Intro to Existentialism

 

Nietzsche/

 

Life Affirming/ Life Denying

Apollonian- Dionysian Distinction

Origin and Critique of Christianity

Will to Power

 

 

Existentialism –

 

This is not just a Philosophical school of thought, it was/is and important cultural movement as well.  It attempts to understand the human condition.

 

Approaches reality from a very “concrete” or “authentic” perspective. 

We are singular individuals.

 

As with Kierkegaard, attempts to do justice to the uniqueness of the individual.

 

"You are all individuals"

 

"We are all individuals."

 

Stresses the unique "mine-ness" of my existence (to me) and the freedom one has in directing, narrating, or creating his or her own life.  They also stress the responsibility this brings with it. 

 

Human existence cannot be reduced to

 

  1. A scientific analysis (i.e. that humans have fixed discoverable nature.)
  2. A systematic moral philosophy (i.e. that humans have a nature that is realized in…)

 

Both of these avoid understanding the singular, unique individual, but rather attempt o understand the individual in general, universal terms)

 

These are "anonymous/anonymizing concepts, concealing the reality of the individual rather than reveling it.

 

Existentialism rejects attempts to explain human action in causal terms (science/ psychology) or  universal normative rules (morality). 

 

Common Misconceptions of Existentialism

 

There are three misconceptions of existentialism that need clarifying:

 

  1. Existentialism repudiates science

 

False: Existentialism does not deny the validity of the basic categories of physics, biology, psychology, and the other sciences (categories such as matter, causality force, function, organism, etc.).  It claims only that human beings cannot be fully understood in terms of them” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/).

 

Some contemporary Existentialists use natural and social science in their work as Existential philosophers.

 

  1.  Existentialism is an a-moral philosophy

 

False:  Existentialists deny universal normativity.  They assert the primacy of the individual.  Choosing your values is part (perhaps the whole)  of choosing who you are.  Therefore Ethics is extremely important, but always individual then living authentically.  And even after one chooses one values, HOW one pursues those values is also up to the individual.

 

  1. Existentialism is an atheist’s philosophy

 

False: Many existentialists—including Kierkegaard, Buber and Tillich are theists.  However, for theistic existentialists, the existence of God  does not remove the need for authentic choice.

 

With these misconceptions dealt with, we can no begin to approach what human existence entails according to the existentialist view.

 

The Human Condition

 

What is the human condition?

 

Three features of our condition:

 

1)      Our awareness of our own awareness

2)      Human existence precedes its essence

3)      The deep-seated sense of alienation that follows from all this

 

1)      Our awareness of our own awareness

 

We are aware, self-aware and aware of our self-awareness.  We are aware of our mortality, our fragility and our undetermined nature and freedom.  This is a uniquely human condition (as far as we know).  We are aware of the arbitrary and groundless nature of our choices and the meaning we attempt to impose in and on our lives.  And for many Existentialist (though perhaps not all) we are aware of the futility of our life's efforts in any objective sense.

 

The net sum of this awareness is angst and mental crisis. 

 

Here is a Blog on Existential crisis that pretty fairly explains it: http://lifemyths.com/tag/existential-crisis/

 

2)      Human existence precedes its essence

 

“Existence precedes essence”.

 

"man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards." (Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism)

 

What does it mean that human existence precedes (its) essence?

 

For (all) most created things, there existed the idea of thing to be created before there existed those created things.  Therefore the idea that embody (their essence of what Plato called their Form) existed temporally before their particular instantiations. There had to exist the idea of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night before there course exist scripts and hardcover books and paperback versions and Kindle versions of it.  In a similar way, nature predestines what a "cat" is.  There is a fixed "cat nature" or form or essence and it is this essence that determine what a cat "is" and whether any cats exist at all.  The Cat Form" is what all and only cats have in common and there is a logical sense in which the essence of cats precedes the existence of cats.  Note we can have an essence without an existent (Unicorn), but we can't have an existent without an essence.

