Original in Swedish: Första tesen om existentialistiska mannen Del 3/3 - Oliver Kuivasto
We have come so far that we have succeeded in presenting two arguments for why Man is the existentialist man and how the existentialist man is just like the ordinary man. In the 1st argument, it was presented that even the existentialist man has hope and in the 2nd argument that concluded Part 2/3 that the existentialist man is aware of the good and knows what the good is. The ordinary man also knows what the good is, but he is nowhere close to being fully aware of his nature or why he should ultimately be the existentialist man. We have already gone through the man's anxiety about death (argument 1.) and anxiety about life (argument 2.) which illuminated that Man must be the existentialist man or rather should be the existentialist man. It remains to be explained why man has so far only been halfway aware and conscious of the two aforementioned anxieties, and why he has done nothing about these unmistakably tragic pains, why we try to hide behind others to overcome the gloomy truth about life, and worst of all, why have we have committed to the worst sin of them all, the worst self-betrayal Man can commit, by deceptively following the so-called holy, superhuman, divine, that is, God. Time to present three additional arguments. Sounds fun and wild, right?
III. The Third Argument
Half of a Man, Half of a Soul
I am floating in these cosmic clouds
with half of my soul in my hands.
Hope there yet is,
that I could be just about whatever I want to be.
So, let's be whatever we see fit.
I am dancing around the misty dreams
of lost thoughts and memories.
Right down where-
a man can recognize the glare in the air
So, let's show some wit.
I am close to bleeding away,
from every thing that matters to this day.
But unlike tomorrow the pain awaits me ever since,
I found my place as the destined prince.
And I know there are only lost men in the grave of a pit.
So, let's be holy, a whole soul.
Oh God, I have missed the poems. I have longed for this moment. Thank you, friends and foes, for letting the poet speak. Oh, how lovely. Alas, but what is by no means lovely is that we are halfway, only halfway aware. Or rather the ordinary man is only halfway conscious. You should take my word for what it is. This is the true nature, even if you want to deny its existence. I answer: Impossible! Rubbish! Ridiculously! You're in pain, do you not notice this? Wow, life really must be misery for you. It is time for the doubt to arise. Or should you doubt it at all? What should you do, or what should Man do at all? Was it not a subjective being that we categorized Man into? Was this not how we divided the human being even though it sounded cruel?
There is a man who can reach with his song lyrics to the level of the poet. It's none other than Bob Dylan. Now the "wannabe" philosopher should admit something. He, too, sometimes abstains from his duty to accept his true nature as the subjective being. Namely, he also has idols. Now it is not a question of evaluating whether it is right or wrong to have idols or idolize. Alas, that would certainly be a necessary inquire in the future. But yes, back in the present, one of the best song lyrics by one of the best, if not the best lyricist, will be presented to the audience. For the sake of dignity, you should listen to the song. The song is I Shall Be Released.
The lyrics to the song are simple, yet ever so diverse, multidimensional, thoughtful, deep, and purposeful, (obviously a subjective thought!). A true masterpiece.
They say ev'rything can be replaced, Yet ev'ry distance is not near. So I remember ev'ry face Of ev'ry man who put me here. I see my light come shining From the west unto the east. Any day now, any day now, I shall be released.
They say ev'ry man needs protection, They say ev'ry man must fall. Yet I swear I see my reflection Some place so high above this wall. I see my light come shining From the west unto the east. Any day now, any day now, I shall be released.
Standing next to me in this lonely crowd, Is a man who swears he's not to blame. All day long I hear him shout so loud, Crying out that he was framed. I see my light come shining From the west unto the east. Any day now, any day now, I shall be released.[1]
Dylan is renowned for his mysterious and poetic-styled lyrics. It's something that always impresses even the most experienced Dylan listener, critic, or admirer. What makes I Shall Be Released so special and significant is its connection to the following argument that shall be presented. Let's attempt to understand the lyrics of the song more closely. The song is often called Dylan's "prison song". This is no surprise given the symbolic lyrical aspects of the song and the title itself. But what the title really fascinates is the questions it leaves behind, which are at least half a dozen (in their abstract forms). When Shall I Be Released? Where? How? Why? From what? For what? - And of course, the most original philosophical method of investigation: what is it to be or be "released"? Now we have already understood that it is a matter of being imprisoned. It is of the slightest importance where "he" is imprisoned. We can dare to assume that it is a man who reflects on his situation:
"They say ev'ry man needs protection, they say ev'ry man must fall."
