More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
October 21 - October 21, 2020
Kierkegaard believed that when it came to the essentials in life—say, how to be a righteous and faithful individual—we have all the knowledge we need. Integrity demands many things, but it does not depend on acquiring new knowledge.
Camus describes life as a collision between human beings who have an innate craving for meaning and a universe that is as indifferent as rock, utterly devoid of meaning.
Sartre explains that artifacts created by human design are constructed with an aim or purpose. The purpose is the essence of that thing. Sartre says, for example, take a pair of scissors. Scissors are made to cut. That is their essence. But with humans it is entirely different. Sartre has unshakeable faith that we were not created by God with a plan. So for Sartre, we are who we choose to be. We define ourselves by our choices, which, along with freedom, is another theme unifying the existentialists.
Rather than working to override troublesome feelings, the existentialists directly address the likes of anxiety, depression, envy, and guilt. As Sartre’s essay notes, the intense focus on discomfiting feelings capable of bending the shape of our lives has invited critics to grouse that existentialism is too negative, too bleak.
Once, I was chatting with a student after class when our conversation was interrupted with a cell phone call from a dean informing her that she had been accepted with a full scholarship to medical school. In a three-minute conversation, she went from feeling somewhat glum to ecstatic. When she hung up, her cheeks were ruddy and she was almost literally jumping for joy. No doubt, the mere string of words did something to her gray matter. If you have ever received the body blow of a “Dear John” letter, you will not need anyone to prove to you that sentences can have a physical signature, that
...more
Get it all figured out and there is always something else to be anxious about. Anxiety is about the future, and, because of this, it impedes our ability to live in the moment.
The morning self had one plan, the weary, cynical evening self another—instead of prayers and meditation, maybe a couple of pints and some superficial have-to-watch series on the appropriately named boob tube. A Buddhist teacher once told me that all the self-improvement regimes were tinged with violence since they all presupposed a lack of self-acceptance, that you are not good enough to start with. My evening self liked that idea.
In the second volume of Either/Or, one of Kierkegaard’s pseudonyms observes: There is something unexplainable in depression [Tungsind]. A person with a sorrow or a worry knows why he sorrows or worries. If a depressed person is asked what the reason is, what it is that weighs [tynge] on him, he will answer: I do not know; I cannot explain it. Therein lies the limitlessness of depression.5
Buddhist-like, the Stoics took ataraxy, or peace of mind, to be of supreme value. They were convinced that there is no greater threat to inner tranquility than the dread of death. Marcus Aurelius and the company of Stoics believed that the fear of extinction made slaves of us all. They argued that as long as we are willing to do anything to remain aboveground, we might as well be in shackles.
In the late nineteenth century, Schopenhauer wrote of death as though it were the dividing line of consciousness: The cheerfulness and vivacity of youth are partly due to the fact that when we are ascending the hill of life, death is not visible: it lies down at the bottom of the other side. But once we crossed the top of the hill, death comes in view—death, which, until then, was only known by hearsay. . . . A grave seriousness now takes the place of the early extravagance of spirit; and the change is noticeable even in the expression of a man’s face. . . . For towards the close of life,
...more
One night, I was feeling needy and irritated that she could not be close, and I turned on my side away from her, as if to let her know . . . I don’t know what. Then the thought finally started ticking, One night in the not too distant future it will all be over—one of us won’t be here. Then I came to my senses. I turned over and gently stroked her head. That was a reset.
While there is no unequivocal definition of authenticity, there is more to authenticity than refraining from putting on airs. I am acquainted with many individuals whom I would not describe as authentic even though they are devoid of pretenses solely on account of a cold indifference to the opinions of others.
The view of the virtues embedded in existentialism often returns to the requirement to be honest with oneself. And authenticity requires that we be candid with ourselves as to whether or not we have truly appropriated the opinions that we might be slapped on the back for espousing.
Camus concludes that Kierkegaard and a phalanx of other seers have committed intellectual hari-kari by first recognizing human existence for the madhouse that it is, and then mentally constructing an apparatus like faith in God to put everything in order and make some semblance of sense of their lives.
Nietzsche claimed the faith of Abraham and the crucifixion were an underhanded power grab: the weak mantled themselves with the authority to judge and laud it over others, to burn people at the stake, and consign them to the eternal punishment of hell.
Christians who want to take a purifying lesson from Nietzsche might think in terms of trying to be honest enough with themselves about their less-than-holy impulses, on the aggressive and power motives that, like mites, can burrow their way into our postures of faith.
For Kierkegaard, part of what it means to build someone up is to nudge him or her out of an objective posture and cultivate in that individual a concern about what kind of person he or she is becoming. Students always come to me understandably absorbed in the question of vocation and what to do after college, but they seldom spend their time and energy thinking about what kind of human being they want to become.
Morally speaking, the temptation is not just to take the path of least resistance but to convince ourselves that the path of least resistance is the righteous path. As we continue to undermine our own sense of agency, our moral comprehension diminishes bit by bit. Because of this dynamic—or, as Kierkegaard might say, “dialectic”—we older folks sometimes look condescendingly at young people, thinking and perhaps muttering, “You’re full of idealism, but in time you will learn.” Learn what? How to shut down? That when you learn what life is all about you will darken your moral understanding by
...more
Though it would take us far beyond the parameters of this chapter, herein lies part of the poison of racism and oppression. They profoundly damage a person’s ability to love themselves.
Existentialists are seldom included in ethics courses. Nevertheless, it is not just our relation to ourselves that we concentrated on throughout the text but also our relations with others. This is the very topic of morals. Sartre maintained that there is no objective way of distinguishing right from wrong, asserting that sacred texts and ethical theories could be used for or against almost any course of action. Sartre claims that your so-called gut feelings don’t have any value until you act on them.
Like the utilitarians, whom he found utterly repugnant, Nietzsche believed that humans created morals, and our morals could enhance and/or poison culture. Nietzsche was wedded to the belief that over the course of history and through what he deemed the “slave revolt,” the ascetic ideal had been erected as the moral touchstone. Given this criterion, for anything to be termed “good” it had to at least appear to involve an element of self-sacrifice.
