Ornoth

I want to take the opportunity to recommend the May 2005 issue of Shambala Sun to people. While the balance of the magazine is interesting and of value, but I feel that two articles are of particular value to me and most of the people I know.

One is an interview with Sam Harris, author of the recent bestseller “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason”. Not being particularly saturated by mass media, I knew nothing of his book before reading this interview, but find Harris’ argument eminently reasonable. It seems like he has come from a decidedly secular, scientific upbringing. He derides any religion based upon a supposedly irrefutable, static text, and points out the inherent problems such beliefs pose for a world full of immensely powerful and deadly weapons. A pertinent citation from his book:

Technology has a way of creating fresh moral imperatives. Our technical advances in the art of war have finally rendered our religious differences—and hence our religious beliefs—antithetical to our survival. We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation, or any of the other fantastical notions that have lurked in the minds of the faithful for millennia—because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

He then specifically addresses the need to formulate a modern set of ethics that aren’t derived from ancient religious dogma.

Harris is undoubtedly controversial, and his recommendations radical. On the other hand, he is expressing what many Americans have innately felt, whether they left Christendom for agnosticism, paganism, Buddhism, or atheism. The bottom line is that the three Old Testament religions are primitive, divisive, and any literalist interpretation of them will perpetuate the religious conflicts of the past two millennia, albeit now with weapons that make humanity’s worst nightmares look like cotton candy and rosebuds. But enough of Harris; let’s look at something more positive.

The other article, “Searching for the Heart of Compassion”, was written by Marc Ian Barasch, author of “Field Notes on the Compassionate Life: A Search for the Soul of Kindness”. Again, I don’t know if this one’s widely known, but I found the article exceptionally interesting, and have the book on order at the BPL.

Barasch is an engaging writer who is trying to develop the kind of compassion espoused by Buddhist practitioners everywhere. However, he’s also an average guy who struggles to overcome the egocentrism and selfishness inherent in modern American culture. His writing is simultaneously approachable and illuminating, and I’m really looking forward to his book.

One of his assertions is that “our obsession with seamless self-contentment (’What I love about Subway is it’s all about me!’) has occluded our ability to love each other”. He also pointed out the contradiction of Thomas Aquinas’ observation that “No one becomes compassionate unless he suffers” with our effort “to secure happiness by fortifying ourselves against imperfection”.

Barasch also levels some criticism against the modern image of Buddhism and meditation as a quest for higher consciousness, citing a Buddhist lama who asserted that “Spiritual practice is not just about feeling peaceful and happy, but being willing to give up your own comfort to help someone else”.

He calls upon many sources, and eventually gets around to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s particularly insightful observation that even justice is only “love correcting that which revolts against love”.

Unfortunately, I can’t do justice to either article, but I thought that both might be of interest to people, because both directly address themselves to the immense, unseen questionmark regarding the roles religion, spirituality, morality, and ethics play in this modern, scientific, skeptical, secular American society.

We can no longer afford to blithely ignore the immense threat that religion poses for our planet, nor the pain and suffering caused by our failure to create a modern ethical structure to replace it. I find it heartening that these two articles—and the two popular books that they relate to—are good first steps in beginning a long-needed discussion about the roles of religion and ethics in the modern world.

As noted earlier in this journal, I've recently embarked upon a study of philosophy in an attempt to validate and possibly extend my own personal belief system. Having found little of interest outside my core philosophy, which owes a great deal to my existentialist readings in high school, I decided to proceed with a more in-depth study of the existentialists, to see how their opinions supported and supplemented my own. To that end, I recently finished reading Walter Kaufmann's "Existentialism From Dostoevsky to Sartre", which includes the original writings of several of existentialism's most prominent thinkers, including, in addition to the ones named in the book's title, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Kafka, Heidegger, Camus, Jose Ortega y Gasset, and Karl Jaspers.

What follows is a general discussion of the points where I felt most in agreement with the ideas that were presented, along with attributed quotes.

What is Philosophy?

One of the points which I most agreed with was Jaspers' concept of philosophy. He states that philosophy is not an obscure intellectual exercise, but that it is the natural outcome of life when lived with reflection and thought. Furthermore, he argues that it by definition a very individual thing, not an aligning of oneself with pre-existing doctrines. Kaufmann's introduction describes Jaspers' "conviction that genuine philosophizing must well up from a man's individual existence".

Jaspers:
Philosophical thought is a practical activity ... Philosophizing ... is not a profession or application of a doctrine, but the practice of being human.

What is Work?

Nietzsche had some wonderful things to say about work, and how distracting it can be.

Nietzsche:
Behind the glorification of "work" and the tireless talk of the "blessings of work" I find ... the fear of everything individual. At bottom, one now feels when confronted with work -- and what is invariably meant is relentless industry from early till late -- that such work is the best policy, that it keeps everybody in harness and powerfully obstructs the development of reason, of covetousness, of the desire for independence. For it uses up a tremendous amount of nervous energy and takes it away from reflection, brooding, dreaming, worry, love, and hatred; it always sets a small goal before one's eyes and permits easy and regular satisfactions.

Nietzsche may sound like a slacker who expects his parents (or patrons, in the case of 19th century philosophers) to support an idle lifestyle, but what he's really trying to say is that being overworked isn't conducive to philosophical reflection, and that the preoccupation with work has been used as a way to suppress individuality. And all this was written nearly 125 years ago!

What is God/Faith?