This is close to the method the ordinary man uses to reflect on whether he should or should not be the existentialist man. In the lyrics, the man doubts and questions the reality in the song's three verses. Is it not like this? Is not this the way they say it is? But then the man answers how he actually experiences this (in prison).
"Yet I swear I see my reflection,
Some place so high above this wall."
Here we have to emphasize the possibility that the man, in reality, is not restrained nor imprisoned in the usual way, in a physical sense, rather he is psychologically chained. It is chains of a kind that restricts the mind.
The refrain expresses how the man now understands things, the reality of the matter.
"I see my light come shining, From the west unto the east. Any day now, any day now, I shall be released."
Does it not sound very familiar? He is aware of his "light"[2] so much that he even sees it and also knows where it comes from; from the west unto the east. He also knows that it will happen any day now. It is close. The moment he is released from whatever this hell he has been chained to. Was it not the case that we concluded last time that the existentialist man has hope (light) and knows the good, (the man knows that he too will finally be released). Unfortunately, this is only half of the truth because the man is only halfway aware. But damn, what is this about being "halfway aware"? I should explain. I better explain.
Firstly, the man knows he will be released, but does not know when he will be released. Secondly, the man is aware that he will be released, but not "why". And thirdly, the man sees the light but does not know how the light will release him. Therefore the man is halfway conscious. He must be.
The truth is, as the existentialist man knows that only he can imprison himself. I beg you to ignore physical limitations and captivating objects, as still there is the matter of physical imprisonment does in no way mean psychological. After all, chains are just chains. But Man is a living being. He knows. He thinks. And impresses day after day. And he is definitely the subjective being. Her individuality is truly unexplainable, yet ever so worthily impressive. So, the truth is that he decides when he is imprisoned. He also decides when he will be released because he is the only one who has been able to truly imprison himself. Ridiculous, you may well point out. Alas, you're right. But the truth is this: You cannot make decisions for anyone else. In the same way, you cannot make choices for someone else. Inquiring or just questioning life for someone else's does not lead to progress for the "someone else". There is no other explanation than an extremely anxiety-creating condemnation that we have been forced to accept as it has been quite forcefully placed in front of us. It is our free will or freedom. Like the ordinary man and just like the ordinary man, the existentialist man is free because of his will. Oops, yet another doomed quality he is faced with. Is it not enough with how painful life the man has already been given? Does the man also have to cope with an excessive amount of freedom?
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.” – Jean-Paul Sartre
IV. The Fourth Argument
The mighty actors for the play of life, the play of the meaningless life:
Pink, Mac, Queen, Jane, and Floyd
Scene 13 "the one where Floyd's despair became Pink's":
[Jane, Mac, Floyd, and Queen were all old acquaintances and decided to meet at Pinks Bar in memory of the "good old days"]
Mac: Damn, damn, where's my cigar?
Queen: Not again, you fool!
Jane: c'mon guys and Queen. It is time to celebrate life.
Floyd: The gloomy and miserable life. Hell!
Jane: You should practice disposing of your pessimism, Floyd.
Floyd: Of course, miss "the world is good and loves us all"
Jane: Now that's enough Floyd! Why do you always have to nag? Is nothing enough for you? You do not pray but you also do not reject God? You neither live nor do not live? You want nothing but at the same time, you expect something? What do you really want?
Floyd: You could have just said "despair owns you, Floyd". Hey, let's play "describe Floyd's attitude towards life".
Jane: Forlorn
Queen: Idiotic
Mac: Hopeless
Jane: Deplorable! Dreary and dull. And gloomy.
Queen: Desperate
Jane: Broken down, furious and enraged.
