Original in Swedish: Första tesen om existentialistiska mannen Del 2/3 - Oliver Kuivasto
No poems this time out. Let the poet rest, it is time to urge the "wannabe" philosopher to show his skills. And it is time to let the story flow:
A wise man once said to me in the park; "What is life than an everlasting misery." Follow Nietzsche's wise words that when you know a "why" you can face almost any "how". Those were the words spoken by the wise man.
My destiny lead me for several years to nothing but misfortune. It felt like my body gave everything while in return I got nothing. Only pain, misery, and desperado.
I asked God but was left with no answer. I disputed God; no answer came. I hated the world, nothing changed at all. I tried to love the world, only more pain, misery, and desperado this option offered me. What more can and should a man try?
Finally, I asked: what if I do not have a "why" for life, a reason to live. What if I'm in the veil of meaninglessness. And so I transformed the wise words into my own. "If I accept my presence in the veil of meaninglessness, I can just as well shape my destiny into whatever I want. Finally, when I arrived at the truth and the belief in my individuality, my subjectivity, and my free will, and freed myself from the ignorance of reality, I can finally have my "why" and then nothing can stop me, no matter how big "how" the question was and is.”
O.K
The word "nihilism" causes an incredible amount of worry, hatred, nervousness, and bitterness among people, even when they just hear the word mentioned. Familiar remarks that have followed have, among other things, tried to damage the person's morals and judgment by pointing out that he is irrational, stupid, unreasonable, or unethical. In addition, further accusations have been made against the personality of the so-called "nihilist", that he would be evil, pessimistic, negative, in denial, a non-believer, an atheist, rejecting, in refusal, and skeptical. Alas, was this democratic society not founded to make it possible for all to express and think freely. Where then do these attacks come from? I am not trying to deny the clear shortcomings of nihilism here, but we can still learn what it means. What it truly is. Certainly, we must?
This is a subject that we cannot directly examine with a positive purpose from a normative philosophical perspective, so let us instead examine this phenomenon and what nihilism really is with an emphasis on a pragmatic point of view. Is it not the realist who is the golden mean for the optimist and the pessimist? Right?
The wise man said in a dream, do not let life control you. Instead, take the initiative and control life as you see fit. Of course, at first glance, this sounded ridiculous and moralizing, but with more in-depth thinking, I concluded; this must be the truth. Then I asked myself: was everything I learned and understood hitherto just a pile of lies and nothing existed before this point? Alas, now we have a hard nut to crack.
Let us examine whether a moderate and nihilist man can exist in the same soul. Philosophically, a nihilist is considered to be someone who denies all existence, objectivity in the world, and the existence of (objective) values and the power of our reason. Practically speaking, a nihilist is someone who understands or thinks that the world is meaningless, that it lacks objectivity. This thought is what causes a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about what nihilism truly is. In fact, most nihilistic philosophers consider the lack of objectivity and the futility of the world as an advantage, i.e., we have a chance to create a meaning for everything, for ourselves to some extent. Nihilism does not mean that nothing has value or meaning, but that all values are subjective. What moderate (lat. temperantia) people are according to Aristotle [1] is people who are in the middle of not indulging in too many bodily pleasures to be pampered, but at the same time avoid limiting themselves from pleasure altogether to avoid being in a situation where one is almost insensitive to everything [i]. Traditionally, we would suggest that a good person could enjoy life without indulging in too much pleasure and selfishness, and without giving in to too much pain and selflessness. Now we are again at a dead end. This all is extremely normative thinking because we cannot really know what a "moderate" and "nihilist" person would be like. We can only answer how the person should be.
The short inquire had the tricky goal of figuring out if a moderate nihilist could exist. The result was of course contradictory and nihilism continues to have a kind of taboo at present. Dear readers, the thesis itself is not about the nihilistic or the moderate man, but the existential man. So how does the nihilistic view relate to existentialist philosophy? Meaninglessness emerges in existentialism with the absurdity of life. How can we be sure that things are exactly like they are? Why do we avoid the thought of death and our eventual demise? Why do we not realize our being in the absurd world, and instead follow the norms of the world and try to adapt to a captivating society? Why are we so unaware of our anxiety about life, as well as death?
Before we can present the arguments that Man really is and should be the existentialist, we need to go through the context of the conceptual differences between existentialism and existentialist philosophy. Let us follow a distinction that existentialism is rather the movement that followed Sartre's popularity in the 1940s with the help of novels, plays, and the like when existentialism became "pop culture". While existentialist philosophy can include all philosophy that focuses on the human as an individual, subjective being, and free being. This includes everything from Nietzsche's nihilistic investigations to Kierkegaard's theory of anxiety and the three steps of life, and from Heidegger's phenomenology and hermeneutics to Dostoevsky's existentialist literature. Something that most of the philosophers who touched on the field of human existence have in common is the study of the relationship of subjective-objectivity (which this thesis has already undergone to attempt to understand, but far too quickly in part 1/3), the humans being in a meaningless mode, and anxiety about life or rather the knowledge of our unavoidable death.
