What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #153
Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction
One of the leading philosophical movements of the twentieth century, existentialism has had more impact on literature and the arts than any other school of thought. Focusing on the leading figures of existentialism, including Sartre, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, de Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty, and Camus, Thomas Flynn offers a concise account of existentialism, explaining the key themes of individuality, free will, and personal responsibility, which marked the movement as a way of life, not just a way of thinking.
Flynn sets the philosophy of existentialism in context, from the early phenomenologists, to its rise in the 40's and 50's, and the connections with National Socialism, Communism, and Feminism. He identifies the original definition of "existentialism," which tends to be obscured by misappropriation, and highlights how the philosophy is still relevant in our world today.
Flynn sets the philosophy of existentialism in context, from the early phenomenologists, to its rise in the 40's and 50's, and the connections with National Socialism, Communism, and Feminism. He identifies the original definition of "existentialism," which tends to be obscured by misappropriation, and highlights how the philosophy is still relevant in our world today.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
About the author
Thomas R. Flynn
12 books20 followersThomas R. Flynn holds a PhD from Columbia University (1970) and currently serves in the Department of Philosophy at Emory University. Ph.D. Dissertation: Jean-Paul Sartre and the Problem of Collective Responsibility.
Areas of Competence: History of Philosophy (Modern period and 19th Century); Theory of Knowledge; Aesthetics
Areas of Competence: History of Philosophy (Modern period and 19th Century); Theory of Knowledge; Aesthetics
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 189 reviews
June 17, 2021
Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions #153), Thomas R. Flynn
Existentialism was one of the leading philosophical movements of the twentieth century. Focusing on its seven leading figures, Sartre, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, de Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty and Camus.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز شانزدهم ماه مارس سال 2015میلادی
عنوان: اگزیستانسیالیسم؛ توماس (تامس) آر فلین؛ مترجم: حسین کیانی؛ تهران، بصیرت، 1390، در 187ص، شابک9786005492408؛ چاپ دوم سال1394؛ موضوع: اگزیستانسیالیسم، از نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده 21م
عنوان: نو اگزیستانسیالیسم: فلسفه کیرکگور و سارتر؛ تامس آر. فلین؛ مترجم: علیرضا فرجی؛ ایلام، نشر ریسمان، 1395، در 425ص، مصور، جدول، کتابنامه دارد، شابک9786007017166؛
اگزیستانسیالیسم، با کافه های ساحل رود «سن»، در «پاریس»، و خانواده ی فیلسوفانی همچون: «ژان پل سارتر»؛ و «سیمون دوبوار»، که در سال‌های پس از آزادی «پاریس»، در پایان جنگ جهانی دوم، در آنجا گرد هم جمع می‌شدند، پیوند خورده است؛ می‌توان روشنفکران پیشگامی را تصور کرد، که مدام سیگار می‌کشند، و به موسیقی جاز گوش می‌دهند، و با شور و حرارت، درباره ی نتایج آزادی هنری، و سیاسی نوبنیاد خود، بحث می‌کنند، و عشق و شور، خلاقیت، اضطراب، و دلهره ی ناشی از خودکاوی و آزادی، و به ویژه آزادی، در میانشان موج می‌زند؛ اگرچه این تصویر را، رسانه های آنروز شکل داده اند، و بدون تردید، بر روح آن زمانه، چیره شده، اما به خوبی نشانگر اهمیت فلسفی تفکر «اگزیستانسیالیستی» است، و آنرا همچون پدیده ای فرهنگی، معرفی می‌کند، که از آنِ دوره ای ویژه در تاریخ است
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 26/03/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Existentialism was one of the leading philosophical movements of the twentieth century. Focusing on its seven leading figures, Sartre, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, de Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty and Camus.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز شانزدهم ماه مارس سال 2015میلادی
عنوان: اگزیستانسیالیسم؛ توماس (تامس) آر فلین؛ مترجم: حسین کیانی؛ تهران، بصیرت، 1390، در 187ص، شابک9786005492408؛ چاپ دوم سال1394؛ موضوع: اگزیستانسیالیسم، از نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده 21م
عنوان: نو اگزیستانسیالیسم: فلسفه کیرکگور و سارتر؛ تامس آر. فلین؛ مترجم: علیرضا فرجی؛ ایلام، نشر ریسمان، 1395، در 425ص، مصور، جدول، کتابنامه دارد، شابک9786007017166؛
اگزیستانسیالیسم، با کافه های ساحل رود «سن»، در «پاریس»، و خانواده ی فیلسوفانی همچون: «ژان پل سارتر»؛ و «سیمون دوبوار»، که در سال‌های پس از آزادی «پاریس»، در پایان جنگ جهانی دوم، در آنجا گرد هم جمع می‌شدند، پیوند خورده است؛ می‌توان روشنفکران پیشگامی را تصور کرد، که مدام سیگار می‌کشند، و به موسیقی جاز گوش می‌دهند، و با شور و حرارت، درباره ی نتایج آزادی هنری، و سیاسی نوبنیاد خود، بحث می‌کنند، و عشق و شور، خلاقیت، اضطراب، و دلهره ی ناشی از خودکاوی و آزادی، و به ویژه آزادی، در میانشان موج می‌زند؛ اگرچه این تصویر را، رسانه های آنروز شکل داده اند، و بدون تردید، بر روح آن زمانه، چیره شده، اما به خوبی نشانگر اهمیت فلسفی تفکر «اگزیستانسیالیستی» است، و آنرا همچون پدیده ای فرهنگی، معرفی می‌کند، که از آنِ دوره ای ویژه در تاریخ است
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 26/03/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
April 3, 2016
During my high school and college days, existentialism was all the rage in Kerala. In my mind, it conjures up an image of a youth with unkempt hair and three days' growth of a scraggly beard, wearing large spectacles with a dark frame and a shapeless upper body garment we called a "jubba". He would be mostly jobless, smoke a locally rolled cigarette called a "beedi" (very often filled with ganja) and frequent coffee shops where he will engage in endless debates with similarly attired youths. I knew he was sad for some reason - existential angst, or in Malayalam, "Asthitwa Dukham" - and also that he was a leftist, even though official card-carrying communists hated him. For some reason, I though he and the Hippie were synonymous (I couldn't have been more mistaken!).
I beheld this mysterious creature with awe and not a little fear. If you started discussing anything with him (be it the weather or the day's fish price) he would somehow find a way of bringing in Kafka and Camus. If he was in a really good mood, he may even start reciting avant-garde poetry or talk about the films of Bunuel and Goddard.
Ever since those days, I had wanted to learn what "Existentialism" was. Once in a bookshop, I picked up Sartre's Being and Nothingness, read the first page, put the book reverently back on the shelf, and walked away - my will had been broken. I did not return to it until I saw this book. My experience of the previous two titles I had read in the series emboldened me to try it - maybe they had succeeded in breaking this impressive philosophy into words of two syllables?
Well, it was not easy going: but I must confess I now know at least something about existentialism. I am looking for an "Existentialism for Dummies" book - I'm sure that one has been published.
--------------------------------------------------
I will not do a deep analysis of the book here. I still feel I have not understood enough. I will first summarise the five essential themes of existentialism as laid out by the author:
As I understand, the existentialist considers the human being a tabula rasa. There is nothing in you that is "written": the essence of you is what you make yourself out to be. In fact, you are condemned to choose and to be totally free.
This puts a tremendous responsibility on the individual. He is like a trapeze artist who has lost the safety net. There is no subconscious, no genetics, no god or fate to come to his rescue. Anything and everything in the world depends on him, is centred on him and his choices.
No wonder the existentialist is full of angst. Such a responsibility would drive me to suicide!
Do I agree? Well, partly. Ethical and moral values, I feel, are mostly a matter of choice; however, I do not think that the human being is a blank slate. We are only a miniscule part of a huge universe. So considering oneself as the agent of choice in everything is rather unrealistic, IMO. To use computer parlance, the software is ours, but we have little choice over the hardware or firmware.
--------------------------------------------------
I would have given this four stars, but the last chapter sort of lost me. I mean, this is supposed to be an introduction, right? So you have to assume that the person who is reading it is not a hard-core philosopher. For example, consider the following:
Like Bertie Wooster says in Carry On, Jeeves, "all very good stuff, but not suitable to spring on a boy with a morning head."
I beheld this mysterious creature with awe and not a little fear. If you started discussing anything with him (be it the weather or the day's fish price) he would somehow find a way of bringing in Kafka and Camus. If he was in a really good mood, he may even start reciting avant-garde poetry or talk about the films of Bunuel and Goddard.
Ever since those days, I had wanted to learn what "Existentialism" was. Once in a bookshop, I picked up Sartre's Being and Nothingness, read the first page, put the book reverently back on the shelf, and walked away - my will had been broken. I did not return to it until I saw this book. My experience of the previous two titles I had read in the series emboldened me to try it - maybe they had succeeded in breaking this impressive philosophy into words of two syllables?
Well, it was not easy going: but I must confess I now know at least something about existentialism. I am looking for an "Existentialism for Dummies" book - I'm sure that one has been published.
--------------------------------------------------
I will not do a deep analysis of the book here. I still feel I have not understood enough. I will first summarise the five essential themes of existentialism as laid out by the author:
Five themes of existentialism
There are five basic themes that the existentialist appropriates each in his or her own way. Rather than constituting a strict definition of ‘existentialist’, they depict more of a family resemblance (a criss-crossing and overlapping of the themes) among these philosophers.
1. Existence precedes essence. What you are (your essence)is the result of your choices (your existence) rather than the reverse. Essence is not destiny. You are what you make yourself to be.
2. Time is of the essence. We are fundamentally time-bound beings. Unlike measurable, ‘clock’ time, lived time is qualitative: the ‘not yet’, the ‘already’, and the ‘present’ differ among themselves in meaning and value.
3. Humanism. Existentialism is a person-centred philosophy. Though not anti-science, its focus is on the human individual’s pursuit of identity and meaning amidst the social and economic pressures of mass society for superficiality and conformism.
4. Freedom/responsibility. Existentialism is a philosophy of freedom. Its basis is the fact that we can stand back from our lives and reflect on what we have been doing. In this sense, we are always ‘more’ than ourselves. But we are as responsible as we are free.
5. Ethical considerations are paramount. Though each existentialist understands the ethical, as with ‘freedom’, in his or her own way, the underlying concern is to invite us to examine the authenticity of our personal lives and of our society.
As I understand, the existentialist considers the human being a tabula rasa. There is nothing in you that is "written": the essence of you is what you make yourself out to be. In fact, you are condemned to choose and to be totally free.
This puts a tremendous responsibility on the individual. He is like a trapeze artist who has lost the safety net. There is no subconscious, no genetics, no god or fate to come to his rescue. Anything and everything in the world depends on him, is centred on him and his choices.
No wonder the existentialist is full of angst. Such a responsibility would drive me to suicide!
Do I agree? Well, partly. Ethical and moral values, I feel, are mostly a matter of choice; however, I do not think that the human being is a blank slate. We are only a miniscule part of a huge universe. So considering oneself as the agent of choice in everything is rather unrealistic, IMO. To use computer parlance, the software is ours, but we have little choice over the hardware or firmware.
--------------------------------------------------
I would have given this four stars, but the last chapter sort of lost me. I mean, this is supposed to be an introduction, right? So you have to assume that the person who is reading it is not a hard-core philosopher. For example, consider the following:
But this abstract-concrete relation is historicized in Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason (1958). Now praxis (human activity in its sociohistorical context) has replaced being-for-itself or consciousness, and the practico-inert (the sedimented prior praxes that both limit and facilitate present praxes the way natural language limits and facilitates speech acts) has assumed the functions of being-in-itself or the nonconscious from Being and Nothingness. Unlike being-in-itself, the practico-inert is the site of counter-finality, the unintended consequences of our practical decisions. The practice of deforestation to increase arable land, for example, can produce the opposite effect by causing floods. Sartre cites this as a function of the practico-inert; that is, as an example of our prior praxes coming back to undermine our present projects. As before, the relation between language and the specific acts of speaking is one of abstract versus concrete. But the objective possibilities and the counter-finalities of language as practico-inert significantly refine the rather vague contrast of abstract/concrete in
Sartre’s earlier position. Great weight is now assigned to the power of language insofar as it exercises what structuralist Marxist Louis Althusser called a kind of ‘structural causality’ on our speech acts. With his concept of the practico-inert, Sartre, in fact, is recognizing the validity of Saussurian linguistics as Merleau-Ponty interpreted it, while continuing to insist on the existentialist primacy of individual praxis in his understanding of linguistic phenomena.
Like Bertie Wooster says in Carry On, Jeeves, "all very good stuff, but not suitable to spring on a boy with a morning head."
