Jimmy was right...
Now a week or two ago I was at Lenny's house and Cody made some comment about existentialism, and Brian and I corrected him about what existentialism actually was. But the thing that bothers me is that both Brian and I described it as being very depressing.
While existentialism can be looked at as a depressing philosophy, it really comes down to viewpoint.
First, it would probably help if I laid out some of what existentialism is. One of the most important assumptions that existentialism makes it that there is no God. None at all. This is not the intelligent design where god made the universe and walked away, this is no God at any point in the history of everything. I can see how this can be a difficult idea to accept. Lets take Brian for example (please don't be offended Brian, you're the only one of my friends that I know believes in God and this is a purely hypothetical situation). Brian believes in God and has for some time. Now lets say he comes to a point in his life where he finds out without any sort of doubt that there is and never has been a God. This would be a terribly depressing idea for him, and anyone else who believed in God or any number of gods for that matter.
Following the belief in no God comes the idea that there is no meaning to life. After all, if there is no God to create a meaning to life, there certainly can be no meaning to it. Life is absurd and makes no sense what-so-ever. It is a series of random events that are played out to some unforeseeable end.
With these first two ideas follow a lot of other things. Without a God there is no definite Good or Evil, there can be no fate if there is no meaning or purpose to life. There are many other assumptions people can make based on these ideas as well, but those are just a couple. Now what follows for many people if they accept these things as true is that with no God (thus no afterlife or otherworldly reward) there is no point in doing good, and for many, in even contingent to live. It tends to be a downward spiral when someone finds that everything they have done and ever will do is without any meaning at all. They must also accept, at some point, that everything done, by anyone, has not been an act of God or the devil. Everyone must take responsibility for each and ever action they have ever taken in their life. So with that idea anyone who commits a crime and claims the devil told them to do it was lying (they may very well be insane in their claim) but it puts forth the idea that it is man that commits these atrocities upon other men, and not the devil forcing someone's hand. It also throws out (obviously) the idea that some one was taken as a part of God's plan. Someone dies in a car accident and you cannot say "God called him to Heaven" or "Took him as part of his plan". You must accept that the accident that took said person was totally random and has no meaning. That person's death has no meaning.
Now I can see very much how this can be a depressing philosophy, but that's only if you let it take on a dark spiral. Now lets take a look from another viewpoint. There is no God, there is no preset meaning to life. So what? Does that mean your life is worthless? No. You may still create a meaning to your own life. You are completely free to choose your life. There is no fate, no destiny, no God, to choose the path of your life. You are completely in charge of your own life. You bring your own meaning to life through your friends and family, through your actions and deeds rather than by some ancient prophecy or the word of God. It also frees you from any spiritual constraints. You may grow and expand to any heights, you are without limits unless you place those limits on yourself. If there is no God then you must become God. Each of us as God of our own lives. We have the power and the ability to control life, our own.
And ethics you say? Who decides right and wrong? You do. Now since we live in a society, you must still follows the laws of that society. But because the church may say something is wrong does not mean you have to believe it. But then again, you can believe it because it's your choice. You choose right and wrong, because no one else has set it.
And so that about wraps it up. Now this may not be complete and wholly accurate (people have difference views on every philosophy, this one being no exception) but this is the way I view existentialism. I find it extremely empowering, not depressing in the least, and through the living of this as a part ( not the whole) of my personal philosophy, I have been quite happy.
Quack Quack ~Emu Sound~
Existing man...nothing but existing.
While existentialism can be looked at as a depressing philosophy, it really comes down to viewpoint.
First, it would probably help if I laid out some of what existentialism is. One of the most important assumptions that existentialism makes it that there is no God. None at all. This is not the intelligent design where god made the universe and walked away, this is no God at any point in the history of everything. I can see how this can be a difficult idea to accept. Lets take Brian for example (please don't be offended Brian, you're the only one of my friends that I know believes in God and this is a purely hypothetical situation). Brian believes in God and has for some time. Now lets say he comes to a point in his life where he finds out without any sort of doubt that there is and never has been a God. This would be a terribly depressing idea for him, and anyone else who believed in God or any number of gods for that matter.
Following the belief in no God comes the idea that there is no meaning to life. After all, if there is no God to create a meaning to life, there certainly can be no meaning to it. Life is absurd and makes no sense what-so-ever. It is a series of random events that are played out to some unforeseeable end.
