Serious Existence

[skies]

Hello, I'd like to bring up existence and everything about it. These are my personal thoughts, I'm fascinated in yours. Anyways, I've been thinking for a while: "why is anything anything?" Why did however we get here happen, why did the human race get put here, and why do various things happen to us? What brought us here and who were the first humans? Personally, I'm not religious whatsoever and do not believe in the whole "Adam and Eve" thing (I find it to just be a cheap reason tbh). There has to be some reason the world is the way it is. We've evolved and evolved, but why? Why would we evolve? What purpose is there for us to even be on this world? Is there a greater reason than humans being on Earth that is unheard of? Basically, it's hard to put into words, but I'm trying my best. To sum it up: why are we even here? That brings me to my next point, pain. What causes pain and why do we even feel it? Why do we have to suffer while others live in happiness? Why did the first person decide to influence summon to commit suicide? Why are we even wired in with pain and feelings? The whole concept is just really meh imo and I'm not quite acceptant with the religion excuse for this. Also, I'd like to talk about death and how people perceive it.

Death is a terrifying subject, the existence of one person coming to an end is a horrible thought to think about. But some perceive it differently than others, some find it quite interesting. I'd like to share my personal stories and thoughts on death. Death has always scared me, I'm a very closed person irl and prefer to not do anything dangerous. Anyways, I began questioning death at some point. I asked the obvious questions, "where do we go?", "what happens to us?", etc. But, I got to thinking the big picture "why?" Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do we even die in the first place? Why do we believe in heaven? If people die, they die, it's simple as that, there's no bringing them back. But, what if people didn't die? What if immortality was an option for anyone, and they had the own choice to die whenever they had felt like it? That would be an intriguing option, unsure how it would work. Basically, why is death the way it is?

TL;DR: Why are we here and why is death the way it is?

 

[Myzozoa]

Sartre argued that an individual exists prior to any definition, thus they must create their own meaning through action. In this sense, individuals were not 'designed' for anything. This is what Sartre means when he says 'God has abandoned Man', for if God does not exist there is no necessary purpose to an individual's existence. And if God does exist, it is in no way obvious that individuals have the ability to divine his intentions in creating man. Therefore, God has abandoned individuals to create their own meanings for existence.

Hide

The existentialist cannot accept that man can be helped by any sign on earth, for he will
interpret the sign as he chooses. As Ponge has truly written "Man is the future of man".

To give you an example of this 'abandonment', I will quote the case of one of my pupils who
came to me. He lived alone with his mother, his father having gone off as a collaborator and his
brother killed in 1940. He had a choice - to go and fight with the Free French to avenge his
brother and protect his nation, or to stay and be his mother's only consolation.

So he was confronted by two modes of action; one concrete and immediate but directed only towards
one single individual; the other addressed to an infinitely greater end but very ambiguous.
What would help him choose? Christian doctrine? Accepted morals? Kant?
I said to him, "In the end, it is your feelings which count". But how can we put a value on a
feeling?

At least, you may say, he sought the counsel of a professor. But, if you seek advice, from a
priest for example, in choosing which priest you know already, more or less, what they would
advise.

When I was imprisoned, I met a rather remarkable man, a Jesuit who had joined that order in
the following way: As a child, his father had died leaving him in poverty. At school he was made
to feel that he was accepted only for charity's sake and denied the usual pleasures. At eighteen
he came to grief in a sentimental affair and then failed his military examinations. He could
regard himself as a total failure, but, cleverly, took it as a sign that the religious life was the way
for him.

He saw the word of God there, but who can doubt that the decision was his and his
alone? He could as easily have chosen to be a carpenter or a revolutionary.

As for 'despair', this simply means that we will restrict ourselves to relying only on our own will,
or on the probabilities which make our action possible. If I am counting on the arrival of a
friend, I presuppose that their train will be on time. But I am still among possibilities, outside
my own field of action. No God, no intention, is going to alter the world to my will.

In the end, Descartes meant the same, that we must act without hope.

Marxists have answered "Your action is limited by your death, but you can rely on others to
later take up your deeds and carry them forward to the revolution". To this I rejoin that I cannot
know where the revolution will lead. Others may come and establish Fascism. Does that mean
that I must give up myself to quietism? No!

Quietism is the attitude of people who say: "let others do what I cannot do". The doctrine that I
present is precisely the opposite: there is reality only in the action; and more, man is nothing
other than his own project and exists only in as far as he carries it out.

