(The following was written in response to: “What is your philosophy on Life?” for my intro to philosophy class. I would appreciate any criticism or feedback that anyone wishes to offer).
I think that philosophy is determined by the questions one asks. What separates one philosopher from another is in my opinion, not the answers they present, not the systems they unfold, but the questions they ask – and specifically, the way the philosopher qualifies and places value upon different questions. The most important philosophical questions, are in my opinion, not: what can one know, or whether one can know anything with philosophical certainty "that is all secondary for philosophy – the most important philosophical questions are: what can and should one do?"What can and should one become? This is where philosophy begins and ends for me.
Now, if philosophy is to be regarded as an end in-itself, then it makes a poor and malnourishing end, as Carl Jaspers rightly phrased it; religion, poetry, and literature are far better substitutes. However, if philosophy is approached from the perspective of being a means to achieving certain ends, then philosophy is rich beyond compare. But, what are these ends? Knowledge? Certainty? Theory? Perhaps, “truth”? No, it is none of these; the end is not knowledge, or theory, or truth; the end of philosophy is: action and choice. (Note: when I use the term action, I am using the term to encompass intentional and directed acts of consciousness [such as thinking-of past phenomenological occurrences] “which in essence means: willing, or if the reader will, will” as well as, acting within the world that is external of one’s transcendental-ego [ego, i.e., the metaphysical in-itself]) Furthermore, I maintain that it does not matter whether the external-world is “real” (as opposed to illusory) or not - it does not even matter if the external-world is a dream world; what matters, is the responsibility one takes wherever one finds oneself to be, for whatever one determines oneself to be. So, for example, Neo is responsible for his actions outside the matrix, as well as, within the matrix.
One should notice that this philosophical outlook, or determination - perhaps even better to say: mode-of-being - allows one to step beyond Hegel’s concept of Giest, i.e., spirit, which is an ontological contingency for many people. And in doing so, the individual can exist, as an individual, in a reality unto themselves - though, it is a secluded, solitary state; an isolated solipsistic state; that is, at least to the best of my knowledge.
So, with that said, I make no hesitation, or take any offense, in calling myself an existentialist. And to elaborate a bit on what an existentialist is, I would say: that an individual is an existentialist, if she or he takes responsibility for her or his actions, for his or her views, for her or his reactions to the external world (external of the metaphysical in-itself), and for her or his beliefs. Furthermore, what I think further differentiates existentialists from most traditional philosophy and philosophers, is that the existentialists are more interested and focused upon ontology rather than epistemology. In fact, for some existentialists like Sartre, epistemology seems to be determined by ontology - which, for the moment, I agree with. This is not to say however, that the existentialist, at least this one, is beyond most philosophical problems, indeed, they are not (though, it is probably not a stretch to say that epistemic problems are of little importance in comparison to ontological problems).
This existentialist position which I hold, does offer several problems for those who hold the position. For example, I hold that Jean-Paul Sartre’s premise: “existence precedes essence” is sound; however, I build upon it, claiming that: even if existence precedes essence, essence does not precede experience, and it is experience that determines essence. How then is one free, if one must always approach present existence through past experience? How is one responsible?
One is only responsible through a radical inner revolution, through a pure subjectivity. This is the only way that the existentialist can resolve the problem of freedom, which entails the problem of responsibility. However, as Krishnamurti rightly observes, the inner revolution, cannot have its genesis in reaction to society or tradition, for if it does, one is still not free.
Therefore, the problem may only be resolved when, and if, all worldly paradigms are abolished. It is precisely through a presupposestionless, methodological approach, such as like the aims of Husserlian phenomenology, that the in-itself can exist-as-a-mode-of-being which is ontologically free to determine for itself what it becomes, and what phenomenological objects it intentionally wills to encompass.
But the individual’s transcendental-ego is not as free ontologically as I would like to think it is; because of the very fact that the individual’s transcendental-ego is contingent upon phenomenological objects of consciousness, i.e., all phenomena which encompass existence; And, the individual’s actions are contingent upon his or her past experiences, that is, unless one breaks free from past contingency (Krishnamurti proposes, for example, to die psychologically every moment - in other words, a Husserlian phenomenological reduction). I believe that this is the way to, perhaps not “freedom,” but . . . freedom to experience the world for what it is, as it is; as opposed to altering the observation through interpretation, or some type of mental schema.
However, - as always, there is a however - one will observe: that as I write these very words, I am aware that the only reason I wish to break free of my subjective contingency, on my past, is because I encountered ideas of writers (in my past) who convinced me that I was not free. Which then led me to read other writers who told me how to break free of the formerly presented problems of determinism. (Now, talk about a theoretical dead end).
Determinism is therefore a problem I am still working on, but doubt will ever solve. Yet, for the time being, I have determined that I will act as if I were free, even if I am not. For, it is an ontological fact, that for every moment one exists, one is forced to make a choice. For example, do I get up right now, or in 5 minutes? Do I write my “philosophy on life” paper now, or tomorrow, or not at all, etc. The individual is constantly forced to choose; and even if the individual’s epoche or historical contingency, has pre-determined his or her choices, the individual is still caught in the middle of existence - forced to constantly react to his or her particular contingencies.