 

Historically it was believe that what was true of cats is also true of humans.  Humans too have a fixed human nature and the healthy (thriving) human is the one who realizes that human nature fully.  (Just like healthy cats are the ones which fulfill cat nature.)  On this view the job of philosophy was to discover what that human nature was and how best for humans to achieve it.  Indeed Aristotle taught that our purpose in life was to realize our human nature as fully as possible and that was also the key to our happiness (eudemonia).[i]

 

But as previously noted, Existentialists contend that this is far to generic to express the unique existence of the unique individual in the act of existing.  Existentialists maintain that there is no fixed human nature writ large.  Each of us must determine for ourselves what human nature is, what it means to be human.  We are not preprogrammed or preformed.  Each individual exists and then comes to chose what he exists as. 

 

Question: What of God? 

 

If God does indeed exist, does he not assign to humans a human nature?  Wouldn't "human nature" be the template or form by which he created (or creates) humans.

 

Two possible responses:

 

1)      Atheistic existentialism – Assert that God does not exist.  I understood Jean Paul Sartre to reject God for this very reason.  He asserts that the existence of God would diminish his freedom and dignity.  It would suggest that there was something which determined Sartre to be what he is.  And this does not do justice to the individual unique lived human condition of the individual.

 

2)      Theistic existentialism – Point out that the existence of God is compatible, perhaps even necessitate, existential choice.  While God may indeed exist, we can certainly still ask, what is the purpose of human existence?  And if there is one, why don’t we already know it?  If our existence is to praise God, well, how do we praise God?  What is the proper way to do so? If God created us in his image, then God undoubtedly created us to be free.  If we are free, then we are responsible for ourselves, our existence is open, we are able to make ourselves who we are (or will be).  So, again, even if God exists, human existence still presupposes these unique “problems”.

 

This, it strikes me, is part of the meaning of the story of Abraham.  The existence of God does not remove our responsibility for how we live or lives nor does it provide us any guidance as to how we ought or must live.  (And in the same way, neither does an objective morality.  Recall, killing his son was clearly a violation of morality, but Abraham chose it as the right thing for him as an individual.)

 

Thus, to say that existence precedes essence is to articulate that:

 

1)      There is no justification for our existence

2)      There is no fixed human nature or predetermined direction for our human lives

(We have no essence.)

3)      There is no, nor can there be a, fixed purpose or meaning to life for humans.

 

First you "Exist" then you choose "what" you will exist as.

 

 (I should mention that the seeming absurdity of this position was one of the reasons Schopenhauer rejects the possibility of freedom. )

 

This gloomy state of affairs (i.e. the human condition) is further colored (in grey and black, no doubt) by another feature: A robust sense of alienation.

 

3)  Alienation

 

We feel/ know ourselves to be alienated.  (Recall the title of Camus's novel, written in French, could just have accurately been translated "the Foreigner, the Outsider, the Alien.) 

 

The individual is alienated in three ways:

 

1)      Alienation from ourselves

If our existence is our responsibility and there is no human nature, we are always “in the making”.  We are always only becoming who we choose to be and this choosing calls for constant renewal.  Thus the question cannot be who am I, since that implies a fixed essence.  The question can only be who am I becoming now?

 

Alienation from ourselves can be further exacerbated by other philosophical/scientific frameworks:

 

A)    Dualistic philosophies that assert that the “heart” of subjectivity and selfhood lies in the disembodied soul alienates us from our embodied existence

B)    Scientific/causal explanations of our behavior alienates us from the responsibility of our actions—we are no longer who we make ourselves to be

 

2)      Alienation from others

Human intersubjectivity is increasingly being marked by the objectification of one another.