One of my own personal beliefs is that only the deluded can have any degree of certainty about the answers to life's great philosophical questions. Because "faith" is the belief in something for which there is no proof, by definition "faith" cannot be used as evidence of the existence of God. Nietzsche was particularly skeptical about the existence of God and the motives behind those who believe.

Nietzsche:
Weariness that wants to read the ultimate with one leap, with one fatal leap, a poor ignorant weariness that does not want to want any more: this created all gods and afterworlds.

Nietzsche:
'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true.

Stevie Wonder:
When you believe in things that you don't understand,
Then you suffer; superstition ain't the way.

For Nietzsche, faith in God equated to inability to face the hard facts of life and the needfulness of taking responsibility for one's life's purpose. Sartre, of course, saw the whole question of God's existence as somewhat meaningless.

Sartre:
Even if God existed that would make no difference ... we think that the real problem is not that of His existence; what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God.

Sartre:
We are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote "If God did not exist, everything would be permitted"; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point.

Sartre, like Nietzsche, clearly believes that those who seek God are on an absurd, futile quest. From his refutation of diety and its pertinence, he derives a very clear conclusion.

Sartre:
The existentialist ... finds it extremely embarassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven ... Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior.

Does the concept of absolute, objective ethics die in the absence of God? Not necessarily, but it does erode most of the validity of the objectivist's position. With no God, there is no governor on man's behavior, and there are no ethics save for what we create or adopt. This is the heart of existentialism's subjectivity.

What is Life?

Those who dismiss existentialism rarely get beyond those two points and their negative implications. What a dreary, scary place the existentialist must live in! However, the existentialists themselves disagree. Life has its own meaning.

Dostoevsky:
Although our life, in this manifestation of it, is often worthless, yet it is life.

Kafka:
That life lends itself to many different interpretations is of its essence.

Laibach:
Life is life.

What is Man?

Okay, what do the existentialists suggest we do with our lives, since they are apparently without any cosmic meaning?

Sartre:
At bottom, what is alarming in the doctrine that I am about to try to explain to you is -- is it not? -- that it confronts man with a possibility of choice.

Ortega:
Man ... has to make his own existence at every single moment. ... Man is the entity that makes itself. ... whether he be original or a plagarist, man is the novelist of himself. I am free by compulsion, whether i wish to be or not.

Devo:
Freedom of choice
Is what you've got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want

Basically, the answer they provide is that you have the freedom to decide what meaning your life is going to have. Or, rather, you are forced to decide what your life's meaning will be. What really surprises me is that people criticize existentialism as pessimistic, then are willing to turn around trade this basic, yet incredibly empowering freedom in exchange for a hope in an afterlife that has to be taken purely on blind faith. It's entirely their choice, but abdicating their freedom of choice doesn't seem like a very attractive or rational alternative to me!

From this, we understand that a man's life is almost entirely of his own making. Sartre takes great pains to highlight that this is an immense responsibility -- one that that most people never accept.

Sartre:
Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism ... Man is responsible for what he is. This, the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders.

Sartre:
From the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does ... Man is responsible for his passion ... Man is therefore, nothing else but the sum of his actions.

In the middle there hides an interesting point: Sartre believes that a man is entirely responsible for his emotions, as well as his rational acts -- that his emotions are controllable affectations.

But the overall message is one of complete freedom to create meaning in a world that has no inherent meaning. How this is a pessimistic philosophy, I don't know.

Is Existentialism Pessimistic?

Well, that depends on what matters to you. Too many people focus on existentialism's atheism, subjectivity, and denial of an afterlife. However, existentialism provides man with the ultimate in freedom in how to live his life as he chooses, and focuses us on making the most of each moment as we experience it. Rather than a depressing, fatalistic philosophy, existentialism can be an incredibly powerful, liberating mode of thought.

Kaufmann:
Secular existentialism is a tragic world view without, however, being pessimistic.

Jaspers:
Nietzsche ... found in atheism not simply a loss but rather the greatest opportunity.

Jaspers (speaking of both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche):
At the limits of life's possibilities came not any heavy seriousness, but rather a complete lightness as the expression of their knowledge.

Nietzsche, as well as Sartre in his concise and insightful "Existentialism is a Humanism", both agree: existentialism is not a philosophy of despair. While they see mankind's state as absurd and somewhat tragic, it's clear that they would have agreed with my 2/24 entry "Philosophy for Dummies" that asserted that nihilism does not need to produce distress, pessimism, or despair.

Amusingly, as I compose this, I am participating in a conversation with Inna. When I teased her about having a mid-life crisis, she asked if I were having a mid-life crisis. My philosophical reply?

Ornoth:
I'm an existentialist; life is a crisis.

By which, of course, I meant something specific. Typically, a mid-life crisis is brought about when someone realizes that they've been living on autopilot, and because their days are dwindling, they change their life to make the most out of the moment. As an existentialist, I believe that all of life should be lived in such a way: treasuring each day, living fully in the moment, and saturating yourself with experience. Death is real and unavoidable, and all of life is a form of "mid-life" crisis. Your life's span is all that you are given; that's a wonderful gift, and you should enjoy it to its fullest!

So what's the concluding statement about "Existentialism From Dostoevsky to Sartre"? Well, there have been some insights along the way, but they're very much limited to fine-tuning of the philosophy that I've derived from my own experience of life. Still, it's a good thing to examine those values periodically, lest you forget what the grand old man said:

Socrates:
The unexamined life is not worth living.