Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Some Existential Phrases

Philosophy Forum
» Existentialism
» Some Existential Phrases

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

"Existence preceeds essence"
Most existentialists believe in this simplified expression of making your self after you exist. Atheist existentialists believe there is no God who determines what you must be before you are born, and theist existentialists believe God makes your existence, and expects you to determine the life that you want to lead and to be honest and true to your convictions before God.

"I must find a truth that is true for me, the idea for which I can live or die"
Because no God exists to tell you what to do OR God wants you to figure it out for yourself, the next fundamental step is to determine what your life is. Mr. Kierkegaard spent his entire life trying to help you find the right life for you, without actually telling you what the right life for you is. I believe these first two ideas broadly construed are the basic foundations of existentialism.

"We are condemned to be free"
& "Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom."
Two statements from Mr. Sartre and Mr. Kierkegaard; basically, metaphysical freedom (or at least, the apperance of metaphysical freedom) demands that we must constantly strive to be or reaffirm the self that you currently are. It's a curse because this striving is difficult and taxing on the self, and may cause the self to flee his existence.

"I do not have to be what I am, and I can be what I am not."
This seemingly contradictory sentence makes perfect sense when adjusted for time. Because of our metaphysical freedom, we can change our identity through time, limited only by physical constraints. A paraplegic cannot suddenly become a hockey player, but a waiter in cafe can quit and become something else.

"During the first period of a man's life, the greatest danger is not to take the risk."
& "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how."
These statements by Mr. Kierkegaard and Mr. Nietzsche suggest that attaining something may entail great risk and hardships. Risk is part of life if one wants something great, something meaningful for him; he ought to risk almost anything to attain it and bear whatever consequences that may come.

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."
Mr. Kierkegaard suggests that the process of living precludes any attempt to explain it forwards. Once a person is near death, one can understand how one's life has unfolded. Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved.

@Victor Eremita,

Victor,
Not that it has anything to do with your post here, but you seem well versed in the tenets of Existentialist thought, and I have an honest question:

I am intrigued by Existentialism, drawn to it, but I am also haunted by the idea of Determinism. Is it possible to reconcile the two philosophies? To create a unifying theory that doesn't lead to gibberish and madness?

In my own case, I believe that we should be held accountable for our actions, yet I have a hard time shaking the idea that we live in a Deterministic universe. How can this be?

I'm not trying to speak nonsense, or push anyone's buttons. I'm seriously troubled by these two conflicting ideas. It's a difficult abyss to gaze into.

Any thoughts on reading materials?

@TickTockMan,

The free will and determinism problem rages on; perhaps forever I guess...

The atheist Sartre would probably say the idea of combining determinism and existentialism is laughable, because in his mind determinism is something we concoct in order to escape our freedom and responsibility.

The theist existentialists, however, have to deal with the omnipotent, all knowing, all loving God while maintaining a semblance of true metaphysical freedom. They follow Kierkegaard in two respects:

Kierkegaard as theologian argues that God creates free beings over and above God. "That God could create beings free over against himself is the cross that philosophy could not bear but upon which it has remained hanging."

If that's unacceptable, Kierkegaard as philosopher suggests that even if determinism is true, that doesn't mean that we can't take responsibility or feel angst over our decisions.

Kierkegaard, as Anti-Climacus, in the Sickness Unto Death wrote:

"The determinist, the fatalist, is in despair and as one in despair has lost his self, because for him everything has become necessity ... The self of the determinist cannot breathe, for it is impossible to breathe necessity exclusively, because that would utterly suffocate a person's self."

If we live in a deterministic world, even if the free choices we make are actually determined; that doesn't mean we should resign ourselves to live deterministically, to live in despair, because you're choices are not truly your own. Your choice (free or determined) to live authentically and your attitude to it, may even be more important than whether we are determined or not.