 

a.       You reduce me to a mere object with your gaze (Le Regrade).  And note also, I do it to myself when I regard myself as others "see me."  You see me as a fixed thing (being) when in fact I am a developing center of experience (becoming).  The other human beings objectify my existence.  So in your eye I am reduced to my factical, physical features (hair color, eye color, killer body, etc.), but my own feeling of myself transcends these features.  I feel myself to be more than my factical life

 

b.      Alienation of others goes both ways: The Other objectifies me, I objectify "the other."

 

3)      Alienation from the world

I am aware of my own awareness, and as such, I do not exist as things in the world exist.  That human existence has no purpose suggests a feeling of “uncanniness” to our surrounding world.  I am compelled to look for meaning in what I know to be a meaningless and indifferent world.  We have no place in the world; the world is not our “home”

 

Thus, these three features make up our human condition:

 

1) We are aware of our own awareness, and this gives way to a feeling that our existence has no proper justification;

 

2) Are existence itself precedes our human essence to the point that many existentialists assert that there is no human essence, i.e. we are entirely responsible for who we are;

 

3) This causes an extraordinary sense of alienation.

 

Existentialism, however, does not end here.  The real challenge of existentialism is how we should deal with our human condition.  How do we respond to our awareness, undetermined existence and alienation.

 

Part 3 – How NOT to deal with our Condition

 

The following are not the suggested ways to deal with our human condition:

 

1)      Give up now!  This denies our special existence

2)      Wallow in our alienation.  This is a failure to assert our special existence

3)      Seek metaphysical consolation. Try to use God to solve your problems for you, or looking for universalisable system of thought and objective value.

 

Part 4 – How to Deal with Our Condition

 

What is the proper way to check what condition our condition is in?

 

The existentialist’s answer: Authenticity.

 

For the existentialist, authenticity is an attitude that we exhibit in the way that we engage our own life.

 

What does this mean?

 

  1. To be authentic means to engage the projects of my life (e.g. school, work, marriage, etc.) as my own.
  2. Authenticity marks a commitment to never be perfunctory in the day to day goings on of my existence.  Put positively: authenticity marks my acceptance of the responsibility that I have in living my own life.  Each choice that I make is one that I am responsible for and one that I have to answer for.

 

Authenticity properly addresses our  human condition because it implies that we have accepted this condition.  We do not deny the sort of being that we are, we take responsibility for who we are.

 

Morality:

 

“In keeping my promise, I act in accordance with duty; and if I keep it because it is my duty, I also act morally (according to Kant) because I am acting for the sake of duty.  But existentially, there is still a further evaluation to be made.  My moral act is inauthentic if, in keeping my promise for the sake of duty, I do so because that is what “one” does (what “moral people” do).  But I can do the same thing authentically if, in keeping my promise for the sake of duty, acting this way is something I choose as my own, something to which, apart from its social sanction, I commit myself to.”

 

Note a curiosity here: the authentic individual is not necessarily also a moral (in the traditional sense a "good") individual.  An authentic father  is not necessarily the best father (or a better father).  He is a father who defines for himself what "being a father is."  And he commits to realizing his father-ness uniquely.  (He may choose to conform to social norms with respect to fatherhood, but he does not commit to these because he feels he has to.  He chooses them freely and embraces the fact that he chooses them freely.  That’s how humans are. 

 

Problem with authenticity: How do I prove to others that I am “authentic”.  Since authenticity is an attitude that seems to co-exist with the way we engage the world around us, and since it does not mean that we’d actually be any good at what we do, how would I prove to someone that I am authentic?  I may know (or feel) myself to be authentic, but this does not seem to be something that can be properly measured by those around me.

 

The existentialist would reply that this I’ve got it all wrong: If I’m trying to measure authenticity, then I’m resorting now to a scientific explanation of proper human existence (i.e. explaining authenticity through strictly empirical means).  Authenticity cannot be proven, it can only be lived out in the resolute fashion that is our individual life.

