REFLECTION Dec. 4 - What is Existentialism?

Existentialism is...

WHO KNOWS?!

I mean, as much great information was presented in the class discussion, I feel like I came away with the exact stance I entered with on existentialism.

What. Is. This?

Although I will save most of the digging and epiphanies I have had for my paper, I will go over my favorite idea that came to me during class here.

One of the outstanding points that caught my attention was a quote that the first group presenting shared. I guess it was from a cartoon called Rick and Morty, which I have never heard of.

But the quote was,

"Nobody exists on purpose."

I really liked that quote, and it directed my thinking to a main vein of the conversations that were conducted during class.

I have found that, as is the case with most of the principles of existentialism, I agree with this quote in certain lights but can also argue with myself to present a valid point to support the converse.

Thank you, existentialism.

Back to the quote, no person has a choice on whether they exist or not.

INITIALLY.

You're born, and by the time you are conscious enough to realize that you have been forced into this existence you have already established a life.

At that point, you have connections with people and ties that can be difficult to break.

So in this sense, no.

You don't have a choice.

You're here, and you're stuck.

BUT, thanks to the magic of existentialism, you can take a slightly different approach to the concept and come out with a radically different viewpoint.

Case in point: one could make the argument that once you pass the age of coming into consciousness about your existence, you could kill yourself.

This would transfer the control of your own existence back to you.

Also, again altering the take on the matter slightly, if you chose to lead an unfulfilled life and abstain from joy or meaningful relationships or fulfilling your potential,

are you really existing?

And at that point, does your spiteful misery give you back the control over your existence?

If we take apart the term existence, does it simply meant to breath and have life function?

Or are we talking about the deeper sense of existence where what you do with your life creates existence and you can achieve a greater sense of existence by improving others around you?

This is the whirlwind that existentialism creates in my head.

All in all, this class has been very eye opening to me.

I will admit that I was not wholly receptive to it at first, taking it only to fulfill an upper division humanities credit. Not to learn something.

But I have taken more from this class than I anticipated.

I have grown to appreciate the viewpoint of others, even if it does not agree with my own.

I have learned that simple life decisions have deeper meaning than what is attributed to them on a surface level.

Most of all, I have discovered that values, viewpoints, emotions, hard moral life conclusions...

these things are all fluid.

They can morph along with the path of your life, and it is not a bad thing.

It does not indicate weakness or flightiness in a person.

I have come to understand that it simply indicates growth.

Your life changes, and hopefully, you change with it.

This is what existentialism has taught me.

REFLECTION Nov. 20 - Sartre

Once again, I have had to dig deep and really break down the readings to extract my thoughts on the material.

With the first presentation, I came in still a bit unclear as to what this "essence" Sartre refers to.

I guess from the discussion I have concluded that an object's essence is a predetermined set of characteristics it must live up to, be it a manufactured article or a person.

With this in mind, I sternly believe that existence precedes essence.

I agree with what I believe Sartre to be stating, in that we live and thus define our lives by actions.

I do not believe we follow any specific set of characteristics or "plans".

Our actions define us, and in turn give meaning to our lives. This creates our "essence".

This brings the discussion to Sartre's thought on freedom.

He utilizes war to illustrate this point.

 He states, 

"If I am mobilized in a war, this is my war; it is in my image and I deserve it. I deserve it first because I could always get out of it by suicide or desertion; these ultimate possibles are those which must always be present for us when there is a question of envisaging a situation. For lack of getting out of it, I have chosen it."

After reading and analyzing what Sartre is saying, I find that I once again agree with him.

Each of us is responsible for everything we do.

We always have a choice, and although it may not necessarily be as extreme as Sartre's suggestion of suicide or desertion, choice is always a human right.

For lack of not choosing an alternative, you have chosen.

One of my favorite topics brought up the night of the class discussion was whether we have control over our emotions.

Initially, at face value, I sat on the side that represented that I believe we can control emotions.

At this time, I am changing my position on the subject.

(To be honest, I had resolved to change my position near the middle of this class discussion, but did not care to move my seat at this point).

While I do firmly believe that you can control your REACTION to emotion, I do not believe that you can control the initial onset of the emotion itself.

Throughout the discussion, I found myself agreeing with the fact that innate emotions, such as fear, sadness, joy, etc. are felt involuntarily.

