The essence of Sartre is found in a slim volume of just under 100 pages: Existentialism and Human Emotions. In a single sentence, Sartre turned several centuries of conventional thinking on its head: "Existence precedes essence". Sartre himself, however, credits Rene Descartes whose cogito ergo sum or, en francais, Je pense donc je suis; in English: "I think, therefore I am".
Sartre writes:
"For we mean that man first exists, that is, that man first of all is the being who hurls himself toward a future and who is conscious of imagining himself as being in the future. Man is at the start a plan which is aware of itself, rather than a patch of moss, a piece of garbage, or a cauliflower; nothing exists prior to this plan; there is nothing in heaven; man will be what he will have planned to be. Not what he will want to be. Because by the word "will" we generally mean a conscious decision, which is subsequent to what we have already made of ourselves."Existence precedes essence", therefore, strikes at the very heart of dogma, prejudice, pre-conceived notions of any sort, ideologies into which humankind is inclined to shoe-horn reality. Existentialism begins with a clean slate. The 'moving finger' may or may not write but most certainly does not dictate what we may or may not make of ourselves.
I may want to belong to a political party, write a book, get married; but all that is only a manifestation of an earlier, more spontaneous choice that is called "will." But if existence really does precede essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, existentialism's first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men."
--Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotions
In existentialism, therefore, there is no place to run, no place hide. It is the price we pay for being free. For that reason, existentialism is liberating. Man is no longer limited by theological notions of his origin with God's breath in the Garden or at the tip of God's finger, as depicted by Michelangelo's Sistine Ceiling. That 'man', alone, is responsible for what he is or becomes is the source of 'existential angst'. And also our freedom.
Existentialism is the enemy of dogma --religious, psuedo-scientific, political ideology. For that reason alone, existentialism is often, though fallaciously, identified with the political left-wing. The 'right wing' undermines itself from within, by what Sartre would call 'mauvaise foi', i.e., bad faith.
'Bad faith' was best illustrated by Bertolt Brecht who summed it up: "A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot; but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!" The photographer Richard Avedon was even more succinct: "You cannot expect another man to carry your shit!"
Thus 'bad faith' defines the 'crook' and, thus, the many American politicians who blame a universe of strawmen for their own failures --minorities, liberals, the world-wide communist conspiracy, Islamic 'terrorists' and left-wing subversives throughout the U.S. labor, anti-war and civil rights movements.
Existentialism is the philosophy that says --grow up! Stop making excuses! Stop blaming others! Existentialism is the tough-minded philosophy of no lies, no excuses, no bullshit!
Cogito ergo sum
Note: The Existentialist Cowboy is currently bombarded by spam from a lunatic name caller of the right wing ilk! Therefore, comments are moderated. Intelligent comments are, as always, welcome! Ad hominem attacks, spam and psychotic drivel is not! Eventually, the offending party will be committed to an asylum and we adults can once again engage in intelligent, articulate dialogue. Thanks for understanding.Bluebloggin
Subscribe
Add to Google
Add Cowboy Videos to Google
12 comments:
There is a flip side to the idea of existentialism that is often ignored. Religion is very intimately tied to the idea of predestination. Ancient pagan temples were built around oracles, and the biblical authors are revered because they were prophets(just another word for oracles really.) DIVINE when used as a verb means to see the future. So does ORDAIN - ordination is the ritual by which priests are given authority Indeed if you look at the Latin root of the word AUTHORITY you'll see that it comes from augere, in English augur. Knowing this gives us a new understanding of people who named themselves Augustus or Augustine.
So what's the real connection that's being taught along with the belief in God(s) and the afterlife? Look no further than the fact that religions originated in ancient caste societies, where status was determined by the circumstances of one's birth. Slave states, to be honest.
It is the most extraordinary thing for one person or a hereditary dynasty to assert that other people owe them fealty, military service, the paying of tithes etc., based on no better argument than 'Deus Gratia' - ie Divine Right. That and a list of begats somewhere could not possibly make for example Isaac Newton a Briton of less stature than any of the monarchs he was subject to - nor even all the monarchs in his lifetime.
As we know extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs - which are usually not forthcoming. All we get is what I'd call a presumptious assumption. Historically the substitute for any logical argument has been the brutal suppression of anyone with the temerity to question the ruling parties.