 

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche  (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900)

 

Life Affirming vs Life Denying

 

Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols

 

Twilight of the Idols or How to Philosophize with a Hammer (Götzendammerung, oder: Wie man mit dem Hammer philosophirt, 1889)   The book’s title is a satirical reference to the title of Wagner’s opera, Twilight of the Gods (Götterdammerung).  Nietzsche’s philosophy is not systematic. His style aphoristic and epigrammatic. He rejects attempts to create a "philosophical system" because he claims that the will of necessity fail to do justice to the uniqueness of the individual.  As other of his works are written, the text is largely comprised of maximum aphorisms and short paragraphs on wide ranging topics. 

 

Many of Nietzsche’s statements in Twilight of the Idols are deliberately provocative and controversial. He attacks democracy, socialism, women, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, rationalism, and altruism. His opposition to any concept of moral fact is a result of his opposition to any universal principle of morality.  For reasons already stated he see each of these are attempt to anonymize and negate the individual.  They can only be instruments of repression and oppression.

 

Nietzsche is not a nihilist; nihilism asserts that there are no moral values, and that there is no such thing as morality. Nietzsche instead says that there must be a ‘revaluation of values.’ He does not argue that moral value does not exist, but that it has been misinterpreted and misunderstood. He says that morality is false if it supposes that there are moral truths or values which are universal, or which are independent of the particular situations in which morality is applied.

 

Nietzsche's central concern is addressing affirming rather than denying life.  He wants to say “Yes” to life, and is opposed any philosophy or world view that denies life or the "will to life."   He offers a  "revaluation of values."

 

Here as elsewhere he is very critical of Christianity.  However, by targeting Christianity he is targeting the whole of traditional Western Victorian morality.  Consider Victorian culture.  It was very "repressive."  But what does that mean?  Repressive of what?

 

Sex. 

 

And other things.  Acting within the bounds of "decent society" was very regiments and restricting.   But this is repressive of life and life urges.  According to Nietzsche, this is saying "no" to life, not to who and what we are.

 

Nietzsche condemns Christianity, describing it as corrupt and decadent. He characterizes the origins of Christianity this way.  First century Jews we a beaten, defeated, occupied and impoverished people.  The occupying Romans on the other hand were superior: strong, rich, sexual.  The Romans were wealthy in the natural values of life (pride, strength, sex) while the people they conquered were not.  The Romans manifested the "will to power" fully and were life affirming in a way that the defeated were not and could not be.

 

Now the natural response of the weak is to envy the strong and curse their own wretched condition.  But the genius of Christianity was to give them another option.  It teaches that the strong were to be pitied, not envied.  Consider the "Sermon on the Mount" from the Christian New Testament.  http://kingjbible.com/matthew/5.htm

 

 

Blessed are the meek and humbled (not the prideful).  Blessed are the poor, and those who hunger and thirst.  Now from Nietzsche's perspective this is sheer madness.  Everyone knows it is better to rich, strong and sexually vital then not.  And a defeated people were in no position to pity anyone, except perhaps themselves. 

 

But this little delusion did make the weak feel better about being weak.  It time it came to be more than a source of solace to the enslaved, but an actual sort of perverse strength.  It gave them strength to endure their wretchedness and a tool to wield against the naturally superior.  They could say to their superiors,  "Oh sure, now you think you have it so good now, but in the end God is going to get you!."

 

And note the inherent hypocrisy.  What is the reward for a life of humility; a crown of glory and a seat on the right  hand of God.  What is the reward for a life an acetic denial of pleasure?  Infinite bliss.  What is the promised reward for loving your enemies and turning the other cheek?  Seeing your enemies burn in hell, tormented eternally.    And in time the religion of humility and meekness came to be a means by which inferior people achieved great fame and glory and wealth and power and sex.

 

That we seek these things should not surprise us.  These are the natural goods.  They are the natural goods that superior people can pursue and secure for themselves, but the weak cannot.  So the weak turn to this "Slave Religion," as Nietzsche called it, and its slave morality as an insidious means to the very same ends.  And with it they seek to repress the naturally strong with its propaganda of false values. 

