Ah, OK, I could have known that I suppose. I asked because it seemed like either you were melacholi or I had missed some part of a dialogue between you and me.
By seeing them as essence rather than ‘something’ that was not at all determined by past behavior.
Really?
Cause your posts give the impression that such a thought upsets you. You always seem to be looking for something.
of course my beliefs about reality upset me…now I need to find my way in a world without meaning…very upsetting…
If there was meaning then you would have to find it. And you would have to find the correct meaning when presented with various meanings.
In a world without meaning, there is nothing to find. That makes life much easier.
what do you believe
It makes life much easier, but not necessarily more pleasant, - or pleasing.
Not by a longshot. 
You cannot know that since you either live in a world which has meaning or you live in world without meaning. You have never experienced the other state and therefore you are unable to compare.
If you are comparing, then it is a reality compared to a fantasy.
I wasn’t really trying to compare. Why does meaning even matter when trying to evaluate pleasure or pleasantness?
I was just making the point that an easier life isn’t necessarily equivalent, nor should be equated with the amount of pleasure or pleasantness that it provides.
Generally speaking, to act in good faith one must give others essence as they must give everything else.
There is no “blank slate” freedom from past behavior. From the specific perspective Sartre’s using the issue is only that one must know their past behavior for it to be something they can try to overcome, but by knowing it one isn’t free from it, and if one doesn’t know their past behavior then it is nothing and one can’t overcome nothing. We aren’t free from anything in reality or reality itself, we are only free to choose reality. But, once again I was speaking from a specific perspective; when I, personally, observe others I see them usually ignorant of reality and the past (the reality I choose to know), but still very much subjected to it.
For schnitzel, homey. I think the best way to tie a knot around existentialists is by their descriptive work on actual human existence. The part where we disagree is about existentialism being either (1) logical, or (2) normative. Logic works by taken-for-granted rules, or laws, where proofs and things follow deductively from them. As for the normative side of things… well, how should you live if you’re a existentialist? And why?
I Think I tend to agree, I am just not sure that’s what Sartre thought.
That’s like asking what/how to paint if you happen to be holding a brush. The answer is: something/now.
Normative, for those who would otherwise study the brush, bristle by bristle, and forget to paint anything while there’s still time. Or stand around waiting for someone to tell them what to paint, or wait for an audience to paint for…thinking that without an audience, what’s the point? WHY should I paint THAT and for WHO?
How do you cash in this analogy, or how and why do you “paint” with an existentialist viewpoint? Exercise your freedom. Bind yourself to laws of your OWN making. How do you make laws? Find the natural laws within. At risk of sounding clumsy, I define it as those laws hidden in plain view in your deepest heart, woven into one’s being, that which hold literary or aesthetic value, thus yielding the highest lasting positive impact when adhered to. How did it get that way? Not relevant, although it could all be Darwinian. Point is, you get to decide what has meaning, but not totally, most of that is decided for you. You get to decide whether or not you are in touch with it. Like the quote in my signature says.
Socially, we should live assuming that others have the same freedoms, and we should integrate this knowledge into our own set of laws and behaviors, to further define our laws.
In regard to logic, I see it as similar to Des Cartes. You start with the axiom “there exists” and move outward geometrically*, empirically & rationally, until you conclude, quite logically, that you are an existentialist, and that you know, more or less, how you might as well live.
Existentialism is more of a playing field itself, and the strategies on the field, and the science of game, may be better served with a Spinozan point of view. In other words, other philosophies are still worthwhile, but Existentialism is the king daddy.
*don’t ask
One time on actor’s studio sean penn was asked his favorite word. He said: courage.
I thought: fuckin’ A.
Courage is flipping the bird at the heavens and the void inside you. We are free to rebel against the human condition. Courage is the way to do it. Courage under fire, courage unto death. Why is this a fuckin A moment for me? I don’t know. But it’s freeing as all hell and as pure as 2+2.
Gamer, would you say those two quotes show an apt comparison between an element of our descriptions of existentialism, despite our difference in terminology?
I think that the question, “WHY would I paint that?” is an important one—but I certainly don’t want that to make me the person who studies the brush, bristle by bristle, never actually painting anything. Maybe this is a conflict…? Or maybe it just requires a day-planner, and not outright rejecting justificatory questions (like “WHY?”), as if existentialism were basically the fickle philosophy of teenage girls, who just do and like things whimsically.
