This is the End...

We have come to the end of an amazing semester and I really do not know where the time went. It felt like just last week I entered this class for the first, and it felt like just yesterday that my group and I gave our presentation on Kierkegaard.

I have to say, this was one of the best classes I have ever taken in my life. This class turned out to be everything I hoped it to be. My first glimpse on existentialism was in the last two weeks of high school, and it was great to end my college education with this subject again. It has completely changed the way I view life. I went from thinking life just flat out sucks to looking at the true potential of life.

I feel reassured that everything that I feel about life is something that others feel the same about. Life is hard, often cruel, unpredictable, yet… amazing!

To read what the famous Philosophers’ have said was definitely challenging for me as the semester progressed, but I left every single class feeling awakened! This was literally the only class I looked forward to each week, and that says a lot for me as I am really burnt out on school. But the complexity of the concept, the language, and the classroom teaching style made this not just a subject, but an experience. I am grateful to have had this milestone in my life.

Now to reflect on this week’s class. I really enjoyed how the groups had video clips as a part of their presentation. I am a very visual person and this helps a lot. So props to you guys!

Bad faith:

As I was reading this section I was having some difficulty truly understanding, in plain text, what it really was. After class it made sense; Bad faith is recognizing that the intentions of a situation and choosing to put on a mask and be something your not. You see what it is for what it is, and although against it or not in favor of it, still continue to carry through with it and endure it with a smile on your face (so-to-speak).

I have been in Bad Faith way more times in life than I can possibly imagine. To be honest, it made me feel like a really weak person, almost ashamed in myself. I felt categorized and identified as an individual who is almost always in bad faith. I left that class feeling pretty bad about myself. But that’s a good thing. I am going to try to live in good faith more often, because I understand that no person can never be in bad faith. However I shall work towards that.

Its finding that balance between transcendence and facticity that makes bad faith possible. If one is over emphasized over the other bad faith occurs. For instance, if I say “I am going to be a millionaire in a year!” I would say I am in bad faith (unless I win the lottery of course). In reality there is a super slim possibility of that becoming true. But if I believe it can happen with all of my passion, I am in bad faith. I am ignoring the facticity of the whole situation.

Being for Others:

What I have to understand is that I, myself, is out in the world. The way other people perceive and act towards me, is a part of who I am as an individual. When I really get to thinking about it, its true. I sat there initially in class saying “No, I am who I am not” what someone else thinks of me does not make me who I am. But then I got to thinking. Actually, what people think of me, in one way or another changes the way I behave outwardly. We are responsible for the way we act outwardly and have to accept that we will be judged based on our actions. This will ultimately become a part of who we are.

“How responsible are we for our identity?”

My response: We are only as responsible for our identity as long as we have control over it. Because sometimes there is no way that I can change the way a person perceives me, for all I know they could perceive me badly just because I look a certain way, they were in a certain mood when they saw me and didn’t like me or something. I am only responsible for the actions that I take to influence a person’s perception of me. I just have to be the best person I can possibly be.

“Can one derive a sense of self without other people?”

My response: I would say yes, but only under the assumption that I have been in a society prior to being without other people. But if I have never know other people and I was just put on earth by myself and never once say a human being (In an extreme instance) I do not think I would have a sense of self seeing as I form myself based on others.

“Hell is other people.”

Yes!!! Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!! I completely agree. If we think it is life that is absurd, other people make life way harder. We live day to day (without being completely conscious of it) trying to give a positive image of ourselves to others (whether we know them or not). It is other people who can bring you down, make you feel stressed out, make you angry, and so on. It is ultimately what other people think of you at the end of the day that makes us reflect on ourselves.

But, for those people who are there for us in the hardest times of life, the ones who pick us up, encourage us, keep us company, is that really hell? That’s where I draw the line on that and begin to contemplate the true meaning “Hell is other people”. 

The Great Jean-Paul Sartre!