 

Thus Nietzsche calls for a "revaluation of values."  The "idols" refers are empty or hollow beliefs which can be "sounded out" with the philosopher’s hammer. 

 

Will to power

 

In contrast to Schopenhauer who posits a Universal "Will to Life," Nietzsche claims the driving force in man is his will to extend himself, to influence and power.    The "will to power" is a striving to gain mastery of the self and of existence and is evident in the striving to extend the self.   Compromise and equivocation represent a form of intellectual dishonesty.

 

Denial of the "will to power" is a form of decadence, reflecting a decay or degeneration of natural value.  Denial of instinct is a denial of the ‘will to life.’  He argues that a morality of self-negation and self-denial (life denying) such as Christianity proffers,  becomes an instrument of subjugation and oppression.

 

The Superman:

 

The concept of the superman (Übermensch) had been developed earlier by Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-5). The superman is beyond the traditional concepts of "good" and "evil," because he affirms his ‘will to life.’ He creates are pursues his own affirmative values, which affirm the ‘will to power.’

 

The superman is the man who can overcome his own instincts, but not deny them. The superman has mastered his instincts, so that he can fully express himself. The superman is the man whose will to power has been sublimated creatively.

 

For Nietzsche, genuine freedom is embraced authentically when the individual wills to affirm and to be responsible for oneself.  Freedom requires struggle and is gained by accepting and affirming life, despite life’s pain and suffering. Freedom is measured by the resistance that has to be overcome, and by the effort it takes, to make choices and be responsible for them.  And our struggle and suffering takes on meaning for the formative power it has and the freedom it makes possible.  Even Sisyphus is free (an noble) in this sense.  Freedom also requires we gain mastery of our instincts  Freedom does not mean the denial of one’s impulses and instincts, but we must not be enslaved by them either. 

 

Apollonian/Dionysian Dichotomy

 

Apollo and Dionysus were gods in ancient Creek religion.  More to the point, the were both gods in the Ancient Greek pantheon, despite representing nearly opposing values and orientations.

 

 

“Apollonian” and “Dionysian” are terms used by Friedrich Nietzsche in The Birth of Tragedy to designate the two central principles in Greek culture. Nietzsche characterizes the differences this way:

 

The Apollonian:  analytic distinctions

 

All types of form or structure are Apollonian, thus, sculpture is the most Apollonian of the arts, since it relies entirely on form for its effect. Rational thought is also Apollonian since it is structured and makes distinctions.

 

The Dionysian: inability or unwillingness to make these distinctions; directly opposed to the Apollonian

 

Drunkenness and madness are Dionysian All forms of enthusiasm and ecstasy are Dionysian.  Music is the most Dionysian of the arts, since it appeals directly to man's instinctive, chaotic emotions and not to his formally reasoning mind.

 

The worship of Dionysus is thought to have come to Greece from Asia Minor.  He subsequently became an important Greek god, but his cult remained associated with its Asiatic origins.  In Classical Antiquity there was generally an association of the Asian with the exotic, the “feminine,” the wildly emotional and the irrational (in classical literature see Media or Dido), effemacy and enslavement[ii].  Dionysus was said to be the son of Zeus and the mortal Semele.  His mother died before he was born so he was cared for by the maenads, or bacchantes. This became the cult of females who devoted themselves to the care and worship of the god.  The festivals associated with them (the bacchanals) were ecstatic affairs where participants would be given to inspirations and divine enthusiasms.  The word “maenad” comes from the Greek, meaning "mad."  The religious rites of the maenads were orgiastic; they are said to have roamed the countryside performing frenzied dances possessed by the god himself.  During the trances they were supposed to have superhuman strength, to tear animals or people to pieces.  (The Bacchantes they were named for Bacchus, the Roman counterpart of Dionysus.)  These rites became the origins of “tragic drama” in ancient Greece.

