http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/sartre-and-camus-in-new-york/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120716
*newly posted 13Mar13* Essay on Camus
http://chronicle.com/article/Camuss-Restless-Ghost/135874/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
video on Sartre from 3 part "Human, All too human" BBC series
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAMCZKDgL04
Emily will post some basic information about existentialism here, and perhaps a few questions for your discussion pleasure.
Additionally, what questions do you have specifically about Sartre?
Prompts for discussion of Sartre:
- What is human freedom? Is it important? Why?
- Why is choice at the center of Sartre's philosophy? What is Authenticity?
- What is bad faith? Why does Sartre label it "bad"?
- Are we always the best judge of our selves and our motivations?
- Have you ever thought about killing yourself? (This isn't asking if you are suicidal, but if you've had those types of thoughts, do please come talk to me). Under what circumstances? When crossing a bridge perhaps? or walking near heavy automobile traffic? or after watching a difficult movie? after a natural disaster or family tragedy? What would it be like? Why don't most of us actually fling ourselves out of window or balconies, even if most of us have thought about what that would be like?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary/encyclopedia, existentialism is a philosophical movement oriented toward two major themes, the analysis of human existence and the centrality of human choice. Existentialism's chief theoretical energies are thus devoted to questions about ontology and decision. It traces its roots to the writings of Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche. As a philosophy of human existence, existentialism found its best 20th-century exponent in Karl Jaspers; as a philosophy of human decision, its foremost representative was Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre finds the essence of human existence in freedom—in the duty of self-determination and the freedom of choice—and therefore spends much time describing the human tendency toward “bad faith,” reflected in humanity's perverse attempts to deny its own responsibility and flee from the truth of its inescapable freedom.
ReplyDeleteWhile completing research, I have found a document written by Bob Corbett (http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/existentialism/whatis.html).
In this document he has put together a list of characteristics of an existentialist. Here is what he says all existentialist share:
*They are obsessed with how to live one's life and believe that philosophical and psychological inquiry can help.
*They believe there are certain questions that everyone must deal with (if they are to take human life seriously), and that these are special -- existential -- questions. Questions such as death, the meaning of human existence, the place of God in human existence, the meaning of value, interpersonal relationship, the place of self-reflective conscious knowledge of one's self in existing.
Note that the existentialists on this characterization don't pay much attention to "social" questions such as the politics of life and what "social" responsibility the society or state has. They focus almost exclusively on the individual.
*By and large Existentialists believe that life is very difficult and that it doesn't have an "objective" or universally known value, but that the individual must create value by affiriming it and living it, not by talking about it.
*Existential choices and values are primarily demonstrated in ACT not in words.
*Given that one is focusing on individual existence and the "existential" struggles (that is, in making decisions that are meaningful in everyday life), they often find that literary characterizations rather than more abstract philosophical thinking, are the best ways to elucidate existential struggles.
*They tend to take freedom of the will, the human power to do or not do, as absolutely obvious. Now and again there are arguments for free will in Existentialist literature, but even in these arguments, one gets the distinct sense that the arguments are not for themselves, but for "outsiders." Inside the movement, free will is axiomatic, it is intuitively obvious, it is the backdrop of all else that goes on. There are certainly exceptions to each of these things, but this is sort of a placing of the existentialist-like positions.
**So my question to you all are**
-Which of these characteristics do you agree/disagree with?
-Are there any characteristics you find interesting? Which one and Why?
-Do you have difficult understanding the concept of existentialism?
Another site to look at and respond to...This page has a very interesting viewpoint or "crisis" of existentialism. I would also like you to think about or even respond to the essential questions given on this site. http://www.class.uidaho.edu/engl_258/Lecture%20Notes/existential_questions.htm
One more thing. While researching I read about some examples of existentialism in movies. Have you viewed a movie that has an example of existentialism within it? A few examples I have found were "The Unforgiven," "Fight Club," and The Machinist" Have you seen either of these 3 movies? If so, how is existentialism present?
I do have a difficult time understanding what existentialism really means. So my answers to your questions might not be totally correct because I am a little confused.