As I read through the example essays, provided to us by Thad, I could not help but notice that each and every one of them utilized something that Jean-Paul Sartre had said. I was unable to read the material prior to class on Monday, so I learned as I went along, and read during class. But while I was in class I began to understand why all of those sample essays reflected Sartre’s works. First reason being for the fact that it was probably the last thing in class that the students covered. But, I believe the real reason is because he literally defines existentialism. It says in the preview “It is Sartre who is mainly responsible for both the formulation and the popularization of existentialism.” But what has me confused about that is that I thought Kierkegaard was the Father of Existentialism. Anyways! I find that the way Sartre explains things it is much straighter forward, and seems much more spot on.

“Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing---as he wills to be after that leap towards existence.  Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.”

Sartre makes this clear that this is the first principle of existentialism. It makes perfect sense! We exist because we will ourselves to live. If we chose not to live then we would take the easy road out and just kill ourselves. (That’s what I feel people with no will or drive to live would do—suicide). We cannot be something were not, for we are just what we are and nothing more. (((Oooooooo I feel like a philosopher)))  We are all unique and we have different things that motivate us to live each day and we all have different aspirations for what we plan to achieve down the road.

This is where responsibility comes into play. What I found interesting with this is what Sartre said about for all of mankind.

“What we choose is always for the better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is for the better for all.”

This is something I really didn’t agree with, as I side with Dostoevsky here. I feel that there will come a time where people, regardless of how harmful it could be to themselves or to others, will pursue their most advantageous advantage no matter what. This is because they have the choice to do so. Our own free unfettered choice to do whatever it is that we desire. I do not feel that a person will always choose something that will always benefit mankind.

But to Sartre this is what gives us responsibility for our actions. That we are to do what is best for us because we represent it for all.

His example:

“If I am a worker, for instance, I may choose to join a Christian rather than a Communist trade union. And if, by that membership, I choose to signify that resignation is, after all, the attitude that best becomes man , that man’s kingdom is not upon earth, I do not commit myself alone to that view. Resignation is my will for everyone, and my action is, in consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind. Or is, to take a more personal case, I decided to marry and to have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation, from my passion or my desire, I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. Lam thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.”

I think that if Sartre were to come back to this world now and see just how things are I think that this would change. My counter example would be that I could be a Christian and join a communist trade union and still hold my faith, and I would advocate my stance should the opportunity arise. I would not care if mankind was against this. I know lots of father who have small families and are not there for them although they know it is wrong of them to do so and that they should be holding that responsibility. But it doesn't happen.

I do believe that we are all responsible for the actions that we carry out in our lives, and we are the ones who have to live with the effects of those actions. They may not be for the benefit of mankind but they are something that each individual will have to live with. 

Death

For me I thought Heidegger was the toughest piece to read thus far. In class I learned the this was just a part of the way that Heidegger spoke. Of course there is always that translation flaw that comes when you turn German to English, but this piece was still different. Heidegger created his own little language, or twist on language, in order to avoid clear distinction. He refused to make distinction. What I also found interesting is that he really didn’t care about the external world. This is because he wanted a total view. It was interesting to me that he say the Nazi movement as something to be admired, although he did not support genocide, it was the way that the Nazis expressed their view of a perfect world. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that is the take I got from his background information.

Now its deep though time!

When we die… Is it peaceful? Will it hurt? Will there be another life on the other side? Will we end up in a heavenly paradise and look over the world in which we came? No one really knows, nor will we ever know.

For Heidegger, being in the world comes to an end in death, as reference to Da-sein.  Da-sein is life, the actual state of being in life. For the authentic Da-sein this is denied, because death is not something a Da-sein can experience.

“Death does not reveal itself as a loss, but as a loss experienced by those remaining behind.” (pg. 140)

Heidegger even goes further to saying just how death can be formulated. And it is in these three things:

1. 1.       As long as Da-sein is, not-yet belongs to it, which it will be--- what is constantly outstanding.
2. 2.       The coming-to-its-end of what is not-yet-at-an-end (in which what is outstanding is liquidated with regard to its being) has the character of no-longer-being-there.
3. 3.       Coming-to-an-end implies a mode of being in which the actual Da-sein absolutely cannot be represented by someone else. (pg. 141).

For death is something familiar to us. In this world it occurs at every given moment. People die and others are born and that’s just the way things are.

The first group asked us to write down a question and reflect towards it. (if I can remember it properly)

“How would you feel if death were to come at this very moment?”

