ExistentialismA philosophy of human existence

Hey, kids, my name is Mr. Ribskinopolous, but you can call me Ribzzies for short. Or The Big Ribber. Or Ribasaurus Rex. Or The Ribbadoosky. Or Big Rib. Or the Rib-o-Tron. Or Ribald Reagan. Heck, you can call me whatever you’d like because I want to be your friend. Would you like to be my friend?

Answer Mr. Ribskinopolous now.

Good. Guess what, friend? I’m a very curious man and I am feeling curious at the moment. Would you like to go on a learning adventure with me?

Answer Mr. Ribskinopolous again.

How marvelous! Let’s begin our learning adventure. Jump onboard my helicopter and we’ll get going. Don’t be afraid. Just because

I ate paint chips as a child doesn’t mean I can’t fly just fine.

Before we can understand the philosophy of Existentialism, we must understand the historical

context from which it came.

The question: why did these new thinkers move in the direction they did?

The answer: because they were disappointed with the direction philosophy was heading. They felt philosophy had become too dull, too lifeless, too academic, too abstract. They wanted a philosophy that provided answers to the problems of life. They wanted a philosophy that was passionate, alive, and useful. They wanted a philosophy that could be applied to life, not one that was confined to books.

Philosophy is boring and “dead”

Along comes Existentialism

Philosophy is brought back to life

Hegel’s Dialectic (def.) The process of arriving at truth by stating a

thesis, developing a contrary antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis.

Synthesis “decides” between thesis and antithesis

This synthesis then becomes a new thesis which is then met by a new antithesis, which is then solved by another synthesis, etc.

Wow, you’re old, dude.

Yes, I’m quite aged.

No, but I mean like really old.

You’re like ancient.

That is correct—old.

Sure, whatever. But I mean you’re like paleolithic old,

old like australopithicus. That kind of old.

Yes, chap, I’m not young

anymore.

So…like…are you gonna die on me here?

No.

Seriously, just between you and me, I promise I won’t tell anyone; how old are you?

My name is Hegel. I’m a German

philosopher. I love reason and logic.

Aight, cool. Just tell me one thing: is your philosophy as boring

as you are?

Indeed it is, son. I believe there is no room for passion in philosophy. Now I really must be going because I think

I just soiled my pants.

Hegel (1780-1831) Tried to create a philosophical system

that would contain all knowledge Followed Greek philosopher

Parmenides: “What is rational is real and what is real is rational.”

Believed only reason was necessary and that it could lead to ultimate truth (ie. perfection, utopia)

Created the “dialectic”—a roadmap towards the goal of ultimate truth

The Dialectical Process “Pure Reason & Facts at Work”

Pre-Hegel (the way in which philosophy described thinking)

• cause and effect reasoning• one moves from premise to conclusion in a horizontal line

Cause Effect Cause Effect Cause Effect

If A, then B. If B, then C. If C, then D.

Chain of reasoning:A B C D

Thesis A Thesis B

Synthesis

• All positions are relativized (ie. nothing is “black and white”)• Truth is found in mutually exclusive alternatives

For Example:

Anarchy (no laws, no rules)

Totalitarianism (complete control, no freedom)

Free society held together by rules

Mr. Ribsinkopolous Senior (Greek army commando)

Mrs. Ribsinkopolous, born Ms. Lucinda LeRouge (lounge singer)

Baby Mr. Ribsinkopolous

Synthesis

When I consider the brief span of my life, swallowed up in the eternity before and behind it, the small space that I fill, or even see, engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces which I know not, and which know not me, I am afraid, and wonder to see myself here rather than there; for there is no reason why I should be here rather than there, now, rather than then.”

Pascal, Thoughts of Pascal

The Emptiness of Reason – The Disappointment of Logic

SO WHAT CAN GIVE MY LIFE MEANING?

Along came Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). He was a Danish philosopher who thought he could answer the question by coming at the problem from a different direction. He is considered the father of existentialist philosophy.

• He believed only passion and faith could give true meaning to life. Reason, according to him, had no life or vitality, hence it could never offer a person genuinely useful answers.

• Reason could never explain how to live, or how to love, or how to live fully, or how to die, etc.

• He believed reason had to be separated from faith

• Boredom, anxiety, and despair are the human psyche's major problems, and Kierkegaard spends most of his writing diagnosing these three ills.