 

Note the opposition:  Apollo is representative of principle and calm reason.  Dionysus is the representative of mad inspiration, an inability to discern the boundaries between appearance and reality.  Apollo represents the state of "measured restraint," in which one remains separate from and thus mastery over the emotions; Dionysus represents a surrendering of self- where “self” is conceived of in roughly Platonic terms, as the rational ego. Thus, Dionysus is associated with drunkenness, the state in which one enters into an “inspiration,” an ecstatic unity, an identification (perhaps with a higher entity or community). 

 

Using these terms we can see that Platonism and Neo-Platonism clearly advocated Apollonian values and denigrated the Dionysisn.  Nietzsche however believed that both forces were present in Greek tragedy, and that a true tragedy could only be produced by the tension between them.   Thus Nietzsche argues that aesthetics is not merely a "merry diversion."   He sees the artistic enterprise as inextricably bound with the Apollonian and Dionysian duality.  While this clash may be destructive, it is also the source of creativity and procreation, necessary for health and wellbeing.

 

In Art:

 

The Apollonian condition is a state of intensity in which a creative vision of form is fully realized. The Apollonian impulse is toward order, form, rationality, and control.

 

The Dionysian condition, on the other hand, is characterized by a dissolution of form, and by a release of energy. The Dionysian force is an impulse toward disorder, irrationality, and spontaneity. The Dionysian condition is characterized by an ability to respond to any stimuli, and is a state of emotional intensity.

 

For Nietzsche, art results from the interaction or conflict between Apollonian and Dionysian impulses. There is a useful tension between Apollonian restrain and self-mastery and the life affirming Dionysian 'will to power."

 

Analysis

 

Nietzsche uses this duality for discussing the artistic process which relate to either Apollo or Dionysus.   Apollo and Dionysus symbols of this duality which he further distinguishes with the terms of “dreams” and “drunkenness.”  For Nietzsche, dreams represent the realm of beautiful forms and symbols, an orderly place of light and reason. Drunkenness, on the other hand, is that state of wild passions where the boundaries between "self" and "other" dissolve.  (This may strike as odd, but Nietzsche seems to make the assumption that, when dreaming, one is aware of the fact that one is dreaming and so still able to separate appearance from reality.  I believe that he would claim those who are entirely caught up in their dreams are experiencing Dionysian ecstasy, not Apollonian beauty.)

 

Nietzsche, held that the Dionysian resulted from the absence of the Apollonian (and not the other way around) so in a sense the Apollonian holds a kind of primacy.  Indeed the Greeks themselves held that Apollo was the superior god (an Olympian). 

 

Apollo and Marsyas:

 

Apollo was infuriated when the satyr Marsyas (a devotee of Dionysus and flute-player)  challenged Apollo to music contest. After winning the competition, Apollo had Marsyas flayed alive, for being so presumptuous, as to challenge a god.

 

 

"The Flaying of Marsyas" by Titian

 

 

"Apollo Skinning Marsyas" by Jose de Ribera

 

 

This is certainly a graphic potential of the strife between the two poles.  One should also note the unsettling clam of the Apollo figure in each painting as he does the nearly unthinkable.  One might read this as a cautionary tale, that it is Dionystic compassion and sympathy/empahty and NOT cool reason, that prevents us from our most monstrous crimes.

 

Nevertheless. Apollo and Dionysus were brothers (sons of Zeus), each was Divine, and curiously each was a musician- Apollo the Lyre and Dionysus the Flute.  Similarly, Nietzsche sees the Dionysian consciousness as crucial to artistic creation. He refers to those who would condemn the ecstatic celebrations of St. John and St. Vitus in the German Middle Ages as "folk-diseases" this way:

 

"Such poor wretches cannot imagine how anemic and ghastly their so-called 'healthy-mindedness' seems in contrast to the glowing life of the Dionysian revelers rushing past them."

 

One must submit to Dionysian madness in order to attain the state of primordial unity, a state beyond social barriers and narrow thinking.

 


[i]