My response was along these lines:

If death were to come at this very moment I would welcome it with open arms, not for the fact that I no longer want to be a part of this world, but for the fact that if it was really going to happen, it is clearly inevitable. I cannot escape death, as there will be a day where I will have to face it and either accept it or not accept it. The point is, regardless if you accept it or not, your going to die if it is really is happening. Although there are a million things that I would still like to do in my life, and that I am still young, I have no grudge against death itself. For death is something meaningful. Because if you think about it, we only have meaning in life because of the short time that we have in this physical being. If we were to live for eternity, I would lose purpose in life I think. So why resist something that we all know if going to happen, just accept it and in that moment appreciate the life that you had before.

Now! When the second group asked their big question, I was not quite ready for that one…

For Heidegger the most fundamental of all questions is “Why are there essents, why is there anything at all, rather than nothing?”

But “What is my biggest question?”

It is: “Will I ever have to courage to be the person that I truly want to be?”

After the day is set and done and after I have thought over my day and everything going on in my life, it is this question that presents itself to me more often than I care to give it credit for.

There is this ideal person that I truly want to be, but for some reason, I just cannot come to terms with it. It is as if I am too scared to take that leap forward and become the person that I should and want to be. I am almost certain that this question will continue to haunt me for quite sometimes, and maybe, just maybe, I will get the benefit of having it answered one day. 

What If?

As I laid in bed Monday night, I found myself reconsidering about how I live my life.

For hours before, I learned the truth behind why one of the classmates, in which I look up to in this class, hasn't been around for two weeks. It occurred to me that I could have never seen this person again. For not knowing them, and for having no real emotional connection, it is absurd to me to think that this person could have been wiped out of my life forever. What’s worse is I would have never been able to say goodbye or thank you for all that they have done for me although they did not intend to. In that moment, I found myself being grateful, and I was struck with awe and wonder. For at that moment, I did not know what to think, what to feel, I was completely lost in the moment. I wanted to cry, but it was restrained by gratitude and happiness. For I am someone who truly believes, that every person in your life is of value to you in one way or another.

Reflecting on this, I got to thinking:

What if I would die tomorrow?

What would people remember me by?

How long will they miss me for?

Will I have made a difference in the world?

As Miguel de Unamuno said: “Act so that in your own judgment and in the judgment of others you may deserve eternity, act so that you may be irreplaceable, act so that you do not deserve death.”

WOW!!

“Act as if you were to die tomorrow, but only in order to survive and become eternal.” (pg. 159).

WOOOOOOWWWWWW!

I got to thinking about my family… What it would mean to them if I was gone?

My friends… would they cry and remorse? What would they remember me by?

My pets… What would happen to them?

My legacy… what would it look like?

I am just a typical person who works as a security guard to make it through college. I am aiming for a career that I am uncertain that they will need me in any time soon. I have an internship that I am not completely fond of, but I have to do. I work hard in school, and stress each day to get through it (I am so tired of school). I go to the gym, run, play with my dogs, and care for my birds. I play xbox whenever I get a free chance. My life is in no way perfect, and is filled with struggle, but it is life all the same.

It hit me!

If I were to die tomorrow, everything that I see as a complete struggle and miserable in fact is not as bad as It could be. I could not have my life. I can do what I want with my life, “act so that I deserve eternity.” If I were to die tomorrow, I would be disappointed with myself right now, as I would have not accomplished or left the impact that I wanted to by this point.

Monday night was a life changing moment for me.

It was extremely ironic once again about the topics that we covered in class. It almost seems as if this class is running in a parallel dimension in my life right now, like it’s a stalker in the shadows. Dostoevsky hit the nail on the head last week, and this week Unamuno did it for me. I am glad to see that I am not only one who found Kierkegaard’s philosophy philosophically heroic. I now have three favorite philosophers: Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, and Unamuno.  

My Life, My Choice!

According to Feodor Dostoevsky, “something that is dearer to almost every man than his greatest advantages must really exist, or there is one most advantageous advantage which is more important and more advantageous than all other advantages, for which, if necessary, a man is ready to act in opposition to all laws, that is, in opposition to reason, honor, peace, prosperity--- in short, in opposition to all those wonderful and useful things if only he can attain that fundamental, most advantageous advantage which is dearer to him than all” (pgs. 40-41).

