| | | Quote: | | …the Existentialism of the fifties and the sixties, held that reality is absurd and that irrational passion is the only means of knowledge. In such a world, said Sartre, an is the controller of his destiny, except that he cannot control it because his mind is helpless; so freedom is a “curse,” and man’s fate is fear, trembling, nausea—from which there s “no exit,” since thought is self-deception, system-building is self-deception, a rational ethics is self-deception. All one can do, therefore, is make a blind, activist commitment to some course, or join the Zen Buddhists in merging with a superior dimension, or praise Fidel Castro as the hero o the century, or do something else, anything else, whatever anyone chooses to feel. (This is what Existentialists describe as “individualism.”) |
--Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 1982, pp. 134-135
Absurdism in Existentialism is the realization that there is no reason for our existence. We find ourselves here. We didn’t ask to be here. Yes, we are special in that nobody else is exactly like us. We are individuals. However, the world would go on just fine without us. People die every day. We would like to think it matters that we exist, at least to ourselves and some other people, but we must also understand that, in the larger scheme of things, it doesn’t. We are both special and not special. It’s a paradox. It’s a contradiction. It is A is both A and not A, but it is still true.
Passion in Existentialism is what makes us uniquely human, not reason, which a computer program possesses. We feel. We are not simply cold, impersonal robots. It is through our passion that we empathize with others and understand fairness, justice. It is not right to treat people as means to an end. We are each ends in ourselves. And, it is through our passion that we strive to get the most out of life, not just waiting for the rationally safe move. We take risks. We work without a net. We sometimes leap before looking, yet we know we are responsible or what happens to us, not some reality over which we have no control. We are in the moment, making decisions as we go, not following some pre-determined logical path. We are forging our own paths. We don’t subjugate ourselves to God, society, or logic. We are the subjects which make things happen, not the objects which get acted upon.
Knowledge, for the Existentialist, is much like the knowing one’s self about which Plato spoke. Knowledge of the outside world, the in-itself, comes through us, the for-itself. Objects are complete and fixed, yet humans are incomplete, still in a process of becoming, participating in working on our own natures, essences.
What does Sartre mean by “existence before essence? He means that there is not some pre-existing mold into which he was poured or some prior purpose for his being here on earth. Reality is absurd, and we really have no reason for our existence which we can discover. We have to create it. We don't find our purpose, we make it. That's what freedom is. We choose our projects and put meaning into our lives. We have to take responsibility for our essences. We are what we do. What does this mean? It means we aren’t heroes simply because we think we are. If we run away instead of taking a stand, we are what we do.
We are not objects to be shaped and molded by external stimuli over which we have no control. We are not victims of our environment. We are subjects. Our natures are not fixed and completed, as are the natures of the things-in-themselves, the things without freedom. We are incomplete and participate in the creation of our own natures. We are the things-for-themselves, and we are still in a process of becoming. We exist, become aware of our existence, and then work on our essences. Existence prior to essence.
Is freedom a curse? Does it lead to fear and trembling, nausea, and is there no exit? First, if we are subjects, if we participate in creating our own natures, if we are what we do; then we must choose. Not choosing is still a choice. We have no choice but to choose. We are, as Sartre said, “forced into freedom.” Second, yes, this can be scary at first. We find ourselves alone. We have to take responsibility for ourselves. We have no net, no training wheels, no crutches, and no security blankets. We have been kicked out of the nest. Of course we will be anxious for awhile. However, once we live on our own and get used to it, we prefer it to the security of going back to live with our parents, or even with the imaginary parent in the sky. We prefer to be independent.
Is there self-deception? You bet there is. People do deceive themselves that cheating is better than being authentic. They put their blinders on and convince themselves that being drunk all day is better than accomplishing a challenging task which could lead to self-actualization. They allow themselves to be deceived by evangelists who promise them everlasting life. Psychoanalysis works on getting people to talk and realize some suppressed thought which is bothering them. When it comes out, they are free of its influence over them.
Is system-building a self-deception? It could be. Some of these systems are nice to look at, like homes in magazines which show off beautiful homes. However, like some of those homes which are nice to look at but impossible to live in, systems also tend to be impractical. Their foundations crumble when people need them the most. (The Spinoza of Market Street found this out, and so did Rand when she had a crises.)
There is a difference between Existentialism and Zen Buddhism, even if the samsara and the process of becoming aspects of these philosophies are the same. And, yes, Sartre was a leftist activist who supported Castro for awhile and then broke with him when Castro imprisoned a Cuban poet, Heberto Padilla, for “counterrevolutionary attitudes.” Sartre still stood for freedom, as he did when he fought in the French resistance during World War II.
There is a lot more to Existentialism and Jean Paul Sartre than this, and I don’t necessarily agree with everything Sartre said and did. However, my point is that if we read Peikoff and nothing more, we get a very slanted and incomplete picture of Sartre’s philosophy, among the philosophies of several other philosophers. I think respectable philosophers should be a bit more respectful of each other, don’t you? We can present each other’s views in the most persuasive light and then point out the problems if there are any. It’s a bit tacky and ineffective, even counter-effective, to characterize and ridicule someone’s views the way Peikoff presented Sartre.
Bis bald,
Nick
|
|