September 23, 2014
Notes:
I. Five Themes of Existentialism:
1. Existence precedes essence. What you are (your essence) is the result of your choices (your existence) rather than the reverse. Essence is not destiny. You are what you make yourself to be.
2. Time is of the essence. We are fundamentally time-bound beings. Unlike measurable, ‘clock’ time, lived time is qualitative: the ‘not yet’, the ‘already’, and the ‘present’ differ among themselves in meaning and value.
3. Humanism. Existentialism is a person-centered philosophy. Though not anti-science, its focus is on the human individual’s pursuit of identity and meaning amidst the social and economic pressures of mass society for superficiality and conformism.
4. Freedom/responsibility. Existentialism is a philosophy of freedom. Its basis is the fact that we can stand back from our lives and reflect on what we have been doing. In this sense, we are always ‘more’ than ourselves. But we are as responsible as we are free.
5. Ethical considerations are paramount. Though each existentialist understands the ethical, as with ‘freedom’, in his or her own way, the underlying concern is to invite us to examine the authenticity of our personal lives and of our society.
II. Kierkegaard’s Three stages : Aesthetic, Ethical & Religious - the last being a 'leap of faith' to go beyond ethics. (Scary.) Represented BY: Don Juan, Socrates & Abraham respectively. I will pick Socrates any day.
III. Nietzschean Limited Freedom: (only for those who can bear a doctrine of fatalism - of eternal recurrence)
IV. Ontology (the approach to Being) Vs. Metaphysics (the study of the ultimate categories by which to order our thoughts)
V. Bad Faith: ‘knowledge that is ignorant and ignorance that knows better.’
VI. Being-in-situation: Situational Ethics. Way to reconcile individual freedom with need for ethical exercise of the same.
VII. Pre-reflective Awareness: Sartre's answer to Freud.
VIII. "Hell is other people" to "Existentialism is a Humanism": The Social evolution of an individualistic philosophy. The growing of ethical concerns and social concerns in the aftermath of the war. the best study of how a school of thought can be influenced by history? (keeps the principles of non-conformity alive despite the expansion!)
IX. Structuralism and poststructuralism: The next century's challenge. Not so much individual freedom after all? How do we reconcile responsibility and rigid social structures? - the thorny problem of the meaning of agency and responsibility in a structuralist world.
X. An Existential Freud: who will confer more freedom to the consciousness and its freedom over the unconscious... Still awaited.
March 21, 2019
I did not enjoy this volume as much as I might have, since I had recently read Sarah Bakewell’s At the Existentialist Café, which covers the same information with a more accessible exposition. Indeed, though Flynn is making the case for the continued relevance and value of the existentialists, I came away with a bad taste in my mouth.
Despite himself, Flynn gives the impression that most of the existentialists failed to make their philosophy compatible with ethics—or, at least ethics in any recognizable guise. Since existentialists insist that individual choice is subsequent to all values, including morals, it is very difficult to justify any clear moral prohibition. And when you consider the number of prominent existentialists who held morally questionable views—Heidegger most famously, but also the many Parisian intellectuals who advocated for violent revolution—you get the impression that this inability to deal with ethics is not just theoretical. It is also difficult to see existentialist as a real heir to the “lived” philosophies of the past, such as Stoicism or Epicureanism, since instead of guidance it merely throws every question back on the individual and her choice.
But these are old and commonplace objections to existentialism. My objection to the book is mainly that Flynn tried to cover too many philosophers in too little space. I think he could safely have reduced the (considerable) space devoted to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, since neither was a purebred existentialist. Further, I think he could have focused more on, say, Sartre’s arguments for his positions rather than just summarizing them. The best section was the final one, when Flynn made his case that existentialism has continued relevance in the “postpost-modern” world. And I think anyone must admit that, next to the structuralist and post-structuralist philosophies that came later—in which people are merely spiders in cultural webs, or in which the text reads the individual rather than vice versa—existentialism is refreshingly concrete and humanistic.
In any case, I will withhold final judgment for now, at least until I finish reading Being and Nothingness.
Despite himself, Flynn gives the impression that most of the existentialists failed to make their philosophy compatible with ethics—or, at least ethics in any recognizable guise. Since existentialists insist that individual choice is subsequent to all values, including morals, it is very difficult to justify any clear moral prohibition. And when you consider the number of prominent existentialists who held morally questionable views—Heidegger most famously, but also the many Parisian intellectuals who advocated for violent revolution—you get the impression that this inability to deal with ethics is not just theoretical. It is also difficult to see existentialist as a real heir to the “lived” philosophies of the past, such as Stoicism or Epicureanism, since instead of guidance it merely throws every question back on the individual and her choice.
But these are old and commonplace objections to existentialism. My objection to the book is mainly that Flynn tried to cover too many philosophers in too little space. I think he could safely have reduced the (considerable) space devoted to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, since neither was a purebred existentialist. Further, I think he could have focused more on, say, Sartre’s arguments for his positions rather than just summarizing them. The best section was the final one, when Flynn made his case that existentialism has continued relevance in the “postpost-modern” world. And I think anyone must admit that, next to the structuralist and post-structuralist philosophies that came later—in which people are merely spiders in cultural webs, or in which the text reads the individual rather than vice versa—existentialism is refreshingly concrete and humanistic.
In any case, I will withhold final judgment for now, at least until I finish reading Being and Nothingness.
March 5, 2023
আমি ঠিক করেছি অন্তত আগামী দুই বছর যতোগুলো বই পড়বো, সবগুলো হয় প্রত্যক্ষ না হয় পর���ক্ষভাবে অস্তিত্ববাদের সাথে জড়িত হবে। ইতিমধ্যে এই প্রসঙ্গে যে বইগুলো পড়া হয়েছে, সেগুলোর মধ্যে আছে: সার্ত্রের নজিয়া আর নো এক্সিট, কাম্যুর দ্য মিথ অফ সিসিফাস, ক্যালিগুলা আর দ্য আউটসাইডার, দস্তুয়েভস্কির ক্রাইম অ্যান্ড পানিশমেন্ট, নিচাহ্-এর দাস স্পেইক জারাথুস্ট্রা (নতুন করে পড়ছি), আর কির্কেগার্ড-এর ফিয়ার অ্যান্ড ট্রেম্বলিং-এর অংশবিশেষ (আব্রাহামকে নিয়ে লেখাটুকু)।
ব্যক্তিগত জীবন নিয়ে আমার যে বিশ্বাস বা দর্শন, তার অনেকখানি অস্তিত্ববাদ দিয়ে প্রভাবিত বলা যায়। তবে এই ঘরানার দার্শনিক আর সাহিত্যিকদের প্রতি আমার অনুভূতি মিশ্র। তাদেরকে আমি একইসাথে শিক্ষক ও শত্রু মনে করি। আমার ধারণা তারা মানবমনের অনেকগুলো সত্য ধরতে পেরেছিলেন, তবে কিছু সত্য থেকে মুখ ফিরিয়ে নিয়েছেন। যে কথাগুলো অস্তিত্ববাদীরা উপেক্ষা করেছেন, সেগুলো নিয়ে সামনে লেখার ইচ্ছা আছে। তাই এতো তোড়জোড়।
অস্তিত্ববাদ নিয়ে নতুন রিডিং লিস্টের প্রথম বই হচ্ছে এটা।
বেশ সুন্দর, গোছানো লেখা। ‘ভেরি শর্ট ইন্ট্রোডাকশন’ সিরিজের যে বইগুলো পড়েছি, বেশিরভাগ ভালো লাগেনি। হয় সেগুলো আসলে ইন্ট্রোডাকশন ছিল না (যেমন ‘…ইন্ট্রোডাকশন টু জার্মান ফিলোসফি’। যারা আগে থেকে এসব ব্যাপারে জানে না তাদের পক্ষে সেই বইয়ের মাথামুণ্ডু বোঝা অসম্ভব। আমি খানিকটা জানি, তাই পড়ার সময় শুধু খানিকটা বিরক্ত হয়েছিলাম); বা যিনি ইন্ট্রোডাকশন দিচ্ছেন তার মতামতে বইটা বোঝাই হয়ে যায়। এই বইয়ে দুটো সমস্যার কোনোটাই নেই। সংক্ষিপ্ত, ছিমছাম সংজ্ঞা, উদাহরণ আর ইতিহাসের মধ্যে দিয়ে অস্তিত্ববাদের সাথে পরিচয় করিয়ে দিয়েছেন লেখক টমাস ফ্লিন।
আরেকটা ভালো ব্যাপার হচ্ছে লেখক অস্তিত্ববাদের পক্ষে যেমন লিখেছেন, তেমনি এই দর্শনের বিরুদ্ধে সমালোচনাগুলোও তুলে ধরেছেন। এক্সিসটেনশিয়ালিজম-এর বিরুদ্ধে সবথেকে বড়ো অভিযোগ ছিল যে এটা হচ্ছে বুর্জোয়াদের স্বার্থপর দর্শন। ইন্ডিভিজুয়ালকে নিয়ে শুধু কথা বলে, সামাজিক সম্পর্ক থেকে বিচ্ছিন্ন। এই অভিযোগের বিপক্ষে সার্ত্রে যা যা যুক্তি দিয়েছিলেন, এই বইয়ে সেগুলো দেখানো হয়েছে (যদিও এক্সিটেনশিয়ালিজম ইজ আ হিউম্যানিজম প্রবন্ধের বিষয়ে ফ্লিনের যে বক্তব্য, সেটার সাথে আমি একমত নই)।
একুশ শতকে অস্তিত্ববাদ নিয়েও একটা ইন্টারেস্টিং অধ্যায় আছে। বর্তমানে এই প্রসঙ্গের জনপ্রিয়তা কেমন, কীভাবে অস্তিত্ববাদ থেকে অন্য কিছু মতবাদ জন্ম নিয়েছে, আর ভবিষ্যতে কেমন রূপ নিতে পারে—এসব নিয়ে কথা আছে। মরিস মার্লো-পঁতি নামে একজন ফরাসি দার্শনিকের চিন্তা আমার বেশ পছন্দ। কিন্তু এখনও তার লেখা পড়ে সরাসরি বুঝতে আমার কষ্ট হয়। প্রচুর টেকনিকাল জারগনে ঠাসা। তার বিভিন্ন আইডিয়ার পরিষ্কার ব্যাখ্যা এ বইয়ে আছে। আরও কিছু পেলে ভালো হতো।
বইয়ের নামে যে আশ্বাস আছে, তা লেখক লেখায় বজায় রাখতে পেরেছেন। মজা লাগলো বইটা পড়ে। কারও এই বিষয়ে আগ্রহ থাকলে, এ বই দিয়ে পড়া শুরু করলে খারাপ লাগবে না আশা করি।
সাড়ে তিন তারা।
রিডিং লিস্টের পরবর্তী দুটো বই হচ্ছে:
দাস স্পেইক জারাথুস্ট্রা, লেখক ফ্রিডরিখ নিচাহ্
নিচাহ্ অ্যান্ড আদার এক্সপোনেন্টস অফ ইন্ডিভিজুয়ালিজম, লেখক পল ক্যারুস
ব্যক্তিগত জীবন নিয়ে আমার যে বিশ্বাস বা দর্শন, তার অনেকখানি অস্তিত্ববাদ দিয়ে প্রভাবিত বলা যায়। তবে এই ঘরানার দার্শনিক আর সাহিত্যিকদের প্রতি আমার অনুভূতি মিশ্র। তাদেরকে আমি একইসাথে শিক্ষক ও শত্রু মনে করি। আমার ধারণা তারা মানবমনের অনেকগুলো সত্য ধরতে পেরেছিলেন, তবে কিছু সত্য থেকে মুখ ফিরিয়ে নিয়েছেন। যে কথাগুলো অস্তিত্ববাদীরা উপেক্ষা করেছেন, সেগুলো নিয়ে সামনে লেখার ইচ্ছা আছে। তাই এতো তোড়জোড়।
অস্তিত্ববাদ নিয়ে নতুন রিডিং লিস্টের প্রথম বই হচ্ছে এটা।
বেশ সুন্দর, গোছানো লেখা। ‘ভেরি শর্ট ইন্ট্রোডাকশন’ সিরিজের যে বইগুলো পড়েছি, বেশিরভাগ ভালো লাগেনি। হয় সেগুলো আসলে ইন্ট্রোডাকশন ছিল না (যেমন ‘…ইন্ট্রোডাকশন টু জার্মান ফিলোসফি’। যারা আগে থেকে এসব ব্যাপারে জানে না তাদের পক্ষে সেই বইয়ের মাথামুণ্ডু বোঝা অসম্ভব। আমি খানিকটা জানি, তাই পড়ার সময় শুধু খানিকটা বিরক্ত হয়েছিলাম); বা যিনি ইন্ট্রোডাকশন দিচ্ছেন তার মতামতে বইটা বোঝাই হয়ে যায়। এই বইয়ে দুটো সমস্যার কোনোটাই নেই। সংক্ষিপ্ত, ছিমছাম সংজ্ঞা, উদাহরণ আর ইতিহাসের মধ্যে দিয়ে অস্তিত্ববাদের সাথে পরিচয় করিয়ে দিয়েছেন লেখক টমাস ফ্লিন।
আরেকটা ভালো ব্যাপার হচ্ছে লেখক অস্তিত্ববাদের পক্ষে যেমন লিখেছেন, তেমনি এই দর্শনের বিরুদ্ধে সমালোচনাগুলোও তুলে ধরেছেন। এক্সিসটেনশিয়ালিজম-এর বিরুদ্ধে সবথেকে বড়ো অভিযোগ ছিল যে এটা হচ্ছে বুর্জোয়াদের স্বার্থপর দর্শন। ইন্ডিভিজুয়ালকে নিয়ে শুধু কথা বলে, সামাজিক সম্পর্ক থেকে বিচ্ছিন্ন। এই অভিযোগের বিপক্ষে সার্ত্রে যা যা যুক্তি দিয়েছিলেন, এই বইয়ে সেগুলো দেখানো হয়েছে (যদিও এক্সিটেনশিয়ালিজম ইজ আ হিউম্যানিজম প্রবন্ধের বিষয়ে ফ্লিনের যে বক্তব্য, সেটার সাথে আমি একমত নই)।
একুশ শতকে অস্তিত্ববাদ নিয়েও একটা ইন্টারেস্টিং অধ্যায় আছে। বর্তমানে এই প্রসঙ্গের জনপ্রিয়তা কেমন, কীভাবে অস্তিত্ববাদ থেকে অন্য কিছু মতবাদ জন্ম নিয়েছে, আর ভবিষ্যতে কেমন রূপ নিতে পারে—এসব নিয়ে কথা আছে। মরিস মার্লো-পঁতি নামে একজন ফরাসি দার্শনিকের চিন্তা আমার বেশ পছন্দ। কিন্তু এখনও তার লেখা পড়ে সরাসরি বুঝতে আমার কষ্ট হয়। প্রচুর টেকনিকাল জারগনে ঠাসা। তার বিভিন্ন আইডিয়ার পরিষ্কার ব্যাখ্যা এ বইয়ে আছে। আরও কিছু পেলে ভালো হতো।
বইয়ের নামে যে আশ্বাস আছে, তা লেখক লেখায় বজায় রাখতে পেরেছেন। মজা লাগলো বইটা পড়ে। কারও এই বিষয়ে আগ্রহ থাকলে, এ বই দিয়ে পড়া শুরু করলে খারাপ লাগবে না আশা করি।
সাড়ে তিন তারা।
রিডিং লিস্টের পরবর্তী দুটো বই হচ্ছে:
দাস স্পেইক জারাথুস্ট্রা, লেখক ফ্রিডরিখ নিচাহ্
নিচাহ্ অ্যান্ড আদার এক্সপোনেন্টস অফ ইন্ডিভিজুয়ালিজম, লেখক পল ক্যারুস
June 27, 2017
كان من الأدق ان يكون عنوان الكتاب :نشأة الوجودية او الشخصيات المؤسسة للفلسفة الوجودية . أخر ما يكونه الكتاب هو مقدمة .
