“Au milieu de l’hiver, j’ai découvert en moi un invincible été.” – Albert Camus
This is my seminar paper.
KEY PHRASE: Existence precedes essence.
Existence is not a consequence of anything or cause of anything. Existence is the necessary precondition of everything. Some thought it was a revival of Romanticism (it was similar in terms of its arts & culture movement and led to freedom).
Existentialism is a philosophy of resistance to totalitarianism and the boredom of life in the modern, bureaucratic-technological state.
It is a movement in post-war arts and culture, especially in France and the USA, and especially in music (jazz), theatre and literature. The Existentialist ethos is that One must commit (to anything!)
Existentialists examine what it means to exist as a human being in the world, and they believe that understanding who we are as human beings is key to understanding the world. Existentialism is a broad term. Existentialists try to answer the question: “Who am I and why am I here?” (Asked by Walker Percy).
Existentialists also always keep death in mind. Our existence also implies our imminent non-existence: our impending death. This is called nothingness- the nothingness of our life in the future, and when we die. Existentialists believe we are aware of this on either a conscious or subconscious level (or both).
This links to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason- Kant comes up with two important distinctions: between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. A posteriori knowledge is when we gain knowledge from experience, and a priori knowledge is the knowledge we have before experience – that we are born with and is deemed necessary and universal knowledge. Kant says that existence is not a real predicate.
In my opinion, Kant has a point. If existence is a property of things, it is a rather odd thing: you can find a red ball, and also a non-red ball, but you cannot find a non-existent ball- a ball that lacks the property of existing. This doesn’t mean Kant is right though- an odd property is still a property. And according to many philosophers Kant is wrong: existence is a property, although a very undiscriminating one, because everything has it.
Most existentialists believe in free will and human freedom. In Jean-Paul Sartre’s play, No Exit, three random characters are put together in their afterlife in a hotel room: a room they could never exit with no purpose, no agenda, and no reason. They are free to create a heaven or a hell for the rest of eternity in the empty room. This is seen to be similar to how we are also free to create our own “heaven” or “hell” in this world with the life we have been given by the choices we make. Do you choose to be happy or sad?
A GODLESS UNIVERSE WITH NO EXPLANATIONS
Existentialism explores the dilemmas of personal choice of the moral consequences of decisions that we make in life – for our wellbeing and for it’s implications on society. This leaves us with very extreme personal responsibility. This comes from intrinsic atheism – in a world where there is no god, no pre-existing moral system, the world is effectively pointless. We are left with the dilemma of what to think about the world. How do we construct a morality for ourselves with out any pointers? Its a scary subject really. What should we being doing with this brief span of life; how do we not waste it?
However on the other hand, it can also be seen as a liberation as it means that we have no pre-existing terms regarding how we should live. For those facing prejudice existentialism can offer freedom, because at the core of it existence is everything; people don’t have essences, you don’t have to act a different way due to background/sex/race.
Religion is in an existentialists view, simply archetypal myths: God is dead (Scientifically destroyed by enlightenment).
Descartes (or Religions) saw existence as being caused. They believe there was a creation event, e.g. God created everything in seven days. Even Hegel thought history/you are caused by god. Existentialists have a very radical belief in regards to causality: Existence is just what is required before you can think/see/anything – Therefore causation is not possible.
Descartes “I think therefore I am” [Cogito ergo sum] can be reversed to ‘I am therefore I think’. As in Existentialism, Existence precedes essence. One can’t think unless you exist. Using phenomenal reduction, this reduces it to ‘I think’. This then can be reduced to ‘there are thoughts’. There are no individual persons- everyone is a reflection. Descartes- Why do I exist? – To do God’s Will. The philosophical problem of “I”: Couldn’t find I.
The big question is: HOW does consciousness arrive? Nobody knows [unless christian- God]. This is the hard problem of consciousness. Scientists are trying through neurology. How could what we experience be happening if there wasn’t a consciousness? What is opposite of unconsciousness? Time doesn’t exist without consciousness.
Existence is only unified thing – corpse is not a dead person- just a corpse.
We have a physiological instinct to live – which we cannot avoid. For example people who drown always have water in their lungs as their brain stem automatically makes them take a breath even though your body knows it could kill you as you would breathe in water. This links to Neurology [see end of paper].
All you can do is examine the texture of consciousness and investigate its properties. With medical unconsciousness for example, you are still there- not dead – but unconscious. There are different states of consciousness. REM sleep as another example.