Here’s a beef that I might have with existentialism, generally. Two staple concepts are at odds with each other: (a) authenticity, and (b) “existence preceeds essence”. When I paint, I want to be expressing who I am—true to myself, authentic. It’s like Nietzsche said; he said that he writes because he’s pregnant, with ideas, and he’s got to get them out. On the other hand, existentialists imply that there’s NO essential guidance you can find by looking within yourself, because essence doesn’t preceed anything. What am I supposed to be authentic in relation to?
This makes sense to me. (But side point: Binding yourself to a law of your own making actually sounds a bit more like my boy Immanuel Kant). But anyways, here’s my beef now…
Existentialists don’t usually think there’s any ultimate meaning/purpose in existence. (I take an “ultimate meaning/purpose” to just be anything for which it does not make sense to continue to ask the “WHY?” question. An ultimate meaning/purpose is one that is it’s own justification). So when I go searching in plain view in my deepest heart, whatever, that stuff is to me going to be an ultimate meaning/purpose. —Not because I am a god, but just because that stuff justifies what I do no differently than believing in a God would. It is the ultimate foundation of what I do. I build off of it. It’s essence.
Maybe we’re on the same page.
Here’s what I’m thinking, in a nutshell: If there’s really nothing in the heavens, and nothing but a void inside me… then there’s nothing left over to flip the bird to either one. But obviously, I don’t want to be counting bristles either way.
Moreno, Just in case your doubt is because of Sartre’s later work, let me mention that I was only describing what were Sartre’s views as he was writing Being and nothingness.
I’d like to use an analogy to show the difference between how I know that book and how one who had a thorough philosophical education may know that book. I know I wrote a lot, perhaps it would only be necessary to thoroughly read the paragraph in bold and the last paragraph. I simply wish to show why I may be considered to have a certain form of expertise on this subject and why my word on this matter may have more validity than one might expect (and I would also note that this subject and it alone is what I would claim I have philosophical expertise on).
I’ll first describe the differences between myself and the one who had a thorough philosophical education. The latter person studied many prior philosophers before arriving and Being and Nothingness, in many cases they were asked to do so at what I would consider an unnatural pace such as just a few years, for whatever philosophical work they read they were asked to read/hear a modern philosophers (one who had also had original studied philosophy in the same way) views including in many cases their instructor. They often did not have time to decide what they think of each philosophical work and simply had to defer to contemporary philosophers/their instructor, they certainly did not have the time to integrate the philosophies into a more broad perception of who they are. Then when they came to Being and Nothingness they had to levels of bias working against them, the fact that they may be inclined to take every piece they read and relate it to their vast prior education and the fact that with that book as the others they will be asked to study it while reading/listening to a contemporary philosopher’s/instructor’s views.
But, that is just their initial education. Those modern philosophers who would claim expertise may have spent the next forty years in continued study of that book, but I think we can both agree that many of the biases they were given while initially studying the book stayed with them and kept them from seeing the book in an entirely authentic manner (you may note the irony).
This is how I learned about Being and Nothingness. About three years ago ninety percent of what I had read was fiction and I had never read a complete philosophical work or modern philosopher’s review of one or heard an instructor’s views on one. In fact the only philosopher I had ever read was Dennet. I also simply knew nothing of the subject of the history of philosophy. The relevant background I had was years of spending hours at a time whenever I got the chance reflecting on philosophical concepts. But, it should be noted that they were antagonistic to Sartre’s views (at the time all I knew was that Sartre insisted we must find our own meaning and I still thought that meaning was set in stone and only need to be found, long some long lost treasure). But, I was drawn to his book after sampling many others simply because the writing style drew me in. For some reason I appreciated that it was not written in a way that would insult one’s intelligence, but went right into abstraction and rarely left.
I had to learn that book as if I was learning a new language; it was that incomprehensible at first. I read the book at least four times (throughout about one and a half of the next two years) before I ever discussed it with anyone. I couldn’t help but have an intuitive understanding of it after reading it that many times with nothing but the text itself for and a relatively few words from the translator. Sartre convinced me that that I wasn’t going to find the truth hidden somewhere. Sartre gave me a good way of explaining this dynamic of truth to myself. I still didn’t know the meaning of many of the words he was using including all the Greek and German for which the translator rarely bothered to translate and I never looked them up. So explaining the book to others has always been difficult, but one can be assured that I know what I’m saying.
The analogy between me and the one with the formal education in Sartre can be made between one with a formal education in the English language itself and one with an informal. Let’s say there are two adults from a culture mostly isolated from Western ideas. With a language that is about as far remove from English as possible. So neither had any formal western education. An English professor (let’s say an American) moved there and spent five years tutoring one of them; ‘A’. He taught him formal English and that was all that they spoke to each other. And he taught him an enormous vocabulary and the historical contexts of many of the English language’s words as well as the history of the language itself. And perhaps he even taught him some aspects of the cultures of the English speaking people, both historically and modern.