With these first two ideas follow a lot of other things. Without a God there is no definite Good or Evil, there can be no fate if there is no meaning or purpose to life. There are many other assumptions people can make based on these ideas as well, but those are just a couple. Now what follows for many people if they accept these things as true is that with no God (thus no afterlife or otherworldly reward) there is no point in doing good, and for many, in even contingent to live. It tends to be a downward spiral when someone finds that everything they have done and ever will do is without any meaning at all. They must also accept, at some point, that everything done, by anyone, has not been an act of God or the devil. Everyone must take responsibility for each and ever action they have ever taken in their life. So with that idea anyone who commits a crime and claims the devil told them to do it was lying (they may very well be insane in their claim) but it puts forth the idea that it is man that commits these atrocities upon other men, and not the devil forcing someone's hand. It also throws out (obviously) the idea that some one was taken as a part of God's plan. Someone dies in a car accident and you cannot say "God called him to Heaven" or "Took him as part of his plan". You must accept that the accident that took said person was totally random and has no meaning. That person's death has no meaning.
Now I can see very much how this can be a depressing philosophy, but that's only if you let it take on a dark spiral. Now lets take a look from another viewpoint. There is no God, there is no preset meaning to life. So what? Does that mean your life is worthless? No. You may still create a meaning to your own life. You are completely free to choose your life. There is no fate, no destiny, no God, to choose the path of your life. You are completely in charge of your own life. You bring your own meaning to life through your friends and family, through your actions and deeds rather than by some ancient prophecy or the word of God. It also frees you from any spiritual constraints. You may grow and expand to any heights, you are without limits unless you place those limits on yourself. If there is no God then you must become God. Each of us as God of our own lives. We have the power and the ability to control life, our own.
And ethics you say? Who decides right and wrong? You do. Now since we live in a society, you must still follows the laws of that society. But because the church may say something is wrong does not mean you have to believe it. But then again, you can believe it because it's your choice. You choose right and wrong, because no one else has set it.
And so that about wraps it up. Now this may not be complete and wholly accurate (people have difference views on every philosophy, this one being no exception) but this is the way I view existentialism. I find it extremely empowering, not depressing in the least, and through the living of this as a part ( not the whole) of my personal philosophy, I have been quite happy.
Quack Quack ~Emu Sound~
Existing man...nothing but existing.
5 Comments:
At 8:58 AM,
Brian Armitage said…
I don't mind being the example one bit. The example cited is quite accurate, if exceedingly unlikely.
Now... *cracks knuckles*
I'd like to observe that if there is no God, you are not necessarily in control of your own life. It simply means that there is no spiritual factor in control. There are still completely material factors such as your own biology and psychology. Existentialism cannot, in my estimation, deny the possibility that we are utterly controlled by desires, reactions, and genetics.
While I'm at it, I'd like to throw out a quick argument for theism. In an existential system, there are no objective moral values. I would assert that this is not the case. Historically, cultures around the world and throughout time have decried certain behaviors as wrong and exalted others as right... consistently. Certainly, there have been differences in specifics, permissiveness, etc. but I contend that there is a moral trend in humanity that cannot adequately be explained by sociology.
Another quick observation. I'm not sure what you believe about the Christian view of God's soveriegnty and predestination, but my particular denomination (Wesleyan Arminianism) puts a large emphasis on personal choice. More Calvinistic denominations (Presbyterianism, etc.) have leaned more on predestination.
...I'm a budding theologian, as it turns out. So, any time you care to philosophise with me, I'd be glad to.
At 8:52 AM,
Duckmu said…
I also love the Philosophy, so here goes a bit more...
Without the existence of God or some other force (ie destiny, fate, etc.) you are totally in control of your life. While there are some physical factors to take into account (no, I don't think I can ever touch my nose with my tongue) the point I was getting at is that you always have choices in yoru life. While biology may play a role, you can always choose to ignore certain portions of biology. It's the free will that gives us choices over our genetics, reactions, and desires. Example: Liam swings at Cody. Cody flinches. Next time Liam swing at Cody, Cody does not flinch even though it is his natural reaction to do so.
As for moral values, as a rather sweeping generalization, one of my history teachers once told me that the only taboo that has existed in every society discovered in the world is a taboo on close familial incest, and even that (I'm trying not sterotype here, but it happens) is accepted in some areas of the world, usually not by society as a whole but by smaller groups of individuals. But one also has to take into consideration social order. As society grows, so must laws, and laws become morals. AT one time in the history of the United States it was not immoral to kill an African American for striking a white man. No trial, no jury, just killed. Now a days such a things is highly immoral and highly illegal. While in this case it may be that the law came after the moral standpoint was adopted by society, or being accepted by it, one could contend that certain moral viewpoints come about because the laws of a society dictate that things should be viewed in this manner.
As for predestination, I would like to first to make clear that this was not targeted directly against the Christian sects of religion, but simply at beliefs that rely on predestination. If your particular belief system does not hold this viewpoint, than this portion really isn't all that relevant to you...