Consciousness is a structure of choosing. Meaning of things changes when you apply your attention to them. People see what they want to see/need to see – rather than what is really there. You focus on what you want/think is important – when driving look at traffic lights rather than clothes of people which are just as vivid. Your consciousness is always evolving.
The duck rabbit [art made famous by Ludwig Wittgenstein: links to psychology] enables one to examine a persons consciousness- why you think what you think. People are shaping people all the time; everyone effects everyone’s consciousness.
Existentialists don’t think psychology is a valid activity- this is a put-down on Freud and his work. However they do think that poetry is important. Dorothy Parker, an american poet from the 20th century, wrote poems concerned with problems of being and depression. Existentialists (this is only a generalisation) like being numb due to the problems of living. Jazz is of huge importance to Existentialists.
KIERKEGAARD
Soren Kierkegaard is considered to have been the first Existentialist, although he didn’t use the actual term. Kierkegaard wrote the famous Sickness unto death which led to people facing/learning about the existentialist problem that there is no point to life (essentially).
This led to opera like Don Giovanni, about a man who went to brothels, drank and led a wild life with his riches. He had a nervous breakdown (if you can call it that) and then became a protestant. He is destroyed by his own guilt and realises how he has ruined people’s lives. It is too late, so eventually a statue of someone he killed comes back to life and he is dragged to hell for his sins. This leads to the Existentialist problem, of fear of not existing any more. Worse than fear of death is the idea of being tortured for all eternity for doing things you regret [christianity].
Kierkegaard is however christian and so believes this. His reason for this is as he thinks religion is such a huge and different [crazy] idea, that is must be true and so he took a “leap of faith”. It is in a sense his personal liberation. Other people are impossible as well. Thus you are liberated to create yourself as other people are to create themselves. A truly authentic person who lives in Good Faith will determine themselves and have no expectation of others, and make no attempt to make demands on them. He also wrote influential books like The Individual [In our faustian civilisation- no souls anymore] Faustian civilisation – sell self to devil for hedonistic pleasure and perfect [scientific] knowledge.
You could argue that Kierkegaard could of been a Nihilist. Nihilists can believe whatever they like, whenever they like- can chop & change essentially. Everything equally valid. Nihilists are committed to an idea (doesn’t matter what) and they find everything boring. Kierkegaard could of easily been any other religion- would of been sold on any religion and so maybe could be a nihilist. Is Fascism Nihilism? They are believing in what they like and going for it – it is a derogatory thing to connect the two however you could certainly argue that it is the case.
Sickness unto death [by Kierkegaard] is regarded mainstream by existentialists. The Scream by Edvard Much [art]- is about a man facing existentialist problem of anonymity, and that there is no given meaning/reason/rules to living: he falls to pieces.
In Freudian terms, Kierkegaard is engaging in character armour, he is in denial of death. The Id in freudian terms cannot accept that non-existence is a possibility. You cannot will yourself to stop breathing which is why the Id refuses to believe this. Ego comes in to protect Id.
There are eastern influences to the idea of Existentialism– Zen, Hinduism and Sufism. But it is impossible that I am – due to inexplicable reason for existence [unless one believes in God]. Therefore I am impossible. And so are you. Existence is a sort of terrible mistake, or a joke.
HUSSERL & ABOLITION OF PLATO’S PERFECT FORMS
Edmund Husserl was a contemporary of Frege. He wrote ‘Logical Investigations’ in 1900 in wake of the Fregean revolution. He thought that Aristotelean logic is a path to nowhere [sense and reference]. He also thought logic cannot be deduced from psychology at all and has no correspondence with what you might call reality. All phenomena are mind dependent. He thought that language is a virus – we are infected with language after we are born. Husserl also thought, more importantly, that one couldn’t have consciousness without language [Orwellian thought]. Quite rightly, he points out that one cannot think of something in non-linguistic terms. Need to use language to describe, to think, to have ideas. Geometry in his opinion can also be defined as a language.
Descartes- all perception may be a dream, Husserl – so what? Therefore Plato’s ideas of perfect forms are abolished by Husserl – just stuck in a cave and what we see could be a dream.
