Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
The whole of existentiallism is based on the fact that you can only do philosophy with stories.
Objective, non personal, systems of truth and meaning have no value when making personal existential decisions, because they cannot relate to the unique situations each person experiences. According to existentialism anyways.
The point of stories is to show one way of interpreting reality and to show one way of giving meaning. A story cannot be applied to humanity as a whole, it can only be used as a tool for each and every person to discover meaning in their existence.
I think anyways.
Since you gave examples of stories, try on Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky. (I say Dostoesky because I am reading "The Brothers Karamosov" right now!)
I am a little confused, stories that amount to self confessions are a bore, only does a message resonate when the voice is of a universal nature. Our experiences of being human are universal, universal experience, as such, is when one speaks, one speaks with the voice of all humanity, which thus embraces that which is constant in human nature, in human suffering and I think only in this way does it become relational, become philosophy. The universal to the particular from the particular to the universal, the alpha and omega is one humanity, which is perhaps one with all life.
"I am a little confused, stories that amount to self confessions are a bore, only does a message resonate when the voice is of a universal nature."
Without venturing to far into areas that I am not well versed in, I would say that stories of self confession are a bore for you (underlined for emphasis) because you give little meaning to them. I, on the other hand, give a great deal of meaning to stories of self confession. For example, I find that these type of stories show how others interpret life and their experiences in life. These stories help me reconcile the suffering I experience. (When I say "I", I don't mean myself, because I don't feel that way necessarily)
"Our experiences of being human are universal,"
In a very general sense, yes. However, I will use Sartre's example of the boy who had to make a decisions between going to war to support his cause or staying home with his mother, who would be absolutely alone without him. Sartre would say that no one can make this decision for him, let alone any moral philosophy. This boy must weigh the ramifications of his potential actions against what he knows about his cause and his mother, then decide for himself.
This is where stories come in, this boy can use the stories of others to help him decide, but he must decide himself nonetheless. No one will have his exact situation, feelings, and such, and no one will ever have to make the decisions that he is making. Do others suffer in the way he does, yes. But again, in a very general sense.
It only becomes relational when the person makes it relational.
I do not think we are far apart here, though I struggle to understand our difference, in fact. The stories involved must have a bases of universality, it is a bit like others have made the journey before you, while they cannot decide for you, they do point out the landmarks of this new territory you have perhaps stumbled into. Particulars may change over time, but the possiable mental and emotional states of the individual are contained within a certain horizon of human possiabilities. It is within this horizon which itself is humanity, along with the guidence through story of the outer landmarks which informs you you might say, of further possiablities in Kansas. The actions and constitution of man change little, what does change are the names, qualifications and/or limitations, understanding is done in the context of the present, and the present is always newly experienced, yet it is in fact eturnal/universal. All story is said to be a statement or statements about the relations of subject and object, not really about subject nor object, but about the said relation/s, of said subject and object, this is truth for us, this is meaning for us, and it is universal in its reality, if it is not relational it is not, or is not real. So does this mean that any story will do? What do you think? Sorry, I still don't really understand where we are differring. Perhaps the diffference really is seeing life not as an individual event but in reality a process, and one can be guided through a process. One can not find guidence if life is a one time incident and in and of itself unique. Time for my medication-------lol!! Added thought: personal confession might be said to be universal if it is understood as that in the telling, and in the understanding upon being heard. The ego spoken of must not remain a particular, just as in biology the individual is the carrier of the form of species, so the individual/particular is the carrier of the universal story.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace