Existentialism Philosophy






Politics of the Existential Experience
 

There would be little disagreement that politics doesn't touch our lives in countless ways. But even more pronounced than the organization of society is the cauldron of the individual within the struggle of their own existence. Existentialism seeks to confront our need to make sense out of a seemingly irrational universe, and arrive at a sensible purpose even if it is not fully understood. Each person perceives reality through the filter of their own mind and experiences. The most basic reality is always personal. The individual must encounter and cope with the isolation and solitude of their own being, alone. Meaning can only be achieved one person at a time.

The nature of the existential process rests more on method than tenets. The range of thinkers who make claim on this approach to discern meaning vary widely. The most celebrated names are associated with theories that meaning is but an illusion and that man's absurdity is just a reflection of the senseless cosmos. And who can fault the illuminism of Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus when their sense of dread is a product of the cruelty in the world condition. The essence of suffering lies in the "Amoral" system of corrupt behavior, and the authentic absurdity of our "Ontology". "Nihilism" becomes a substitute for ethics. Right or wrong becomes obscure invoking moral resemblance to group conformity.

Man's existence overshadows and takes precedence over the essence of their inherent nature. Our own humanity obligates us to be free and responsible for our actions. Constant conflict reflects the essence of each decision as our existence is defined by our behavior and thoughts. The plight of Freedom allows for achievements and our anguish in the dread of a meaningless universe. "Existentialism has come to be identified as a crucial, reactionary way of thinking, celebrating the individual, freedom, embodiment, and the limits of rationality and systematic theorizing."

In order to understand and appreciate the existential approach, one should draw the clear distinction and departure from Hegelian Dialectic. Soren Kierkegaard best characterizes this difference when he said that Hegel would have been the greatest thinker who ever lived, if he had regarded his system as a thought-experiment. Instead he took himself seriously to have reached truth, and so rendered himself comical.

Kierkegaard is commonly credited as the originator of the existential insight and remains the primary source on its genuine character. All succeeding followers accept and stress the importance of passionate individual action in deciding questions of both morality and truth. From his journal Kierkegaard wrote: "I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die." Since he was a man of faith, his views and conclusions are quite different from Sartre and Camus. The notion of a "Necessary Being" accepts a being or intellect preceding all other existence. He viewed this relationship in what most would define as agnosticism. However, his Christian faith is based upon subjective passion. Faith is the most important task to be achieved by a human being, because only on the basis of faith does an individual have a chance to become a true self. This self is the life-work which God judges for eternity.

"For if God does not exist it would of course be impossible to prove it; and if he [or she] does exist it would be folly to attempt it." Demonstrating the existence or non- existence of God only produces reasons for belief, not the actual proof that God exists. Kierkegaard also claims, "...between God and his works there exists an absolute relationship: God is not a name but a concept" The relationship between man and God is a concept. A person with belief in God, cannot prove its existence through his or her own relationship with God.

Each persons bears the anxiety or dread (Angest) of the presentiment of this terrible responsibility when the individual stands at the threshold of momentous existential choice. Anxiety is a two-sided emotion: on one side is the dread burden of choosing for eternity; on the other side is the exhilaration of freedom in choosing oneself. The question of eternity as a possible reward has little value when viewing existential thought as it applies to politics. But the notion of a "Necessary Being" is vital.

The form of political design that flows from this fundamental of all choices rests upon this belief, or rejection thereof. For Sartre, nausea is used for the individual's recognition of the pure contingency of the universe, while Kierkegaard held that it is spiritually crucial to recognize that one experiences not only fear of specific objects but also a feeling of general apprehension, which he called dread. Sartre used anguish for the recognition of the total freedom of choice that confronts the individual at every moment.