From this we see why our ideas so often cause horror. Many people have but one resource to
sustain them in their misery; to think, "circumstances were against me, I was worthy of better. I
had no great love because I never met anyone worthy of me. I wrote no great book because I
had no time. I am filled with a crowd of possibilities greater than anyone could guess from my
few achievements."

 

[KM]

Sartre argued that an individual exists prior to any definition, thus they must create their own meaning through action. In this sense, individuals were not 'designed' for anything. This is what Sartre means when he says 'God has abandoned Man', for if God does not exist there is no necessary purpose to an individual's existence. And if God does exist, it is in no way obvious that individuals have the ability to divine his intentions in creating man. Therefore, God has abandoned individuals to create their own meanings for existence.

Hide

The existentialist cannot accept that man can be helped by any sign on earth, for he will
interpret the sign as he chooses. As Ponge has truly written "Man is the future of man".

To give you an example of this 'abandonment', I will quote the case of one of my pupils who
came to me. He lived alone with his mother, his father having gone off as a collaborator and his
brother killed in 1940. He had a choice - to go and fight with the Free French to avenge his
brother and protect his nation, or to stay and be his mother's only consolation.

So he was confronted by two modes of action; one concrete and immediate but directed only towards
one single individual; the other addressed to an infinitely greater end but very ambiguous.
What would help him choose? Christian doctrine? Accepted morals? Kant?
I said to him, "In the end, it is your feelings which count". But how can we put a value on a
feeling?

At least, you may say, he sought the counsel of a professor. But, if you seek advice, from a
priest for example, in choosing which priest you know already, more or less, what they would
advise.

When I was imprisoned, I met a rather remarkable man, a Jesuit who had joined that order in
the following way: As a child, his father had died leaving him in poverty. At school he was made
to feel that he was accepted only for charity's sake and denied the usual pleasures. At eighteen
he came to grief in a sentimental affair and then failed his military examinations. He could
regard himself as a total failure, but, cleverly, took it as a sign that the religious life was the way
for him.

He saw the word of God there, but who can doubt that the decision was his and his
alone? He could as easily have chosen to be a carpenter or a revolutionary.

As for 'despair', this simply means that we will restrict ourselves to relying only on our own will,
or on the probabilities which make our action possible. If I am counting on the arrival of a
friend, I presuppose that their train will be on time. But I am still among possibilities, outside
my own field of action. No God, no intention, is going to alter the world to my will.

In the end, Descartes meant the same, that we must act without hope.

Marxists have answered "Your action is limited by your death, but you can rely on others to
later take up your deeds and carry them forward to the revolution". To this I rejoin that I cannot
know where the revolution will lead. Others may come and establish Fascism. Does that mean
that I must give up myself to quietism? No!

Quietism is the attitude of people who say: "let others do what I cannot do". The doctrine that I
present is precisely the opposite: there is reality only in the action; and more, man is nothing
other than his own project and exists only in as far as he carries it out.

From this we see why our ideas so often cause horror. Many people have but one resource to
sustain them in their misery; to think, "circumstances were against me, I was worthy of better. I
had no great love because I never met anyone worthy of me. I wrote no great book because I
had no time. I am filled with a crowd of possibilities greater than anyone could guess from my
few achievements."

as a complete philosophy noob that has some interest in the field, does sartre's pov on this at all relate to neitzsche's "god is dead" exclamation in the gay science? from my basic knowledge, this referred more to the non-belief in a god leading to the invalidation of moral codes, and was more nihilistic, but there definitely seems to be some of that in sartre too. Is "god has abandoned individuals to create their own meanings for existence" just a slightly more optimistic variation on "if individuals abandon god, there is no meaning for existence / morality"?

 

[Woodchuck]

I'm not sure if "if individuals abandon god, there is no meaning for existence / morality" is an accurate depiction of Sartre's philosophy. It's not necessarily pessimistic -- the idea behind existentialism is there is no inherent meaning to existence, whether from God or from any other source; we as individuals have the freedom to choose and define our own meaning for existence. Similarly, when Nietzsche says "God is dead," he means that humanity no longer uses God as a shield from this existential angst--we are past using religion to escape the fact that only we can determine what is meaningful.

I really miss vBulletin's ability to hide signatures on posts, because this signature is not conducive to philosophical discussions...