I would liken these emotional experiences to something like breathing or a heartbeat.

It is not in our realm of consciousness that they originate, and they happen without our consent.

Where I felt I had control was in the way I chose to react to them.

Being raised in a strict family with a Military father, I was always taught that control of these emotions is essential to productivity.

It is a value that is still ingrained in me today, as I make it a focus not to reveal emotion or give in to emotional response.

But, when addressing the initial onset, I have no control over what an event triggers in me.

It was very interesting to me to explore this and the core reasons for this type of reaction to emotion.

I very much enjoyed this part of the class and hearing everyone's input on what defines emotional control and to what degree you can posses it.

REFLECTION Nov. 13 - Heidegger

This was BY FAR, the most difficult reading I have attempted since the start of this class.

Trying to navigate the language Heidegger uses and break down his seemingly repetitive sentences into something I can comprehend is a task that I am STILL involved in, even after the initial class.

That being said, thanks to the two groups and their overview of the material, I was able to extract a few points to base a reflection on.

To get any sense of the material presented, is is essential to understand Heidegger's concept of the "They".

He uses this tern to describe other people we share the world with. The they seems to take on a negative connotation in his writings, as they have an impact on and are directly blamed for loss of the authentic self (more about that later).

One vein that has carried through the whole of this semester's existentialism studies and is especially highlighted by Heidegger is how relevant the once progressive topics these philosophers are speaking to.

For example, the "They" he uses sounds to me like the definition of society today that is constantly waged in wars and said to be "robbing" one group or the other of an "authentic self".

If you look at the media, "they" are trying to tell you to be concerned with an unhealthy self-image and have brought down the collective youth's self esteem levels.

"They" are blamed for the decline of the family unit and the hardships of the middle class.

This anonymous "They" is vilified in all assets of society and the calling to be one's "true, authentic self" is stronger than ever.

It amazes me that this concept Heidegger had such issue bringing to light is still a widely discussed topic today. 

Another of Heidegger's concepts that I found to be interesting was the idea of the "Authentic Self".

Heidegger describes people as either authentic or inauthentic.

But this goes much deeper than the surface statement of "Be Yourself".

Heidegger explains that we are mostly inauthentic in our everyday lives because being a part of society (the they) prevents us from knowing our authentic selves.

This led me to dig a little deeper into the authentic self and what Heidegger meant by bringing ourselves back to authentic when we are so clearly immersed in an inauthentic world.

In going over his resolutions to authenticity, I came across such terms as "throwness" and Anticipatory Resoluteness".

It was in in researching these terms that I was able to uncover that his emphasis on Possibilities and Anticipation is central to the authentic self.

From what I gathered, anticipation of our eventual end and all of the possibilities that are of our choosing until that end are what defines our true self.

I will admit, I did get lost in the web of terms and trying to come to my own conclusion of resoluteness.

Having never had to face any kind of my own, it is a hard concept to take on personally.

But, this will be the first philosopher that I am continuing to research and read and try to gain an understanding on beyond what is required to complete an assignment.

So there is that. 

  

REFLECTION Nov. 5 - Unamuno

"There you have me, a man who affirms opposites."

THIS is the set of words that stuck out to me most from Wednesday's class.

I have always maintained that most people, whether conscious of it or not, embody both ends or a spectrum. 

However, until this weeks reading, I have never heard an argument to support this. 

I thoroughly enjoyed dissecting Unamuno's topics and how he presented them plainly but intellectually.

Also, I would like to give complement to Group 15 for thinking of an ingenious way to get the class mixed up and discussing with people that we likely would not have otherwise.

I will admit that prior to Wednesday's class, there were a few people in my "Almond Joy" group that I hadn't seen before.

And yet the discussion with them was effortless and intriguing, providing viewpoints that I may not have given thought to previously.

Back to Unamuno, I very much like how he pitted logic with passion/desire as if having them co-exist is impossible.

In class, we discussed "head and heart" and if logic and desires could be separately operated. 

Personally I believe that although there are instances where one influence can overpower the other, that both are employed when making a conscious decision.

Sometimes, the logical answer is not necessarily what will bring you happiness, so you defy logic and go with what you believe is best for you.

Other times, what you desire can be foolish and harmful, so you ignore your wants and do what you know is the safest.