ReplyDeleteI agree that existentialist’s choices are demonstrated by their actions rather than words, because they have a specific attitude towards life and choices, which allows them to demonstrate this through action. Also, I can see how they would take freedom of will for granted and that it is obvious to them. As an existentialist, they are consciously aware of human existence and the choices that they are faced with each day. Therefore, they do not give a second thought to the free will that they have because it is a deep part of what they practice.
The movie “The Matrix” I think contains existentialism ideas because in the movie it suggests that we live in a virtual reality world and that we are unaware of this. Also, it displays a layered society, in which you are able to strip away each layer to expose the reality of society. Another example of existentialism in a film is the movie “Inception” because it really confuses the viewer and you are unsure what is real and what isn’t. The main character is able to go deep in dreams within dreams to distort the reality of the world. The worlds presented here seem so real it makes you question which world is truly reality.
I find existentialism to be very difficult to understand, however, what I beleive I understand The first movie I thought of was "inception." So in that I agree with Ashton that you never really know what is reality and what isn't in the movie and it really makes you question it. Also, where you had said that "the individual must create value by affiriming it and living it, not by talking about it", this I believes plays a part in "Inception" where they fing an object that only they know the true weight of and base there living off of it, but they do not speak of it and nobosy else know the true value. Hope this answers the questions.
ReplyDeleteI also found a really good website describind existentialism: It is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for "existentialism".
ReplyDeleteplato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/
For starters, I agree with everyone else who think that the subject is very difficult to comprehend. Reading the Heidegger, Kierkegaard, and Sartre in the textbooks sometimes required reviewing sections multiple times before I could grasp what was being argued.
I looked over the summary you posted. One of the interesting aspects about the movement is the seeming trend that everyone categorized as existentialists (such as Heidegger and Sartre) actually reject that label.
One aspect that I find sometime difficult to accept at face value is that it proposes how academic and methodical philosophy practiced in a scientific manner is not enough to understand the human condition. I think I might be getting in over my head, but they seem to state that we need to develop new categories (avenues, more or less) by which we examine existence and that "philosophy cannot be practiced in the disinterested manner of an objective science".
What are these new categories? And why cannot the methodical scientific process be applied to philosophy through reason? I am sure the existentialists have addressed these questions, but I would have to carefully examine their arguments before I would be willing to accept them.
I totally want to answer the last point.
ReplyDeleteYes, I have thought about killing myself. Let me qualify that statement by saying that I am NOT suicidal, but, yes, I have thought about killing myself. The bridge example is a very good one, but there are many more examples. When crossing a bridge, there is nothing to stop me from throwing myself over the edge. If I really wanted to, I could just stand on the ledge and jump. Or when driving a car, what is to stop me from simply driving into a pole or off the road? All it would take is a simple turn of the wheel. I don't want to, but I could.
I think this extends beyond life-and-death matters. When I am in a car and I am, say, texting (I would be the passenger of course!), what is to stop me from just throwing my phone out of the open window? It is a very expensive phone that would really put me out to have to replace and obviously I would not want to do that, but I totally could just chuck it right out.
This is the anguish that Sartre was referring to. When walking along the bridge or driving in the car, I become conscious of the freedom I have to simply kill myself. However, I fear death and would rather that ability were simply not open to me. My anguish would subside if I were incapable of throwing myself off of the bridge (e.g. if the bridge had a fence on the edges). I don't want to die, but I have the freedom to, hence my disconcertedness. I would feel better, if my freedom were limited and that option were simply unavailable.
Em,
ReplyDeleteI have difficulty understand some points of existentialism. I'm not exactly sure why, but I believe it is because it is just such a different topic the more in depth this goes. I understand freedom and choice, but I just can't seem to grasp it.
To answer if we are the best judge of ourselves and our motivations, I will have to say no. I feel that through my work I feel motivated and desire to do certain things, however working with others they are more likely to point out my strong points and see what really motivates me from an outside point of view.
And to answer the question about suicide; yes, I have. There was a time in my life where nothing I was doing was healthy and I felt I ran out of options. The circumstances where not while I was out, but just because I knew I wasn't happy and didn't understand why things weren't changing in my favor. I never thought too in depth about it clearly because I had no plan or means to do so, I just knew the life I was living wasn't what I was meant to be doing and wanted it to end. Thankfully, that phase of my life came to an end for other reasons and I've never thought of that since.