Then the other person; ‘B’, moved to America and lived and worked with a family that owned a small business, in a Midwest town that was mostly culturally homogeneous for whom they could be said to reflect the stereotypical American culture (I know that’s vague). He never learned to read and they never bothered to tell him much about the rest of the outside world. He became fluent in the exact form of English that was spoken in that family’s neighborhood and learned practically everything about their culture, simply by living and working amongst them.
Now let’s say that many people in the culture that both people are from immigrated to America including ‘A’. Perhaps a different part of the country than where ‘B’ was living. So ‘B’ moved to be with them. Let’s say they were the first of their culture to get established in America. So basically they had to heavily rely on the education that ‘A’ and ‘B’ had gotten. Both ‘A’ and ‘B’ could help teach them English, and translate for them initially. ‘A’ would be useful knowing how to read and he could teach others to read and tell them all the historical knowledge he has (should they be interested). ‘B’ would simply just know the culture through his prior emersion and would be of much more use. For people unfamiliar with the culture and who must do their best to find a place to live and work he would have knowledge that ‘A’ simply couldn’t help them with. And if someone from their culture should have a cultural misunderstanding and go to them for help, only ‘B’ would really be able to explain to them the problem (no matter how hard ‘A’ might try).
Stu-bones,
You are the resident Sartre aficionado. I honestly recognize that you know more about B/N than the rest here. But you don’t need to make your magnum opus a proof it. It’s showing off.
I sincerely must thank you for that comment. By the way, I’ve long known that if I ever had a question about Kant you’re the one to ask.
In fact, I would be interested in knowing what influences Kant had on Nietzsche, Husserl and Heidegger, should you care to get into that or give me a link.
yes
Yours is a great description of the vexation of being a thinking human.
The paradox, the unscratched itch, the pissedoffness or (if you’re lucky like me) the free-floating, drowning terror of having to consider that there’s no God and no soul within me.
Existentialism is saying it doesn’t matter. Because what’s left over, the ONLY thing left over, is this experiential fact of flipping the bird, in the wanting to, and in the doing of so many things…and there’s a measure of peace to be had in doing, having done, and knowing what game you’re playing.
Whatever the heavens did and are doing to lock us in our prisons and torture us with our vicious infinite-regression intellects, it has given us an out, it has given us existentialism.
If there is a God, he would need to be an existentialist.
There was one time that I was pitching, in baseball. (This is a true story). This highly touted home run hitter came to the plate. He was a monster. He’d grip the bat in his hands like he was strangling it. I remember his shoulders seemed like a yard wide. He hit everything, far. The coach walked to the mound and told me to throw him nothing but curve balls. I guess he thought he wasn’t as good at hitting curve balls, far. So I started throwing him nothing but curve balls. I threw like 5 or 6 looping curve balls. He was fouling them off. I got to two strikes. The catcher again put down two fingers, the sign for another curve ball. I shook him off. And then I had to shake him off again, emphatically. I was going to throw a fastball. I threw the fastball up around his eye-level—the high heat. I knew that he knew that it was coming, because I’d had to shake the catcher off twice. He swung violently, right underneath it, and I struck him out. I remember the coach just looking at me as I walked back to the dugout.
I was a kid, but in that moment, my existence was justified. The fact that it doesn’t last doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. This is just an example of a more common phenomenon. I’ve had it from reading a book, watching a movie, meeting a person, hearing a song, and other things.
Camus tells the story of Sisyphus, rolling the rock up the hill, only to have it roll back down again. The last line of that book is, “One must imagine Sisyphus happy”. Most people might think that Camus means that Sisyphus is happy. But if Sisyphus wants the rock at the top of the hill, then I can’t imagine Sisyphus happy, and I expect that Camus made his last line because he thinks existence would be nothing but a torment otherwise. “One must imagine Sisyphus happy, or else!”
I don’t need to get the rock to the top of the hill, if what that means is finding absolute truth, or some eternal unchanging X. I have the experiential fact of having a soul, and not a void within me. —Not always, but that it doesn’t last doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. And I have had the experience of existence being justified. I’m not referring to anything someone couldn’t believe… it was just about refusing to throw a curveball that one time.
Any fool will feel good when he strikes out the batter … it’s what you feel when you don’t strike out the batter that’s significant.
You should have read more than the last sentence.