Sartre supported Marxist causes while Camus promoted "humanistic socialism". Nietzsche, while popularly characterized as an atheist, found no significance in pondering the existence of a deity. We all know the dark side that drew upon Nietzsche's superman. The political regimes that employ the godless underpinnings of the "collectivism" that are reflected in the roots of Hegel to the theories of Marx to the perversions of Nietzsche by the Nazis, clearly leaves a negative legacy in their political conflicts with authentic existentialism.

The morality of choice is essential to the politics of existentialism. The rule is "there are no universal truth" which must transition into no universal rules. One could easily conclude that this is a paradox and that the political reality of existentialism must be anarchy. But the error in this inference is that the existentialist does not view anarchy as chaos. Personal responsibility is at the core of existential political behavior. Degrees of significance in moral choices rise with the scope of political authority. Freedom is the essential objective for individuals and society. Action becomes the realization of choice. Many non believing existentialists have favored authoritarian structure for government. Their desire to have functional necessities provided by an artificial organization was never a conflict, for in Niethzsche's words, "god is dead". If our condition is to be free and the result of this choice forces us to select from bad decisions, what is the difference if a society is highly directed for it should be more utilitarian.

Contrast this viewpoint with the Christian tradition of Kierkegaard that adheres to the political equality of individuals but recognizes their inevitable inequities in talent and motivations that should not be encouraged or retooled through political authority. The existential elements of "the single individual" as opposed to "the crowd", is a reoccurring theme in Kierkegaard.

Christian dogma, according to Kierkegaard, embodies paradoxes which are offensive to reason. The central paradox is the assertion that the eternal, infinite, transcendent God simultaneously became incarnated as a temporal, finite, human being (Jesus). There are two possible attitudes we can adopt to this assertion, viz. we can have faith, or we can take offense. What we cannot do, according to Kierkegaard, is believe by virtue of reason. If we choose faith we must suspend our reason in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact we must believe by virtue of the absurd.

Francis Parker Yockey asks: "First, what is politics? That is, politics as a fact. Politics is activity in relation to power. Politics is a domain of its own - the domain of power . . . . The way politics divides the world is into friend and enemy."

Likewise, existential politics must be viewed within the context of faith in a "Necessary Being". The consequences of Niethzsche "nihilism" extends well beyond an existential perspective of the world. Man's rule is marked with hubris of "Rationalism". The praxis of this failure can only increase our mutual anguish. Soren Kierkegaard's approach offers our best chance to authentic freedom - in harmony with the universe - and purpose of our being.

SARTRE - February 28, 2002 (source references on the above link)


posted by SARTRE at 8/22/2002 | (0) comments


Welcome to the new Existentialism Philosophy Blog
 

You will find us at: Existentialism Philosophy Our Blog is a Breaking All The Rules site. We are linked from the Existentialism Page The purpose of this Blog is to engage the public in areas related to Existentialism and Philosophy. If you would like to post your own essays or comments, join our team. Accepting inquiries for a personal invite to register your own username and password (I won't have them), which allows for direct posting to this Blog. Contact SARTRE at: sartrejp@frontiernet.net


posted by SARTRE at 8/04/2002 | (0) comments


What is philosophy?
 

True philosophy consists in a thinker responding effectively to critical junctures, in thought and/or experience. All philosophy combines the personal with the metaphysical. Hence, philosophy is like religion: it relies on a personality - either a person or some deity - to personify a WAY TO BE. It does not rely solely on thought, but on action, and action requires a role model. The thinker must either use himself as the role model, or some other, possibly fictional person, but hopefully someone who actually exists. Hence, philosophy relies on heroes and villains, and has a great deal of connection with mythology as a result. All philosophy is merely a response of the individual to his or her environment. Nothing more or less. True philosophy consists in the individual finding the optimal response to his or her environment - a response that, whatever the circumstances, leads to greater ability to survive and flourish in a chosen environment. Philosophy does this by allowing the individual to predict the future to some degree.