HEIDEGGER & “DASEIN”:
Martin Heidegger was a pupil of Husserl. Wrote “Being and Time” in 1927. Heidegger had Husserl arrested and deported to America for being a Jew. Heidegger came up with the idea of DASEIN– this is German for “The time [being there/in the moment?]” He thought it should be applied to one’s way of being: a consciousness structure. Ones Dasein is different for each person: e.g. one person might have a particular hate for the idea of wearing boots or might decide to do something specific to them each day, whereas others might. Heidegger was very narrow-minded, and believed everyone should just be German. However, Heidegger didn’t like Hitler due to his “inauthenticity”. He thought that respecting others views is nihilistic.
He was around in the age where people would think that objects exist independently in the mind – and he proved this was not the case. He wanted to understand reality. Heidegger closes down enlightenment [metaphysical, faustian]. He believed we should have authentic Dasein. Doing anything other than living in the moment is unauthentic- Sartre calls this bad faith.
Heidegger’s Politics: to reduce population. He believed there are too many people and we need to have less people so that people could live simply. He thought of problems like this: If you are given the ability to do it, then you just should [To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail- just hammering – just do it]. He thought Hitler was too soft. He was a huge believer in being German and going back to nature and creating our own Dasein.
Jean-Paul Sartre (who I talk about later- a communist) thinks there are many forms of Dasein’s: The Dasein of being a woman (woman consciousness), that of a white person (white consciousness), young etc etc. Almost as though our similarities can be grouped together to create an “expected” Dasein.
Heidegger thought that what you think of of the past is merely your sense of guilt/regret- and that one can only have Dasein in eternal presence. We must be present. In his philosophy, the future doesn’t exist either – its simply not there, unwritten. Thinks we should deal with present moment. These terms are meant extremely radically though e.g. If you were on a train, the train station you might be heading to is not there yet. Past = guilt, Future = fear, Present = Boredom. For Heidegger, that is the texture of existence.
Existence is boredom, there is no reason for it, so you might as well do whatever you want. We have total freedom therefore he thinks we shouldn’t let anyone else limit our Dasein. Find the thing you really love doing and do it – and let others get on with their Dasein.
This is the centrality of choice: Self-creation through the structure of your choices “existence comes before essence”. This is a rejection of teleology of all sorts – the 19th century had been dominated by the idea not of “being” but of “becoming”.
The past doesn’t matter; the future has not happened. Non-teleological explanations of the world leads us to an eternal now.
However Locke and David Hume came up with a bundle theory of personality; that our personality is determined by others: ‘co-determination’ (since no innate ideas).
OTHER IMPORTANT PEOPLE TO MENTION:
Jean-Paul Sartre, a French philosopher and playwright, was one of the key figures in the philosophy of Existentialism. He dated Simone de Beauvoir- the founder of modern feminism (of psychological philosophical kind). They vowed never to have children as they didn’t want to inflict life upon people. They lived unmarried and in an open relationship- they would have other lovers. In ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’, Sartre says to be human is characterised by an existence that precedes its essence.(1946)
As another link to Existentialism, The Dice Man, a book by Luke Rhinehart, is about a man who decides to suddenly live his life & make decisions through the rolling of a dice [six options on paper, roll dice and do it]. The only rule is that of all the six options, he must be prepared to go through with. The man finds that life is suddenly interesting. This ties into Existentialism because he firstly turns to a radical carrying out of a rule he has enforced upon him self and follows – to existentialists this is V. Important or even necessary. And secondly – he is not following the rules of others around him, not fitting in and is therefore leading a better life.
STOICISM & INDIVIDUALISM:
‘The me generation’ of the 1960s. Stoicists will try and see other people as bundles of possibility; rather than as fixed people with known personalities. There is no point to the existence of anyone or anything; things are just what they are; people are just who they are.
Existentialists think that you cannot be set free by others; you must liberate yourself by means of passionate commitment to something – anything.
Life is lost and wasted by people waiting for things to be done to them; or for them. The concept of self-repression and facing up and overcoming. We find out who we are by how we act; not by reflecting – by how other people think of you; or what you think of yourself. Hell is other people. They define you. We have to make choices. Life is not to be understood; it is to be lived.
COMMUNISM AND TELEOLOGY:
The destination is Stalinism- The reaction against Communism in the 1950s (Sartre, Camus and the Communist Party of France) This led to divisions and splits in the Communist ‘religion’ – George Orwell spotted the problem earlier, in the 1930s.
Thus teleology is undermined.
The re-think starts with the reality of everyday economic and political life.