At this current moment in time, I am battling with my own “most advantageous advantage”. With only one semester left of college, I plan to leave home against my parents will (for they do not know it yet), and to pursue a road in my life which will not be easy but worth it. My whole family has had this set of morals for which I should live by since I can even remember! “Go to school, get a career with good benefits, do not do drugs, do not drink alcohol, do not watch TV and do homework at the same time…” the list goes on and on. I agree as to why they have done this for me, and I am completely grateful for their guidance. After all I am about to attain my degree and about to enter the big world; I can see the horizon out yonder, and I am almost there.

But! I will be choosing to leave the comfort of my home, leave all I have ever known behind, and start a life for myself. In fact I will be taking this journey with a person I have only met four months ago.

Does it sound absurd? Yes.

Is it absurd? Yes.

Is it worth it? Maybe not in the eyes of everyone else in this world, but to me Yes. I THINK IT IS COMPLETELY WORTH IT.

What if just for once, just once, I wanted to do what I wanted with my life, and no one could take that from me? What if I have found something that I find worth the battle and the struggle? What if I already know what I am going to be expecting but I am still willing to go through with it?

I know that one day I WILL be as successful as I would have been if I had taken the easy road. My determination and will, will guide me to my goals and dreams. Out of my own free unfetter choice, I will choose to oppose all the reason and everyone’s opinion to fight for something that I could have achieved much easier. But that is the most amazing thing of life! That that is my choice!

“And in particular it may be more advantageous than any other advantages even when it does obvious harm, and contradicts the soundest conclusions of our reason about our advantage--- because in any case it preserves for us what is most precious and most important--- that is, our personality, our individuality” (pg. 45).

I am fascinated with the fact that my situation can go either the way I hope it to or it can go straight down the drain and turn out to be a catastrophe. I could become emotionally hurt, my family could turn their backs on me, and I could lose everything I have ever known for good should this all backfire on me. Should it turn out that way I will have learned a valuable lesson and I will continue on towards my goals, and I will do everything to prove everyone else that I did things wrong but I still achieved it all in the end. (Although I am pretty sure everything will be just fine).

My desire is overpowering this whole situation. “Desire can, of course, if it desires, be in agreement with reason; particularly if it does not abuse this practice but does so in moderation, it is both useful and sometimes even praiseworthy. But very often, and even most often, desire completely and stubbornly opposes reason, and… and… and do you know that that, too, is useful and sometimes even praiseworthy?” (pgs. 45-46).

It was so ironic that we got to read Dostoevsky’s work at this current time in my life. In a sense, as I sat in class last night, I felt more empowered by my decisions. A sense of closure if you will. I am not the only one who would oppose everything telling me not to and to do it anyways. I am not alone, and this author has clearly seen this.

“I believe in that, I vouch for it, because, after all, the whole work of man seems really to consist in nothing but proving to himself continually that he is a man and not an organ stop” (pg. 47). 

Master Vs. Slave Morality

Something I found interesting that that brought up was.

“Can one be a master… Be a ruler… Do ruler things…and have slaves… and have a “Slave morality”?

I would say No. For Nietzsche action is proof. In Nietzsche’s eyes if one is truly a master, and believe himself to be above others and to look down on slaves in despise then they cannot have slave morality. For they are the noble men, the ones who have their own free will, those who are not made for pity, and are the heroes.

But then he contradicts this with saying:

“I add immediately that in all the higher and more mixed cultures there also appear attempts at mediation between these two moralities, and yet more often the interpenetration and mutual misunderstanding of both and at times the occur directly alongside each other---even in the same human being, within a single soul” (pg. 76).  

The way Nietzsche makes it appear as if no way could someone who is a slave, ruler, someone who owns slaves and does the things of a true ruler have the morality of that in which he rises above. But then he goes to say, “Oh but by the way guys these two moralities can exist in one person, the same soul.

I also found it interesting to learn the differences between “good” and “bad versus “good” and “evil”.

