This is just going to be a quickie to debrief from today’s first day of work at Optaros.

I think it’s going to be a lot like Sapient’s early days: a lot of learning and leadership, really exceptional people who earn my respect, the possibility of a future financial windfall, exceedingly busy, and another major WBL challenge. Oh, and that stipulation about travel? Don’t be surprised if I’m writing from Boise next week…

The net is that Optaros is probably where I want/need to be, career-wise. It’s good to be in my stretch zone for something I’m interested in, but at the same time, I will need to very actively manage my commitments. If “time is money”, then the instruction to “pay yourself first” implies that WBL should take precedence over job. I’m just going to have to be aggressive about putting that into practice. Very reminiscent of old-school Sape, except hopefully I’m not just older, but also wiser. On verra.

I know that’s a lot of caveats, but it’s also very exciting, which is also reminiscent of olde Sapient days. And I’m utterly stoked to sink my teeth into some of the Open Source/Ajax/Flex goodies that are out there. It’s been a long time since I’ve been this motivated by my work.

I have also confirmed that they’re not at Bus Innovation’s level of Foos aptitude, and nowhere near Endeca’s. There will be much pillaging and plundering.

Oh, and one more thing:

PLEASE GO VOTE!!!

How are you planning to spend the summer [winter]?

This summer’s goals are finish up a couple stories I’m writing for DargonZine, finding a new job, and training for and completing my third Pan-Mass Challenge, a 200-mile charity bike ride to benefit cancer research and treatment. If you’re interested in helping me reach my fundraising goal, either email me or go here.
 

What was your first summer job?

When I was about fifteen I began working as a counselor at a YMCA day camp. My first year, I think I was paid $25. Later, I’d have my marriage ceremony at the same lakeside camp.
 

If you could go anywhere this summer [winter], where would you go?

Probably Scotland. I’d really like to have more time to explore the countryside.
 

What was your worst vacation ever?

I’m not sure it qualifies as a “vacation”, but the celebration at the end of the Staples project was the most dismal that I recall. The consultancy we worked at gave us a comp day, but it the weather was raw, windy, and rain-sodden. I spent more than two hours on a bus with my coworkers, some of whom were fine and some of whom were the kind of people you’d pay money to avoid. We were dumped off on a sleazy patch of slag near the ocean, and left for two or three hours to freeze in the rainstorm (yes, the bus left). When the bus finally returned to pick us up, someone had the wonderful idea that we could really cap this celebration off by going to a theater and all watching the tedious and formulaic X-Men movie before our two-hour bus ride home. Looking back on it, it was thoroughly painful and disheartening, and a truly pathetic way for our employer to thank us for the months of long hours the project had required.
 

What was your best vacation ever?

I’d have to say it was last year’s Scotland Dargon Writers’ Summit. Twelve days driving around the country, sightseeing, accompanied by some of my closest friends.

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.