I too enjoy philosophising very much, and would have trouble finding a reason not to discuss philosophy with you. Feel free to continue commenting on this post, or start some philosophising on your blog that I may respond to. I think it would be fun, though I would always advise not to get too personally investing in what you are discussing, friendships can be ruined that way. I look forward to hearing more.
Quack Quack ~Emu Sound~
At 5:06 PM,
Third said…
Hmm, this is an odd post for me to comment on, all things considered, because i've always thought of existentialism as a very positive and affirming philosophy.
With no God or other Spiritual factors, it is entirely up to that which is greatest in mankind to determine what is sacred, what is good or evil, what meaning to give to life.
The absense of God does not drain meaning from life, it merely shifts responsibility for that meaning to those living it; not an outrageous concept, in my mind.
While it is fair to say that there are biological factors in play, especially genetics and psychology, which remain very murky fields with regards to specific behavior, it should be pointed out that these are not factors that leap into play solely in existentialism: these factors are present whatever the universe outside of our five senses holds. Further, i feel it is not entirely genuine to place these factors, which make us capable of deciding right and wrong, sacred and profane, as barriers to the same. One might as well say that a car's ability to move is inhibited by the size of its gas tank. Certainly, the gas tank's volume describes an upper limit to absolute movement, but without that gas tank, the car can't go anywhere at all; and with very minimal effort (such as filling up every two hundred miles or so), the entire problem of a finite gas tank can be circumvented.
Further, to say that existentialism's lack of objective morality is an argument for theism as an alternative is something of a fallacy. A philosophy with objective morality cannot be existential, by definition. However, there is nothing to say that subjective morality cannot be pervasive. Some of the most pervasive and attractive ideals in our modern world are entirely subjective (one would not argue the that the American Dream was an objective one, for example).
To continue, while it is true that certain bilogical functions can be ignored fairly easily, and others with concentrated effort, finding the boundaries of these capabilities is something of a Godel-esque futility. Finding the absolute limitations of our biology and psychology is impossible until we have ways of percieving them outside of our own biology. While an unknown this large and glaring might seem a death stroke to the idea of self-determinism in existentialism, it can also be equally affirming, since an entirely subjective philosophy not only embraces subjective limitations, but further, thrives on large, unknowable factors of the world.
With regard to the question of predestination, one of the central tenets of this argument has been the problem of genetics and psychology as determining factors, and i will venture to resolve at least one of these with existentialism before i set down my pen... er... fingers... ew.
While psychological determinism is as impossible to disprove as any deterministic theory, it is not entirely exclusive of existentialism. Some of the greatest works of existentialism (Camus' _The Stranger_ is the first that jumps to mind) focus entirely on this subject (no pun intended), and the conclusion reached in most of these cases is that while it may never be clear how much of our will is free will, the greater crime is in so fearing determinism that we succumb to inaction. Without any objective morals or ethics after all, the players are entirely defined by their own subjective actions, and thoughts. While determinism can be held up as a bleak mirror to this otherwise liberating philosophy, lacking the possibility of proof it's as much a paper tiger as it ever was.
i'm sure you all know that i'm a philosopher myself, but i have no illusions regarding why people avoid discussions with me, much less debates.
At 10:12 AM,
Brian Armitage said…
In response:
Liam makes my point about biology quite nicely. While Existential philosophy emphasizes authenticity of action (I'm surprised the term hadn't come up yet. heh.), there's still room for the possibility of biological determinism in existentialism.
However, Liam, you've also misread me. My argument was not that existentialism's lack of objective morality is evidence for theism. It is the existence of a consistently recurring, though constantly violated, moral standard through history. Of course, even in this thread of discussion, the evidence for this idea is controversial and variously reported.
Further, I did not suppose that biology is a hindrance to discovering personal morality, but rather put forth the idea that, under an existential system, biology may be a determining factor in deciding morals, rather than free will.
Your example, Chase, of choice over biology, could just as easily be a conditioned cerebral response, or what have you. Just a possibility.
As a believer in objective morals, I would say that it was always immoral to kill a black man without a trial, but that society ignored or perverted morality in calling the practice acceptable. I recognize this isn't an actual argument, as much as a statement of my position.
I'm intrigued by the idea that subjective systems "thrive" on large unknowables. I assume you mean to say that they leave the unknowable to be judged and determined (or ignored) by the individual?
At 4:55 PM,
Brian Armitage said…
Bloody italics.
In my original post, the sentence should read: "...you are not necessarily in control of your own life."
In my second post, in order:
"...Existential philosophy emphasizes authenticity of action..."
"...biology may be a deciding factor..."
"...it was always immoral to kill..."
Post a Comment
<< Home