Kierkegaard’s 3 Stages1) Aesthetic2) Ethical3) Religious

What I really need is to get clear about what I must do, not what I must know, except insofar as knowledge must precede every act.... [T]he crucial thing is to find a truth which is truth for me, and to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die. Of what use would it be to me to discover a so-called objective truth, to work through the philosophical systems so that I could, if asked, make critical judgments about them,could point out the fallacies in each system; of what use would it be to me to be able to develop a theory of the state, ... and constructing a world I did not live in but merely held up for others to see; of what use would it be to me to be able to formulate the meaning of Christianity ... if it had no deeper meaning for me and for my life? -journals

What I really need is to understand what I must do, not what I must know—except for the knowledge that helps me to do, to act… The most important thing is to find a truth which is truth for me, and to find the idea for which I’m willing to live and die. Of what use would it be to me if I knew all the facts, or if I could disprove all the world’s ideas; of what use would it be if I could construct the idea for the world’s best government…if I could construct the idea for a perfect world—a world I didn’t live in but could explain to others? Of what use would it be if I could explain all the ideas of Christianity but it had no meaning for me and my life?

paraphrased

A Pile of Reasons….But No Answer to Life

Lobster is high in protein

Lobster can be fried in butter

Lobster can be eaten hot or cold

Lobster can go in sandwiches

Lobster can be boiled

Lobster has lots of vitamins

The leap of faith

The problem: you can always ask for one more reason before you make your decision. At what point do you stop? Even if you are 99.9% sure, you still do not have absolute certainty. Therefore, all decisions requires faith.

A certain woman has a very great interest in her husband's love for her. She rightly judges that the objective evidence available to her makes it 99.9 percent probable that he loves her truly. The intensity of her interest is sufficient to cause her some anxiety over the remaining 1/1,000 chance that he loves her not; for her this chance is not too small to be worth worrying about. But she (very reasonably) wants to disregard the risk of error, in the sense of not hedging her bets, and must feel certainty. What should she do?

Or suppose you are trying to base your eternal happiness on your relation to Jesus and Christianity. How do you arrive at 100% certainty?

Some Other Examples:

You can’t arrive at certainty. Moreover, human beings are endowed with free will. This, according to Kierkegaard, is what makes human beings despair. Freedom means they have to choose—they have to choose in a world where there is no certainty. Only living by faith, passion, and commitment can people overcome this reality.

Man does not simply exist, but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment.

- Viktor Frankl

Along comes Jean-Paul SartreKierkegaard is credited as being a Christian existentialist. He believed that humans live in a constant state of anxiety and worry because they know they’re mortal (ie. they must die) and because they live before the eyes of God (ie. they are being judged). Humans are in a constant state of anxiety because they are scared of death and they’re scared about living forever. Moreover, they live in a world with no certainty and no perfect answers. They live between reason and faith. These 2 sides create an ongoing tension (ie. anxiety/despair).

• Born 1905 in France• Worked with the French Resistance in World War II• Wrote novels, short stories, and plays• An atheist; later became a Marxist• Turned down Nobel Prize (1964)• Argued for absolute freedom and responsibility of human beings• Died 1980

Human beings are what they are not and are not what they are.

Sartre’s Existentialism

But what does this mean?

Existence precedes essence

But what does this mean?

HUMAN BEINGS ARE DOOMED TO BE FREE.

• If there is no God, there is at least one kind of creature, the human being, in whom existence precedes essence

• Man turns up on the scene and then defines himself as man. So, he must have begun as nothing.• There is no human nature, because there is no God to conceive of it: man is only what he wills himself to be.

• The starting point for humans is subjective because humans make themselves what they are

• Subjectivity is a dignity, not a drawback- only humans are possessed of subjectivity

• Making ourselves what we are leaves us responsible for our own actions• Humans are responsible not only for themselves, but for all humanity, since we “create an image of man as we think he ought to be”

Existentialism

What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.

- Sartre

Nothing is determined…we are free…we are freedom

For Sartre, an undefined, non-determined nature is what defines man.

You are born into the world and you have an infinite set of possibilities before you—you are like a blank slate. Since you lack a predetermined essence (ie. a certain way you have to be), you are therefore forced to create your essence and identity from nothingness. For Sartre, nothingness is the defining characteristic of what it means to be human. A tree is a tree and lacks the ability to change or create its being. Man, on the other hand, makes himself by acting in the world. Man chooses what he wants to be. You, then, are free to paint your own destiny. You create your life’s meaning.

That means I’m free to be anyone I want to be. I don’t need to conform. My life is to

define myself.

If I want I can be a cool Mr.

Ribskinopolous by wearing a headband

Or I can shave my beard and be a beardless Mr.

Ribskinopolous.

Or I can be a unique Mr. Ribskinopolous who wears a Yankees cap, grows his beard out, and eats fried

chicken.

Or I can be pirate Mr. Ribskinopolous if I so

desire.

Heck, I can even be Elton John fan Mr. Ribskinopolous.

But the view of the philosopher, as Nietzsche conceived it, is not confined to things past and present. His task is not so much to take care of the well-being of his contemporary fellow men as rather to pave the way for the future development which will change man into a higher type, the superman (or "overman" if you prefer). For the sake of the future, Nietzsche violently fought against Christianity, whose ethics were depreciated by him as "slave morality," and he pronounced the necessity of a general "trans-valuations of values."

Nietzsche's ideal of human personality meant the union of physical strength and mental energy. It combined the virtues of the warrior and the independent thinker. It was founded upon his conviction that the "will to power" is the ruling principle of all life, and that life on earth has an absolute value. Nietzsche's ethics, however, does not preach self-indulgence or regard suffering as an evil. It demands fearlessness, not love of pleasure. It prefers the dangerous life to the comfortable one.

Nietzsche & EXISTENTIALISM