We ended class today in a state of indeterminacy. The title that is Unamuno’s “The Tragic Sense of Life” left us a bit of a quandary concerning his meaning of “tragic sense”. But I argue that Unamuno’s “tragic sense of life” is neither self-conceived and nor solely confined to his own definition, but rather poses a recurring question about the intrinsic nature of man. It’s a question that dates back to the early philosophy of Aristotle and Plato, depicted in Raphael’s painting, “School of Athens”; a question that attempts to answer the apparent incompatibility between the Apollonian and Dionysian side of man, the struggle between reason and passion, and inward conflict of the “man who says one thing with his heart and the opposite with his head” (157). This antithetical relation of passion and reason, for Unamuno, is embodied in the notion faith. A faith, however, not limited to finite things, but regarding infinite things.
Today in class we touched briefly on the subject of immortality. Perhaps it is just I, but I’ve found it tough having not tackled the subject of immortality thus far in class. The notion of immortality seems inseparable from philosophy, which is why I find Unamuno’s notion of faith so captivating. Unamuno, in my opinion, addresses the question that prior existentialists (e.g. Kierkegaard and Heidegger) only insinuate: is there such thing as an immortal soul/existence? According to Unamuno, the one who “desires immortality with a passion and even against reason deserves it most of all”. This to me is where Unamuno finds his basis for correct faith.
Now, I mention Heidegger not to rehash any complex philosophy, but instead draw a comparison to Unamuno's notion of faith in relation to Heidegger’s authentic “Dasein”. I find Heidegger’s non-value-judging self to be exactly correct when he talks about an authentic “Dasein”. Since we know death to be “Dasein’s” own, we know that the Angst of “Dasein” is always being-towards-death, and through that anticipation towards death, Dasein is revealed “to its lostness in the they-self, and brings it to the possibility to be itself” (146). This is what Heidegger calls authentic. Therefore, if one is in a constant being-towards-death, then one’s existence is authentic. The so-called “leveling down” Heidegger casually refers to is directed towards inauthentic existence, resulting in "Dasein" losing its individuality in “the they”. Likewise, we also discussed how Kierkegaard would agree, claiming that members of the church are leveling down their own faith by clinging on to a faith (Abraham’s) which is not their own. In clinging to someone else’s faith, faith is not longer an absolute relation to the absolute, because it loses its singularity to the individual. Thus, one is still in the ethical if one’s faith is identical to that of another’s faith.
I think Unamuno would agree. Unamuno asserts that,
“doctrines are usually a means…to explain and justify to others and to ourselves our own mode of action. The mans who does not really know why he acts as he does, and not otherwise, feels the need to explain to himself his reason for so acting, and so he manufactures a motive” (157).
This is applicable to faith. Faith is something that is created by oneself out of one’s own “supreme desire” or “passion for immortality”. If one’s faith is based in a “supreme desire” then his “conduct” must be in accordance with his “supreme desire”. Supreme desire, which I interpret as the eternity achieved through immortality, is why faith, based upon religious faith/dogma is in bad conduct, and is thus bad faith. The ownership of one’s own faith through his own supreme desire for “immortality” justifies what I think Unamuno would call an “authentic faith”. This is why I think that one CAN have faith while authentically existing. If one’s being-toward-death comes from the anticipation found in his faith, then one must, according Heidegger, be in authentic existence.
Note: This may seem confusing and altogether subjective, but Im not trying to come across as a pretentious, just trying to make sense of my thoughts. Thanks, and your comments would be much appreciated.
-kyle w.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I will agree with your last statement, that it is a tad bit confusing, but all-together well-written. I believe that the reason that we rarely touch on immortality in Existensialism, is that the idea of eternal life takes the existing out of existence. Now, don't get me wrong, and afterlife would be great, however, the idea of eternal life diminishes the importance of one's actions in their life leading towards their death, being their ultimate accomplishment. I simply believe that the idea of immortality is too idealistic. I can't imagine having any fun in a life that does not end.
I am asking for clarification of why faith is applicable to Heidegger's authentic existence, because I thought the point of authentic existence is to move towards death, not towards immortality. Or are you saying the faith is correct in the sense that Heidegger's Dasien is also focused on a thought that completely unique to Dasein? I am not trying to get hung on faith in relation to death, but it seems that the leveling down that Heidegger talks about could be left out of the conversation and focus more on Kierkeggard.
I mention Heidegger to correlate his "authentic Dasein" with faith. If the Angst of Dasein (which is anticipation of being-toward-death) is "educated" (Kierk) or eperiences axniety through faith (a passion or "supreme desire" for imortaility, which is one's own), then faith (being that it causes Angst for "Dasien") is appart of an authentic Dasein.
We talked about this earlier, Cal, and I think I was able to make the Hiedegger analogy clearer for you. Im hoping this this will help even more.
Post a Comment