لكن هذا لا ينفي قيمة الكتاب و اهميته , لا انصح به لمن لم يفهم هذه الفلسفة بعد , هو كتاب لمن اراد ان يعرفها اكثر .
لكن هذا لا ينفي قيمة الكتاب و اهميته , لا انصح به لمن لم يفهم هذه الفلسفة بعد , هو كتاب لمن اراد ان يعرفها اكثر .
November 6, 2016
هل جئنا الى الحياة لكي نكون على ما نحن عليه الآن ؟
هل خرجنا لكي نسير ضمن خُطة مرسومة سلفاً .. أو من أجل غايات محددة ؟
أم أن في أيدينا الخيار لكي نسير وفق خطط نحن نرسمها ... ضمن خيارات نحن نتّخذها .. لكي نصنع من أنفسنا أشخاصاً آخرين .. الشخص الذي نريد أن نكونه ؟
هذه هي الأسئلة التي تدور حولها الفلسفة #الوجودية التي تتمحور حول الإنسان و تسعى إلى تحريره من ماهيته المسُبقة ... و تحسين إمكانيات وجوده من خلال توفير المزيد من الخيارات .
فالوجود كما هو معروف لدى الوجوديين .. ( يسبق الماهية ) .. و الإنسان هو مشروع ذاته ..
يقول الفلاسفة الوجوديون بأن " حياتنا كلها عملية اختيار متواصل " و أن الانسان حرّ في اتخاد قراره بشأن خياراته .. فهو في وسعه أن يختار ( الاختيار ) أو ( عدم الاختيار ) ..
كنوع من التنصّل و الهرب من عبء المسئولية .. و ثم النكوص الى السلبية و الجبرية و الاستسلام .
و من هنا برزت ( الوجودية ) في كونها تحدٍ .. فالإنسان الوجودي هو اللاعب الأساسي في مسرح الحياة .. و هو الذي يقوم بالفعل .. بدلا من ردّ الفعل .. و بهذا يكون هو العنصر الفاعل و الإيجابي .. بدلاً من كونه عنصراً خاملاً و سلبي ..
لذا تُعدّ الفلسفة الوجودية فلسفة الحرية و الإلتزام .. ( إنجازاً ) على الصعيد الشخصي ..
إذ أن الوجود الصادق على رأي #سارتر .. متعلّق بالتحول إلى" الفردية " التي تستلزم الصدق، الجرأة ، الشجاعة ، و التحرر من الآخرين و توقعاتهم .. و تأبى الذوبان في المجتمع .. و العيش وفق ما يريده الآخرون ..
و لذلك يُعدّ الوجودي في بعض الأحيان إنساناً متمرداً ( ليس من أجل ا��تمرد بالطبع ) و إنما لكي يمارس حق وجوده الخاص بامتثال أفكاره الخاصة و تطبيقها على أرض الواقع .. أي أنه ببساطة الإنسان الذي " يعيش على سجيته و طبيعته الإنسانية " كما قال رائد الفكر الوجودي #نيتشة ..
و هذا ليس بالأمر اليسير قط .. كما عبّر عن ذلك الأديب الوجودي #كامو في عبارته الشهيره
" لا أحد يعرف أن البعض يبذلون جهوداً جبارة لكي يكونوا مجرد أناس طبيعين "
و السؤال الوجودي الذي يطرح نفسه و بقوة هنا على لسان الشاعر #محمود_درويش ..
هو ..
( هل في وسعك أن تكون طبيعيا ً في واقع غير طبيعي ؟ )
هل خرجنا لكي نسير ضمن خُطة مرسومة سلفاً .. أو من أجل غايات محددة ؟
أم أن في أيدينا الخيار لكي نسير وفق خطط نحن نرسمها ... ضمن خيارات نحن نتّخذها .. لكي نصنع من أنفسنا أشخاصاً آخرين .. الشخص الذي نريد أن نكونه ؟
هذه هي الأسئلة التي تدور حولها الفلسفة #الوجودية التي تتمحور حول الإنسان و تسعى إلى تحريره من ماهيته المسُبقة ... و تحسين إمكانيات وجوده من خلال توفير المزيد من الخيارات .
فالوجود كما هو معروف لدى الوجوديين .. ( يسبق الماهية ) .. و الإنسان هو مشروع ذاته ..
يقول الفلاسفة الوجوديون بأن " حياتنا كلها عملية اختيار متواصل " و أن الانسان حرّ في اتخاد قراره بشأن خياراته .. فهو في وسعه أن يختار ( الاختيار ) أو ( عدم الاختيار ) ..
كنوع من التنصّل و الهرب من عبء المسئولية .. و ثم النكوص الى السلبية و الجبرية و الاستسلام .
و من هنا برزت ( الوجودية ) في كونها تحدٍ .. فالإنسان الوجودي هو اللاعب الأساسي في مسرح الحياة .. و هو الذي يقوم بالفعل .. بدلا من ردّ الفعل .. و بهذا يكون هو العنصر الفاعل و الإيجابي .. بدلاً من كونه عنصراً خاملاً و سلبي ..
لذا تُعدّ الفلسفة الوجودية فلسفة الحرية و الإلتزام .. ( إنجازاً ) على الصعيد الشخصي ..
إذ أن الوجود الصادق على رأي #سارتر .. متعلّق بالتحول إلى" الفردية " التي تستلزم الصدق، الجرأة ، الشجاعة ، و التحرر من الآخرين و توقعاتهم .. و تأبى الذوبان في المجتمع .. و العيش وفق ما يريده الآخرون ..
و لذلك يُعدّ الوجودي في بعض الأحيان إنساناً متمرداً ( ليس من أجل ا��تمرد بالطبع ) و إنما لكي يمارس حق وجوده الخاص بامتثال أفكاره الخاصة و تطبيقها على أرض الواقع .. أي أنه ببساطة الإنسان الذي " يعيش على سجيته و طبيعته الإنسانية " كما قال رائد الفكر الوجودي #نيتشة ..
و هذا ليس بالأمر اليسير قط .. كما عبّر عن ذلك الأديب الوجودي #كامو في عبارته الشهيره
" لا أحد يعرف أن البعض يبذلون جهوداً جبارة لكي يكونوا مجرد أناس طبيعين "
و السؤال الوجودي الذي يطرح نفسه و بقوة هنا على لسان الشاعر #محمود_درويش ..
هو ..
( هل في وسعك أن تكون طبيعيا ً في واقع غير طبيعي ؟ )
June 17, 2015
While reading this book I came to the conclusion that "very short introductions" do not work, at least not for philosophy. The starting point for many, probably most, philosophical systems, is the creation of a carefully planned system with its own terms and nuanced logical inferences. To truly understand why, for example, Kierkegaard thinks that Abraham's willingness to murder his own son is a pinnacle of human existence, there is a long chain of argument that you have to understand first. As another example, take this sentence: "But because consciousness 'intends' its objects in such different ways, we can employ the method of phenomenological description called 'eidetic reduction' or the 'free imaginative variation of examples' to arrive at the intelligible contour or essence of any of these diverse conscious experiences." I found this sentence by opening to a random page in this book, and, as you can hopefully see, it is quite difficult to understand. The problem with these "very short introductions" is that they launch the reader into these jargon-heavy discussions without the proper explanation, the set up that is required to make all of this jargon intelligible. In fact, I believe that they fundamentally cannot do that. In order to effectively use a whole new vocabulary, you have to immerse yourself in it, ideally for weeks. A quick one or two-sentence definition of a word is not enough for me to then comfortably use that word for the next 8 pages, or again 80 pages later. Because these books are short, because they try to cover hundreds of years of thought and writing by a dozen or more philosophers, they are necessarily hurried, incomplete, and (for me at least) largely unintelligible.
That being said, it's still miles ahead of the Very Short Introduction to Nietzsche.
That being said, it's still miles ahead of the Very Short Introduction to Nietzsche.
May 15, 2017
Ideally, as a man with absolute zero grounding in philosophy, I’d have liked ‘Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction’ to be simpler. For something that bills itself as ‘introduction’, it’s a volume that does assume a lot of prior knowledge of not only philosophical modes, but hard-fought, high level arguments. The first chapters are particularly daunting, so that I found myself reading the same paragraph three or four times, not because I had been struck by a great truth or an amazing turn of phrase, but just because I wasn’t sure what the hell it was getting at. (It doesn’t help that the whole thing is written in a style that’s more arid than dry.) However, I persevered and looked terms up when I didn’t understand them, and slowly I started to wrestle the concept of existentialism – not just the glib definition my twenty-something year old self would have given – into something I not only understood, but actually talk about properly.
So, it’s a long way from a perfect book, but if you’re happy to put on a student mindset (and in my case, a slow-witted student who was coming to class having actually fed the dog his homework) and you’re prepared to study it, then there is a good grounding on existentialism here. However, I can’t help thinking there will be more welcoming introductions out there.
If you get chance, please visit my blog for book, TV and film reviews - as well as whatever else takes my fancy - at frjameson.com
LIke my Facebook page
Or follow me on Twitter or Instagram: @frjameson.
So, it’s a long way from a perfect book, but if you’re happy to put on a student mindset (and in my case, a slow-witted student who was coming to class having actually fed the dog his homework) and you’re prepared to study it, then there is a good grounding on existentialism here. However, I can’t help thinking there will be more welcoming introductions out there.
