As I was reading Sartre’s “On the Origin of Nothingness”, I was particularly struck by the story about the anguish the narrator feels as he is experiencing vertigo. The stress of knowing that he has the freedom, the choice to act either carefully, and likely not fall off the cliff, or to act rashly and tumble to his almost certain death below. There is something in that story to which, I think, all humans can relate. We make hundreds of decisions every day. How often do we ponder the consequences? Think about how easy it would be to do the complete opposite of what would be best, even though you knew it might be painful or have serious repercussions? A common example might be skipping a class, sometimes it is just so tempting, yet you know that you may regret what information you lose in the process.
An example that I have been thinking about involves a suitemate of mine. Despite sharing a bathroom with her, my roommate and I did not actually know this person. Apart from the occasional greeting, we did not interact with her ever. However, she often came through the bathroom and into our room to ask favors or questions. While we didn’t mind it at first, it became awkward because we were never sure when she would appear. We became very concerned that we would come home to find her in our room. This may seem off topic but in thinking about this seemingly pointless dorm life drama, I began to wonder what would happen if were to cross the bathroom and randomly appear in her room. I know that it is awkward, and not the right thing to do to randomly appear or be found snooping in someone’s room. It would be so easy, however, to just cross the threshold of the bathroom, to fall off my own personal cliff if you will. I know that it is wrong and the shame of being found would just be so terrible but it is very distressing knowing that the thought has even crossed my mind.
It is a little frightening to think that I could totally just open the door and walk right in while she is gone. No matter how curious I am, I just have to try to make sure I stay on the path. The path of not breaking and entering. I think this is a good example of personal anguish. I know that I could do the wrong thing. It could happen because of a choice that I make. I could choose to act recklessly and potentially something bad could happen or I could choose to act with consideration and keep to my own business, thereby staying “safe”. It is scary to think that I am so responsible for so much of what goes on in my life. I suppose there are much larger issues to worry about of course, for crossing into her room wouldn’t necessarily be incredibly life-changing, but I do feel the anguish of being almost solely responsible for my future. Even seemingly small decisions bear a heavy burden as they remind us of the huge degree of responsibility we have over our future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I like this. I feel like philosophy often lends itself to extreme hypothetical situations (in many cases dealing specifically with life and death), and this puts Sarte in a more realistic perspective. We, as humans, are responsible for everything that happens to us, even seemingly small things like infiltrating a suitemate's room.
This brings up an interesting point in the argument of free will. Sarte places all humans as free agents; that is, beings that act wholly of their own accord (even if they don't—we always have a choice). This is part of the "incompatiblist" argument for free will, which states that truly free will is incompatible with any sort of determinism. In this way we can always be held accountable for our actions, regardless of why we act.
I agree. I think the example does a really nice job of demonstrating that the possibilities which cause us the most anguish are not limited to extreme scenarios (such as those in which the individual is faced with the choice of whether or not to jump of the precipice). I suppose the degree of anguish one feels will vary according to the scenario, but despite that, this example shows that it can permeate all sorts of experiences.
Throughout the class, I've wondered what to make of this strange relationship between freedom and anguish. Should we consider this account of human experience haunting, horrifying, and even damning? Or is the fact that we are endowed with a high degree of freedom something to get excited about? Furthermore, why should we assume that humans are free? As Mark pointed out, Sartre's conception of freedom only captures one position in the debate about freewill. But there are others. For instance, the determinist says humans are not free to make their own decisions. Instead, those who take this position assert that our action can be reduced to nothing more than a series of cause and effect relationships brought about through certain determined conditions, which are in no way mediated by free choice. In thinking about human experience, one could easily make this assumption rather than the one existentialists make. And why not? Good arguments have been made in favor of this position, so why not just accept it as a means to avoid having to deal with anguish that comes with freedom?
hmm, the relationship between freedom and anguish intrigues me as well, because either with or without "freedom" we seem to have anguish. With infinite possibility, our human minds cannot seem to fathom what exactly to do with the said possibility, and thus, we flounder in a desperate attempt to stay afloat throughout our lives. Yet, if we are not free, which arguably there are times when, even if we still have the right to exercise free thought, we do not have the right to exercise free decision, we feel condemned, damned, and feel a sense of anguish for the finite possibilities which seem to lead to hopelessness. (My rhetoric feels very categorically existentialist right now...but, alas, I continue...) Ergo, are humans destined towards anguish one way or another? And if so, is there a way to create hope in the midst of that anguish? I suppose hope must be a created habit, and if that is true, then leading a hopeful life for the existentialist, means something to the effect of consistently making decisions that are a teleological suspension of the ethical or a choosing to step away from the precipice...Yet, hope does not take away the anguish does it?
