“Existentialism is the attempt to make the trivial and pathetic seem dramatic and heroic.”
Thoughts?
What reasoning lead you to this statement?
Man is born free yet everywhere is in chains.
Man is born equal yet everywhere is in rank.
Man is born fraternal yet everywhere is isolated.
No offence, but once you’ve got into the groove of philosophy it’s quite easy to come up with glib-sounding epithets that may or may not be true but sit well in the minds largely due to the aesthetics of the words themselves.
I totally agree. It’s the thinking world’s best attempt thus far at selfish ignorance in defiance of objective realities.
XXL1337baller,
I’ll attempt a deconstruction of your sentence. Inherent within, are value judgements about what acts are constituted as ‘pathetic’ and ‘trivial’ and, what acts are not. These are subjective pontifications, which are more than likely largely derived from intuition and cultural vogue. Missing, then, is absolute value, solidity.
Our culture, furthermore, is littered with adages and cliches that opine that what is trivial for one person, is significant for another – “one man’s garbage is another man’s treasure” – such are opinions, which, though not infallible, nevertheless, undermine the inherently hidden opinions and judgements of moral value within your statement.
This has been a response from the analytic outposts of philosophy.
Now, from the continental divide, I can say: I get the flavor of what you are saying. That despite the obvious linguistic and axiological failures we can still communicate, but our communication, in terms of value, is absurd.
I would argue that many authors of various so called “existential” texts, do not treat their character’s as “Heroes.” Dostoevsky, for instance, points out in a footnote, on the very first page of his Notes From the Underground, that the character he has created is not him, and that he does not look fondly upon the underground man at all. Is the underground man, then, a heroic character? That is an opinion, and no matter which opinion one takes – villain, hero, neither – the analytic school will shred you to pieces for it. Does that mean that we forgo all of our opinions, all of our judgements?
I wouldn’t say that, from the continental divide of my mind anyway. For, afterall, we can stick our tongues out at the underground man, simply, because… Because we want to. Of course, the irony is that it is a debase character (I’m opining) such as the underground man, who it is that taught the reader to stick his tongue out in the first place.
No individual is ever completely pathetic, XXL1337baller, nor is any ever perfectly heroic. Just read Gandhi’s autobiography.
There is a saint in every villain.
(Now, deconstruct the inherently axiological judgements in my above statement.) I told you communication is absurd. But it sounds so good, doesn’t it? (Thanks siatd.) And doesn’t it feel so right?
Oh those linguistic loops, axiological
jumping jacks:
crankety crank and slidedy slip
spiraling spirals in a mazed mind.
Discovered a worthy wretch?
Entrenched her in diamonds?
“Treason!” said the philosopher.
“Reason!” said the philosopher.
Sobjectly,
Andre
I can tell from your quote that enjoy wallowing in doublethink so I am unsure how relevant I can find your response to be.
No individual is ever completely pathetic, eh? Our teacher told us today of a baby that was born without half of his brain, and lived till the ripe old age of 14 (ripe if you consider that he did not have the ability to grow past 3 feet). Sure, he couldn’t actually hear, feel, smell, taste, see, or think anything for that matter, but he was still ‘human’ to all those people who took care of him.
Apparently, this kid touched the people who worked with him, and they all forgot exactly what his condition was. But they are all placing value where it clearly is not, just as an existentialist does. I get along with my dog just fine, knowing that all he really thinks about, capable of thinking about, is food, drink, comfort, and sex.
Are you referring to Gandhi being a racist in his past life? One’s past is not what matters, it is one’s legacy. An existentialist would say ‘but the fact that he was racist back then shows that he is not perfect.’ I say, screw that jargon, it is what one becomes, not what one is. It is like saying we should pity the fact that Hitler’s whole family (except one sister) died by the time he was 18, and that he had no one write to him in WWI. Hitler was not a man who wanted pity, folks.
Existentialism seems just a psychological response to population growth and mass media. To spin out a vast tale of one’s personal significance in one’s own mind with no basis to act from it helps no one, especially not the person thinking it.
Only when they guy you quote in your sig does it 
Sorry, but I stand with everything The Underground Man said on this one.
Truthfully, existentialism isn’t an attempt. It’s a perspective. A justified one, and heroism doesn’t come into it.
Personal significance isn’t really an issue here. It’s focussed more on the nature of the universe, not the nature of the individual. Perhaps you haven’t delved further than Zarathustra to forumulate this opinion (of which, I’d love to see the formula).