stare into the abyss and truly know there is no meaning in it all when i believe the existential crisis exists. its not so much that you no longer have anyone else to blame, but rather that you must now find meaning and solace in YOURSELF...that's infinitely more terrifying that not having someone to blame.... and its not until you make your peace with it that you can move out of any sort of existential crisis....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-27-2003, 10:57 PM	#18
xorbie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Champaign, IL or Boston, MA Posts: 6,360	Although I find a lot of existentialism interesting, and even agree with some of it, I have serious issues with the "existence preceeds essense" bit. To me, this means two things. One is that people have no specific purpose (which IMO is a direct rebellion against the Church's stance) and that what a person is is defined purely by what they do, not some arbitrary "essence" that is defined and set before birth. My problem with this is that it is circular. When a person makes his or her first choice, what causes this choice? At this point, the slate is clean or blank, and thus the person has no essence.... it seems that the first several decisions we make are totally arbitrary as we have not yet defined ourselves. Maybe I am just viewing this problem in the wrong way, but I think this theory needs some tinkering.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.