Transcript Existential - WordPress.com

Existential anxiety
IB Philosophy Core Theme:
What is a human being?
What is existentialism?
• Existentialism is that branch of philosophy which is
concerned with the problems of human existence: how we
respond to our isolation as individuals, how we find meaning
for our existence, how we can be ourselves authentically, and
how we can take responsibility for our own individual
actions.
• Existentialism as a formal branch of philosophy is associated
with the writings of a number of famous philosophers,
including: Søren Kierkegaard, Martin Heidegger, Karl Jaspers,
Jean-Paul Sartre and Hannah Arendt.
• The term ‘existentialism’ was popularised by Sartre, although
Heidegger had previously written on similar themes in terms
of Dasein (‘being’), while Jaspers wrote of Existenz.
• A peculiarity of existentialism is that it seems to have
inspired a movement in literature and art, and so the
‘existential novel’ of figures such as Camus is just as much a
reflection of existential concerns as is the formal philosophy
of Heidegger et al.
What is the problem of angst?
• Existentialism is often described as a philosophy of ‘angst’
– a word taken from German / Scandinavian languages to
refer to feelings of intense strife and uncertainty.
Existentialism essentially addresses this problem of angst,
seeking a way through the despair or fear which comes
through individual existence.
• The term was introduced by the Danish philosopher
Kierkegaard, who suggested that we can only overcome
the disquiet of life and find our identity by taking a leap of
faith. It is only a relationship with God which can bestow
identity upon the individual.
• The German philosopher Heidegger later took on the term
to refer to a sense of unease at the structure of one’s life;
this reveals our own responsibility for determining the
structure of our lives.
• So, the question for this topic is: how do we overcome
angst and give genuine meaning to our existence?
Kierkegaard: faith in response to angst
• Søren Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher of the early 19th
century, publishing numerous books and pamphlets
throughout the 1840’s. He is widely regarded as the ‘father’
of existentialism, setting out themes for philosophy which
later crystallised in the works of Heidegger and Sartre.
• Kierkegaard was the product of a harsh and isolated
childhood. His mother, sisters, and two of his brothers all
died before his 21st birthday. His father was a distant and yet
religiously fervent figure. Kierkegaard came to see despair
and angst as characteristic features of life, and in many ways
his philosophy can be seen simply as an attempt to overturn
these problems.
• Unlike later (humanist) existentialists, Kierkegaard came to
see God as the only possible solution to angst: faith is the key
by which an individual can invest meaning into life,
overcoming the despair which is inherent in the human
condition.
Kierkegaard’s critique of idealism
HEGEL
KIERKEGAARD
• To understand Kierkegaard, you must also appreciate the views
which he rejects. At the time, continental philosophy was
dominated by Wilhelm Hegel’s system of ‘absolute idealism’.
Hegel put forward the view that ideas in human consciousness
have ultimate reality and that history reflects the human
struggle to gain self-consciousness. Thus, God exists as a pure
theoretical ideal, as ‘absolute Spirit’. God simply is what we get
when humans become truly self-aware.
• Kierkegaard thought that this theoretical model of God was
monstrous, since it is neither personal nor truly the object of
faith. Faith is not theoretical: “faith begins precisely where
thinking leaves off.”
• Kierkegaard was opposed to idealism on a personal, ethical
level. He believed that abstract arguments could only provide a
weak appreciation of God; there would never be sufficient
justification for absolute commitment. The whole point of faith
is that it can be doubted and so belief becomes a great risk –
an individual’s courageous leap into the unknown.
Kierkegaard on Abraham
Fear and Trembling
“No one was as great
as Abraham; who is
able to understand
him?”
• In his short book Fear and Trembling Kierkegaard expresses
his admiration for Abraham, who acts out of faithfulness
despite the apparent absurdity of what God demands: the
sacrifice of his son Isaac.
• Abraham is a moral hero, willing to act as an individual alone
in the teeth of a paradox: God has promised that he will make
a great nation out of Abraham, but demands the death of his
son. By willing to accept the absurdity of his situation and act
with conviction, Abraham emerges as a ‘knight of faith’.
• Since Abraham is willing to act on ‘the strength of the absurd’,
his decision is wholly individual and so cannot make sense
from the point of view of philosophical idealism. It is an
existential choice. Kierkegaard praises Abraham for his
willingness to make a stark choice out of his problematic
situation: he could give up on God, or have genuine faith.
• An underlying concept here is what Kierkegaard calls the
‘teleological suspension of the ethical’. That is, Kierkegaard
suggests that the apparent wrongness of sacrificing Isaac is
overruled by the absolute demand of personal faith. One has
to be true to one’s decision and faith. This is somewhat
comparable to Sartre’s understanding of authenticity.