The idea of destiny is the absurd assertion that essence could possibly precede existence. Its historical usage including in particular the term Manifest Destiny as applied to 18th century America is so intimately connected to criminal and imperialist behavior that it should have been declared illegal long ago.
This point would be rendered esoteric, hardly worth mentioning, if it were not for the emergence of people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and movements like the Tea Partiers. The gullible provide fertile ground to be further fertilized with the bullshit of domination theology, which seems to me to be aimed at bringing back feudalism in a new multi-national corporate form.
sbt,what a piece! along with the len's instant condensed sartre...truer words can't find their way across the blogshere today. sbt, i think your last sentence pretty much sums up our current status, we are in for the fight of our life...these people are on a roll, beck & co. are the perfect tool these days. as economies and resources contract, the new age feudalism will be ushered in, we will see how well it all goes.
benmerc
SadButTrue said...
As we know extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs - which are usually not forthcoming. All we get is what I'd call a presumptious assumption.
'The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings!' Indeed! The rabid right, though wrong, is ascendant but not because of astrology. We are to blame and MUST take responsibility for the excuses and the bullshit.
Anonymous said...
...i think your last sentence pretty much sums up our current status, we are in for the fight of our life...these people are on a roll, beck & co. are the perfect tool these days. as economies and resources contract, the new age feudalism will be ushered in, we will see how well it all goes.
Indeed! We FIGHT and WIN ...or we perish! I dare not think of the world that will result.
BTW --GREAT COMMENTS, guys. And my humble thanks.
maybe it's time to move on from ancient philosophies that sepererate mind from body (and "life" from matter). Darwin is guilty of this too .. darwin's take on evolution has its foundation in psychology rather than physics (eg. competition/natural selection is the basis of evolution - this says more about the psychology of darwin and his era than evolution) - and Dawkins is a continuation.
Ultimately, reality-divorced philosophy has an idea of order-creating authority that comes from above (if not god explicitly, then the "life" or "mind" as surrogate god). eg. evolution occurs by order being imposed upon chaos. If god isn't doing it, then "life" or "mind" is doing it. Because otherwise dead matter just falls into chaos. But this implies a supernatural source for "mind" or "life" .. ie. god is implicit.
Reality based philosophies (thermodynamics, quantum mechanics) shows that self-created order emerges from chaotic potential - not authoritative planning. Mind is an emergent property of self-created order. The mind as an explicit directive force may be a convenient illusion. The peculiar quality of mind is that it believes it created the order out of which it emerges. (This is not to say we're not self-directed, but conscious mind may not work quite the way we believe)
It's time to check thermodynamics rather than philosophies disconnected from reality.
eg. Maximum Entropy Production
http://www.spontaneousorder.net/index.html
Center for the Ecological Study of Perception and Action, University of Connecticut
Anonymous said...
maybe it's time to move on from ancient philosophies that sepererate mind from body (and "life" from matter). Darwin is guilty of this too .. darwin's take on evolution has its foundation in psychology
No...Darwin is not based upon 'psychology'. Modern genetics is entirely consistent with physics at every level and SUPPORT Darwin --not refute or 'outdate' him. That is the thesis of my own 'A' paper at University.
Reality based philosophies (thermodynamics, quantum mechanics) shows that self-created order emerges from chaotic potential - not authoritative planning.
Again --I think you have missed the point of The Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). In any case, opponents of Darwin have claimed --of late --that Darwin's theory of evolution violates the Second Law (entropy). It DOES NOT. I may or may not write another paper on that but many physicists have already refuted that utter nonsense and there is no need for me to do anything more with what is just another OBVIOUS attempt by Darwin haters to PUKE UP another focus group approved PSUEDO SCIENCE to discredit him.
my very first point is - i love your stuff .. i'm not attacking. (I have a tech background so i made points in a crass, assertive way. So, i guess that may look like puking, i dunno 8-)
.. ok .. so .. there's no argument about the hard data of gentics and evolution. .. what i was attempting to point out about darwin is the interpretation of that data ..