As for reading materials, I will always recommend Kierkegaard, especially Works of Love and Sickness Unto Death; but if you need a break from him, like I do sometimes, there was an interesting section, I forgot what pages, of Phenomenology of Perception, by Maurice Merleau Ponty, where he reiterates Kierkegaard and Sartre in terms of projects that subjects take, sort of like a choose your own adventure (I'm no MMP expert though, LOL).

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita;25994 wrote:

If we live in a deterministic world, even if the free choices we make are actually determined; that doesn't mean we should resign ourselves to live deterministically, to live in despair, because you're choices are not truly your own. Your choice (free or determined) to live authentically and your attitude to it, may even be more important than whether we are determined or not.

Strangely enough, I don't feel any despair about the idea of a deterministic world. To me there is an odd sense of exhilaration, much akin to comfort but not quite, in the idea that "everything is happening exactly the way it is supposed to. This is not the same as saying that "everything happens for a reason." There is, in my admittedly distorted mind, a subtle difference.

Victor Eremita;25994 wrote:

Your choice (free or determined) to live authentically and your attitude to it, may even be more important than whether we are determined or not.

This is an excellent quote you have made here. Perhaps this is where my sense of exhilaration comes from.

Thanks for the reading suggestions. I'll look into these.

Regards,
Tock

@TickTockMan,

This really struck me...

TickTockMan wrote:

... To me there is an odd sense of exhilaration, much akin to comfort but not quite, in the idea that "everything is happening exactly the way it is supposed to.

How true this is! Very insightful and honest - I'm envious.

@Khethil,

Khethil;26123 wrote:

This really struck me...

How true this is! Very insightful and honest - I'm envious.

Thank you. I wish I could take credit for the idea, but it's just basic Taoism (or at least my interpretation of it).

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan wrote:

Thank you. I wish I could take credit for the idea, but it's just basic Taoism (or at least my interpretation of it).

I think there are a lot of similarities between Taoism and existential thought. When I was taking an existential philosophy course and also studying Taoism at the same time, I ended up blending the two together for the work in the course. Living the authentic life by building up one's character is the key.

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

The free will and determinism problem rages on; perhaps forever I guess...

).

Not for me.
I am willfully determined to live my life free.
To live is determined.
To live freely life's determination, my life, myself, with all my wisdom and strength, is my will to let what is determined, be truly free.

"Let it be, Let it be, Speaking words of wisdom, Let it be.":bigsmile:

=
MJA

@MJA,

[CENTER]B?[/CENTER]

[CENTER]And if A = B, and B = C, then A = C
But what about B?
They all look different to me, so what is truth,
What can it B?
Different or equal?
What should it B?
To B or not to B?
That is the question.
The Nature of B,
Aristotle, Shakespeare and Me.[/CENTER]

[CENTER]=
MJA[/CENTER]

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

I think there are a lot of similarities between Taoism and existential thought. When I was taking an existential philosophy course and also studying Taoism at the same time, I ended up blending the two together for the work in the course. Living the authentic life by building up one's character is the key.

I am sure that both Kierkegaard and Heidegger dabbled with "Eastern thought" (whatever that means!) at points within their lives. Whether this should imply any influence is of course open to an enormous amount of interpretation...

@matty phil,

'Choosing' is an action like any other, like walking e.g. I choose, you choos, we all choose every day. If by free will you are referring to this ordinary experience common to all of us, then you have free will. If you are positing free will as the opposite of or exception to universal determinsm, then you do not have free will. You can only make the decision, choose the thing, that you do. The fact that you think about various possible choice before you make the choice does not prove that you could have done otherwise. Rather, that process of thought is a part of the neccessary order of events in the world. You had to wonder about th salami sandwich before choosing the PB&J.

So what does this mean? Its means that free-will, in the strict philosophical sense, is not in opposition to determinsim, and that it is in fact purely imaginary. So why be worried that you don't possess something that dosen't exist? On the other hand, you do have free-will in the ordinary, self-evident sense. Now, if you want to believe in morality and responsiblity, then you have a problem. Good luck! :whistling:

@BrightNoon,

Here are some quotes from Heidegger.

Every man is born as many men and dies as a single one.