If you get chance, please visit my blog for book, TV and film reviews - as well as whatever else takes my fancy - at frjameson.com
LIke my Facebook page
Or follow me on Twitter or Instagram: @frjameson.
April 19, 2015
A Study in Existential Thought:
For a VSI, this is surprisingly comprehensive and provides an extensive discussion on numerous issues that form the subjects of many existential thinkers from Kierkegaard to Sartre. The latter, though, and his philosophical system is scrutinized in detail especially, but Flynn does a great job in always comparing and contrasting Sartrean atheistic existentialism to its theistic counterparts as we find it in Kierkegaard and Jaspers, to give a kaleidoscopic effect to the reader who experiences a whirlwind of thoughts and emotions as he or she wades through this text. It has been a tremendously informative and educational experience for me, though existentialism, both the philosophical theory and the ethic, mutually inclusive as they might be, is something that might take me several more books to understand completely in all its variations and ramifications.
Coming to the specifics of this book, Flynn mentions in the preface that his aim with the VSI is to clear up the charges that uninformed minds have placed against existentialism, pretty much what Sartre set out to do in Existentialism is a Humanism. Existentialism has popularly been misconstrued as a) a contemplative, bourgeois philosophy and b) a product of the upheavals of its time and thus, having no relevancy for the individual today. Whether we historically marginalize it or make the claim that it has little worth for the dynamic individual, Flynn states, in both cases we’re way off. The question of being and meaning, Flynn explains, has been a subject of philosophers since the ancient Greeks and continues to hold currency even for the individual today as it talks of things most personal to the individual; a philosophy where he is the subject and not some impersonal realm of knowledge irrelevant to the condition of man. Also, existential thought, irrespective of its atheistic or theistic underpinnings, is action-oriented and not simply thought-oriented. It is not philosophizing for the sake of philosophizing but has tremendous practical possibilities.
The Problem of Meaning:
"I have never seen anyone die for the ontological argument… Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference. To tell the truth, it is a futile question. On the other hand, I see many people die because they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically getting killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions." – Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus
The problems of the “first philosophy”—the nature of knowledge, its limitations, its possibilities—have troubled the philosopher’s mind since ages and much of philosophical thought has been concerned with questions that, though were and are important in their own right, do not answer the “human” question, the human predicament directly. In the face of a world divested of meaning, where no religious anchorage can provide relief, where the yawning abyss of nihilism always grows deeper and bigger in front of us, how exactly can we lead our lives without succumbing to either suicide or pessimism? For Sartre, even though life and existence is intrinsically superfluous, man still has the power and capability to endow it with his own meaning, his own direction and his own purpose. When he says "existence precedes essence", it covers both situations: that of human existence and of existence generally. There is no specified, predetermined essence to the human individual and thus, he is free to make whatever he wants out of himself. Similarly, existence or life having no essence entails that it, too, could be steered in any direction as the existent desires. This is the dynamism of existential thought that it focuses upon “constructing” and “building” meaning rather than simply accepting the lack of it and slipping into nihilistic withdrawal. As Camus says, the acceptance of the “Absurd” or the meaninglessness of life must be taken as a premise and not as a conclusion. I am here, an insignificant existence in a world that could have done very well without me, with no intrinsic purpose and direction, I am a creature of chance and accident, but I am free. I am free and I am alive and I exist. This freedom over myself and my life gives me the power of constructing an Übermensch out of myself or a Machiavelli. I am free to choose. I am free to act. I am utterly and completely free.
Existence precedes Essence: Facticity and Transcendence
"Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more consistent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence—a being whose existence comes before its essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept of it. That being is man, or as Heidegger put it, the human reality. What do we mean here by "existence precedes essence"? We mean that man first exists: he materializes in the world, encounters himself, and only afterward defines himself. If man as existentialists conceive of him cannot be defined, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive of it. Man is not only that which he conceives himself to be, but that which he wills himself to be, and since he conceives of himself only after he exists, just as he wills himself to be after being thrown into existence, man is nothing other than what he makes of himself. This is the first principle of existentialism." -- Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism
Naturalists in literature proclaimed that there are certain things that we cannot help--the socio-economic conditions in which we were born, our genetic makeup or whether it cripples us in some way or makes us stronger, the kind of environment we’re raised in—and these things play a vital role in shaping our character. We are, thus, products, conditioned and made by certain unavoidable circumstances and forces and thus, this determinism, be it biological or otherwise, does not make us wholly responsible for our selves, our beings, our characters.
Sartre calls these aspects as Facticity: the things we’re born with, the things we cannot change about ourselves.
But he goes further. Flynn writes:
"Facticity denotes the givens of our situation such as our race and nationality, our talents and limitations, the others with whom we deal as well as our previous choices. Transcendence or the reach that our consciousness extends beyond these givens, denotes the takens of our situation, namely how we face up to this facticity."
Let’s say two kids growing up suffer from sexual or physical abuse. One grows up vulnerable, depressed, with low self-esteem while the other grows up to be strong, determined, learning from his scars and making trophies out of them. This is their respective Transcendence. For Sartre, we are all free to transcend over our facticity and so even if predetermined in some way, we are still free to define ourselves by acting and doing. We are the products of our actions which are the results of our transcendence, and are not simply the products of our facticity. How we respond to the givens of life is up to us; they do not shape us, we can shape them.
Here lies the humanism of existentialism, the glorification of the freedom individuals have over themselves. When most people misread existentialism as a pessimistic philosophy, it might majorly be due to its emphasis on the meaninglessness of life and its rejection of any transcendental purpose that life or man might have. But, if one thinks like Sartre, this is exactly what sets the existential man free.
Existential Authenticity and ‘Bad Faith’:
Those who “blame” their facticity for the choices they make in life and their consequences and fail to own up to the responsibility, for Sartre, they act in bad faith. When we can always transcend and be “more” than what we’ve been given then it is “we” who make decisions and it is “we” who must follow through. As we are free, we are free to choose and those who fail to choose at all or fail to own up to its responsibility are those who act in bad faith and are those who are “existentially inauthentic”. Flynn writes:
"This teaches the existentialist lesson that our entire life is an ongoing choice and that the failure to choose is itself a choice for which we are equally responsible. Sartre formulates this bluntly when he asserts that for human reality [the human being], to exist is to choose and to cease to choose is to cease to be. Sartre also echoes Kierkegaard’s relation of choice to self-constitution when he adds that, for human reality, to be is to choose oneself."
Authenticity in existentialism is of prime importance. This entails being completely aware of oneself and of one’s freedom, and making choices, willingly and consciously, and accepting responsibility for the results. To be authentic is to be an individual and not part of the herd or like the “others” just to be accepted, but to make your own choices even if it risks isolation and ostracism. Thus, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche see in the person of Socrates an existentially authentic individual who chose a path willingly that he could live for and die for. Meursault, Camus’ Stranger is a stranger for similar reasons—he will not and cannot conform even knowing that it is this nonconformity and “strangeness” that might end his life.
The existentialist accepts the absurdity of his life, recognizes his freedom thereof, knows that his essence is up to him to define, makes the necessary choices, and accepts responsibility. He will not and cannot role-play throughout his existence: wearing convenient masks as those around him demand.
Those who do not do any one of these things have agreed to a life of self-deception, a life of bad faith, according to Sartre.
Existentialism and its Social Conscience:
“In choosing, I choose for all people”, he insisted. And in words that carry a distinctively Kantian ring, Sartre challenges that each agent ought to say to himself: “Am I he who has the right to act such that humanity regulates itself by my acts?” This seemed to convey a sense of responsibility for the other person and even for society as a whole that was different from his previous contentions. Sartre introduced yet another ethical principle when he asserted that in every moral choice we form an image of the kind of person we want to be and, indeed, of what any moral person should be: “For in effect, there is not one of our acts that, in creating the man we wish to be, does not at the same time create an image of man such as we judge he ought to be.”" -- Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism
“In choosing myself, I choose man” says Sartre in Existentialism is a Humanism, thus endowing the philosophy its moral and social conscience. If I prefer being free to being a slave and choose freedom then it could not simply be a choice that I make for myself but for all humanity. Thus those who, being privileged themselves, deny the same privileges to others are not existentially authentic and are steeped in contradiction. Flynn refers to Simone de Beauvoir in this respect of existential ethics and a detailed reading of her might be of help to the student.
Existential ethics basically rest upon keeping the entire human picture in mind while committing certain acts that on a personal moral plane might shame the individual. What if everyone started doing what I am doing? What if someone did this to me, would I be okay with that? Those acting in bad faith might say to themselves: but everyone isn’t like me! Everyone doesn’t do this! In Existentialism in Humanism, Sartre writes:
"Certainly, many believe that their actions involve no one but themselves, and were we to ask them, "But what if everyone acted that way" They would shrug their shoulders and reply, “But everyone does not act that way." In truth, however, one should always ask oneself, "What would happen if everyone did what I am doing?" The only way to evade that disturbing thought is through some kind of bad faith. Someone who lies to himself and excuses himself by saying "Everyone does not act that way" is struggling with a bad conscience, for the act of lying implies attributing a universal value to lies."
Isn’t it obvious how this kind of ethic can be beneficial to the entire human community? The claims of existentialism being too individualistic and relativistic seem to me specious and shallow, in the light of Sartre’s arguments, but even so there is much more to be learnt and discovered. To cut it short, existential ethics give social magnitude to individual moral actions which, I personally think, is pretty good. Anyway…
Conclusion:
This VSI covers a lot of ground and talks of plenty other things that I haven’t spoken of here. There is a very interesting discussion on Husserlian phenomenology and its impacts on existential thinking; Kierkegaard has been given his due and his three important stages of the development of man are discussed separately; and the reasons why Sartre was slightly wary of Freud and his theories are also discussed, something I didn’t know of before and found quite fascinating. I would still recommend Existentialism is a Humanism to the uninitiated as that is more accessible and concise than this VSI but for those who feel themselves prepared for the next rung in the ladder, then I’m sure Flynn will not disappoint.
Important note to the students of literary criticism: this book does not touch upon existential literature per se and is an exclusive study of simply the philosophy. For those who look for a study of existential literature specifically, then this is not your book, though it will definitely help explaining the literature in its own way.
For a VSI, this is surprisingly comprehensive and provides an extensive discussion on numerous issues that form the subjects of many existential thinkers from Kierkegaard to Sartre. The latter, though, and his philosophical system is scrutinized in detail especially, but Flynn does a great job in always comparing and contrasting Sartrean atheistic existentialism to its theistic counterparts as we find it in Kierkegaard and Jaspers, to give a kaleidoscopic effect to the reader who experiences a whirlwind of thoughts and emotions as he or she wades through this text. It has been a tremendously informative and educational experience for me, though existentialism, both the philosophical theory and the ethic, mutually inclusive as they might be, is something that might take me several more books to understand completely in all its variations and ramifications.
Coming to the specifics of this book, Flynn mentions in the preface that his aim with the VSI is to clear up the charges that uninformed minds have placed against existentialism, pretty much what Sartre set out to do in Existentialism is a Humanism. Existentialism has popularly been misconstrued as a) a contemplative, bourgeois philosophy and b) a product of the upheavals of its time and thus, having no relevancy for the individual today. Whether we historically marginalize it or make the claim that it has little worth for the dynamic individual, Flynn states, in both cases we’re way off. The question of being and meaning, Flynn explains, has been a subject of philosophers since the ancient Greeks and continues to hold currency even for the individual today as it talks of things most personal to the individual; a philosophy where he is the subject and not some impersonal realm of knowledge irrelevant to the condition of man. Also, existential thought, irrespective of its atheistic or theistic underpinnings, is action-oriented and not simply thought-oriented. It is not philosophizing for the sake of philosophizing but has tremendous practical possibilities.
The Problem of Meaning:
"I have never seen anyone die for the ontological argument… Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference. To tell the truth, it is a futile question. On the other hand, I see many people die because they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically getting killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions." – Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus
The problems of the “first philosophy”—the nature of knowledge, its limitations, its possibilities—have troubled the philosopher’s mind since ages and much of philosophical thought has been concerned with questions that, though were and are important in their own right, do not answer the “human” question, the human predicament directly. In the face of a world divested of meaning, where no religious anchorage can provide relief, where the yawning abyss of nihilism always grows deeper and bigger in front of us, how exactly can we lead our lives without succumbing to either suicide or pessimism? For Sartre, even though life and existence is intrinsically superfluous, man still has the power and capability to endow it with his own meaning, his own direction and his own purpose. When he says "existence precedes essence", it covers both situations: that of human existence and of existence generally. There is no specified, predetermined essence to the human individual and thus, he is free to make whatever he wants out of himself. Similarly, existence or life having no essence entails that it, too, could be steered in any direction as the existent desires. This is the dynamism of existential thought that it focuses upon “constructing” and “building” meaning rather than simply accepting the lack of it and slipping into nihilistic withdrawal. As Camus says, the acceptance of the “Absurd” or the meaninglessness of life must be taken as a premise and not as a conclusion. I am here, an insignificant existence in a world that could have done very well without me, with no intrinsic purpose and direction, I am a creature of chance and accident, but I am free. I am free and I am alive and I exist. This freedom over myself and my life gives me the power of constructing an Übermensch out of myself or a Machiavelli. I am free to choose. I am free to act. I am utterly and completely free.