With scholasticism of the middle ages – the assault on Aristotelean logic and politics began with the astronomical data gathered by Galileo and then spread to his politics and ethics; the age of enlightenment that followed was undermined by the Terror and Napoleon dictatorship; which led to the dethroning of reason and the embrace of Kantian and Hegelian metaphysics.
Hegel led to Marx who was in turn undermined by the reality of the Stalinist dictatorship (in the work of Sartre and the French Communists) political disenchantment spreads to a re-evaluation of the underlying paradigms.
In Sartre’s ‘The Critique of Dialectical Reasoning’ he talks of how there is no direction or moral purpose to history; without an end point the dialectical process collapses. If dialectics collapse then both Christianity and Communism are void, because they are dialectical and teleological systems of understanding. Their epistemology destroyed these movements, which are left as empty husks, shells and rituals.
LINKS TO L’ETRANGER [THE OUTSIDER BY ALBERT CAMUS] & other readings
Exisitentialism can be linked to the novel L’Etranger (or the outsider in English- however I have read this book in French rather than English [I don’t think this changed any meanings at all but probably rather solidified my idea’s as to the links with philosophy]) Essentially, for those who are unfamiliar, the novel is about an odd man called Meursault who shoots and kills another man on a beach (I go into more detail later). Camus uses the events leading up to the shooting and Meursault’s following legal trial and sentence to be executed to explore issues of meaning and meaninglessness in life. This ties in with the idea of existentialism because of existentialists are obsessed with the idea of existence: Existentialism explores the problems of personal choice and the moral consequences of the decisions that we make in life.
Through L’Etranger, French Algerian philosopher and writer Albert Camus explores his own kind of philosophy: the absurd. In short, absurdism says the world is devoid of rational meaning: “the unbearable lightness of being”. The novel reflects Camus’s philosophical stance as an absurdist [In philosophy, “the Absurd” refers to the conflict between (a) the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and (b) the human inability to find any]. Is there a logical meaning to life or can we make sense of life at all? The answer to these questions from L’Etranger is no.
Absurdism is really closely related to existentialism and nihilism. Kierkegaard confronted the crisis humans faced with the “Absurd” by developing existentialist philosophy. Absurdism was born when Camus rejected certain aspects from the existentialist line of thought and published his essay The Myth of Sisyphus (Le Mythe de Sisyphe).
In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus considers absurdity as a conflict between two ideals. He defines the human condition as absurd, as the confrontation between man’s desire for significance and clarity, and the cold universe. He goes on to say that there are specific human experiences which evoke this absurdity. Such an encounter with the absurd leaves the individual with a choice: suicide, a leap of faith, or recognition. He concludes that recognition is the best option.
For Camus, suicide is a choice that declares life is “too much.” Suicide offers the simplest “way out” of absurdity: the immediate termination of the self and its place in the universe.
The absurd encounter can also lead to a “leap of faith,” a term derived from Kierkegaard, where one believes that there is more than the rational life (Usually they turn to religion). However, Camus states that because the leap of faith escapes rationality and defers to distraction over personal experience, the leap of faith is not absurd. Camus considers the leap of faith as “philosophical suicide,” rejecting both this and physical suicide.
Finally, a person can choose to embrace their own absurd condition. According to Camus, one’s freedom and the opportunity to give life meaning lies in the recognition of absurdity. If the absurd experience is truly the realization that the universe is fundamentally devoid of absolutes, then we as individuals are truly free. The freedom of humans is therefore down to a human’s natural ability and opportunity to create their own meaning and purpose; to think and decide for themselves. Camus concludes that every moment in life must be lived fully.
Existentialism also rears it’s head in the final part of L’Etranger, as it lends itself to the atheist thoughts of Meursault. Existentialism is based around this atheist mindframe – Existence is the first of everything – there was no cause of it. After Meursault is arrested for shooting Raymond’s mistress’s brother and thrown into jail, his lawyer is disgusted at Meursault’s lack of remorse, and, in particular, at Meursault’s lack of grief at his mother’s funeral. Later, When Meursault meets with the examining magistrate, who can’t understand Meursault’s actions, the magistrate gets out a crucifix and demands that Meursault put his faith in God. Meursault then refuses, insisting that he does not believe in God. The magistrate cannot accept Meursault’s lack of belief, and eventually dubs him “Monsieur Antichrist.” – This shows how people can cling to the idea of a God – and as a way to avoid facing the scary fact that we were not given a purpose to live or rules to live by, but rather are free- to some this is liberating- to others it is terrifying [as I mentioned earlier].
