Existentialism Lecture

Philosophy Lecture 21.02.13

Existentialism The idea that there is no point in anything.

‘The rebels weapon is the proof of his humanity. This irrepressible violence is man re-creating himself.’ Wretched of the Earth Book- Fraz Fannon

Existentialism as an agent for political change- via existentialism  principles established by Nietzsche, Heidegger- a call to arms from Sartre and the explicit embracing of violence by Franz Fanon. Violence is choice.

Age of political change comes through people like Nietzsche and Heidegger.

Nietzsche- ‘ God is dead’ the end of certainty and we are faced with a crisis-we need something new to sustain us. Big structures such as religion give us guidance. No longer any certainty. Thinks it is brilliant that God is dead as up until this point everything was told by the Solastics. This gave us complete freedom.

This crisis is fantastic according to Nietzsche- it means freedom. It gives us the freedom to find value for ourselves (transvaluation of all values) because there is no value (Plato-perfect forms) this is the region and we can choose what we want to do. We can choose what is good and bad and it is up to us with no hierarchy telling us what is right or wrong.

‘At last, the horizon seems open once more, our ships can at last put out to sea in face of every danger; every hazard is again permitted to the discerner; the sea, our sea, again lies open before us; perhaps never before did such an ‘open sea’ exist. Nietzsche arguing we have never been so free before and are able to do what we want.

Nietzsche said human nature is not universal- our natures are different we have our own morals and therefore it follows that different people can find and follow different conceptions of excellence. (Opposing position of natural rights-  rejects Locke and creates space for Fanons idea.

The Ubermensch overcomes what has so far defined us as human. The Overman renounces all of this, carving out his place in the world according to his own will. Will to power- defining himself by the choices he makes, he will overcome and ignore it all.

Choice is crucial to the existentialist point of view. The only thing you have in a no GOD world is choice values and own internal morality. Everything is your own choice and it can become scary.

Heidegger- Being and Time- highly influential (Satre’s Being and Nothingness.) Claimed he wasn’t an existentialist. His book was highly influential – Being and Time and is about existence. He is interested in what it means to exist and consequently the problems of human life. There is no basis of which we can state there is no reason to anything. There was a huge attack on religion, John Locke idea that there are real laws that should govern us. Its hard to find a reason to anything so they said we shouldn’t care about anything as there is no reason to.

But before we can investigate the nature of being as such we must first question the nature of being which causes the question to asked. What is it like to be human and what is this thing? It is a creature called Daesin. This is each of us.

Heidegger thought humans were Daesin but there is potential for aliens to be Daesin as well. He is largely an attack on Descartes and laying into the Cartesian. He dislikes Descartes so much as he came up with Cartesian Dualism (2 things in the universe-mind and body). Heidegger thinks this is a disaster and is should never have happened or been taken seriously. There is no way that philosophy can work if you believe in this. These 2 things are completely different so how can they react?

The problem is we are stuck in this mind so how do we interact with the world. Hume says you cant we never know anything we don’t even know if the sun will rise tomorrow. We cannot know anything as the future is unknowable. ‘All that we see is a dream’ is the view that Bishop Berkeley takes.

In place of consciousness and all these ideas Heidegger simply talks about Daesin. It is being in the world and he is looking for the essential structure of Daesein. Being in the world but not to be understood as a spatial relationship it denotes a certain type of engagement- an example is I’m in Journalism- one defines me in terms of my engagement with Journalism. You have to make a choice with this as well to interact with engaging in the world.

He is not trying to know the world he is saying we are in the world and defining our structure of this. He is not interested in a big theory of how the world works and how we get to heaven. He is simply stating what existence is. Dualism is nonsense if our existence is interaction with the world and the world was not there then there would be no existence.  There is no Daesin without the world, Socrates and Christian philosophers were mistaken.

Heidegger says when we speak of ourselves we don’t speak about our authentic self’s at all- true self- being ones own person. Influenced by Nietzsche has a long argument against slave morality (bad faith). Nietzsche says we must overcome and ignore all of the slavery quiet self, Heidegger agrees with this.