Existence precedes Essence: Facticity and Transcendence
"Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more consistent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence—a being whose existence comes before its essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept of it. That being is man, or as Heidegger put it, the human reality. What do we mean here by "existence precedes essence"? We mean that man first exists: he materializes in the world, encounters himself, and only afterward defines himself. If man as existentialists conceive of him cannot be defined, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive of it. Man is not only that which he conceives himself to be, but that which he wills himself to be, and since he conceives of himself only after he exists, just as he wills himself to be after being thrown into existence, man is nothing other than what he makes of himself. This is the first principle of existentialism." -- Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism
Naturalists in literature proclaimed that there are certain things that we cannot help--the socio-economic conditions in which we were born, our genetic makeup or whether it cripples us in some way or makes us stronger, the kind of environment we’re raised in—and these things play a vital role in shaping our character. We are, thus, products, conditioned and made by certain unavoidable circumstances and forces and thus, this determinism, be it biological or otherwise, does not make us wholly responsible for our selves, our beings, our characters.
Sartre calls these aspects as Facticity: the things we’re born with, the things we cannot change about ourselves.
But he goes further. Flynn writes:
"Facticity denotes the givens of our situation such as our race and nationality, our talents and limitations, the others with whom we deal as well as our previous choices. Transcendence or the reach that our consciousness extends beyond these givens, denotes the takens of our situation, namely how we face up to this facticity."
Let’s say two kids growing up suffer from sexual or physical abuse. One grows up vulnerable, depressed, with low self-esteem while the other grows up to be strong, determined, learning from his scars and making trophies out of them. This is their respective Transcendence. For Sartre, we are all free to transcend over our facticity and so even if predetermined in some way, we are still free to define ourselves by acting and doing. We are the products of our actions which are the results of our transcendence, and are not simply the products of our facticity. How we respond to the givens of life is up to us; they do not shape us, we can shape them.
Here lies the humanism of existentialism, the glorification of the freedom individuals have over themselves. When most people misread existentialism as a pessimistic philosophy, it might majorly be due to its emphasis on the meaninglessness of life and its rejection of any transcendental purpose that life or man might have. But, if one thinks like Sartre, this is exactly what sets the existential man free.
Existential Authenticity and ‘Bad Faith’:
Those who “blame” their facticity for the choices they make in life and their consequences and fail to own up to the responsibility, for Sartre, they act in bad faith. When we can always transcend and be “more” than what we’ve been given then it is “we” who make decisions and it is “we” who must follow through. As we are free, we are free to choose and those who fail to choose at all or fail to own up to its responsibility are those who act in bad faith and are those who are “existentially inauthentic”. Flynn writes:
"This teaches the existentialist lesson that our entire life is an ongoing choice and that the failure to choose is itself a choice for which we are equally responsible. Sartre formulates this bluntly when he asserts that for human reality [the human being], to exist is to choose and to cease to choose is to cease to be. Sartre also echoes Kierkegaard’s relation of choice to self-constitution when he adds that, for human reality, to be is to choose oneself."
Authenticity in existentialism is of prime importance. This entails being completely aware of oneself and of one’s freedom, and making choices, willingly and consciously, and accepting responsibility for the results. To be authentic is to be an individual and not part of the herd or like the “others” just to be accepted, but to make your own choices even if it risks isolation and ostracism. Thus, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche see in the person of Socrates an existentially authentic individual who chose a path willingly that he could live for and die for. Meursault, Camus’ Stranger is a stranger for similar reasons—he will not and cannot conform even knowing that it is this nonconformity and “strangeness” that might end his life.
The existentialist accepts the absurdity of his life, recognizes his freedom thereof, knows that his essence is up to him to define, makes the necessary choices, and accepts responsibility. He will not and cannot role-play throughout his existence: wearing convenient masks as those around him demand.
Those who do not do any one of these things have agreed to a life of self-deception, a life of bad faith, according to Sartre.
Existentialism and its Social Conscience:
“In choosing, I choose for all people”, he insisted. And in words that carry a distinctively Kantian ring, Sartre challenges that each agent ought to say to himself: “Am I he who has the right to act such that humanity regulates itself by my acts?” This seemed to convey a sense of responsibility for the other person and even for society as a whole that was different from his previous contentions. Sartre introduced yet another ethical principle when he asserted that in every moral choice we form an image of the kind of person we want to be and, indeed, of what any moral person should be: “For in effect, there is not one of our acts that, in creating the man we wish to be, does not at the same time create an image of man such as we judge he ought to be.”" -- Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism
“In choosing myself, I choose man” says Sartre in Existentialism is a Humanism, thus endowing the philosophy its moral and social conscience. If I prefer being free to being a slave and choose freedom then it could not simply be a choice that I make for myself but for all humanity. Thus those who, being privileged themselves, deny the same privileges to others are not existentially authentic and are steeped in contradiction. Flynn refers to Simone de Beauvoir in this respect of existential ethics and a detailed reading of her might be of help to the student.
Existential ethics basically rest upon keeping the entire human picture in mind while committing certain acts that on a personal moral plane might shame the individual. What if everyone started doing what I am doing? What if someone did this to me, would I be okay with that? Those acting in bad faith might say to themselves: but everyone isn’t like me! Everyone doesn’t do this! In Existentialism in Humanism, Sartre writes:
"Certainly, many believe that their actions involve no one but themselves, and were we to ask them, "But what if everyone acted that way" They would shrug their shoulders and reply, “But everyone does not act that way." In truth, however, one should always ask oneself, "What would happen if everyone did what I am doing?" The only way to evade that disturbing thought is through some kind of bad faith. Someone who lies to himself and excuses himself by saying "Everyone does not act that way" is struggling with a bad conscience, for the act of lying implies attributing a universal value to lies."
Isn’t it obvious how this kind of ethic can be beneficial to the entire human community? The claims of existentialism being too individualistic and relativistic seem to me specious and shallow, in the light of Sartre’s arguments, but even so there is much more to be learnt and discovered. To cut it short, existential ethics give social magnitude to individual moral actions which, I personally think, is pretty good. Anyway…
Conclusion:
This VSI covers a lot of ground and talks of plenty other things that I haven’t spoken of here. There is a very interesting discussion on Husserlian phenomenology and its impacts on existential thinking; Kierkegaard has been given his due and his three important stages of the development of man are discussed separately; and the reasons why Sartre was slightly wary of Freud and his theories are also discussed, something I didn’t know of before and found quite fascinating. I would still recommend Existentialism is a Humanism to the uninitiated as that is more accessible and concise than this VSI but for those who feel themselves prepared for the next rung in the ladder, then I’m sure Flynn will not disappoint.
Important note to the students of literary criticism: this book does not touch upon existential literature per se and is an exclusive study of simply the philosophy. For those who look for a study of existential literature specifically, then this is not your book, though it will definitely help explaining the literature in its own way.
February 6, 2014
الكتاب جيد إلي حد كبير، ساعدني علي وضع بعض الخطوط العريضة عن الوجودية لتسهيل الأمر عليَّ في المرة القادمة، لكنه لا يصلح أن يكون "مقدمة قصيرة جداً" فهذه المقدمة تحتاج مقدمة أخري لها لتفهمها !
أورد الكتاب بعض المصطلحات والمفاهيم الفلسفية بدون توضيح يذكر ، وبدون مراعاة المبتدئين في القراءة في الفلسفة فاحتاج علي الأقل بعض التوضيح في الهامش ، لكنه لم يفعل.
فيصدمك بالحديث عن الفينومونولوجي والهيرمينوطيقا والعدمية و البنيوية والقصدية وغيرهم من المناهج والمصطلحات التي ستضيع لو لم تستخدم "جوجل" لتعرف ما هي لتستكمل قراءتك!
أراد الكاتب أن يورد كل شىء ممكن عن الوجودية في هذا الكتاب ، كأنه ملخص ليلة الامتحان ،ولكن عدم درايتك بالمنهج أصلاً سيؤدي إلي عدم فهمك للملخص.
بالطبع سأستفيد كثيراً إذا قرأت هذا الكتاب مرة أخري مستقبلاً ، ربما أخرج بأضعاف المعلومات التي خرجت بها هذه المرة .
نصيحة لمن سيقرأ الكتاب ، أن يقرأه بهدوء و تركيز وصبر ، ويحاول تدوير الجمل في عقله علي قدر الإمكان و أن يقرأ المصطلحات التي في نهاية الكتاب أولاً قبل قراءة الكتاب نفسه.
June 5, 2016
مقدمة قصيرة جدًا لكنها ليست بسيطة جدًا.
و لكنّي استطعت تدبّر أمري حيث أقرأ فصلًا واحدًا في الجلسة الواحدة، و ساعدني أيضًا مسرد المصطلحات في نهاية الكتاب.
استطعت تكوين فكرة بسيطة و واضحة عن الفكر الوجودي وأفكاره الأساسية كالفردية و الصدق مع الذات و تحمل مسؤولية الحرية.
و لكنّي استطعت تدبّر أمري حيث أقرأ فصلًا واحدًا في الجلسة الواحدة، و ساعدني أيضًا مسرد المصطلحات في نهاية الكتاب.
استطعت تكوين فكرة بسيطة و واضحة عن الفكر الوجودي وأفكاره الأساسية كالفردية و الصدق مع الذات و تحمل مسؤولية الحرية.
October 14, 2015
What do authenticity, existenz (with a z), hermeneutics, bad faith and ekstatic temporality mean? No, don't go away, they are worth learning about and this book is the place to learn them. Author Thomas Flynn does an outstanding job of taking the novice through existentialism, an otherwise dizzying philosophy that I have spent years trying to put together. You'll meet those who laid the foundation for the philosophy and those that represent it, Sartre in particular, but don't expect a quick run-though. You have to grasp the terms before it all comes together. This is not the breeze to read that novels are, you have to make an effort but it will be rewarded.
Put scientific understanding aside, as most of us do every moment of our lives. Consider only what it means to be conscious, to be "me" looking out on the world. Here I am in the world, I know that death awaits me, what should I do? Existentialism suggests how to determine what to do and how to discover if one is on the right course, the one unique to each of us as we move through our limited time.
It does this by accepting our perception of time as our standard, not some objective time as measured by a clock. Existentialism is an intimate philosophy because it appeals to your life experience as the most important thing of all, calling upon you to recognize what this experience offers that is yours to grasp; freedom. You cannot refuse this freedom, in fact as Sartre said, you are condemned to be free. If you do not deliberately make choices, they will be made for you. In fact, most people do not see this freedom and go through life drifting this way and that in the varying winds of situations encountered following what is generally accepted as the right thing to do. This is called bad faith; rationalizing what we have done rather then realizing what we do.
Freedom is a frightening concept because it puts us in a continuous bind. There is no point at which we can relax and drift. Each moment offers a choice and time is always running out. One can freeze in the face of the options but that, too, is a choice. One can say "I want out!" and commit suicide, a final choice, or one can realize the drift that is the life of most, reject it, take command of the helm and steer the ship. The person who does this becomes the author of his/her life, living with authenticity.
Existentialism is a philosophy of courage. It is the fist held up to the uncaring universe, that gives joy in the dedication of a single life to a purpose that is by definition unique, a making of meaning, a realization of the self in the absurd situation of a single consciousness alone and aware in a vastness of unconscious material.
But do we truly have free will? Aren't we, after all, just an elaborate, intricate array of chemicals that behaves as our particular interaction of chemicals requires? Philosophers differ on this and one of the most interesting chapters in the book addresses it. Sartre denied Freud's concept of the unconscious because it has us driven puppets of forces beneath awareness, living our lives chained to early experience and hidden drives. Nietzsche believed we do not have free will but that nevertheless are constituted differently, with most being in the herd that follows given rules and a few being capable of seeing beyond good and evil.
If thinking about what we are and what we can do appeals to you, Flynn's short book will be a delight to read and read again, and again. I've been over it three times and each time the meaning expands. I admit that my first reading was almost a total loss. Go slow, note a term and its definition. When you find that term again, be sure you know what it means or go back and find out or you can get lost. With the terms understood, Flynn's writing is very clear. Read carefully and you might end up seeing life in a new way.
