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.