But you are always aware of both sides and can asses from there which option is most self-serving.

I appreciate how he brings this argument into theocratic light, highlighting that faith and reason never come to a compromise.

Reason is always competing with faith, and faith that is weak seeks reason to empower it.

It was an eye-opening few pages, as my whole struggle with religion is that these two concepts cannot support each other.

I also gained a lot from the discussion we had about ethics. It was refreshing to take a break from the "Is God Real" discussion and give thought to other concepts for a change.

The question was posed, "Does an individual create its own ethics?" 

I went back and forth with this, always leaning heavily on the side of yes, a person creates its own set of ethics and abides by them.

I do believe that society heavily influences the baseline of how ethics are created, and therefore seemingly ethics are created regionally.

But, as stated very convincingly by a classmate, life and experience are the biggest creating factors in an individuals ethics.

In stating this, I'm using ethics as a stand in for the rules of behavior a person adheres to based on what they believe to be fundamentally good and bad.

In this definition, you will always have conflict as "good and bad" are not black and white concepts.

There is a lot of grey area to consider, which would lead to a person's necessity to internally devise a "code of conduct" based on what they perceive to be moral. 

This can be easily illustrated with a concept such as the death penalty.

It's a concept that has been debated since biblical times, with opinions spanning the spectrum of wrong or right.

I think that on this and many other topics, it can be argued that ethics are an internal concept of an individual, and not a given one. 

REFLECTION Oct. 23 - Nietzsche

There were two very loaded topics that were highlighted in the text and discussions this week, and I wanted to address the both of them, since I was intrigued by them both.

The first, as brought to light by Group 11, was basically the topic of strong vs. weak. In the story of the bird vs. the sheep, the bird is vilified for preying on the sheep as the sheep is defenseless and the bird is stronger than it.  I find it fascinating that this topic, though widely discussed and philosophized over, is still a relevant topic in today's modern society. Over and over, people refer to a "1%" of society as being evil and self-serving. They see these people as selfish and assign blame to them for a multitude of issues faced by the rest of society. I look at this as a modern day personification of the bird vs. the sheep. The middle class seems content as they are and blames the upper for the hardships they face. In our society, it is looked upon negatively to assert dominance. Meritocracy seems to be celebrated and even rewarded, and people are unable to deal with strengths. But I think that in order to maintain power, asserting force is necessary. Also, I do not believe someone who has become strong or powerful should have to "play down" their strengths to make others feel comfortable. "Strong" and "Weak" are not concrete states, they are fluid. If a weak person is compelled enough, they have the ability to become strong.

The second theme was the idea of free will, and whether we have it or not. The issue I could see was that a group the size of our class was having difficulty pinning down a definition of free will and what it means to actually be granted. I do believe that for all intents and purposes, we as humans enjoy the privilege of free will. We have options, and we have the ability to assess our options and choose for ourselves which would provide us the best outcome. I have come to realize that there are some cultural and social aspects that have been ingrained in us that may seem to limit these choices. One of my favorite quotes is from an author named Chuck Palahniuk, when he states,

               "Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everyone I've ever known".

I find this brilliantly expresses the basis if the free will argument, that every choice we freely make is a composition of all of the influences that have played a part in molding us up until that point. But still, it is up to us as individuals to use the past and make the ultimate decision, whether small or large.

REFLECTION Sept. 15th - Camus "The Fall"

INNOCENCE.

There is one theme that is woven through the text that has stuck with me since this week's discussion: Ego.

I have been struggling with the fact that ego is perceived as both good and bad. It's both a necessity and a nuisance. Ego must be present for a person to successfully thrive, but too much of it will ultimately cause a person's demise. This brings the question of balance into play, and that is where I am stuck. Most people have an innate sense of what a healthy and acceptable view of self is, and can easily recognize in others when that point has been crossed.

I think what I came to conclude while the discussion was happening is that self awareness is the key component to keeping self love from becoming delusion.

Most especially in this self-absorbed "selfie" society, it's easy to get carried away with ego. But, no ego at all is also vilified and all types of under appreciated people are being urged to assert their worth. 