Put scientific understanding aside, as most of us do every moment of our lives. Consider only what it means to be conscious, to be "me" looking out on the world. Here I am in the world, I know that death awaits me, what should I do? Existentialism suggests how to determine what to do and how to discover if one is on the right course, the one unique to each of us as we move through our limited time.
It does this by accepting our perception of time as our standard, not some objective time as measured by a clock. Existentialism is an intimate philosophy because it appeals to your life experience as the most important thing of all, calling upon you to recognize what this experience offers that is yours to grasp; freedom. You cannot refuse this freedom, in fact as Sartre said, you are condemned to be free. If you do not deliberately make choices, they will be made for you. In fact, most people do not see this freedom and go through life drifting this way and that in the varying winds of situations encountered following what is generally accepted as the right thing to do. This is called bad faith; rationalizing what we have done rather then realizing what we do.
Freedom is a frightening concept because it puts us in a continuous bind. There is no point at which we can relax and drift. Each moment offers a choice and time is always running out. One can freeze in the face of the options but that, too, is a choice. One can say "I want out!" and commit suicide, a final choice, or one can realize the drift that is the life of most, reject it, take command of the helm and steer the ship. The person who does this becomes the author of his/her life, living with authenticity.
Existentialism is a philosophy of courage. It is the fist held up to the uncaring universe, that gives joy in the dedication of a single life to a purpose that is by definition unique, a making of meaning, a realization of the self in the absurd situation of a single consciousness alone and aware in a vastness of unconscious material.
But do we truly have free will? Aren't we, after all, just an elaborate, intricate array of chemicals that behaves as our particular interaction of chemicals requires? Philosophers differ on this and one of the most interesting chapters in the book addresses it. Sartre denied Freud's concept of the unconscious because it has us driven puppets of forces beneath awareness, living our lives chained to early experience and hidden drives. Nietzsche believed we do not have free will but that nevertheless are constituted differently, with most being in the herd that follows given rules and a few being capable of seeing beyond good and evil.
If thinking about what we are and what we can do appeals to you, Flynn's short book will be a delight to read and read again, and again. I've been over it three times and each time the meaning expands. I admit that my first reading was almost a total loss. Go slow, note a term and its definition. When you find that term again, be sure you know what it means or go back and find out or you can get lost. With the terms understood, Flynn's writing is very clear. Read carefully and you might end up seeing life in a new way.
Read
April 26, 2022e não é que foi breve mesmo
February 4, 2018
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone as an 'Introduction' to something as complex as Existentialism. Other than some scattered moments of lucidity in the book the jargon and abstract way of writing makes it very difficult to grasp anything of value. I understand that Existentialism as a Philosophical school of thought is as complex and nuanced as any other technical Philosophical Movement to be actually reduced to a simplistic explanation but it seems the author doesn't even try to simplify any concept even for the sake of it. The author introduces highly complicated concepts in passing and then employ those topics in the subsequent topics as if they were explained thoroughly earlier , when they were in fact mentioned casually. I am of the opinion that a layman reading this book as an 'introduction' would lose all INTEREST in Existentialism. Most of the favourable Goodreads reviews are written by not people who are just attempting to familiarise with the Movement but from those who are already interested and have a bit of knowledge about it. This is exactly what the authors does too : He expects that everyone must already be familiar with certain ideas about Existentialism, which is a very problematic assumption if one is writing an 'Introduction'.
Having read the book completely in hope of atleast acquiring something of value I ended up dreadfully resentful of my own comprehension (lack of) of abstract and esoteric topics.
i personally would like to begin my Introduction of a topic with a slightly simplistic and easily digestible approach rather than getting bombed by a sentence like " The Satrean subject, as I pointed out, is not a self but a presence to self. We have seen that it is precisely non self identical, which invites fruitful dialogue with postmodern/and or post structuralist authors... A la Descartes, but a dualism of spontaneity and inertia- a functional , not substantial, duality that is compatible with post structuealist thought".
Having read the book completely in hope of atleast acquiring something of value I ended up dreadfully resentful of my own comprehension (lack of) of abstract and esoteric topics.
i personally would like to begin my Introduction of a topic with a slightly simplistic and easily digestible approach rather than getting bombed by a sentence like " The Satrean subject, as I pointed out, is not a self but a presence to self. We have seen that it is precisely non self identical, which invites fruitful dialogue with postmodern/and or post structuralist authors... A la Descartes, but a dualism of spontaneity and inertia- a functional , not substantial, duality that is compatible with post structuealist thought".
November 21, 2012
The opening chapters feel a bit scattershot. The last few chapters, on the other hand -- esp. the last, on Existentialism in a Post-Structuralist world, the area of Flynn's own scholarship -- are the most technical, the hardest to get into 'dummy' form, and may be the most interesting to those familiar with the likes of Foucault, Gadamer, and Althusser. The chapter on the politics of Sartre and Merleau-Ponty is also surprisingly interesting, though necessarily brief. I wanted a clearer account of Sartre's metaphysics than I got, but Flynn's account of Husserl is clear and quite good (from the *very* little I know of H. -- all at 3rd hand, to be sure). Anyhow, not a bad book, given its aims and imposed limitations.
November 25, 2015
ليست مقدمة , و ليست قصيرة جدا و ليست عن الوجودية, الكاتب يلف و يدور حول نفسه و لا يعرف كيف يشرح المفهوم البسيط .. فلم أفهم ماهيتها في 160 صفحة في الكثير من الساعات و الكثير من اللخبطة بين الأسماء, ثم قرأت تعريفها من الإنترنت في دقيقتين و فهمتها ! .
ربما الترجمة هي السبب, لكن ما انا متاكد منه ,ان الصداع لم يتركني طوال القراءة!!
http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
ربما الترجمة هي السبب, لكن ما انا متاكد منه ,ان الصداع لم يتركني طوال القراءة!!
http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
September 12, 2012
Despite this text's brevity, Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction is a rather weighty exploration of the moral content of Existentialism as a philosophical movement. Flynn discusses the work of Camus, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Jaspers, Nietzsche, Marcel, Merleau-Ponty, and de Beauvoir primarily to the end of contextualizing Existentialism in the 21st century and setting out to prove that the movement has a compelling degree of moral content that separates it from bourgeoisie intellectualism.
The text serves as a historical survey of Existentialism and its precursors to explore Existentialism's moral content and prove that Existentialism is consistent with the moral urgency and unity produced by World War II. Flynn explores how outside influences served to produce the greater body of Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Camus's work and how their work continues to influence academia today. Flynn takes a hard line to distinguish Existentialism from ivory-tower intellectualism and show that it is applicable and relevant in a Humanist sense.
Flynn ignores Existentialism as a literary movement for the most part and concentration on his narrow focus of Existentialism's moral content, an aim that's far more narrow in scope (but also results in more in depth exploration of ideas) than a simple "very short introduction" to Existentialism. With that in mind, the text's title is somewhat misleading. Likewise, this text is weighty and not exactly an easy read. Ultimately, however, it is a worthwhile text exploring where Existentialism, morality, and other 20th and 21st century philosophical ideas intersect.
The text serves as a historical survey of Existentialism and its precursors to explore Existentialism's moral content and prove that Existentialism is consistent with the moral urgency and unity produced by World War II. Flynn explores how outside influences served to produce the greater body of Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Camus's work and how their work continues to influence academia today. Flynn takes a hard line to distinguish Existentialism from ivory-tower intellectualism and show that it is applicable and relevant in a Humanist sense.
Flynn ignores Existentialism as a literary movement for the most part and concentration on his narrow focus of Existentialism's moral content, an aim that's far more narrow in scope (but also results in more in depth exploration of ideas) than a simple "very short introduction" to Existentialism. With that in mind, the text's title is somewhat misleading. Likewise, this text is weighty and not exactly an easy read. Ultimately, however, it is a worthwhile text exploring where Existentialism, morality, and other 20th and 21st century philosophical ideas intersect.
April 6, 2018
After finishing this book, audio book I should say, I have a somewhat patchy understanding of existentialism.
Instead of explaining existentialism in layman's terms the author uses the ideas of the main existentialist thinkers to outline what it is. As someone relatively unfamiliar with existentialism and thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, etc, I found this to be an information overload. It was very easy to drift off when listening to the audio book due to the meandering sentences and endless obscure references. This might not have been a problem with a text version, so I wouldn't specifically recommend the audio book.
Compared to other VSI's I've read, this one was definitely the most difficult in terms of the density, structure, and content. I have a hunch that the writing is a good example of the overly complex and caveat ridden writing predominant in academia today. I watched a "School of Life" video about existentialism just after finishing the book and it explained the core concepts in eight minutes better than the book did.
Despite these problems I think this is a worthwhile read. In fact, I think I might reread it once I have a better grip on the people and concepts it explores.
Instead of explaining existentialism in layman's terms the author uses the ideas of the main existentialist thinkers to outline what it is. As someone relatively unfamiliar with existentialism and thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, etc, I found this to be an information overload. It was very easy to drift off when listening to the audio book due to the meandering sentences and endless obscure references. This might not have been a problem with a text version, so I wouldn't specifically recommend the audio book.
Compared to other VSI's I've read, this one was definitely the most difficult in terms of the density, structure, and content. I have a hunch that the writing is a good example of the overly complex and caveat ridden writing predominant in academia today. I watched a "School of Life" video about existentialism just after finishing the book and it explained the core concepts in eight minutes better than the book did.
Despite these problems I think this is a worthwhile read. In fact, I think I might reread it once I have a better grip on the people and concepts it explores.
August 31, 2016
1. Who were existentialist?
Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, Simone de Beavoir, Ponty, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard.
2. Who were them?
They were philosopher for 19 and 20 centuries. This thought was rosed from Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). He was like the father of existentialism.
3. What they were doing?
Think. They proposed Nihilism (Nietzsche). For 21st century, it has been evolved to Sructuralism and Post-Structuralism.
"Existence preceds essence
Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, Simone de Beavoir, Ponty, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard.
2. Who were them?
They were philosopher for 19 and 20 centuries. This thought was rosed from Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). He was like the father of existentialism.
3. What they were doing?
Think. They proposed Nihilism (Nietzsche). For 21st century, it has been evolved to Sructuralism and Post-Structuralism.
"Existence preceds essence
January 13, 2016
كتاب يُقتبس منه اكثر مما يُقرأ .
لم يُضف لي فهما اكثر مما اعرفه سابقا عن الوجودية كفلسفة .
لم يُضف لي فهما اكثر مما اعرفه سابقا عن الوجودية كفلسفة .
February 23, 2023
This was awful. Written in dry, dense academic language, it presupposes the reader is already a philosopher, thus not needing an introduction at all. The book's structure was apparently designed by dart board, or picking jumbled subjects out of a hat. The few parts I was awake for were completely inaccessible to me.
May 31, 2017
٣.٥. مقدّمة مشوّقة لقراءة أوسع، وترجمة جيدة ومفهومة بشكل جيد..