The future can be perceived. It cannot be known absolutely, but one can use probabilities to determine the most likely course of events. Many elements of the natural, biological, world operate in systems, or patterns. By understanding those patterns we can understand climate change, ecological change, population change, etc. We can know the future on one level. Another level is social, political and economic change, which are intertwined. These changes are built on the biological changes. They consist of social structures, caste systems, values, myths, and who controls the resources. By understanding the social structures, you can predict how people may respond to environmental changes. There is not perfect accuracy, but you can predict what will probably happen, using models of political and electoral systems (using political science, sociology, economics, anthropology, and social theory).

The only "truth" that exists in this sense is the ability to accurately predict events, and respond to them effectively. You can measure truth by these abilities. People who know less truth have less ability to predict the course of events, and when events occur, they respond in a sub-optimal fashion. Thus, they suffer. Those who know truth predict events and respond in an optimal fashion. Consequently, they do not suffer. Because they do not suffer, people who do not know truth look "up" to them and follow them, hoping that by following they will stop suffering. This is where we get leaders.

We must use philosophy to act as if. Acting as if is delusional. If it were not delusional it would not be very powerful or effective. The definition of an illusion is something that is not real. The definition of a delusion then is acting in a way that contradicts reality. We know that reality, at its best, consists as an agreement on shared illusions. Anyone who has traveled can go to India, Iran, Pakistan, England, Canada, Japan, China, or Hawaii and see very different cultures. How did they get that way? We can simply say they have different lifestyles, but why aren't all the cultures the same? The fact that different cultures exist provides a perfect guide for the rest of us: we can create our own personal culture among our friends, family, and colleagues. The only reality that exists is the reality we agree to recognize. That is why the free market is so dynamic: realities are being created and destroyed all the time. Acting as if is completely delusional because it is based on the idea that you do not agree with the ordinary reality. You create reality yourself. If you do not act as if, you are not a very good creator. We call such people followers, or, to use a better term, sheep. People who do not know how to "act as if" will only follow other people who do. You are a leader or a follower, and it is up to you which you want to be.

There is only illusion, and the contest is simply between those who present a better version of it to others. Woe to those who fail to recognize that the world consists of only followers and leaders. If you fail to realize that, you will never be a leader. You will only follow, and you will not live up to your potential as a leader/creator/deceiver. They are different words for the same thing. The catch is that if people agree with you, you are leading. If people disagree with you, all you are doing is deceiving. There is no reality but the one you make. Or, as the movie Terminator 2 says, "No fate but what you make."

People of similar talents and interests go into business with each other, study the same subjects together, run for the same political offices, look toward the same artistic visions. You have Paris in the early Twentieth century where people with similar talents congregated to create art. There is common human decency of course, but it doesn't tend to be very creative or inspirational. Any person who possesses some sort of talent will look for other people who possess similar talents, or any talent. That is why you have art schools, film schools, workshops for future politicians, and business schools. All societies work by having people with similar interests congregate and share their interests, building on each other. The ordinary people who do not do this never develop their talents. They have humanity inside of them, but that is all. They never aspire to reach beyond their basic humanity.

Integrity is a fancy word that really doesn't mean anything. We think it means being honest and kind, and thus showing respect. However, most people tend to be like that. If everyone is beautiful, there is no beauty. If everyone is rich, there is no wealth. We begin with integrity. That forms the basis of all the relationships we develop when we "act as if." However, Integrity is not the end of our development. It simply facilitates our growth. The aim of human beings is not to have good relationships. We have good relationships automatically. Rather, we aim for productive and creative relationships. If we have good relationships, productive and creative relationships are the next step.