Das man self- the inauthentic self- what he has in his mind is a sort of social construct of himself. The Das Man self is inauthentic because it simple a social self it is not one owns self at all. This is like being self- consciousness and caring what people say about you.

Existence doesn’t just mean taking a place in the world, it has to do with possibilities and choices. This is to be contrasted with Heidegger calls Facticity (which Satre will borrow). This is the events which have brought you to this place such as where you were born, your school, family etc. Our Daesin is very much wedded to where we happen to be thrown in life. Facticity ‘throwness’ we are born with a blank slate but already have a past. This is just moral luck what happens to us, where we are born and is not our choice it is simply a facticity as we are ‘thrown into the world’. For the existentialist the future is the most important dimension. We are creatures of the ‘possible’. We are being in the world, defined simply by our engagement with the world is what Heidegger believes. Its your reaction to your facticity that decides your authentic or inauthentic life.

Transcendence- is my reaction to facticity- our possibility which may not be realised. I am defined by my choices- I re-create myself- I am not defined by my past. (Crucial to Fanon- path to escape the role of victim.)

In the past people were defined by their class. Women had no vote. Heidegger says we do not need to be victims and none of this should matter. We choose not to be victims and should fight against anyone that tries to make you a victim.

Satre  Existence preceded essence- we create our own purpose.

Simone de Beauvoir ‘one is not born a woman, but becomes one.’ You are not born the way you are, you become that way by your choices.

The absurd- there is no guiding spirit, no teleological driving force- stuff happens, good and bad without reason and so life is in some way ridiculous and hard. There is no teleological or purpose as history is moving towards an end point things just happen. We bring purpose and transform ourselves and the world by creating a super structure of morality it isn’t out there already.

Heidegger’s existentialism was right wing (Nazi)- Satre’s was left wing. Existentialism is broad and interpreted in different ways.

The life of a person is not determined in advance by God or morals or moral laws says Satre. The only thing I cannot escape is the need to choose. But the possibility if recreating oneself (by choices and decisions you make) but it is frightening- people will try to avoid this freedom as they want to be guided and told what to do. This is ‘bad faith’.

Being- in- itself, being- for- itself. Here he is saying the universe is made up of things that are defined and are not defined. A chair cannot make a decision to choose to be a football as it is being in itself and is defined in itself. Whereas we are undefined and can define ourselves and should not be confused with the chair in thinking we are just one type of person. We are all going to die, there is no God so no purpose to anything and anything we choose is pointless anyway and is frightening. Nietzsche- this is an open sea and living it is enough it doesn’t need to have any parts.

The alternative is to take responsibility for your actions and be defined by your choices. (Think Nietzsche’s sea.) It is all better off and we can do what we want.

Humanity for Satre is:

Abandonment- God is dead (Nietzsche) God does not guide our actions, there is no divine set of rules to follow- we are alone and there is no one/ thing to guide us on how to act.

Anguish- Humans are fundamentally free and are ‘condemned to be free’. We are responsible for everything that we are and have no excuses. We cannot choose our past but we can choose our future and how we feel and act in situations.

Despair- This is the realisation that the world may prevent us from getting what we want. But we still choose how to react to the setback, we are the totality of what we actually do.

Existentialism is simply the reaction to the idea that there is no reason to anything.

Example: Satre’s pupil choice between his mother and to look after her whilst the Nazi’s were in control of France or should he join the Free French and fight against Germans. He feels Abandonment (there is no rule book,) Anguish (a big choice to make by himself), Despair (if he thinks he makes the right choice it can still go wrong). The choice? ‘You are free, therefore choose.’

Bad Faith

Most people think because there are certain expectations of you but you are not you are radically free. If you come to a lecture you do and if you don’t then you don’t it is a simple choice. Sartre thinks people are making a metaphysical mistake turning themselves into inert objects rather than free human beings condemned to making free choices.

A Gay man has had male relationships in the past. His friend says he should be gay as he has had relationships but it is in his past and is facticity. He can choose to have a girlfriend next so can you define yourself by things in your past? Satre says you cant as you have the ability to change who you are and can change yourself completely.