July 10, 2014
عندما قررت اقتناء هذا الكتاب كنت لا أعلم شيئا عن الوجودية ولذلك اخترته بناء على أنه مقدمة قصيرة جدا عن الوجودية كما هو مذكور على غلاف الكتاب ؛أما الان وقد انتهيت من قراءته فقد اكتشفت انه ليس بالبساطة التى اعتقدتها ربما يرجع ذلك لأسلوب الكتاب واسلوب ترجمته أو لتعقد الفلسفة الوجودية نظرا لكثرة وتعدد واختلاف اراء روادها؛ولكنه ساعدنى بوجه عام فى فهم الخطوط الاساسية لهذه الفلسفة
بداية يعتبر كل من سارتر ونيتشة وكيركجارد وكامو ودى بوفوار وهايدجر من رواد هذه الفلسفة ؛وهى تدور حول خمسة موضوعات رئيسية ينظر الفلاسفة الوجوديين الى كل منها باسلوبه الخاص وهذه الموضوعات هى:الوجود يسبق الجوهر
الوقت هو الجوهر
الانسانية
الحرية والمسئولية
الاعتبارات الاخلاقية هى الاهم
وتعتبر الوجودية اسلوب حياة حيث ينصب تركيزهاعلى الاسلوب اللائق للتصرف لا على مجموعة مجردةمن الحقائق النظرية
الوجوديون ليسوا لاعقلانيين بحيث ينكرون صلاحية الجدال المنطقى والتفكير العلمى لكنهم يشككون فى قدرةمثل هذا التفكير على التغلغل الى المعتقدات الشخصية الراسخة التى توجه حياتنا
لطالما كانت الوجودية وثيقة الصله بالفنون الجميلة بسبب نظرتها الدرامية الى الوجود
تنمى الوجودية ضميرا اجتماعياالى جانب الايمان بان الفنون الجميلة يجب ان تكون ملتزمة اجتماعيا وسياسيا وفى ذلك يقول سارتر على الرغم من ان الادب شئ والاخلاق شئ اخر فاننا فى قلب الضرورة الفنية نجد الضرورة الاخلاقية
تبنى الوجوديون المنهج الفينومينولوجى الذى وضعه ادموند هوسرل والذى يدور حول أن كل وعى هو وعى بالاخر ويسمى بمبدأ القصدية
أما عن الفردية فى الفلسفة الوجودية فلقد عرفت باعتبارها فلسفة فردية وانه كونك فردا فى مجتمعنا هو انجاز وليس نقطة انطلاق؛ويتعامل كل وجودى مع هذا الموضوع باسلوبه الخاص الا ان فكرتهم الاساسية هى ان اتجاه المجتمع الحديث يبعدنا عن الفردية ويأخذنا نحو الامتثال المجتمعى
كما أن الوجودية ترتكز على فكرة الحرية ومايتبعها من مسئولية أخلاقية
وبشأن علاقتها بالفلسفة الانسانية فلقد اعتبرها سارتر فلسفة انسانية بالفعل ترتكز فى اهتمامها على الانسان؛ويتمثل شعار الفلسفة الانسانية لدى سارتر فى انك تستطيع دائما أن تصنع شيئا مختلفا عما وجدت نفسك عليه وهو مايعرف بالتسامى أى رفع مستوى امكانياتك عن الواقع
أما عن فكرة الصدق فى الوجوديةفنرى أنه اسلوب حياة وان الصدق والفردية عندهم وجهان لعملة واحدة فلكى تكون صادقا لابد ان تدرك فرديتك وهو عكس خداع الذات الذى يجعل الانسان يعيش وسط الزحام مجرد وجه لا فرق بينه وبين غيره من البشر دون ان يرفع من مستوى امكانياته
كما نرى ان الوجودية قد انتقدت المجتمع البرجوازى بسبب ولعه بالتطابق والرفاهية المادية وسعيه الى الامان وتجنبه المخاطر وتحفظه اللامحدود
لقد ازدهرت الفلسفة الوجوديه عقب الحرب العالمية الثانية ثم عادت الى الاندثار وظهرت بدلا منها الحركة البنيوية فى ستينيات القرن العشرين ثم الحركة بعد البنيوية فى سبعينيات وثمانينيات القرن العشرين ؛الا اننا نجد ان مصطلحاتها مازالت متداولة مثل مصطلح القلق
واخيرا ليست كل الفلسفة الانسانية الحادية حيث وجد ايضا التوحيديون الذين يرون ان الالحاد ينتقص من القيمة الحقيقية للانسان لانه يختزله الى مجرد منتج انتجته الطبيعة دون قيمة جوهرية
بداية يعتبر كل من سارتر ونيتشة وكيركجارد وكامو ودى بوفوار وهايدجر من رواد هذه الفلسفة ؛وهى تدور حول خمسة موضوعات رئيسية ينظر الفلاسفة الوجوديين الى كل منها باسلوبه الخاص وهذه الموضوعات هى:الوجود يسبق الجوهر
الوقت هو الجوهر
الانسانية
الحرية والمسئولية
الاعتبارات الاخلاقية هى الاهم
وتعتبر الوجودية اسلوب حياة حيث ينصب تركيزهاعلى الاسلوب اللائق للتصرف لا على مجموعة مجردةمن الحقائق النظرية
الوجوديون ليسوا لاعقلانيين بحيث ينكرون صلاحية الجدال المنطقى والتفكير العلمى لكنهم يشككون فى قدرةمثل هذا التفكير على التغلغل الى المعتقدات الشخصية الراسخة التى توجه حياتنا
لطالما كانت الوجودية وثيقة الصله بالفنون الجميلة بسبب نظرتها الدرامية الى الوجود
تنمى الوجودية ضميرا اجتماعياالى جانب الايمان بان الفنون الجميلة يجب ان تكون ملتزمة اجتماعيا وسياسيا وفى ذلك يقول سارتر على الرغم من ان الادب شئ والاخلاق شئ اخر فاننا فى قلب الضرورة الفنية نجد الضرورة الاخلاقية
تبنى الوجوديون المنهج الفينومينولوجى الذى وضعه ادموند هوسرل والذى يدور حول أن كل وعى هو وعى بالاخر ويسمى بمبدأ القصدية
أما عن الفردية فى الفلسفة الوجودية فلقد عرفت باعتبارها فلسفة فردية وانه كونك فردا فى مجتمعنا هو انجاز وليس نقطة انطلاق؛ويتعامل كل وجودى مع هذا الموضوع باسلوبه الخاص الا ان فكرتهم الاساسية هى ان اتجاه المجتمع الحديث يبعدنا عن الفردية ويأخذنا نحو الامتثال المجتمعى
كما أن الوجودية ترتكز على فكرة الحرية ومايتبعها من مسئولية أخلاقية
وبشأن علاقتها بالفلسفة الانسانية فلقد اعتبرها سارتر فلسفة انسانية بالفعل ترتكز فى اهتمامها على الانسان؛ويتمثل شعار الفلسفة الانسانية لدى سارتر فى انك تستطيع دائما أن تصنع شيئا مختلفا عما وجدت نفسك عليه وهو مايعرف بالتسامى أى رفع مستوى امكانياتك عن الواقع
أما عن فكرة الصدق فى الوجوديةفنرى أنه اسلوب حياة وان الصدق والفردية عندهم وجهان لعملة واحدة فلكى تكون صادقا لابد ان تدرك فرديتك وهو عكس خداع الذات الذى يجعل الانسان يعيش وسط الزحام مجرد وجه لا فرق بينه وبين غيره من البشر دون ان يرفع من مستوى امكانياته
كما نرى ان الوجودية قد انتقدت المجتمع البرجوازى بسبب ولعه بالتطابق والرفاهية المادية وسعيه الى الامان وتجنبه المخاطر وتحفظه اللامحدود
لقد ازدهرت الفلسفة الوجوديه عقب الحرب العالمية الثانية ثم عادت الى الاندثار وظهرت بدلا منها الحركة البنيوية فى ستينيات القرن العشرين ثم الحركة بعد البنيوية فى سبعينيات وثمانينيات القرن العشرين ؛الا اننا نجد ان مصطلحاتها مازالت متداولة مثل مصطلح القلق
واخيرا ليست كل الفلسفة الانسانية الحادية حيث وجد ايضا التوحيديون الذين يرون ان الالحاد ينتقص من القيمة الحقيقية للانسان لانه يختزله الى مجرد منتج انتجته الطبيعة دون قيمة جوهرية
December 18, 2016
As a very short introduction, I have found it necessary sometimes to go back and reread. Some ideas need elaboration and the book is condensed as such for the sake of conciseness—of keeping with the title. I took it simply to suggest branching out from this book, which is perfect as a starting point in my opinion.
Existentialism is a philosophy of life—of how to embrace one’s inevitable freedom and responsibility and live authentically, away from conformism, away from the “herd” (away in a figurative sense emphasizing the primacy of the individual’s choice, not to suggest that existentialism is antisocial). To live authentically is to live in accordance with one’s true Choice, one’s true calling. With the movement’s prototypical humanist motto “existence precedes essence,” the existentialist is bound to confront his infinite responsibility in life and create his own essence by making a deliberate guiding Choice-of-life that consists of mini-choices, perhaps as revealed by the person’s daily habits (the way I see it).
As a philosophy of life, existential thought deals with a wide range of issues covering the individual, the social, the theistic, the atheistic, the moral, and the ethical … The book also delineates the ways in which existentialism crisscrosses with literature, hermeneutics, phenomenology, Marxism, Freudian psychology, linguistics, structuralism, post-structuralism, modernism, and postmodernism.
Existentialism is a philosophy of life—of how to embrace one’s inevitable freedom and responsibility and live authentically, away from conformism, away from the “herd” (away in a figurative sense emphasizing the primacy of the individual’s choice, not to suggest that existentialism is antisocial). To live authentically is to live in accordance with one’s true Choice, one’s true calling. With the movement’s prototypical humanist motto “existence precedes essence,” the existentialist is bound to confront his infinite responsibility in life and create his own essence by making a deliberate guiding Choice-of-life that consists of mini-choices, perhaps as revealed by the person’s daily habits (the way I see it).
As a philosophy of life, existential thought deals with a wide range of issues covering the individual, the social, the theistic, the atheistic, the moral, and the ethical … The book also delineates the ways in which existentialism crisscrosses with literature, hermeneutics, phenomenology, Marxism, Freudian psychology, linguistics, structuralism, post-structuralism, modernism, and postmodernism.
July 8, 2010
Existentialism is a philosophy that has to do, explicitly, with how to live. It strikes, it hurts - or at least it's supposed to. Existentialism - that's Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Camus. Theirs - to the extent that we can say any one thing is shared by all - was the philosophy that insisted that the most important philosophy was that which was about living in relation to our mortality. It is a philosophy found in books like "Fear and Trembling," "Being and Nothingness" but also "No Exit," "The Myth of Sisyphus." Those works are so often no less than heart-wrenching, thrilling - how, then, did this book by Flynn turn out to be so boring? It has everything you need, I guess, fact wise. Too much on Heidegger for my tastes, since I don't think he's best understood as "an existentialist." Still, very dull, when the philosophers themselves are compelling.
One would do better just to read something by one of "the Existentialists," all of whom are incredible writers. Part of it is how they emote, how and why they write the way they do - literarily. Try "The Myth of Sisyphus" and call me in the morning.
One would do better just to read something by one of "the Existentialists," all of whom are incredible writers. Part of it is how they emote, how and why they write the way they do - literarily. Try "The Myth of Sisyphus" and call me in the morning.
November 28, 2020
Bad review purely because this book bills itself as an introduction, yet nothing is introduced here with clarity. You need a working knowledge of every concept he 'introduces' to understand anything. He'll badly define a concept once, and from then on you are expected to be an expert on it for every other usage of it. This is why P.h.D's shouldn't write stuff like this. They no longer know how to introduce anything because they are so far removed from it. Stuff that seems simple or trivial to them is completely foreign to the people that are being introduced, yet there is no mercy or consideration for that fact. Plus, the book is just written in a boring way. I've been reading up on a lot of existentialism, but this book might have killed my momentum because of how dry it was. Definitely skip this one if you are an absolute beginner.
February 17, 2013
Una gran introducción a los principales exponentes del existencialismo desde sus raíces más antiguas en Socrates, pasando por Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger y llegando a los más actuales y conocidos como Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir y Camus y su influencia en el pensamiento y filosofía del siglo de la segunda mitad del siglo XX y XXI.
Desde debates éticos, morales y hasta el feminismo y la forma en que se produce la estructura social y la forma en que se reconcilia con el pos-modernismo.
Muy recomendado.
Desde debates éticos, morales y hasta el feminismo y la forma en que se produce la estructura social y la forma en que se reconcilia con el pos-modernismo.
Muy recomendado.
February 12, 2022
I am not sold. I feel like instead of a short introduction, it's a quick overview. A little bit like notes made from lectures that only the person who wrote them can truly understand. So I think it was great to revise some existential concepts while reading it, however, I would not recommend it as introductory reading. It's quite complex and a bit chaotic for my standards. A little bit of Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard, and Sartre, and de Beauvoir, and Camus... all mixed and matched. I think I am more confused about existentialism now than I was before this book :)
October 18, 2018
Some direct citations:
"We are born biological beings but we must become existential individuals by accepting responsibility for our actions. This is an application of Nietzsche’s advice to ‘become what you are’. Many people never do acknowledge such responsibility but rather flee their existential individuality into the comfort of the faceless crowd.
Shortly after the end of the war, Sartre delivered a public lecture entitled ‘Is Existentialism a Humanism?’ that rocked the intellectual life of Paris and served as a quasi-manifesto for the movement. From then on, existentialism was associated with a certain kind of humanistic philosophy that gives human beings and human values pride of place, and with critiques of alternative versions of humanism accepted at that time.
This is the practice of philosophy as ‘care of the self’ (epimeleia heautou). Its focus is on the proper way of acting rather than on an abstract set of theoretical truths.
The existentialists can be viewed as reviving this more personal notion of ‘truth’, a truth that is lived as distinct from and often in opposition to the more detached and scientific use of the term.
In other words, each philosopher realized that life does not follow the continuous flow of logical argument and that one often has to risk moving beyond the limits of the rational in order to live life to the fullest.
For the existentialist, the value and meaning of each temporal dimension of lived time is a function of our attitudes and choices.
If ‘time is of the essence’, and the existentialist will insist that it is, then part of who we are is our manner of living the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ of our existence, made concrete by how we handle our immersion in the everyday.
Five themes of existentialism There are five basic themes that the existentialist appropriates each in his or her own way. Rather than constituting a strict definition of ‘existentialist’, they depict more of a family resemblance (a criss-crossing and overlapping of the themes) among these philosophers.
