Why Existentialism?

I never thought I would see myself taking a class on this subject matter. I guess I will start with why it is I took interest in this class to begin with. The last two weeks, upon high school graduation, my AP English teacher began reading us a small book by the name of The Little Prince. For the duration of this course, I will be quoting and referring this text quite often. I will be going and purchasing this book within the next few days so I can share with you what it is that I learned from it. This was the first book that provided me insight to the subject of “Existentialism”. Every day, for a week and a half, my teacher would read one chapter to us at the very end of class. We did not know its title at the time, or what the purpose of the book was. We were not told “Hey guys we are going to be learning about existentialism for the next couple weeks”, it just happened that way. At the very end of the book we were told to write what it is we “felt” the book taught us. Little did I know that the book held a much greater meaning. I honestly felt a sense of enlightenment after realizing what it was we had just learned.

“For what reason, do we as people exist?”

“Why is it we feel the way we do about events that occur in our lives?”

“Is there some ultimate purpose to our lives?”

These were questions that we were asked to reflect on after hearing this story. To sit there, and contemplate the answers to these questions, is not an easy task. I began to sit there and wonder:

“Why are these questions even relevant?”

“What is this honestly going to teach me by reflecting now?”

“Does this matter?”

“Why?”

I had no idea a class like this even existed, and I had no idea that this was a part of physiology. When I found this class, when enrolling for upper division humanity credits, I was ecstatic to discover it. I wanted to know more about what this subject matter was truly about. With only three days to truly reflect on the subject matter, it was not enough for me. I wanted answers then, and I still have them now.

After reading the introduction to this book, I am still no closer to understanding its “science” then I was back then. I honestly know close to nothing about the great philosophers of our time. I overheard some people in class talking about theories of physiology from these great philosophers and I could not connect in any way. Being an Air Traffic major, we really do not see this side of the learning experience unless we pursue it on our own. It is not required for me to take this course, and it will mean nothing to me graduating if I do not take this. I simply want answers and a better understanding of what Existentialism is truly about. From what I have learned today, it is merely an attitude, a way we think and process our lives, our sole purpose for being.

Now I will share something of “blog worthy” review. While I was reading I found several excerpts that gained my particular attention. Now I am not sure if there was any intent behind this, or if these happen to be authors of existential writing. Again, I am in no way, shape, or form, any kind of physiology know-it-all. I do not even know many of the great philosophers’ names.

These are just two examples I chose to use for this discussion:

1.      “The philosopher is a conceptual sculpture. He uses his language to give a shape to his prejudices and values, to give his attitudes a life of their own, outside of him, for the grasps of others”(introduction, xii).

2.      “The existential attitude finds itself in syndromes, interpreting a feeling as a mark of identity, converting an insight about oneself into an interpretation of the world, resolving self doubt by exaggerating the self in everything. The existential attitude is first of all an attitude of self-consciousness. One feels herself separated from the world, from other people. In isolation, one feels threatened, insignificant, meaningless, and in response demands significance through a bloated view of self. One constitutes herself as a hero, as an offense, as a prophet or anti-Christ, as a revolutionary, as unique. As a result of this self-exaggeration, the world becomes – whether apparently or “really” is irrelevant—more threatening”(introduction, xiii).

What I find interesting about these two examples is that in one is referring to a man, and the other a woman. To me, it almost seems as if the man is the one who holds the true answers, “the conceptual sculpture”, focusing out on other rather than himself. The woman “feels” separated from the world, as “unique”, and is reflecting inward on herself. I still have no closer understanding as to what the intentions of this were, but it is food for thought for me.

So I guess I will turn this over for discussion, and perhaps debate!

What do you feel the intention of the excerpts could be holding? Is there pun intended? Perhaps there is a focus on the man versus the woman in existential explanation? What is it that you think?