Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Existentialism
Philosophy is a pretty hard topic. Sometimes I feel like my head gets so jumbled up with theories, it's hard to determine what I believe. I take a personal interest in Existentialism. You know, the whole idea that each individual is responsible for what they do, or in other words we have free will. I am very confused on this whole essence preceeds existence and vice-versa idea. Can someone please explain to me the difference?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
I completely agree. Philosophy can be so mind-boggling! Well, Zeynep, first of all we should define the terms so it is a little bit more clear for you. When a person uses the term "essence", what they are really saying is the nature of something, or the soul of someone. When a person uses the term "existence", that is purely physical.
Oh, I see. So when a person says that essence preceeds existence, they are saying that the nature of something or the soul of someone exists before this thing or person physically exists.
Yeap! This makes sense too, because if you have a real belief in God, then you believe God created our souls, then we became a physical form.
Oh girls. You have so much to learn. I'm Sartre, an existentialist philosopher born in 1905. On the topic of essence and existence, think of it like this. Before you were born you had no essence because you didn't exist. If you don't exist, then you can't possibly have an essence, because what would the essence belong to? There's no way. In conclusion from this highly intelligent existentialist point of view, existence preceeds essence.
Oh! I see how that works. I actually completely agree with you. If something doesn't exist, then how is it supposed to have an essence?
I stand corrected. Thanks Sartre! I do have one question though... why do you consider yourself an existentialist?
Yeah, what criteria is there to be considered existentialist?
Well, I really coined that term to begin with, girls, not to brag or anything. I define it simply as someone who believes in the very philosophy that we were just discussing. A philosopher who bases his ideas on the theory that existence preceeds essence would be an existentialist in my book.
Wait a second... didn't you die like... 28 years ago? How are you blogging?
I formally reject that question. It's irrelevant.
Ok then... I have another question then. You have this whole theory on bad faith or people being "inauthentic". Why would u call someone inauthentic? Wouldn't you say that's a little harsh?
Yeah, considering nowadays everyone's trying to be a "non-conformist" and then they conform to rebellion. I mean, everyone is a little bit unoriginal. Everything's pretty much been done before.
I think you don't quite understand what I mean when I say inauthentic. For a person to be in "Bad Faith" they are basically giving up their freedom or responsibility for what they do.
That's really vague. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Well, there's always a choice in everything we do. We can choose so many different solutions to different problems. People in "Good Faith" are those people who know exactly what they want, and act accordingly to what they want. People in "Bad Faith" on the otherhand are people who do things that go against their opinion or against what they want. It really has nothing to do with being original like you mentioned up there.
Yeah, but we don't always have choices. I mean take for example concentration camps during World War II. Can a person really say that a Jewish person kept in one of these camps is in bad faith? They were being treated like animals and forced around.
I completely agree with Zeynep's question. Would that person really be in "bad faith"
People always have a choice. That's basic existentialism right there. I mean, unless there's no physical ability to do ANYTHING about it, then they wouldn't be in bad faith, but there's always a choice. The people in concentration camps just knew they would probably die if they stepped out of line. That was the major detterent, but they could have tried. There was that option.
That to me sounds very wrong. I believe humans are built with an innate system to protect their lives.
Yeah, it wouldn't matter much to anyone if you were in good faith and were dead, rather than following a code that you don't necessarily agree with to keep your life. I mean, in your mind you know what you believe. You also know your alterior motives for going along with the nazis. Not dying!
Believe whatever you want, but a person in truly good faith is choosing ourselves over circumstances and accepting responsibility for who we are and what that means we need to do. I mean, reason alone cannot compel anyone to behave a certain way. In this case the reason would be avoiding death. That is no excuse to behave a certain way.
Are you joking?? Yes it is! I would much rather live peacefully and behave a certain way.
In the case of the concentration camps, I would much rather LIVE in general, than refuse to believe a certain way. That to me is common sense. Oh, and also to follow that idea, are you saying that societies and the laws they set up aren't to be followed if you don't personally agree with them?
I believe that no moral code or set of laws can bind us. We are free individuals despite the society.
Yeah, but if people didn't follow laws, absolutely chaos would break out. There has to be some control over people.
But really no one can control you. There's always another option. Even if it means death.
I don't know. That seems irrational to think you would die just because you wanted to consider yourself in "good faith" as opposed to following simple laws to live by.
Wow! This existentialism stuff is so interesting! Are there a lot of philosophers that study existentialism?
Well, I'm also a existentialist philosopher! My main goal was demonstrating God's being though.
