Philosophy provides myriad explanations for what a human being is, or rather, for what sets us apart from animals, or any other being that may exist. For Aristotle, perhaps the reason was the ability to strive for a virtuous life; for Kant, the ability to reason; for the Existentialist, it is freedom. That freedom seems most clearly evidenced to me, in Sartre's analogy of the precipice--it is not the fear of falling off the cliff that terrifies us so deeply, but instead, it is the knowledge that we are so free that we have the power to throw ourselves off of the cliff, and we must make the choice of whether we want to live or to die. I have to wonder though, whether or not, every single moment that we are alive is in fact a precipice. Do I not have the choice at any given moment to take my own life? This idea of suicide however, seems to insinuate a second choice upon reaching the precipice: ergo, ostensibly, to freely choose a life of hope: a life that allows for the need for a perspicacious existence, for an intimacy with one's own angst, for the endless questions of being, but also reserves a place for movement and action in the depths of such anxiety. The problem with anxiety is that it is paralyzing, and if existential thought leads only to a being that is frozen on the edge of the precipice unsure of whether they desire life or if they desire death, then I find a deep critique with this movement. However, if the movement finds a place for hope in the midst of such anxiety, and releases the paralyzed being to pick up his/her bag and keep walking along the edge, so to speak, then, I find these contemplations not only stimulating but also compelling.
The beginning of Existentialist thought was Kierkegaard's philosophical theology per se, which answers more than the basic existentialist question, "what am I to do with my freedom?" It also asks the questions, "How am I to respond to the people around me?" "How am I to respond to suffering?" "Will I choose religion, atheism, or even nihilism?" and "How can I be true to my being throughout my life?" Ultimately, these questions are as important as the basic question of freedom. I have to wonder what happened to these questions along the way…
Nietzsche follows Kierkegaard with regards to being a progenitor of this movement, but it is interesting, how even though both are deeply critical of modern Christianity--Kierkegaard creates what I am going to deem a "hopeful existentialism" whereas Nietzsche creates a "hope-less existential" paradigm. What is the difference between them? Why did their followers take ideas from both, but end up with Nietzsche's hopelessness? Nietzsche says that a being that seeks humility in relation to others or that judges their innate animalistic instinct as evil, is a weak and sick being, and I want to contend with this. Not because I believe our animalistic instincts are "evil", but because arrogance leaves no room for hope; the moments where humans step out of the boundaries of themselves and work solely for the profit of someone else are the transcending moments that propel us along the edge of the precipice--it is in moments of humility that we find hope in humanity. We have seen that humanity can be the übermench, but how often do we see humanity in moments of humility or hope? (This is why Obama has created such a stir…) The problem I find with Nietzsche's philosophy, apart from it being hopeless, is that it does not consider anyone but the self--and this is the root that stemmed many of the future Existentialist thinkers. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, creates a philosophy that stimulates an oscillation among the realms of the ethical and the absolute, thus enabling an easy guide for praxis. However, even if there was not a religious realm for your life, there could always be the praxis between the realms of the Aesthete and the ethical. Thus, there are two ways to create a hopeful existentialism, but they are both rooted in understanding the "other" as playing an integral role--for Kierkegaard, this "other" was embedded in his relationship to the absolute-to God, for other existentialists, this "other", is perhaps simply the relationships with the public, ethical sphere--quite simply, with every other person around you.
Hope cannot be derived from thought--it requires the habitual praxis of considering both questions: What will I do with my freedom? And secondly: How will I respond to the people around me? The first question initializes the view of the self, which creates a moral stimulus for the second question. Thus, the 2nd question requires the potentiality that is created from that stimulus to be put into actuality. This is similar to the ideas behind potential and kinetic energy, in that the first question begs contemplation and perspicacity (the building of energy--to eventually be released), whereas the second question demands action and execution of said theory of ideas in relation to an actual person, and not merely your own being. The effecting of the ideas cannot solely take place in your own being because within your own being, there lays the unfortunate mechanism of rationalization, and with that, ideas could never play out in their truest form, because the responses would always be a lie.