I don't seem to have as big of a problem with the relationship between anguish and freedom as some of the others seem to be having. Of course there are going to be those moments when you realize that you can make the "wrong" decision and be reckless or harmful to others or yourself, and in those moments you will feel the overwhelming anguish that Sartre talks about. But for me, I'm willing to sacrifice those moments of anguish if it means that I get to decide my life. The whole idea of destiny and a predetermined life just seems like such a drag to me. I want to believe that I can make myself and my life whatever I want it to be, but maybe that's just the control freak in me coming out.
Anyway, I feel like when these guys are talking about angst and anguish and all that jazz, it is not constant. Its like when Heidegger was talking about Being with the They. One cannot/does not constantly ponder the philisophical meaning of their existence, can/do they?
I'm actually particularly interested in your fear of external factors. You seem to fear being 'caught' in the act. Sartre would call this 'the Gaze.' And also seem to consider, therefore, the act of going into her room and snooping or just sitting on the futon and watching tv as inherently 'wrong' somehow.
'Breaking and Entering' as you put it, would be considered wrong according to the Honor Code. Your suitemate, however, seems to have ignored this artificially imposed moral set in favor of her own. According to your story, she sees nothing wrong with simply walking into your room at any old time without asking permission. So, technically, she shouldn't mind if you do the same thing. This is a vaguely Kantian approach to morality, but it does allow you to snoop.
As your roommate, I totally understand you. There are times when their door is open and while I'm on the verge of closing it, there is that scary possibility that I could just bust right in. It makes me wonder why we would consider going into her room "wrong." Does the possibility of being caught and brought before the Honor Council stop us or is it just the sheer enormity of our possibilities?
This example has made me realize how many choices we really have. There is a constant anguish when you really stop and think about it.
I really like this post. The decisions that we make during our day to day do not have to be the extreme scenarios that we imagine while we read for class but they still can provide the same sort of anguish. Reading this post reminded me of a moment I had in the library last week. I was standing on the third floor on the right hand side of the balcony feeling defeated and frustrated. It was only 3pm and every single study room and horizontal surface in the library was being used. As I stood under the painted stars looking outside through the big windows feeling irrationally cranky over where I was going to study, I had an overwhelming desire to throw my laptop through the stained glass and just walk out. Walk out of the library, out of Rhodes, out of Memphis and just quit. However, I restrained myself and went and took a nap instead. (After my nap I was much more agreeable and found a place to study in the library and was very productive). But in that moment, I made a decision. I chose to exercise my free will and what if I had thrown the laptop? Would it have made any difference? Would I have really left, or would I have just been stuck with a HUGE bill for broken glass and a new laptop (not to mention a reputation on campus as “Crazy-Laptop-Thrower-Girl). Either would have caused me anguish just as the decision itself did. I think that this scenario goes along with what Lacey said, “even if we still have the right to exercise free thought, we do not have the right to exercise free decision”. Although I was free to imagine my laptop flying through the air and the tremendous crash, I was not free to act on that. Disrupting students during Midterms would DEFINITELY be considered an unacceptable time to exercise my freedom.
The idea that we can make decisions that go against the concept of good and righteous is an age old one. People always have to grapple with the good or bad choices that they have in front of them. It's late at night, you come to a stop sign. There is no one around. Do you run it? By now, it is rarely a choice we even have to make. It is drilled in our heads to do and not do certain things, that we often don't even contemplate the "bad." I think it is terrible how people these days don't do more "bad" or "evil" things, they are just too much fun to miss.
This seems to get at the very heart of existentialism. That we are only meaningful through the meaning that we give ourselves. And that our freedom is ours to do with as we wish. Most notably, Heidegger and Sartre see freedom in the same way: as a set of possibilities that are almost limitless as fas as what we can do, achieve, accomplish. And it's Heidegger that views angst as the confrontation of possibility. Every human has endless possibilities, and angst, and it is what we choose to do with those, that really make us human.
Post a Comment