Haha! Yeah, and you also ironically drove people away from believing in God with your existentialist theories. Good going.
Hey, now! I actually ended up bringing over the same amount of people to seeing God's existence as I did turn people away! So really I evened out!
And Jeez! I'm sorry I'm not an atheist like you, JP.
I just believe that religious beliefs had to be just that. Beliefs. They couldn't be knowledge, because knowledge has to be definite. Religious beliefs aren't techniquely considered definite.
Anyways, Zeynep, I have plenty of cool philosopher friends! My buddy Heidegger coined the term "thrownness" to describe how we are "thrown" into existence without having a choice. But i personally agree with my friend Nietzshe. He thinks that human nature depends on personal beliefs and values. According to him we have free decisions and choices to develop our own identity, which is existentialism in its finest!
Why don't you let me be the judge of that, Soren, considering I was the one who coined that term as I stated above.
Yes, Sartre, we remember.
Hey, Kierkegaard, what if you're born in Alaska and don't have the choice of leaving? It seems to me that you will most likely end up becoming an eskimo or ride dog sleds. I think there are some obstacles that restrict these free decisions you are talking about that we don't necessary have a choice in most regards.
Yea. I can understand both sides. I see how you can be "thrown" into existence and end up stuck in a certain identity. On the other hand, it seems that in your mind you can develop your own identity rather than being influenced.
Woah, Zeynep! Now you are just getting into a whole different field of philosophy. Let's not jump directly into dualism. Just in case you aren't familiar with that term, the concept of dualism is trying to figure out the connection between mind and body.
Wait a second, back on the topic of being thrown into existence. This contributes to how existentialists look at individuals. A man cannot really be defined at birth, but he's defined by his series of actions in his life. Only after he's began to live will he make himself into anything.
I agree with that. We define ourselves by what we choose to do. Good point, Sartre.
Yeah, it's like... we define ourselves. We decide what we want to do with our lives and that's what defines us.
That's actually really beautiful. Wow, I guess I'm somewhat of an existentialist!
Haha seriously! Me too!
Haha, very good, girls!
You know people like Camus believe that exisistence is completely pointless, that is, until you apply yourself and find your own meaning in exisistence.
Just something to ponder.
I don't know about that...
I have a hard time believing anyone's life is pointless, because everyone effects everyone else in life. Just by simply doing nothing, you could be greatly influencing the life of someone else. Plus, who knows if you will ever be able to flat out state your purpose in life. That's a pretty GRAND thing to decide on.
I agree with Sartre too. I agree in finding my own identity and purpose of life. We might have been thrown into existense, but its up to us to find meaning in it.
I also really believe in being responsible for my individual consciousness and making my own choices. I think my own identity is constructed through my awareness of my conscience. Despite other influences and obstacles in my existence, i can accept responsibility for my conscience and the consequences that come along with it. This is all a part of finding my myself and not just believing what others think.
Wow, thanks guys! You were a great help!
You're welcome, Zeynep! I believe in a lot of what you believe. I just can't believe we were just thrown onto the earth, because I feel like we all live such elaborate lives, and if there is no greater purpose, this all seems unnecessary. I just feel there has to be a reason we're all here. On the other hand, I believe it's up to us to find out what it is. I think we are all free (for the most part that is- there are circumstances where being in "bad faith" is acceptable to me), and we should all take responsibility for our choices and the reprecussions to follow. I think finding ourselves will come with time, Zeynep, and it's good that we will try to figure it out for ourselves instead of letting others control our mind. What an education blog! I love philosophizing with you guys!!!
It seemed clear to me that life and the world somehow depended upon me now. I may almost say that the world now seemed created for me alone: if I shot myself the world would cease to be at least for me. I say nothing of its being likely that nothing will exist for anyone when I am gone, and that as soon as my consciousness is extinguished the whole world will vanish too and become void like a phantom, as a mere appurtenance of my consciousness, for possibly all this world and all these people are only me myself.
Perhaps it was owing to the terrible misery that was growing in my soul through something which was of more consequence than anything else about me: that something was the conviction that had come upon me that nothing in the world mattered. I had long had an inkling of it, but the full realisation came last year almost suddenly. I suddenly felt that it was all the same to me whether the world existed or whether there had never been anything at all: I began to feel with all my being that there was nothing existing. At first I fancied that many things had existed in the past, but afterwards I guessed that there never had been anything in the past either, but that it had only seemed so for some reason. Little by little I guessed that there would be nothing in the future either.
Dostoyevsky: The Dream of A Ridiculous Man
Post a Comment