The way in which the individual will react will be determined by his or her historical contingency no doubt; however, perhaps as my intro to ethics professor pointed out, some reactions are better than others. And will, perhaps is nothing more than placing positive value upon certain reactions, and negative value upon others. For example, it is better to not disturb one’s own peace in a traffic jam, which may be done by reacting to the jam in a positive manner. For instance, to say: “Ah! An opportunity to indulge my latest theoretical jargon,” is much, much better, as opposed to saying: “*%^$#!! More idiots on the road causing me to be late for work!” The choice here is: which reaction to the external contingency is in one’s own better interest? Of course, this stoic attitude may not be appropriate for all situations in life - and the way the individual will know whether or not it is appropriate, will depend upon what values the individual has placed on certain things in the world.
As with regard to the world: I am an existentialist through and through. I exist in an indifferent universe with no given purpose or precepts of what to, and why to, do anything at all. I will either decide the “why” for myself, or society and tradition will decide the why for me. Yet, if I allow society to decide my “why,” I do so at the cost of my freedom to be an individual - and this, I will not allow. Therefore, I must determine the why for myself.
Now, with that said, I have personally observed that there are plenty of good and warm hearted people in this world, who make existence worth confronting. And if that isn’t good enough, there is always Nietzsche’s stubborn will, or, in other words, vanity.
On Ethics: I am more or less Machiavellian, though, I do believe virtue to be its own reward. Consequently, I am in favor of preforming some virtuous acts over some, traditionally considered, vices. The good does compel me - so, I do think Plato was right when he claimed the good compels.
The good is like a magnet pulling me toward psychologically rewarding behavior; and since, in every action there is a psychological reaction, I have found in my experience, the virtuous actions produce better reactions. However, my problem is what are good and bad actions?–For, I can condition myself to receive psychological pleasure from “morally wrong” behavior. Which therefore implies that it is up to man to decide, subjecively – or socially – what is right and wrong. And that is no small problem.
On Philosophy: When it comes to universalizing philosophy, I am getting fed up more and more with language. I am convinced that the observer alters the observation (at least when it comes to language), which makes this postmodern mess quite dirty and chaotic.
Since I think that what we view is determined by the perspective we view things from, (the observer alters the observation), I have come to understand that certain perspectives are useful, depending upon the ends one wants to achieve. For instance, phenomenological reduction seems to be useful when one wants to be open minded and, for me, poetic. But it won’t be useful if I want to engage in an engineering project, in which case, I’ll have to switch to a scientific paradigm of the world. Consequently, I think that the more perspectives one has, the more useful abilities one has with regard to interpreting and acting within “what is,” as well as manipulating “what is.”
Furthermore, being able to use various methodological models to view what is, including consciousness, gives me a deeper and better understanding of consciousness, and more importantly, a vaster array of options which help to respond, and to react, to what is. (When consciousness is turned inward, it may be thought of in phenomenologically reductive terms of particular inner states, such as emotional states).
Lastly, when I “philosophize,” I seek to look into external phenomena, and find those unthought-of thoughts that Heidegger spoke of. That to me is originality, poetry, art, etc. (However, - there it is again - it isn’t originality in the common sense of the word, for the individual does not create these thoughts, rather, s/he discovers them in what is external to the individual’s in-itself). This therefore allows me to “create” artistic interpretations of life, which hopefully will give my own life some type of meaning or place within history. Why? Because, to borrow a metaphor from Voltaire, I am that unnoticed grain of sand that – probably out of vanity – wants to metamorphose into a diamond.
And generally, when I’m not phenomenologicaly reducing what is, or making judgments or interpretations, I try to live by a few epigrams:
- No one can explain anyone else to themselves.
- “If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well.” - little Barnes and Nobles book of “wisdom.”
- It’s better to be in heaven, but one learns more in hell.
- It is in evanescent moments that the totality of our existence amounts to.
- There are a few people in this world who think, and a multitude of people who think about what those few have thought - I prefer to be the one who thinks.
- I am one who knows that all I am is one who wonders. And, thanks to Descartes, doubts, which implies, thinks.
- Happiness is easily attained; all one has to do is remember what they’ve taken for granted.
- “Live well, laugh often, love much.” - little Barnes and Nobles book of “wisdom.”
“Well,” is whatever I determine it to mean. As I said, I’m an existentialist. And that is what I think it means to be one.
Oh, and of course, this great observation from Anthony Robbins: “direction determines destination. You can’t change destination overnight, but you can change direction.” In other words, “Man is what he plans himself to be,” as Sartre said . . . though, as they say, God has been known to laugh hardest on man’s plans; and that is one reason, I prefer, not to believe in his high vain of high holy vainness.