On one end of the spectrum, we have one of my favorite examples of a person who personifies egocentricity: Kanye West. I had to laugh at how many times his name was referenced in a discussion stemming from Camus' writing, seeing as how the two have seemingly nothing in common. But looking closer, his false sense of self-importance and almost delusional vanity mirror Camus' main character in "The Fall", Jean-Baptiste Clamence. They both seem to view their actions with a sense of trumped up grandeur that is not shared by their surrounding peers. I believe this group of people lack the self awareness necessary to contain the self love they practice, to where it overtakes rational thought and the person becomes glorified in their own minds. 

Conversely, there has been a big push or movement to empower those who are lacking in self-love to practice acceptance and strengthen ego. As of recent, media has been bombarded with campaigns aimed at improving a persons self image. With these instances, the lack of self love stems from an almost poisonous self awareness where a person is possibly too aware of only the negative aspects of self. This group illustrates that the imbalance of self love to awareness can also be internally harmful to a person. Unlike Clamence, who was egocentric but in a way, helpful to society, this group is most likely to allow their low view of self to stifle their productivity or potential societal contributions due to their lack of confidence.

I really did enjoy this story, as it highlighted a very applicable topic for today's society. As compellingly illustrated by Group 2's skit, it is easy to allow yourself to get swept up in social media validation and come away from a computer screen with a false sense of ego. Our worth becomes weighed by "likes" and face-less "friend counts", while our achievements are only worthy if documented and posted. Most of us are kept in check by peers, allowing a healthy balance between self love and self awareness. But if this balance is skewed, we run the risk of teetering too far to one side and ending up a person "out of balance". 

REFLECTION Sept. 8th - Camus "The Stranger"

I was pleasantly surprised by Camus' "The Stranger", as I found myself unexpectedly enthralled in the development of the character Meursault. I have always been intrigued by the concept of 'apathy', as I generally experience a number of complex emotions and cannot grasp how a person can be so lackadaisical about anything. From this prospective it's easy to quickly label Meursault as a person without feeling as a result of observing him in situations which would commonly invoke highly emotional responses. This, in fact, is how I would react with someone who I perceive to be responding less than expected, writing them off as someone who 'doesn't care'. However, in the case of Meursault, staying with this person and continuing to follow the development long after I would have made my judgement proved to be enlightening. 

As he progresses throughout the story, it is almost as if he had concluded early on that dwelling on emotional response served no purpose and he would not be bothered with it. I do not think he is incapable of emotion, as he himself weights the responses he gives and how they are perceived by others. He even professes to feel embarrassment at some situations, such as declining to view his mother's body, when he senses judgement being passed on his reactions. His lack of emotional response seems to suggest a stunted development, prompting the Prosecutor in the story to label him as "soulless", and comparisons to 'animalistic behavior' in class discussion. 

However, reading on to the end of the story, I found myself going over his words several times to find my interpretation of them. He explains, when being accused of having no regret for his actions, that he has never really been able to feel regret for anything in all his life. He states, "I've always been far too much absorbed in the present moment, or the immediate future, to think back." (Camus, pg. 63). I am inclined to wonder if his attitude toward life events is instead advanced for his era, as he seems to have transcended the common despair that comes from worrying about how his actions are identified by his surrounding society. We see in the story how the surrounding people are wrestling with the fact that his actions are not indicative of someone showing remorse. They cannot accept that a person should not have some sort of emotional response to the death of a loved one. The are almost insulted by the fact that he would chose to spend an evening enjoying himself with Marie instead of wallowing in the grief they dictate to be appropriate. Meursault, however, has none of these thoughts early in the book when he describes the morning after his mother's funeral as a sort of play-by-play, where each action he takes is merely a cause of the last action. In this matter of fact way, he describes waking and feeling a swim will do him good, so he sets out to swim. In doing so, he meets Marie, whom he incidentally spends the day with, resulting in him asking her to see a movie with him. He follows the day as it goes, not letting the past events weigh him down or interfere with his present. He notes he supposes one should feel somewhat guilty, but makes no effort to entertain these feelings past that. 

I believe that what I have taken from the story is the idea of non-conforming. In Meursault's rejection of societal regard, he is labeled an outcast of this society. But at the same time, I believe he is freed from the constraints of judgement and the constant worry of what such judgments implicate for him. This, in turn, proves to be the ultimate irony as this freedom results in his being jailed and put to death. 

I still cannot wrap my head around all that this story is offering.