1. Existence precedes essence. What you are (your essence) is the result of your choices (your existence) rather than the reverse. Essence is not destiny. You are what you make yourself to be.
2. Time is of the essence. We are fundamentally time-bound beings. Unlike measurable, ‘clock’ time, lived time is qualitative: the ‘not yet’, the ‘already’, and the ‘present... This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
3. Humanism. Existentialism is a person-centred philosophy. Though not anti-science, its focus is on the human individual’s pursuit of identity and meaning amidst the social and economic pressures of mass society for superficiality and conformism.
4. Freedom/responsibility. Existentialism is a philosophy of freedom. Its basis is the fact that we can stand back from our lives and reflect on what we have been doing. In this sense, we are always ‘more’ than ourselves. But we are as responsible as we are free.
5. Ethical considerations are paramount. Though each existentialist understands the ethic..
The existentialists are not irrationalists in the sense that they deny the validity of logical argument and scientific reasoning. They simply question the ability of such reasoning to access the deep personal convictions that guide our lives.
Nietzsche has spoken eloquently of the loneliness of the individual who has risen above the herd.
As is often the case with existentialists, his personal life gave tragic witness to the price often demanded for such nonconformity as he sought in the manner of Socrates to harmonize his life with his teaching.
This teaches the existentialist lesson that our entire life is an ongoing choice and that the failure to choose is itself a choice for which we are equally responsible.
Thus Sartre speaks of a young man faced with the choice of staying in Nazi-occupied France with his mother, whose husband was suspected of collaboration and whose first son had been killed in the German offensive of 1940, or of leaving the country to fight with the Free French forces. Were he to seek advice from a party considered favourable to one or the other decision, he would in effect already have made his choice.
“Do it or don’t do it – you will regret both”.’
Existentialism is a philosophy of freedom, even if these thinkers do not agree on the precise meaning of that basic term.
The ‘error’ of free will, Nietzsche insists, is the belief that choice rather than physiological and cultural forces is the basis of our judgements of moral approval and disapproval.
This union of the noble and the beautiful can save us from ourselves as it did the Ancient Greeks; that is, from the despair arising out of our realization that the Universe does not care.
Nietzsche sees our current Judaeo-Christian ethics as the result of an exercise of will-to-power on the part of ‘slaves’ who reversed, or ‘transvalued’, an original ‘master’ morality.
In Nietzsche’s fabulous account, the original ‘pagan’ leaders subscribed to a life-affirming morality of the noble and the ignoble. These values were the very opposite of what we know as Judaeo-Christian morality. Motivated by ressentiment against the masters’ life-affirming and unvarnished exercise of will-to-power, Nietzsche hypothesizes, the priestly class of the slaves inverted the master’s values into their own categories of what today we call moral ‘good and evil’ by a covert exercise of will-to-power. Thus the masters’ good and bad (noble and ignoble) was transvalued into the slaves’ evil and good respectively. (less)
What the masters had considered good, the slaves condemned as evil and what they disdained as ignoble became the slaves’ ‘virtu... This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Nietzsche preaches a higher morality to the ‘free spirits’ which consists of a reversal of the slaves’ transvaluation such that selfishness is converted from a slavish vice to a masterly virtue and so forth. This new (or older) morality is thus ‘beyond good and evil’ of Judaeo-Chr... This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Now this much could have been gleaned by anyone who had read his masterwork, Being and Nothingness, published two years earlier. But that long and difficult book was not exactly a bestseller and, one could add, like Darwin’s The Origin of Species, it was more often cited than read. What made this lecture necessary was not only that it rendered more accessible many of the basic claims of the larger work, but that it attempted to answer the objections of Sartre’s leading critics from both the Communists and the Catholics that this new philosophy was the incarnation of bourgeois individualism and that it was totally insensitive to the demands of social justice felt by war-ravaged European society. In other words, the leading voice of existentialist thought was challenged to answer the claims that his was just another narcissistic opiate to divert the youth from the task of rebuilding a just society out of the ruins of the Fascist tragedy. Existentialism would lose its credibility to the larger public if it could not present a viable and relevant social philosophy.
Against the materialists, specifically the Marxist dialectical materialists, existentialism argues that the human being is more than the sum of physical, psychological, and social forces.
The choice of authenticity appears to be a moral decision. Jean-Paul Sartre
Not only does this mean that we are not disembodied spirits floating above the material universe like birds winging their way across the water; to exist in-situation underscores that we are an integral part of that universe and the cultural world that envelops it.
If we take ‘knowledge’ to denote reflective awareness, we can say that we are aware of more than we know.
Both the novelist and the poet intensify the awareness and responsibility of the agent. Again, these examples of authenticity are versions of Nietzsche’s transformation of the ‘it was’ into the ‘I willed it so’.
We spoke of the existentialist project of becoming an individual. Authenticity is a feature of the existentialist individual. In fact, existential individuality and authenticity seem to imply one another. One is no more born an individual (in the existentialist sense) than is one born authentic. To be truly authentic is to have realized one’s individuality and vice versa. Both existential ‘individuality’ and ‘authenticity’ are achievement words. The person who avoids choice, who becomes a mere face in the crowd or cog in the bureaucratic machine, has failed to become authentic. So we can now describe the person who lives his or her life as ‘they’ command or expect as being inauthentic.
Ideas can be systematized, life cannot. Attempting to live your life by relying on abstract, Hegelian philosophy, Kierkegaard scoffed, is like taking your laundry to a shop that announces ‘Washing Done’ and discovering that only the sign is for sale!
Like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche was more concerned with the formation of individuals than with the transformation of society.
One is not born a woman, one becomes one.
In effect, sex is not gender."
"We are born biological beings but we must become existential individuals by accepting responsibility for our actions. This is an application of Nietzsche’s advice to ‘become what you are’. Many people never do acknowledge such responsibility but rather flee their existential individuality into the comfort of the faceless crowd.
Shortly after the end of the war, Sartre delivered a public lecture entitled ‘Is Existentialism a Humanism?’ that rocked the intellectual life of Paris and served as a quasi-manifesto for the movement. From then on, existentialism was associated with a certain kind of humanistic philosophy that gives human beings and human values pride of place, and with critiques of alternative versions of humanism accepted at that time.
This is the practice of philosophy as ‘care of the self’ (epimeleia heautou). Its focus is on the proper way of acting rather than on an abstract set of theoretical truths.
The existentialists can be viewed as reviving this more personal notion of ‘truth’, a truth that is lived as distinct from and often in opposition to the more detached and scientific use of the term.
In other words, each philosopher realized that life does not follow the continuous flow of logical argument and that one often has to risk moving beyond the limits of the rational in order to live life to the fullest.
For the existentialist, the value and meaning of each temporal dimension of lived time is a function of our attitudes and choices.
If ‘time is of the essence’, and the existentialist will insist that it is, then part of who we are is our manner of living the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ of our existence, made concrete by how we handle our immersion in the everyday.
Five themes of existentialism There are five basic themes that the existentialist appropriates each in his or her own way. Rather than constituting a strict definition of ‘existentialist’, they depict more of a family resemblance (a criss-crossing and overlapping of the themes) among these philosophers.
1. Existence precedes essence. What you are (your essence) is the result of your choices (your existence) rather than the reverse. Essence is not destiny. You are what you make yourself to be.
2. Time is of the essence. We are fundamentally time-bound beings. Unlike measurable, ‘clock’ time, lived time is qualitative: the ‘not yet’, the ‘already’, and the ‘present... This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
3. Humanism. Existentialism is a person-centred philosophy. Though not anti-science, its focus is on the human individual’s pursuit of identity and meaning amidst the social and economic pressures of mass society for superficiality and conformism.
4. Freedom/responsibility. Existentialism is a philosophy of freedom. Its basis is the fact that we can stand back from our lives and reflect on what we have been doing. In this sense, we are always ‘more’ than ourselves. But we are as responsible as we are free.
5. Ethical considerations are paramount. Though each existentialist understands the ethic..
The existentialists are not irrationalists in the sense that they deny the validity of logical argument and scientific reasoning. They simply question the ability of such reasoning to access the deep personal convictions that guide our lives.
Nietzsche has spoken eloquently of the loneliness of the individual who has risen above the herd.
As is often the case with existentialists, his personal life gave tragic witness to the price often demanded for such nonconformity as he sought in the manner of Socrates to harmonize his life with his teaching.
This teaches the existentialist lesson that our entire life is an ongoing choice and that the failure to choose is itself a choice for which we are equally responsible.
Thus Sartre speaks of a young man faced with the choice of staying in Nazi-occupied France with his mother, whose husband was suspected of collaboration and whose first son had been killed in the German offensive of 1940, or of leaving the country to fight with the Free French forces. Were he to seek advice from a party considered favourable to one or the other decision, he would in effect already have made his choice.
“Do it or don’t do it – you will regret both”.’
Existentialism is a philosophy of freedom, even if these thinkers do not agree on the precise meaning of that basic term.
The ‘error’ of free will, Nietzsche insists, is the belief that choice rather than physiological and cultural forces is the basis of our judgements of moral approval and disapproval.
This union of the noble and the beautiful can save us from ourselves as it did the Ancient Greeks; that is, from the despair arising out of our realization that the Universe does not care.
Nietzsche sees our current Judaeo-Christian ethics as the result of an exercise of will-to-power on the part of ‘slaves’ who reversed, or ‘transvalued’, an original ‘master’ morality.
In Nietzsche’s fabulous account, the original ‘pagan’ leaders subscribed to a life-affirming morality of the noble and the ignoble. These values were the very opposite of what we know as Judaeo-Christian morality. Motivated by ressentiment against the masters’ life-affirming and unvarnished exercise of will-to-power, Nietzsche hypothesizes, the priestly class of the slaves inverted the master’s values into their own categories of what today we call moral ‘good and evil’ by a covert exercise of will-to-power. Thus the masters’ good and bad (noble and ignoble) was transvalued into the slaves’ evil and good respectively. (less)
What the masters had considered good, the slaves condemned as evil and what they disdained as ignoble became the slaves’ ‘virtu... This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Nietzsche preaches a higher morality to the ‘free spirits’ which consists of a reversal of the slaves’ transvaluation such that selfishness is converted from a slavish vice to a masterly virtue and so forth. This new (or older) morality is thus ‘beyond good and evil’ of Judaeo-Chr... This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Now this much could have been gleaned by anyone who had read his masterwork, Being and Nothingness, published two years earlier. But that long and difficult book was not exactly a bestseller and, one could add, like Darwin’s The Origin of Species, it was more often cited than read. What made this lecture necessary was not only that it rendered more accessible many of the basic claims of the larger work, but that it attempted to answer the objections of Sartre’s leading critics from both the Communists and the Catholics that this new philosophy was the incarnation of bourgeois individualism and that it was totally insensitive to the demands of social justice felt by war-ravaged European society. In other words, the leading voice of existentialist thought was challenged to answer the claims that his was just another narcissistic opiate to divert the youth from the task of rebuilding a just society out of the ruins of the Fascist tragedy. Existentialism would lose its credibility to the larger public if it could not present a viable and relevant social philosophy.
Against the materialists, specifically the Marxist dialectical materialists, existentialism argues that the human being is more than the sum of physical, psychological, and social forces.
The choice of authenticity appears to be a moral decision. Jean-Paul Sartre
Not only does this mean that we are not disembodied spirits floating above the material universe like birds winging their way across the water; to exist in-situation underscores that we are an integral part of that universe and the cultural world that envelops it.
If we take ‘knowledge’ to denote reflective awareness, we can say that we are aware of more than we know.
Both the novelist and the poet intensify the awareness and responsibility of the agent. Again, these examples of authenticity are versions of Nietzsche’s transformation of the ‘it was’ into the ‘I willed it so’.
We spoke of the existentialist project of becoming an individual. Authenticity is a feature of the existentialist individual. In fact, existential individuality and authenticity seem to imply one another. One is no more born an individual (in the existentialist sense) than is one born authentic. To be truly authentic is to have realized one’s individuality and vice versa. Both existential ‘individuality’ and ‘authenticity’ are achievement words. The person who avoids choice, who becomes a mere face in the crowd or cog in the bureaucratic machine, has failed to become authentic. So we can now describe the person who lives his or her life as ‘they’ command or expect as being inauthentic.
Ideas can be systematized, life cannot. Attempting to live your life by relying on abstract, Hegelian philosophy, Kierkegaard scoffed, is like taking your laundry to a shop that announces ‘Washing Done’ and discovering that only the sign is for sale!
Like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche was more concerned with the formation of individuals than with the transformation of society.
One is not born a woman, one becomes one.
In effect, sex is not gender."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 189 reviews