Luiseach

What do you mean? If we are free to make our own decisions, how does this relate to the idea that 'there is nothing you can do to impact anything really'? I don't see how the two are connected.

A few questions:

Why would we even need to find 'solace' within ourselves?
Solace from what, exactly?

Further, why would it be considered 'terrifying' that we need to find meaning (or anything else) within ourselves? What would be so frightening about the prospect of searching for meaning within ourselves (as opposed to elsewhere)?

phaedrus

"Irrational Man : A Study in Existential Philosophy" would be a good introduction to the topic under discussion for someone who is starting out. While Barret didnt cover ponty....it is an otherwise good summation....

The existentialist...thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be a priori of God, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is that we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoyevsky said, If God didn't exist, everything would be possible. That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to.

Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.


Some words from sartre...

From "Existentialism and Humanism"

Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man....or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself.



From "Being and Nothingness"

Human-reality is free because it is not enough. It is free because it is perpetually wrenched away from itself and because it has been separated by a nothingness from what it is and from what it will be.

From "Nausea"

Everything is gratuitous, this garden, this city and myself. When you suddenly realize it, it makes you feel sick and everything begins to drift...that's nausea.

exnihilo

Luiseach,




Not really, I think the main thing that troubled Sartre was that people, in general, seem to want to shirk their responsibility. No doubt his experiences in world war II and the French resistence helped to reinforce these ideas, as many people simply decided to go along with events rather than taking the responsibility to opposse them, i.e., the Vichy French. I think it is that even without an ultimate framework the easy thing to do is to simply acquiesce to the march of history rather than be makers of it.

Quote:

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.

Yes indeed, but it is also a terrifying prospect for many, especially when disaster strikes. It is not an easy thing to give up the idea that there is a supernatural being watching over you who will make everything alright in the end. One reason that these mythologies are so deep-seated is that they appeal to the most basic desires of the human mind--it is simply the easy way out.

Quote:

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'?

That is exactly what Kierkegaard tried to reconcile in his form of existential christianity. He had an extreme distrust for organizedreligion presided over by a "faithless" church and called for christians to reestablish a personal relatioship with god. Asa result he used the story of Abraham being commanded be god to sacrifice his son Isaac as the supreme example of what it truly means to be christian. There are some very serious problems with this, especially from the atheist perspective that sees such a story as a dangerous prelude to religious murder and madness--all too common in western history.

Quote:

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.

Me neither, but I suspect that most people find this lack of responsibility comforting none the less.

Quote:

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

For athiests, this is indeed a very hard question to answer. But, in terms of christianity or any other theistic religion it makes perfect sense because attainment of heaven is the utmost concern, which is alsways contingent on the believers life lived and surrendered to/for god in one way or another. Thus, human life comes to have little meaning outside of this drive for redemption---what a scam, how better to control people than to convince them that they are guilty of sin at birth, huh.

Quote:

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.

Exactly, the problem is that most people are unwilling to face up to this reality. Afterall it is much harder to live a life in which responsibility is squarely placed within the individual as oppossed to a system that teaches a lack of responsibility through and through. Is this not what the story of jesus is all about. One person/being taking the wrap for all the sins of the world in exchange for a little submission?

Quote:

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.

Once again I am in agreement with you. I think though that another source of angst comes from an existential reaction to the horrors that have also resulted from the supposedly godless forces of reason as expressedthrough technology and its employment in war. The twentieth century was probably the bloodiest time the world has ever known. The slaughter that marked ww I was of a scale and intensity never before seen and then only 20 years later wwII came along and made that ;look like a picnic.
Out of these events a sense of general hoplessness and absurdity naturally issued forth. For in the slaughter that resulted the product of the enlightenment was shown to be no different, only more efficient, than that of religion. The fact that humans continued to act in such a way naturally caused much anguish and Nausea as the bleak prospect of the cold-war began to unfold.

Quote:

Thanks for your contribution!

you are welcome and thanks for your comments and for posting this question in the first place.
--exnihilo

jpbrooks

I agree that Existentialism counterbalances other views such as Freudianism, that are excessively rigid in their classification schemes. However, isn't some degree of classification structure necessary in order to maintain intelligibility in the inquiry process? If classification is categorically eliminated, all that would remain within Psychology would be an unorganized mass of observational data. No theorizing, hypothesizing or organizing the data in any other way could be permitted.


I agree that some humans tend to find comfort in, for example, having some "structure" for their lives worked out for them in advance by somone else. But, as in the case above, some preexisting structure, definitions, etc., for the "self" and for life in general are (at least initially) unavoidable.