Truth is merely a measurement of our ability to act on our beliefs. That requires selling our beliefs to other people. We convince ourselves of the truth first. That is where it always starts. However, if we do not "act as if" - that is, if we do not sell our truth to anyone else, then the truth will forever remain inside of us regardless of how much we believe it and how much of it we receive. Principles are only important if you can act upon them. If you cannot act on them, they are irrelevant. Truth is simply a measurement of the physical effects of our inner beliefs and thoughts. You need to convince other of the truth in your before you see any physical effects. That is why truth - philosophy - has a lot of connection with religion. You are not simply verifying truth, or saying accurate statements. You are selling a vision of the world, a way to be, and the measurement of the accuracy of that vision is everyone adopting it. If you cannot sell it, or do not sell it, it must not be very true, or is only true for you. By acting as if, you make it true for yourself first, then for everyone else last. This critic is advocating truth for yourself first and last, which is not truth at all.

Our search for the truth never ends because we never stop acting as if. We are always creating new ways of living and being. New religions always come. However, the foundations of truth consist of your family and friends. After you have secured those people, your search for truth becomes marginal: you only fine-tune what you already know. You change your behavior a little here, a little there. but you don't engage in wholesale changes. That lack of whole sale change is what occurs when you stop searching for the truth, because you have already found it. You are simply implementing it with greater and greater accuracy than ever before.

There are two kinds of questions: purposeful questions and meaningful questions. Purposeful questions are asked only at the beginning, when you want to know why you are doing something. After that, meaningful questions are asked about how to do something. Once a project is started, you stop asking why. You question the world in the beginning in order to decide why you should act in certain ways. When you know how you want to act, you then start questioning how to act. Acting as if is just a faith-based protocol. It allows you to implement truth first, and then correct it when you see a problem. The critic is advocating correcting truth first (which never ends) and then implementing it (which never happens because truth is never completely corrected. Hence, it can only be personal because you can never sell it. That isn't truth; that is merely opinion. People who constantly question themselves only offer opinions. They never offer truth, because they never get around to acting on it and showing the results. It remains only a thought in the minds. When you act on something you merely wait to see the results. You don't question the results because the results speak for themselves.

Acting as if is a way of completely changing yourself, based on your ideals. The world is not perfect yet, however, what must be done is to assume a perfect world and then look at the current world to see what changes must be made. The point of philosophy is to detect the changes that must be made, in us and in others, to move from the current world to the perfect world. Then, you act as if in order to implement those changes.

That will get the world to change more rapidly to correspond to us. Yes, this is an extremely selfish way to think. That is the whole point. I want people to be extremely selfish. However, they only way they can be extremely selfish is by discovering other people first. The reason selfishness works is because you must first know and understand other people before you know and understand yourself. Other people - your family, friends, and acquaintances - provide mirrors for you. Without those mirrors, you may know yourself a little but you cannot truly and completely know and understand other people. You need other people to be more of who you are. You find your interests through them. You either learn about others and thus learn about yourself, or you help others and thereby help yourself because they in turn help you. But first, you select those people who will provide the most insight into who you are. You start friendships and romantic relationships because you want the other person to improve you. All relationships are extremely selfish, otherwise we wouldn't get into them. However, it is because we must first learn about others in order to know ourselves that we can avoid religious wars and bigotry. If you know than a minority group can provide you with lessons about your own life, there is little chance that you will persecute them.

Merely personal truth is just that: personal. If it cannot be applied to other people and situations - if it cannot convert and change others - it is not truth. The practice of philosophy is the deliberate analysis of ways of being, and people represent those ways. Then, we select specific ways and we emulate them.

The true measure of philosophy is not how reasonable it is, but how effective it is. Does it produce results? Reason produces results, for sure, but it is not the only tool. There are also emotions and a variety of human experiences and perceptions that have nothing to do with reason, that a pre-cognitive. The role of philosophy is to encompass all of human experience - the rational and the irrational - and combine them into one system that can be understood by all. This is why "act as if" is a proper philosophical objective, because it channels rational thought into action that encompasses the entire range of human experience.


posted by Marriah at 8/04/2002 | (0) comments



Search WWW Search Existentialism Philosophy

Powered by Blogger

[Valid RSS]


© Copywrite 2002-2005: Another BATR Site