 

[Myzozoa]

I'll start by saying that interpretations of Nietzsche are contentious, and various arguments that Nietzsche makes are routinely bastardized. The question you asked was 'does this refer to the non-belief in a god leading to the invalidation of moral codes?', and if you mean that a belief in God will change/affect the norms (such as ethical or legal norms) of society, then yes. Morality is not properly 'invalidatable' in Nietzsche's understanding of morality, but you asked about moral codes, and Nietzsche would certainly agree that a lack of belief in a god will affect society's moral codes. For Nietzsche, morality is properly something produced by actions, such as the passing of laws, the creation of institutions such as courts, prisons, and schools. Spreading a new ideology is one way of changing morality for Nietzsche. Thus, he inquired into the ways in which ethical norms change when god is removed from moralities. In the sense that morality is contingent for Nietzsche (not objective, a posteriori, w.e term you'd like), he might be said to be a nihilist. However, since he believes that morality is constructed through laws, institutions, ideologies, etc, he does believe in the 'existence' of moralities (note the plural).

Marx and Nietzsche differ in their figuring of the relationship between ideologies and social formations in that Marx theorizes changes as progressing towards something definite, as Marx asserts there is some objective 'end' to History. Nietzsche is descriptive, rather than 'progressive' or 'prescriptive': a morality can be constructed through various actions, but there is no 'sound' 'pure' 'objective' morality. Nietzsche does praise the 'will to power' that establishes (through laws, religions, etc) moral orders, and he also praises 'the creatures of resentiment' (spelling intended) that act to tear down moral orders. However, Nietzsche doesn't speak of the ability of an individual to act to create a morality all on his/her/their own. Similarly, Marx understood changes taking place as a result of collective action and trends.

How is Sartre different than Nietzsche and Marx? Sartre places great importance on freedom and the individual's agency in creating meaning through interpretation. Sartre thinks individuals impose an ethics through the actions of their life. The individual's actions thus constitute their 'personal' ethics. Both Nietzsche and Marx would likely be skeptical of this, I think, because they would pay closer attention to factors outside of individuals' control that structure what choices they have. Marx and Nietzsche would wonder about the factors that affect what 'stuff' a person gets to interpret, and also what contexts inform the interpretation an individual makes.







hope this made sense.

talking about nietzsche in one liners is hard as fuck because he liked to write in paradoxes and contradictions that often make it difficult to be sure what he means without looking at the statement in the context of the argument it came from.


So here's a quick thought on what Nietzsche might say about Sartre's existentialism.

Nietzsche wrote:

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

Notice the last sentence, 'Must we ourselves become gods simply to appear worthy of it' Individualist philosophy, which Sartre's existentialism falls under, might seem like a way of displacing the loss of God by empowering ourselves, as individual actors. In order to compensate its slaying of God, existentialism valorizes individual agency, making each of us a God (for Sartre morality originates in individuals).

Hope this helped, tell me if it did.

 

[KM]

I'll start by saying that interpretations of Nietzsche are contentious, and various arguments that Nietzsche makes are routinely bastardized. The question you asked was 'does this refer to the non-belief in a god leading to the invalidation of moral codes?', and if you mean that a belief in God will change/affect the norms (such as ethical or legal norms) of society, then yes. Morality is not properly 'invalidatable' in Nietzsche's understanding of morality, but you asked about moral codes, and Nietzsche would certainly agree that a lack of belief in a god will affect society's moral codes. For Nietzsche, morality is properly something produced by actions, such as the passing of laws, the creation of institutions such as courts, prisons, and schools. Spreading a new ideology is one way of changing morality for Nietzsche. Thus, he inquired into the ways in which ethical norms change when god is removed from moralities. In the sense that morality is contingent for Nietzsche (not objective, a posteriori, w.e term you'd like), he might be said to be a nihilist. However, since he believes that morality is constructed through laws, institutions, ideologies, etc, he does believe in the 'existence' of moralities (note the plural).

Marx and Nietzsche differ in their figuring of the relationship between ideologies and social formations in that Marx theorizes changes as progressing towards something definite, as Marx asserts there is some objective 'end' to History. Nietzsche is descriptive, rather than 'progressive' or 'prescriptive': a morality can be constructed through various actions, but there is no 'sound' 'pure' 'objective' morality. Nietzsche does praise the 'will to power' that establishes (through laws, religions, etc) moral orders, and he also praises 'the creatures of resentiment' (spelling intended) that act to tear down moral orders. However, Nietzsche doesn't speak of the ability of an individual to act to create a morality all on his/her/their own. Similarly, Marx understood changes taking place as a result of collective action and trends.

