Difference between revisions of "2010 Fall Proseminar Class Notesb"
Kobywarren (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
I could be completely wrong about this, so if anyone has any ideas or knows anything about Jaspers, please add it.--[[User:Jjohnson9|Jjohnson9]] 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC) | I could be completely wrong about this, so if anyone has any ideas or knows anything about Jaspers, please add it.--[[User:Jjohnson9|Jjohnson9]] 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Criticisms of Existentialism=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Incase anyone comes up with any... | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Criticism of Heidegger and Sarte==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | A philosopher named Robert Scruton wrote criticisms of Sarte and Heidegger. He points out a contradiction in both Heidegger's theory of "inauthenticity" and Sarte's theory of "bad faith." For Scruton, the contradiction lies in the fact that both concepts seem to pass judgement on lifestyles. In their conceptual framework, both philosophers scrap the concept of a priori meaning to human life. As a result, it would seem that the implication of this is that you cannot pass judgement on anyone. Therefore, concepts of "inauthenticity" and "bad faith" seem to inadvertently suggest that there is indeed a "correct" way to live one's life. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :in my opinion, i think that this is a bit of a stretch to make, especially when dealing with Sarte. Sarte basis his idea of Bad faith on the rejection of one's existential responsibilities. Sarte doesn't really pass judgement. Its more like he is just pointing out that these people are rejecting the nature of their own existence. Besides, whether or not one finds this reprehensible isn't necessarily a contradiction. For Sarte, the individual decides for himself what has meaning. Sarte is simply acting in accordance to his own definition of meaning. He applies this standard to others because according to him, that is what man does when he chooses. He choses not only for himself, but for everyone. | ||
Revision as of 01:17, 10 October 2010
Contents
October 12, 2010
Suggestions for finding contributions to Existentialism seminar
- Track the main tenets or principles that come up in authoritative reference sources.
- Pick a figure based on your browsing of the range of existentialisms. Try to represent their thought in a post or provide a link or resource to read.
- Existentialism has many critics. Research the reactions of existentialism thought from the mid-20th century. Report briefly.
- Research "existential psychology"
- Read a work of existential literature, such as a story from Camus, or Sartre's "No Exit"
Free books on Camus and Sartre
I would recommend Sartre work Intimacy it is a collection of short stories including
Intimacy
The Wall
The Room
Erostratus
The Childhood of a Leader
Particularly the last listed is very interesting and I think little read. Also the entire book is only around 130 pages, so it is, if not an easy read, at least a quick read.
Videos
Human, All Too Human : Nietzsche (1999) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-184240591461103528&hl
Sartre the road to freedom
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=3552873038348468860&hl
Martin Heidegger
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-858369328131624007&hl=en
Camus
The Myth of Sisyphus
So i decided to take a look at Camus', "The Myth of Sisyphus." In this book, Camus seems to assume Sarte's maxim: Existence precedes essence. For Camus, the implications of this statement are clear. With the lack of an a priori meaning to human existence, there leaves no real justification. Therefore, Camus concludes that the notion of human life is "absurd" and thus completely devoid of justification. Early in this book, Camus poses two scenarios that one may choose in response to the absurdity of life... either to make a leap of faith in God or to commit suicide.
For Camus, suicide seems like a rational approach to this problem. However, he offers a third explanation: to defy the absurdity of life. For Camus, this third option suggests that man is capable of recognizing the absurdity of life. In recognizing it, he is capable of actively choosing to defy it and live life to its fullest. One such way that we can live life to the fullest is to collect as many diverse experiences as one possible can throughout their life.
Camus illustrates what he means using the myth of Sisyphus. In mythology, Sisyphus is damned to perpetually push a large rock up a hill. Day in and day out he toils at it. For Camus, human existence is much like Sisyphus' fate. Doomed to habit and monotony without any real discernible or justifiable goal, Sisyphus realizes that he can never reach his goal. However, he recognizes it and live with it. He defies his fate by living with it and finding happiness. This is what Camus believes we should do as beings.
Camus is an existentialist because he assumes many of the fundamental credos of human subjectivity and lack of an "a priori". For Camus, it is an existential "choice" for everyone to find meaning in life. He places the burden of meaning solely on the human individual rather than on any other entity.
Please feel free to add anything or change anything if you feel that i may have misrepresented Camus in any way.Kobywarren 06:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Karl Jaspers
I decided to do a little research on Karl Jaspers because I just stumbled on his name. I have never heard of this philosopher before and thought it would be interesting to learn about. Most of the videos and stuff that are online are in German so I can't really understand them. I found an article about him in which I will pick out what I think are the main points. (I would have bought the book, but I wouldn't have received it until Wednesday)
Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) first went to college to become a doctor and graduated in 1908. He went back to school in 1913 for psychology. Jaspers became interested in philosophy in his 40s. Most of his publications were under a ban in 1938 and he was constantly at risk for his life and works while Hitler was dictator.
In one of Jaspers' books, "The Idea of the University" the third edition, he talked about the relationship between science and philosophy. At one point he says science and philosophy "differ by nature in their origins, methods and understanding of truth."
After understanding his view on science and philosophy, it seemed easier to understand his "all-embracing" idea. This idea comes from his lectures on "Reason and Existence" in 1935. The example that he uses to explain this thought is "an invisible horizon from which all new horizons emerge rather than as something that is itself directly perceptible." I'm not sure if I am reading this correctly but I believe by this he is talking about being and that it is not possible to completely understand being (human being) but it is possible to understand parts of it because we can look into and study other beings. I think that he wants us to be more open to all beings not just looking into one kind of being in order to be able to find some self-discovery.
I could be completely wrong about this, so if anyone has any ideas or knows anything about Jaspers, please add it.--Jjohnson9 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Criticisms of Existentialism
Incase anyone comes up with any...
Criticism of Heidegger and Sarte
A philosopher named Robert Scruton wrote criticisms of Sarte and Heidegger. He points out a contradiction in both Heidegger's theory of "inauthenticity" and Sarte's theory of "bad faith." For Scruton, the contradiction lies in the fact that both concepts seem to pass judgement on lifestyles. In their conceptual framework, both philosophers scrap the concept of a priori meaning to human life. As a result, it would seem that the implication of this is that you cannot pass judgement on anyone. Therefore, concepts of "inauthenticity" and "bad faith" seem to inadvertently suggest that there is indeed a "correct" way to live one's life.
- in my opinion, i think that this is a bit of a stretch to make, especially when dealing with Sarte. Sarte basis his idea of Bad faith on the rejection of one's existential responsibilities. Sarte doesn't really pass judgement. Its more like he is just pointing out that these people are rejecting the nature of their own existence. Besides, whether or not one finds this reprehensible isn't necessarily a contradiction. For Sarte, the individual decides for himself what has meaning. Sarte is simply acting in accordance to his own definition of meaning. He applies this standard to others because according to him, that is what man does when he chooses. He choses not only for himself, but for everyone.