Criticisms of Kierkegaard
• Kierkegaard has been accused of fideism – allowing
faith to triumph over all other considerations, even
abolishing reason. Surely this type of existentialism
could be used to justify any type belief, no matter
how absurd.
• Kierkegaard assumes that isolation and absurdity are
inevitable features of the human condition, but they
reflect his life story in a peculiar way. Many humans
exist with a profound sense of connection with
others, so Abraham’s situation is hardly typical of the
human experience.
• Kierkegaard attempts to solve the problem of
existential anxiety with the idea of a transcendent
God, but this idea may have lost its force. As
Nietzsche said, ‘God is dead’.
Sartre: authenticity in response to
freedom and anxiety
• 20th century Parisian philosopher and dramatist Jean-Paul
Sartre took a very different approach to the problem of
existential anxiety.
• Sartre took on many of the ideas first raised by Kierkegaard:
the isolation of the individual, the radical freedom of
individual choice, and the necessity of whole-hearted decision.
Responsibility remained a key ingredient in response to angst.
• The difficulty and fear of human existence is well illustrated in
Sartre’s play No Exit. This skilfully explores the philosophical
theme of people living in ‘bad faith’ – the characters Garcin
and Estelle try to hide from their own actions and choices.
They look to others, rather than themselves, to validate or
approve their choices. For Sartre, the response to existential
doubt must be chosen and accepted by oneself. It always turns
upon the self, rather than God.
Summary of Sartre’s
Existentialism and Human Emotions
• Sartre gives clear expression to his views on human nature
in his work Existentialism and Human Emotions.
• Existentialism is defined by the slogan ‘existence precedes
essence’. That means, we have no fixed nature which
controls what we are or what we do, we are radically free to
act, we create our own human nature through choice, and
we also create our values through choices.
• In other words, we make and define ourselves as human
beings through a free act of self-creation.
• So, the human situation is characterised by facticity
(throwness), anxiety, and despair. We exist in a world not of
our own making, we lack an external source of values and
have the heavy responsibility of choosing our values.
• Despite the anxiety of existentialism, Sartre sees a positive
side, because if we create our own meaning, then this could
not be taken away by any external forces.
Authenticity
• So, Sartre’s view of authenticity is very different from the
Christian existentialism of Kierkegaard, for example.
• The problem is the same: the isolation and anxiety that comes
from finding ourselves in a world without obvious external
values or universal philosophical truths.
• However, while Kierkegaard suggests that we give ourselves
over to God in faith, Sartre puts forward a purely selfmotivated approach. We have to be authentic in ourselves,
without the external influence of God.
• If the only moral is to act authentically, however, this might
suggest that Sartre is proposing a moral nihilism: we can do
whatever we want. Sartre tries to solve this problem by
suggesting that we should choose a human nature for all
humanity. We must act in a way as we would expect free
agents to act, and act in the same way that we would like other
people to act.
“My freedom is
the unique
foundation of
values”
“God is absence.
God is the
solitude of man.”
Criticisms of Sartre
• Sartre fails to overcome the criticism of moral
nihilism, despite his claim that we could choose
a common human nature. Sartre provides no
means for criticising others or holding them
accountable, so long as they are ‘authentic’.
• Charles Taylor argues against the idea of
producing an authentic nature in isolation – a
monologue within the self. Taylor claims that it
is only possible to carve out a real identity by
being open to the influence of others – a
‘dialogical’ approach.
• Sartre’s central claim ‘existence precedes
essence’ is questionable on a scientific level;
aspects of human nature are determined
clearly by physical factors.
Hannah Arendt: The Human Condition
• The German Jewish political theorist and philosopher Hannah
Arendt was intimately connected with some of the great thinkers
of 20th century existentialism; she had been the lover of Martin
Heidegger (who later, to her disgust, supported the Nazis) and
was a close personal friend of the philosopher-psychologist Karl
Jaspers. Arendt herself had to flee Germany to escape the Nazi
persecutions. These experiences shaped her political and
existential thought.
• In her book The Human Condition, Arendt identifies the problem
of existence in the modern world as typified by the “loss of the
world”: the eclipsing of the public sphere of tradition and agreed
values in favour of a private sphere of introspection and the
private pursuit of economic interests. We live as individuals.
• For Arendt, modernity is an age in which the past now has no
certain evaluation; we are not sure of where life comes from or
what it means. Humanity must now search for new grounds for a
human community. In other words, anxiety and isolation must be
overcome.