When Darwin imagines what is the "purpose" of evolution and the means by which evolution fulfils that purpose - that is his reference to his psychology. Eg. competition/natural selection. He didn't make a ref to physics for purpose - his ref was his own psychology.
Darwin had the excuse of being immersed in an epoch that seperated mind from matter, and biology from physics. He didn't see the need to look into physics for causes because, for him, life is opposes dead matter. Life is it's own cause (fecundity). But we know better now. We don't need to fall back on cloaked supernatural (beyond physics) explanations for life.
The fundamental interpretation of evoltuion (deeper than the details of the mechanics of particular molecules) should go to physics, not psychology. Evolution is not a special case of the physical universe. There's more to evolution than genetics. Genetics is not the bottom line. Any "purpose" beyond physics we map onto molecules is a figment of our imagination. Those molecules fulfil their thermodynamic nature. It's **all** physics. And the ultimate physics for evolution is the second law of thermodynamics and Maximum Entropy Production.
Maximum Entropy Production and Flucutation Theorem are all that's needed to show order emerges from disorder. The law of MEP emerges from the 2nd law or thermodynamics - this is physics, not psychology. Physics validates against reality - the feeling that "it's right" isn't good enough. The feeling that "it's right" is a validation against psychology.
Mind (and life) aren't qualities seperate from matter or the laws of physics. The qualities of mind and life, along with order, are emergent from the laws of thermodynamics. The alternative is they're from a supernatural source.
I only (fairly) recently came across MEP, and it was a revelation to me. It put evolution on a firm physics foundation and left all the arm-waving qualitative mumbo-jumbo about the "purpose" of evolution and life behind.
Anonymous said...
When Darwin imagines what is the "purpose" of evolution and the means by which evolution fulfils that purpose - that is his reference to his psychology. Eg. competition/natural selection. He didn't make a ref to physics for purpose - his ref was his own psychology.
I am not aware of Darwin ever 'imagining' any such thing. I won't claim to have RECALLED every word ever said by Darwin, but --clearly --neither Darwin's theory of evolution or those refinements of it as a result of Mendel and, eventually, the science of genetics/nucleic acids is not in the least bit 'teleological' i.e, 'purposeful'. In fact, as my own paper pointed out: '...they (mutations, changes in code) occur randomly and cannot be said to have purpose.'
Basically, there is NO purpose to evolution. And if there were one, we could not possibly know it! There is no 'test', no experiment which could confirm this one way or the other.
Mutations, or, as some would describe them, 'random changes in DNA nucleotide sequences' are entirely random. Some survive. Others do not. Some have the effect of 'assisting' survival but this is apparent ONLY AFTER THE FACT! If a 'purpose' exists it cannot be known or assumed.
Mind (and life) aren't qualities seperate from matter or the laws of physics. The qualities of mind and life, along with order, are emergent from the laws of thermodynamics. The alternative is they're from a supernatural source.
Of course 'mind' is NOT separate from matter and the laws of physics but neither does it violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is NO 'net gain or loss' in entropy. There is no overall net change.
In fact, if one believes 'mind' to be an 'emergent' property, one must recognize the illusory nature of the the mind/body dichotomy. Descartes, himself, showed us the way with Cogito ergo sum French:Je pense donc je suis The 'cogito' is the origin of Sartre's existence precedes essence. To ascribe a 'purpose' to of any sort to evolution is get the cart before the horse. Knowing ourselves, as Descartes described, is simply to participate as a sentient being in a theoretically infinite recursive structure. But --again --there is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics or any part of 'physics' --else we would not be here in such a manner that we are, in fact, aware of our own existences.
If the emergence of 'nucleic acids' is a violation of the Second Law, then so is the existence of water --for us a very happy combination of Hydrogen and Oxygen. But --again --the efficacy of this combination is known only after the fact; it is not teleological nor is it a violation of the second law.
Ergo: the false claim that 'evolution' violates the Second Law is the SAME fallacy as the 'Argument from Design'. 'Design' is deemed to be a violation of the Second Law. But --as I have pointed out: both the design and the apparent 'violation' are illusory. There is NO design, NO violation. 'DESIGN' is but our subjective reaction to what is already existent.
Anonymous said...
When Darwin imagines what is the "purpose" of evolution and the means by which evolution fulfils that purpose - that is his reference to his psychology. Eg. competition/natural selection. He didn't make a ref to physics for purpose - his ref was his own psychology.