The key to human freedom is freeing ourselves of the illusion of God and Hell/Heaven. Existentialism, when Godless, often leads to despair and can results in nihilism. If we’re all going to die, and there is no other “essence,” then what is the point of doing anything? Camus’s Meursault in L’Etranger calls this the “benign indifference of the universe.”
The inevitable conclusion of the reasoning that results from this kind of philosophical premise is “live for the pleasure of the moment” – have fun while you can for tomorrow won’t be here.
Meursault truly embraces the idea that human existence holds no greater meaning. He abandons all hope for the future and accepts the “gentle indifference of the world.” This acceptance makes Meursault feel happy.
EXISTENTIALIST CONCERNS:
- The absurdity/pointlessness of existence. We don’t get to choose our parents, which century we are born in. If we were born five minutes earlier at birth, would it still be the same universe? You are what you are because of the personal choices you make and the stance you take. Having been born into this world which you did not create, what do you do with it?
- The moral implications of personal choice/ exercise of free will. Choice implies absolute freedom. There’s a sense of personal freedom. People hardly make use of the freedom they actually have, they demand abstract rights, when they have a high degree of freedom all the time. It is easier to blame a lack of moral bravery on a lack of rights. The morality of the enlightenment was that acting according to reason and rationality makes us, acting according to passions and emotions makes us unfree. Although Rousseau was perhaps an exception.
- The aesthetic of generalised dread/angst (empty universe).Average man is typically defined by others. We find ourselves in absurd, strange situations- nothing has any point or reason, it is an existential void. How do people deal with this?
- Social life/institutional life as an empty ritual. This can destroy people when they realise that mostly what they do each day is pointless. Our submission to ritual and tradition and habit is what Kierkegaard calls “so-called existence”, which is just getting through life rather than attempting to live life to the full.
- The passions and unreason. Passion should NOT be overcome. To live is to live passionately – Nietzsche.
HOW EXISTENTIALISM RELATES TO JOURNALISM:
The concern with empty ritual – journalism is a form of anthropology, as we record what people do overtime.
Existentialism relates to journalism in the way we think it has invaded popular culture – in advertising (billboards, just do it, be yourself, consume this and change your life!)Commercialized institutionalized existentialism is constantly around popular culture. Although people are determining themselves more now- complete individuals though are essentially good in existentialism.
Some of greatest journalists in the 20th century were explicitly existentialist. Hunter S Thompson, Tom Wolfe, Camus. Existentialist journalists tried to see people as new bundles of opportunities – tried to report on stories with fresh eyes essentially – with no pre-conceived ideas. They would write about actual reality of how people are behaving minus pre-conceptions – This is Gounzo Journalism. Rizard Gapachinski, for example, writes about third world and their ritual behaviour. This lnks to feature writing- writing about what people do. This is huge in pop culture – existentialism is consumer magazines (celeb mags for example).
Existentialist saints are absolutely committed to something. Should not do things just to fit in or moderately please people. Shouldn’t do anything just because have do (like shop workers who just want to live a modest life and die).
EXTRA:
Reminders of people important and what was at the heart of existentialism.
Forms of existentialism include:
- Jazz & spontaneity
- Theatre of the Absurd – e.g Beckett
- Surrealism in visual arts (e.g Louis Bunuel, Salvador Dali, Magritte)
- The New Journalism (1960s)
- Cult of linguistic philosophy
- Doctrines of alternative consciousness
- Institutionalised rebellion
- Feminism
- Black Power
- Gay Rights
- Aesthetic of absolute personal freedom
- Absolute moral relativism
People important in existentialism:
- Jean Paul Sartre
- Albert Camus
- Simone De Beauvoir
- Franz Fanon
- Malcolm X
- Tom Wolfe
- Hunter S Thompson [“Dr Gonzo”]
Linking back to what I mentioned earlier on about Neurology, here is a quick lesson in Neurology!
The brain has three layers. Brain stem- doesn’t know its there – controls all motor functions like breathing, urges to eat etc [evolved at early stage in natural selection]. Things adapt if don’t do function. R-complex – reptile brain – controls aggression, territoriality, status and perception [can control using third part] – Cerebellum- cerebral cortex- recent layer- this controls your R-complex- stop worrying using culture [ music, science, logic]. If avoid car crash, CH suggests as a general idea that 50% die of cancer, 50% brain decline- just brain stem on life support.
Loosely defined 