For in the master morality “good” is considered to be “noble” or the desired outcome, and “bad” is considered to be shameful, even disgraceful.   According to slave morality, those who embrace the idea of “evil” thus inspire fear. They allow others to determine how things will be for them out of fear of rising up and taking control of their own life and their own morals. They show pity, patience, humility, and friendliness. They do not have free will, and they fear to seek out what they could be for themselves. “Wherever slave morality becomes preponderant, language tends to bring the words “good and “stupid” close together” (pg 78). This is because even they cannot see that they are being suppressed, that they do not have free will. They are blind. Such a morality is not honored by those of the master morality.

“Slave morality needs an opposite and external world; it needs, psychologically speaking, external stimuli in order to be able to act at all, --- its action is, from the ground up, reaction” (pg 82.)

“The reverse is the case with the noble manner of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks out its opposite only in order to say “yes” to itself still more gratefully and more jubilantly---its negative concept “low” “common” “bad” is only an after-birth, a pale contrast image in relation to its positive basic concept” (pg 87).

What this tells me is the only time that a person who holds true to master morality will only seek out opposition in order to prove they are right and above the one who they feel is wrong. Whereas with the person who holds slave morality close they seek out opposition as a source to base their own interpretations off of. A slave morality individual will look outward for interpretations, looking for reason to justify their claims and the way they feel.  A master morality character will already have their minds set and they will merely only be trying to convince other of their interpretations because for them, they are right and everyone else is wrong.

“If you had to repeat every action forevermore, what would you change?”

If I felt that everything I did now would continue to happen to me forevermore, I would not change anything. If I change one thing, it will affect another. I can make good, or I could make bad choices. If I make choices that will lead me in the right direction, there will always be a tempting choice later on to lead me in the wrong direction. It is a never ending battle, and I would just choose to not do anything differently. One way or another, nothing lasts forever, and if it repeated forevermore then so be it. 

Reason and Will

Finally!!! A class where I felt that I learned something. Sometimes I feel like as if I just go into class and just listen to people debate how they interpreted the stories and the material but rarely do I ever get the “that’s exactly what the author was going for” sort of thing. I really didn't learn anything from the first group, but the second group! Wow! Great job guys! I honestly found Nietzsche’s works to be rather confusing to me and I am glad I was given the information I needed to clarify the way I interpreted it.

From the discussion of how Nietzsche and Socrates differed I think it had to do with Socrates believed in reason and rationality completely whereas Nietzsche believed that will to power was the essence of life itself.  You need will to survive in Nietzsche’s eyes, but you need reason to survive in the eyes of Socrates. I also think that that is a reason on its own that Nietzsche did not completely agree with Socrates because when Socrates died he surrendered his will for the sake of reason. He choose to not escape from his death or plea for forgiveness all so he did not look like he was going back on everything he ever said. He felt as if everything he said was completely true and he gave his will up to prove a point to the people. And for Nietzsche a person who gives up their will is practically dead anyways.

I believe this also goes against Nietzsche’s views on truth because he philosophizes that there is a realm of truth and being but reason is excluded from it.

“Let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as “pure reason,” “absolute spirituality,” “knowledge in itself”: these always demand that we should think in an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective “knowing”; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our “concept” of this thing, our “objectivity,” be.”

This is yet another thing that I could see the two philosophers viewing differently on. Nietzsche is proposing that truth comes with only the perspective eye. The more view and perspectives we have about a certain thing then the more truth that we will gain about the thing. But reason would argue that there is only one way of seeing something. It either is or it isn’t. There is no other way of looking at the objective truths. But for Nietzsche the more you know about it the more true it can become (in my opinion).

In conclusion I would like to share what I felt about the quote that group two brought up at the very end of class and asked us to reflect on.

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”

Other than it meaning clearly what it says, that everyone has a different way of doing things and there is no right way to do something, I believe that this has something to do with the whole finding truth through different perspectives. In a sense I think it is telling the readers who are reading about Nietzsche’s philosophy that what he is saying is merely only a perspective in our quests to find our inner truth. That his way is only one way. We can either take what he says to heart or believe it to be true or merely use it for our overall knowledge. There is no right way to viewing, interpreting, and carrying on about our lives. As one day we will find our own truth through our own will perspectives and with our own will to lead us the way.