How is Sartre different than Nietzsche and Marx? Sartre places great importance on freedom and the individual's agency in creating meaning through interpretation. Sartre thinks individuals impose an ethics through the actions of their life. The individual's actions thus constitute their 'personal' ethics. Both Nietzsche and Marx would likely be skeptical of this, I think, because they would pay closer attention to factors outside of individuals' control that structure what choices they have. Marx and Nietzsche would wonder about the factors that affect what 'stuff' a person gets to interpret, and also what contexts inform the interpretation an individual makes.







hope this made sense.

talking about nietzsche in one liners is hard as fuck because he liked to write in paradoxes and contradictions that often make it difficult to be sure what he means without looking at the statement in the context of the argument it came from.


So here's a quick thought on what Nietzsche might say about Sartre's existentialism.

Nietzsche wrote:

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

Notice the last sentence, 'Must we ourselves become gods simply to appear worthy of it' Individualist philosophy, which Sartre's existentialism falls under, might seem like a way of displacing the loss of God by empowering ourselves, as individual actors. In order to compensate its slaying of God, existentialism valorizes individual agency, making each of us a God (for Sartre morality originates in individuals).

Hope this helped, tell me if it did.

Yeah, both of you guys helped a ton. Thanks :)

 

[Valentine]

"Bacteria and microorganisms do not have a reason for living, yet you believe you do?"

THIS:

there is no inherent meaning to existence, whether from God or from any other source; we as individuals have the freedom to choose and define our own meaning for existence.

I've talked about why humans are afraid of dying, why humans have feelings, and what they mean in Theorymon's Existential Crisis thread. I did a pretty poor job, but if you read that, i think you'll understand the gist of what i'm trying to say. The answers to your questions probably won't make sense before you read the linked post, take a look at Theorymon's questions also.

Why are we even here?

There's no particular reason. The only reason for being are the reasons that you create. We're here because stars exploded with enriched elements and fertilized our galaxy. That's it. That's all there is.

What causes pain and why do we even feel it?

The human brain is a machine designed to avoid pain, and perpetuate itself. If you can avoid pain, you have a higher chance of perpetuating your species. That's how we've evolved and survived. If you think about physical pain briefly, it's easy come up with ways we avoid pain. We don't like getting punched in the face, we don't like our limbs getting cut off, we don't like being eaten, etc. Physical pain helps us know something's wrong with our body, and that we need to fix the situation if we want to continue living, which is priority number one, as far as the brain is concerned. We avoid physical pain when we can (yes people cut themselves, and harm themselves, but they are fulfilling a personal physiological need). Psychological pain is different for everybody, because we have all had different experiences. But, we all have predetermined meanings assigned to everything that dictate how we act in any given situation. As an example, maybe you once had a peanutbutter jelly sandwich with too much jelly, you didn't like how it felt in your mouth, so now, your preset is 'peanutbutterjelly = not good'. Or, something more serious, like, you had a bad breakup with an asian chick, and now you'll always be bias against asian chicks. Anyways, feelings are just presets that you didn't even decide on for yourself. It's your DNA telling you how to respond in any given situation, because 'you might get hurt if you choose otherwise', which isn't even true. That is what fear is. If you can overcome your fears, you have overcome the constraints of your DNA.

Why do we have to suffer while others live in happiness?

We don't have to suffer. If you realize things for what they are, and realize that no matter what happens, it truly does not matter, you can be happy no matter what your circumstances. You are free to create any meaning for your life that you desire.

If i can leave you with any final thoughts, i think they would be: what you're likely to do is only a small percentage of what you're capable of doing. that's not a quote from somewhere, that's just what i personally believe. most people live their lives completely controlled by their DNA, their feelings, without realizing why they do what they do. most people live reactionary, they like pepsi over coke, but don't know why (it's because they've assigned some bullshit meaning/feeling to pepsi). right now, that's you. not some part of you, but YOU reading this message. if you can realize the infinite possibilities around you, and grab the reality you truly want most, you'll have unlocked the meaning of life.