I am not aware of Darwin ever 'imagining' any such thing. I won't claim to have RECALLED every word ever said by Darwin, but --clearly --neither Darwin's theory of evolution or those refinements of it as a result of Mendel and, eventually, the science of genetics/nucleic acids is not in the least bit 'teleological' i.e, 'purposeful'. In fact, as my own paper pointed out: '...they (mutations, changes in code) occur randomly and cannot be said to have purpose.'
Basically, there is NO purpose to evolution. And if there were one, we could not possibly know it! There is no 'test', no experiment which could confirm this one way or the other.
Mutations, or, as some would describe them, 'random changes in DNA nucleotide sequences' are entirely random. Some survive. Others do not. Some have the effect of 'assisting' survival but this is apparent ONLY AFTER THE FACT! If a 'purpose' exists it cannot be known or assumed.
Mind (and life) aren't qualities seperate from matter or the laws of physics. The qualities of mind and life, along with order, are emergent from the laws of thermodynamics. The alternative is they're from a supernatural source.
Of course 'mind' is NOT separate from matter and the laws of physics but neither does it violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is NO 'net gain or loss' in entropy. There is no overall net change.
In fact, if one believes 'mind' to be an 'emergent' property, one must recognize the illusory nature of the the mind/body dichotomy. Descartes, himself, showed us the way with Cogito ergo sum French:Je pense donc je suis The 'cogito' is the origin of Sartre's existence precedes essence. To ascribe a 'purpose' to of any sort to evolution is get the cart before the horse. Knowing ourselves, as Descartes described, is simply to participate as a sentient being in a theoretically infinite recursive structure. But --again --there is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics or any part of 'physics' --else we would not be here in such a manner that we are, in fact, aware of our own existences.
If the emergence of 'nucleic acids' is a violation of the Second Law, then so is the existence of water --for us a very happy combination of Hydrogen and Oxygen. But --again --the efficacy of this combination is known only after the fact; it is not teleological nor is it a violation of the second law.
Ergo: the false claim that 'evolution' violates the Second Law is the SAME fallacy as the 'Argument from Design'. 'Design' is deemed to be a violation of the Second Law. But --as I have pointed out: both the design and the apparent 'violation' are illusory. There is NO design, NO violation. 'DESIGN' is but our subjective reaction to what is already existent.
A final point --the assertion that EVOLUTION violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not merely wrong, it's wrong-headed! I could forgive that! But -I might be willing to wager --it was COOKED UP by a 'think tank', the HERITAGE FOUNDATION, perhaps!
It was the HERITAGE FOUNDATION that was 'offended' when I utterly REFUTED their last 'project', their last flirtation with PSEUDO SCIENCE: 'Intelligent Design'!
'Intelligent Design' is, as I stated, the product of a THINK TANK ---not peer-reviewed science. It was not PEER-REVIEWED but tested for its 'sales appeal'.
So --the opponents of Darwin have apparently sucked it up and decided to try another approach. This time, they have really LAID AN EGG and, in doing so, have violated the Cowboy's SECOND LAW OF FOCUS GROUP BULLSHIT: If at first you cannot fool the people, TRY a SECOND TIME!
Sorry --I'm not buying it and when I can pin this on Heritage, I WILL!
Entropy
"The concept of entropy is fundamental to understanding the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy (or more specifically, increase in entropy) is defined as heat (in calories or Btu's) absorbed by a system, divided by the absolute temperature of the system at the time the heat is absorbed. Absolute temperature is the number of degrees above "absolute zero", the coldest temperature that can exist.
The total entropy in a system is represented by the symbol S. The symbol S is used to represent a given change in the entropy content of a system. If the symbol q is used to represent the amount of heat absorbed by a system, the equation for the resulting entropy increase is:
S = q/T (1)
Where T is the absolute temperature. When heat is absorbed, the entropy of a system increases; when heat flows out of a system, its entropy decreases." --The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability Copyright © 1995-1997 by Frank Steiger
NOW --I will not be 'entertaining' anymore PROPAGANDA the source of which is most probably Heritage or some other marginal group.
Post a Comment