I agree.


Well, I tend to view Existentialism, in general, as a kind of (much needed) "reaction" against rationalistic tendencies in western philosophy. However, as much as this kind of "reaction" is necessary for a more balanced perspective on the world and life, a "reactionary" view cannot, by itself, provide the kind of balanced standpoint that a more inclusive and less "reactionary" view can provide.

I found Litt's article generally informative, but I will need to use the article to derive search keywords that I can use to look up additional information on Existential Psychology.

I have to run.

Amos

Hello phaedrus, let me give you the opposite point of view and hopefully that will show why I think Existentialism is wrong and never will be acceptable as a means to the end.

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.

Quote:

Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.

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.

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.

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. [/quote][/b]

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.

Luiseach

Hiya, Phaedrus! Thanks for the quotations...

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...

Yep...I agree with the spirit of Sartre's message (i.e. that human reality exists, free will exists, and human beings are both free to define themselves and responsible for their own definitions).

'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.

Luiseach

That's an excellent way of putting it. Sartre's pessimism wasn't based on the notions of freedom and responsibility per se, but rather in response to the evils he saw as resulting from complacency and conformity...he was perhaps depressed about the horrors that can happen through people not taking responsibility for their freedom of choice.

Yes...in a sense, then, existentialism suggests an exacting, but very mature level of morality and ethics. What say you?

lol...yep, there's definitely something of a power play in making people feel guilty and ashamed of themselves, and then to offer them a way out of these externally-imposed feelings of worthlessness.

To take away any potential for a meaningful life outside of the road towards redemption is certainly a limit on one's confidence.

So cowardice vs. courage is the heart of the matter?

[ASIDE](BTW, and referring to the discussion in 'Media' about M & M, the 'sin' of cowardice is the one which Woland - and perhaps Bulgakov himself - finds most reprehensible...how interesting!)[/ASIDE]

Ah, yes. I think I'm understanding what is meant by 'nausea' now. Existential nausea can occur when an existentialist realises that although there is freedom and responsibility, these two things alone don't guarantee that all people will balance their freedom with moral and ethical responsibility.

No problem...and thank you for your thoughtful and thorough replies. It's very much appreciated.

Luiseach

Good points. Since I agree that classification schemes are necessary for intelligibility, I think you're right to say that they are necessary for psychological theories as well. Otherwise, chaos!

True! So, does this fact mean that existentialistic freedom (a la Sartre) is not as absolute as we think? Or is it that we cannot have any freedom without first constructing a sense of self and life?

So (re existentialism and psychology), we would do better to allow existentialism to hang in tension with Freudian and Jungian theories, thereby encouraging a dialectic of sorts.

Thanks again for posting the link.

Luiseach

So you're saying that although we are our own authors, the choices we make in 'writing ourselves' (so to speak!) do affect other people. We are responsible for the use of our free will?

I think I agree that our choices have effects which necessitate further choices, and so on. Do freedom and determinism go hand-in-hand, in your view?

...and maybe just a wee bit of an Existentialist?

Amos

Yes and no. The choices we make do affect other people but I am not looking at ethics here at all. When I say that "we are our own authors" the "we" I use is much larger then the "I" you may be thinking of. The "I" is our ego consciousness that must make the choices and the "we" is both the "I" and our "soul nature" that we inherited from our ancestors. In this dual identity are we free agents and are usually held accountable for our actions. So what I really meant to say is that our freedom is limited by the soul nature that we inherited and it is in this limited freedom that we modify our own predestination and so also reshape the predestiny of our own children (our children will pay for our sins and reap the benifits of our virtues for many generations).

So according to me we can only pretend to have a free will as human individuals while as total beings (which is beneath our human identity) are we truly free. This is the freedom Sartre was looking for and instead of seeking a convergence with our soul nature he proposed the ignore its influence on our life.

There is no argument here. Because we are divided in our own mind between our conscious and subconscious mind are we not free and for as long as we are not free are we determined by our own subconscious mind. Of course this is good because only in this division can we become beautiful people . . . wherefore "the woman saw that the tree of knowledge [TOK or conscious mind] was good for gaining wisdom, beauty and food" (Gen.3:6). 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?

I should add here that my opinion is just my response to what I read a long time ago. I did some of Kierkegaard ("faith seeking understanding"), some of Camus ("the horror" (without Catholic baptism, lol)) and Sartre's famous "theory of negation."