To dwell is to garden.

If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life -- and only then will I be free to become myself.

Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy.

The most thought-provoking thing in our thought-provoking time is that we are still not thinking.

@Language Games,

"Existence precedes essence"
If you agree with that statement, you are an existentialist.
If not, you still exist, but you're essentially out of it.

Dimitri - I have to admit, Tasso, sometimes I wish I were more like you.
Tasso - But you can be! Existentially speaking, you are a totally self-originating being! You are who you create!
Dimitri - That's terrific! Because I always wanted to be as tall as you.

@VideCorSpoon,

Existence and essence would have to be simultaneous, since an existence is always "about" something -- at what stage does existence not have an essence?

@Language Games,

As I understand, essence is a product of existance. Plato's essences, e.g., are products of the mind of Plato, who already existed.

@BrightNoon,

Essence and existence are different ways of thinking about the same things. Existence refers to the being of an object while essence refers to its functions. The 'existence' of the knife is its composition (sharp metal)whereas its essence is any of the actions it can perform, like cutting or stabbing.

There is no such thing as being without function. It has never existed anywhere. Therefore existence does not precede essence, they are both just thoughts which refer to stuffs encountered by humans.

As Heidegger complained of Satre, "existence precedes essence" is just metaphysics as usual -- a reversal of a metaphysical norm is still metaphysics.

@Victor Eremita,

Thank you Victor Eremita for providing us some discussion points:

"Existence precedes essence" is a very confusing statement since we do not know immediately what the "essence" is. After reading laboriously many pages of Sartre's Existentialism and Humanism I am still at a loss. Whereas if he simply said "man makes himself after he is born" would be simple for any idiot to understand. [Perhaps it wouldn't sound "philosophical" as much.] I have a particular resentment to this word "essence" which is often interchangeable with the word "spirit", the word invented by the non-materialist.

"I must find a truth that is true for me, the idea for which I can live or die" does not add much to "man makes himself after he is born".

"We are condemned to be free" is a highly dramatic expression of the condition of man. Not strictly philosophical talking but literary talking. I accept the usefulness of these dramatisations in literature and art in general but there is not much use in logical arguments. We could instead say "man is free".

"I do not have to be what I am, and I can be what I am not." again this statement does not add much to "man is free"

"He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how." Some people make a reputation of being clever by exchanging words in a simple sentence to make it look sophisticated. If we substitute "why" and "how" with "reason" and "condition" or "eventuality" the above rather confusing statement would be "He who has a reason to live can bear almost any eventuality."

"During the first period of a man's life, the greatest danger is not to take the risk." The "risk" is a contentious word in philosophy. It implies unknown danger. If you are not a gambler or a businessman the natural tendency is to keep out of danger and the risk, unless one can justify the risk taking. And if it is so good, why should it be confined to "the first period of a man's life"? These are clever sounding aphorisms, and without proper argument aphorism shouldn't be taken seriously in philosophy but perhaps in literature.

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." it is truism to say that we can not "explain" the future that we have not lived yet, but if we live, it will be only towards the future. All we have in memory is our past experiences not the future experiences that are yet to come. However, the statement "Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved." doesn't exactly follow from the first sentences. Materialist like Sartre probably wouldn't think "life is a mystery".

Thanks
democritus

@Victor Eremita,

As always, phrases taken out of context suffer from misinterpretation. When Kierkegaard says "During the first period of a man's life the greatest danger is: not to take the risk" the surrounding text is: "When once the risk has been really taken then the greatest danger is to risk too much. By not risking at first one turns aside and serves trivialities; in the second case, by risking too much, one turns aside to the fantastic, and perhaps to presumption."

With the phrase, "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards", it means that the closer your life approaches death, you can more fully understand how your life has unfolded; but now it's too late to construct a life from this understanding.
The irony is, you "solve" your life after you have already lived it; so... just live it.

Philosophy Forum
» Existentialism
» Some Existential Phrases

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Some Existential Phrases

Quick Links

My Account

able2know