In order to really present the thoughts in the face of criticism, assessment, and inference, arguments must be presented first. In this thesis, five or four, however one wants to interpret them, arguments will be presented as to why the man is an existentialist or rather why he should and must be that. The purpose of this thesis is not to present counter-arguments and the shortcomings of the existentialist, but to shed light on what it means, and to show a picture of the existentialist man as objectively as possible. Let's leave the contradictions for another day.
I. The First Argument
The first paradox man is faced with is our awareness of our eventual demise from the world, our death. The contradiction in this is our free will. However hard we would attempt to reshape the Thought, our consciousness of the Thought, and in the most dramatic and acute cases; our behavior - we will eventually die. There is nothing to avoid this at least depressing thought. This paradox is excellently presented by Kierkegaard in the masterpiece Either-or: A Fragment of Life.
“I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations – one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it – you will regret both.” –Søren Kierkegaard
Simply put, Kierkegaard wants to present the truth that whatever we do, we will feel anxiety about it. We can similarly link this to the idea of death. No matter what we do, what we should do; no matter what we do not do, or what we should not do, we are in the face of the inevitable truth: in the end, we all die. This is the only conscious destiny of Man. This contradicts perfectly with the previous words that have illuminated this thesis. If there is a destiny all people have, that is, death, surely there is then a universal meaning, objectivity. Now it could be answered that death is a subjective experience, but we actually already know that quite well, and this is not the beautiful thing that needs a (morally) guarding angel of protection. Alas, in fact, there is nothing beautiful about death - other than our sadistic awareness of it. Of course. Perhaps this is the eternal torment that God created for us. Maybe God has sinned. Instead of showing us our true meaning, he has given us greed, worry, and despair, with the knowledge of our mortality and anxiety of death. But this is the biggest "maybe", "if, "in case " question that humanity has been presented with.
The ingenious man would attempt at this dead-end to understand the subject from a biological point of view. Death is certainly only a part of our process in life. Like our birth and early months and years as we transform from infants into growing individuals, how our sexuality and identity begin to take shape at puberty, and how our brain continues to grow beyond the age of 25, and how it continues to develop and reshape with the property of plasticity throughout the rest of human life. However, an intelligent person would admit that he is not an expert in all areas, and then the more philosophy-oriented person would avoid raising biological or psychological arguments to support his or her views. In addition to this, a truly wise man would completely avoid trying to defend or attack contradictions formed by his own contradictions and which he just said he would not bring along to the thesis. Who can this imbecile be? Let us (for the time being) avoid answering whether life in any case then contains any objectivity and instead research deeper into our way of thinking about the anxiety of death and life.
When we have straightened out the fact that anxiety about death is also evident in the idea of life, we can assume that life is meaningless. Because a man who feels anxiety about life cannot enjoy life at the same time. Or can he? What if he hides behind reality and tries to stay away from the fear of death by being something he in reality is not. What should we do with this knowledge? Well, it's time to form a dialogue - again. What can a man - or let's really admit - even the woman (who should also be the existentialist) hide behind?
The pessimist would respond with aesthetics. The belief in beauty and the beauty of the world - and everyone. The denial of the evil side of man or nature.
The optimist would respond with the nasty, painful, and cruel. The denial of beauty and its existence or essence in our world.
While the realist would answer "his own nature". Whether the man is evil or not. Whether the woman is beautiful or not. Inevitably they will hide their true nature. Their weaknesses. A superficially strong man would not most likely want to show that he is in reality also very emotional. While a superficially very feminine trait representing woman does not want to show her hidden side; the need to be in control of everything in her life.
The expert would respond to the realist like the following: it is noticeable that people so-called hide their traumas and strong (usually negative) emotions under the carpet.
Now the devil's advocate joins the discussion and begins his monologue. How the hell did you end up on the wrong track again? The pessimist is the devil himself. The optimist is God himself. The realist is the person who finds his opinion (though usually unconsciously) or lies to himself and is in reality just the paradoxical person who says the opposite of what he is. In reality, the realist is the ultimate "concealer of the nature of his own reality", the difference is that he is smart and hides it with his words and lies. He is then ultimately most at risk to himself. And let's not go so far as to describe the ultimate self-betrayal that is the expert with his hilarious illusions ...