‘Action’ and human existence
• Human existence in the modern world is seen as reduced to an
obsession with productivity and consumption. We have turned
into a society of labourers and jobholders who no longer
appreciate the values associated with work, nor those associated
with action.
• Arendt, then, wished to recover the idea of ‘action’ as an
important factor in human existence against what she saw as the
meaninglessness of modern, political life. She argued in favour of
the ancient Greek concept of action (praxis), linking it to freedom
and plurality, and understanding it as a mode of human
togetherness. This supports participatory democracy, against the
totalitarianism which Arendt had witnessed in Europe.
• Arendt argued for the freedom of human action as the capacity
to begin something new. Meaning can be given to life not simply
through choosing between alternatives, but in the freedom of
starting something. This is like an act of giving birth to new
possibilities, what Arendt called the principle of ‘natality’.
“The fact that man is
capable of action
means that the
unexpected can be
expected from him,
that he is able to
perform what is
infinitely improbable.
And this again is
possible only because
each man is unique,
so that with each
birth something
uniquely new comes
into the world.”
The ‘plurality’ of action
• The other key aspect of action is its ‘plurality’. The introduction of
something new (natality) cannot be performed in isolation, claimed
Arendt, for action needs plurality in the same way that performers
need an audience. Only the presence and acknowledgement of
others makes an activity meaningful.
• Arendt reminded her readers: “Men, not Man, live on the earth and
inhabit the world.” Plurality, then, refers to our capacity to relate to
others in ways that are unique and distinctive. Human affairs is the
realm of complex actions and interactions.
• By contrast with Sartre, Hannah Arendt’s solution to the problem of
anxiety and despair was not as ethical and personal, but rather was
very much political. Arendt saw the solution to the meaninglessness
and isolation of modern life in terms of the human capacity for free
and completely new action in the plurality of a human society.
Arendt’s existentialism is not a matter of what one chooses to be,
but what one does in society. Engagement in the affairs of the
community offers a form of freedom and happiness, but also the
sense of political agency and influence.
“Action without
a name, a who
attached to it, is
meaningless.”
The banality of evil
• Arendt remains best known for coining the term ‘the banality of
evil’ while reporting on Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem
• By this, Arendt did not mean that the Eichmann’s actions were
themselves banal; rather she meant that Eichmann himself was
banal: a completely uninteresting bureaucrat, filled with no ideology
or hatred for anyone, who simply wanted to get ahead, and was
quite literally willing to walk over corpses in order to do this. Arendt
was therefore making a more subtle and significant point about the
nature of evil which she inferred from her study of Eichmann’s trial:
evil itself is not some powerful alien force. Rather it’s something that
each and every one of us is capable of doing, and of allowing to
happen.
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHIDPP77jD8
• See if you can identify the existentialist themes in this clip from the
film, Hannah Arendt, in which Arendt defends her use of the term
‘banality of evil’.
Criticisms of Arendt
• Arendt’s claim that we have experienced a ‘loss of
the world’ is unduly pessimistic. Many examples
can be found to show that civil cohesion can still
be very strong and that society displays significant
shared values.
• Arendt’s emphasis on the plurality of action limits
freedom in a way that pure individualism would
not – it requires cooperation with and recognition
from other people. There is less scope for
originality here than in Nietzsche’s concept of the
will, for example, where the self is not limited by
the opinions and preferences of others.
• The idea of collective action is easily perverted or
misrepresented by political elites or in totalitarian
regimes – how do we tell whether it’s genuine?
Evaluating existentialism:
giving life a meaning
• Existentialism attempts to base philosophy on the
apparent isolation of the individual, which presents
the problem of how life could be meaningful.
However, it is important to question this
assumption. Is Kierkegaard right in saying that we
are like Abraham on the lonely mountain? Is Sartre
correct to say that “hell is other people”?
• Existentialism proposes that the individual has total
freedom in self-determinism, to choose one’s own
human nature. However, determinist arguments
call that into question. Are we really radically free?
• Does life really have no intrinsic meaning, other
than what we make of it? Could there be a way of
arguing for an objective purpose to life?
Essay task
Write a response (of approximately 800
words) in which you:
• identify a central philosophical
concept or philosophical issue that
addresses the question,
“what is a human being?”
• explore two different philosophical
approaches to the philosophical
concept or philosophical issue you
identified
• explain and evaluate the philosophical
concept or philosophical issue you
identified.
“If there were no eternal
consciousness in a man, if at
the bottom of everything
there were only a wild
ferment, a power that twisting
in dark passions produced
everything great or
inconsequential; if an
unfathomable, insatiable
emptiness lay hid beneath
everything, what would life be
but despair?”