Thus: in summation, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche both answer the question, "what shall I do with my freedom?" but they lay out two radically opposing philosophies, and the difference between them is the concept of hope. Kierkegaard finds hope in the teleological suspension of the ethical, and in that, finding a relation to the absolute, he is able to have a relation with the ethical, whereas Nietzsche's absolute is your own being--and I propose that it is more than just unlikely that a being can create hope within themselves without regard for the question of "how will I respond to those around me?" Hope requires praxis--whether that be religious in nature or not at all, it still requires the philosopher to look outside of his own mere being to the surrounding world. The potentiality for hope in the existentialist tradition lies within the foundation questions regarding freedom to which the philosopher seeks answers. If we do not have hope, what is the purpose of freedom? Yet, if we have freedom, we can always have hope; otherwise, why are we still alive?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I would like to start off by saying, wow. Very well-written. However, I disagree with your claim that helping others helps us choose life. I believe that, as an existensialist (as Nietzsche portays us) helping others does nothing for us. To Nietzsche, helping others would make us just as weak as those we are helping, which negates our ability to be great and survive.
I also would like to say, wow this is very well-written. I really liked this line:
“Hope requires praxis--whether that be religious in nature or not at all, it still requires the philosopher to look outside of his own mere being to the surrounding world.”
I agree with you when you say that a lot of what we have read, and especially Nietzsche, focuses solely on the self, the individual and not on how that individual interacts with those around him. It is almost as if there is only one person having this existential crisis while “the others”, “the they”, “the masses”, go about their lives oblivious when in reality, most of us (“the others”, “the masses”, “the they”) face some sort of existential crisis at one point or the other. I also agree with you when you say that it is unlikely to create hope without wondering about others. Especially after reading and discussing Unamuno. Unamuno says that life’s tragedy is that there are no values and so it is up to the individual to make these values to give meaning (or hope perhaps) to a meaningless existence. He also stresses that the only way that we will gain immortality is in our interactions with others:
“Act so that in your own judgment and in the judgment of others you deserve eternity, act so that you may be irreplaceable, act so that you do not deserve death”
Unamuno seems to be saying that in order to be great and become an immortal, it is essential to interact with others. Its only though other’s judgments that one’s greatness and worthiness for immortality can be determined.
I would argue that interacting with others, perhaps helping others, is important to our existence.
This is an eloquent and thoughtful post, bravo! However, there is something that I would like to add. Though this is my first straight up philosophy class, I have read many political philosophers during my numerous political science classes, and men like Rousseau and Machiavelli would have to disagree with you on your fight for hope and humility. These men would say that as soon as savage man (not savage as in crazed, savage as in original) was forced to act with other savage men in a developing society, the concepts of hope and humility flew out the window. Society is what forces men to behave the way that they do - it encourages fighting, stealing, war. In this type of ruthless society, it is almost impossible for hope or humility because the man who advocates these things will get stepped on, or worse...killed. Maybe Nietzsche was a fan of these philosophers and that is why his own philosophy is so hopeless. In any case, many philosophers reflecting on the stages of society seem to agree that all of them are hopeless, or if not completely hopeless, pretty bad off.
You raise a really interesting point-is it even possible to have hope when savage man interacts with savage man--or does society demand us to fight and steal and work towards being the strong? And, I am not entirely sure how to answer this--but here are my thoughts: Yes, I definitely think that society encourages realist paradigm behaviour-but I also want there to exist within humans the thoughtful nature to reflect upon what they are doing and use that generous portion of freedom they have to stop, take a step back, and begin living a life that involves being thoughtful about his/her actions--a life that has a constant regard for both its own being, and the beings in motion around it...how can we carefully, generously, respectfully, and justly (and without adverbs) live in dialogue both with our own being and with the beings around us at the same time? This is part of the praxis that creates a hopeful existentialism I think...hm...thoughts?
Post a Comment