[The conversation is abruptly disrupted]
What, then, can we find out about this awareness of our death anxiety? Oops, how I wished the answer was simple. But hell, brave yourself anew, find the courage and show the strength, and comb your hair to show your natural aesthetics and fame to the world. Weren't these our illusions? The most superficial. Regarding death itself, of course, we do not want to talk about that. The thought comes only when it is forced on us. In fact, our whole life is a cover for the inevitable. Alas, how pathetic life must be. Let me ask: what would the nihilist do here? He would clearly understand that for all values to be truly shaped individually, that is, they are subjective - he must himself face the anxiety of death and overcome it. Then we can certainly conclude or complete the first argument: to the nature of the existentialist man belongs death anxiety, but like the sky, dark clouds can at any time become a clear light-blue sky. Namely, there is always light, even in the eyes of a nihilist. Oh, like the ordinary man, just like the ordinary man, the existentialist man has Hope. ( Latin. spe)
II. The Second Argument
We are now at the essence of our argument that the man is the existentialist man, regardless of his desire and whether it is his natural burden or whether it is the burden of circumstances that illuminated the man to this burden. Namely, according to existentialist philosophy and existentialism, our existence arises before the essence. As we have already made clear, existence is what something is and only what it is, while essence is something meaningful in itself both intrinsically and for it to be perfect as just what it is. From the previous example with Aristotle and the ball, we assume that the existence of the ball only means that it is a ball, but when the ball has its main properties and a near-perfect cause, the ball can be meaningful; the ball is in its essence a (good) ball. So, a ball exists, and if it is round, has a moderate amount of air in it, and rolls as it should from the hand or by a kick from the foot and bounces appropriately; then the ball has its essence. How then do we understand human existence or essence for that matter? From Plato and Aristotle onward, Western philosophy was based on the idea of essentialism. Simply, objects, such as the ball, have their essential properties that base their essential value, and so similarly does man have his essential value, that is, meaning, from birth. We are simply born for a certain reason. Of course, it is a completely different question whether it is something universal or subjective. Doubts about this did not really emerge, either in literature or philosophy, until Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche in the 19th century. Nietzsche's nihilist-influenced philosophy was based on despair and concern that there seems to be no meaning at all to our existence.
“Nihilism appears at that point, not that the displeasure at existence has become greater than before but because one has come to mistrust any "meaning" in suffering, indeed in existence. One interpretation has collapsed; but because it was considered the interpretation it now seems as if there were no meaning at all in existence, as if everything were in vain.” – Friedrich Nietzsche, Will to Power
Simply put, our doubts about our existence have increased, our doubts that there would be any meaning (in the painful and gloomy life), even though we have not really formed a new interpretation of our existence, but rather has our former and familiar interpretation collapsed (our essentialist interpretation). These are the tracks on which nihilism, has reached its believers and followers. Not because all meaning had disappeared, but because meaning has ultimately caused despair about its value and, in general, meaning has lost its value. Unconscious perhaps to the ordinary man, but the existentialist man knows better. He knows: life is not lost, it only needs to be thought through and implemented with a new face over the lost, or even better, by scraping away the mistrust and the following of the old (which has lost his meaning) from the old face.
"Everything in the world displeases me: but, above all, my displeasure in everything displeases me." – Friedrich Nietzsche
Despair and anxiety about life, (as well as death), do not mean that all is lost to Man, the subjective being. Already the awareness of despair and anxiety is a step better. Likewise, it is better to be aware that one's existence has lost its meaning, or rather, one's existence has never had its essence. The existentialist man knows this. Therefore, he does not fall into the pit of false significance or the grave of irreversible anxiety and despair over life, that is, the belief in meaning that does not exist. He knows that objectivity is something he will never achieve. He knows that the meaning he gets will be thanks to his subjectivity. He knows he is the existentialist man. Finally, the second argument goes like this: the existentialist man recognizes, in addition to everything already mentioned, that his existence precedes his essence, and that the subject can make everything valuable. Thus, existence before essence. If Man wants and should be the existentialist man, in the end, it is this principle he must understand. He cannot believe he is born significant or has a meaning that he can seek out whenever he so desires. He forms life by living, life does not form living. He gives life value - and maybe, but only maybe he can succeed in giving life meaning, something that he truly deserves from the misery that life otherwise is.
“You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.” – Albert Camus
And above all, as Kierkegaard says, let us follow the lily of the field and the bird in the air[2]. They do not worry and do not seek the need to worry about anything. In this way, the torment and misery of life are as small as possible, it cannot be completely avoided. So, they can enjoy life as best they can. And then they do not have to worry about tomorrow. Because the torment and enjoyment of today are plenty to live for. The existentialist man knows what he should live for. He knows what it means to live for every day's torment and he knows how it can be done as well as possible. Like the ordinary man, just like the ordinary man, the existentialist man knows the good, he knows what is good. (Latin, bonum.)
O.K
[1] Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, Chapter 2
[2] Matthew 6:25-34.
[i] Aristotle discusses the virtues of courage and moderation: “And it is the same way also with temperance and courage and the other virtues. Someone who runs away from and fears everything and endures nothing becomes a coward, while someone who fears nothing at all but goes out to confront everything becomes rash; similarly, someone who indulges in every pleasure and refrains from none becomes spoiled, while someone who shuns them all, like a boorish bumpkin, becomes in a certain way insensible. So temperance and courage are destroyed by excess and by deficiency, but are preserved by an intermediate condition.” Ethics, Book II, Chapter 2,
Comments