Mac: Fearful
Queen: Distressed
Jane: Anguish and torment
Mac: Pain
Jane: Agony
Queen: Miserable
Floyd: In any case, at least I can admit that my life lacks something, that is, absolutely EVERYTHING. This is how I avoid the worst: self-deception and self-betrayal. I do not need Pink to be Floyd.
[Floyd's monologue begins]
What if I shouted, "reveal yourself"? Could you comprehend what the problem is? You fools! I doubt and I hate, in fact, I'm burning with anger, but what do you do? You're not burning for anything! You are truly the desperate ones! Maybe I will never get over this despair and anger inside me, but at least I'm aware of the painful truth about the meaningless life. I may not be the optimist you are looking for, because he does not exist, but I am the Messiah of Truth. I'm still desperate, but at least the gates of hope are in front of me. I just need to take responsibility.
[Shine On You Crazy Diamond, Pts. 1-5 commences]
We live in the veil of meaninglessness. Namely, we seek comfort and significance in others. Pathetic! It is unnecessary, inefficient, and wasteful, as we could instead have found our own subjectivity and realized what is really required for the meaning to be meaningful again. Alas, we are so blinded by the world, others, ignorance, false credibility, the cloak of human intelligence, the false light, and almost EVERYTHING. Why? We do not have to do that ...
We already ruled out the possibility that the meaning could have meaning in itself again. We have come to the interpretation that the meaning must lack objectivity. We have perceived the individuality and the utmost importance that the subjective being must-have. We have to truly embrace it. Let Kierkegaard's words sum up this understanding, that must in all cases be true:
"My reflection on life altogether lacks meaning. I take it some evil spirit put a pair of spectacles on my nose, one glass of which magnifies to an enormous degree, while the other reduces to the same degree. [...]"[3] – Søren Kierkegaard
This needs to be the proof that we lack meaning, or rather the value of meaning and the objective world. Why else would we seek in distress, and for evidence, and support from others? Only the meaningless seeks in a hopeless state falsely the meaning in others (or from others). If the ordinary man had the meaning or the meaning was valuable (whether objective or subjective) he would not search for what he does not have from others but share what he himself has and fulfill what he knows to be valuable. The existentialist man has responsibilities just like the ordinary man, but unlike the ordinary man, the existentialist man is fully aware of this responsibility he is faced with, and even better he knows exactly what to do with it to avoid staying in the chains of despair, pity, and melancholy.
V. The Fifth Argument
Hey Abraham, what do you want as a death gift? Do you want paradise or the land of the devil? Do you want to hang out with your loved ones or the criminals and fools, the worst scums who have dared to walk on the sacred Earth? Do you want everything you have ever wanted or just wish you got it? What do you choose?
Abraham: Do I have to choose?! As I see it, there is only one option. I choose the gift of life. The gift I created myself. I have met death and I am no longer afraid of it because I live and will always live in paradise, it is only a matter of accepting what I experience as the truly true and the only thing truly meaningful.
Why do we believe in God? Wouldn't it be better not to? Why do we not believe in God? Wouldn't it just be better to believe, after all, it does not cause any harm? Generally speaking, it is often better to believe in something than to not believe in anything. We need comfort and significance, as well as the meaning behind it all. What could be better than believing in the creator of everything, the man behind everything, the man who controls the gates of heaven, and the man who loves us all; God.
Nietzsche first claimed the famous words "God is Dead" in The Gay Science and he developed it later in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Unfortunately, one of the most remarkable thoughts in Western philosophy has been misunderstood several times more than humanity should allow. Namely, Nietzsche never hinted that God himself is dead because he knew, just like all of us other rationalists, scientists [4] and common-sense people, that we can in no way prove neither that God exists nor that God does not exist, rather, Nietzsche argued that the meaning of God had lost its value similar to how we concluded the Second Argument that the meaning of our existence has lost its value. Practically speaking, Nietzsche does not mean that God is dead, but that Christianity is dead to which God is the main symbol and meaning. Incredibly, Nietzsche could perceive and understand the meaning of the fall of Christianity as early as the 19th century, when rationality and science began to show the way for the Western world (ever since the beginning of the Scientific Revolution in mid 16th century), a world where Christianity had ruled as a despot since the fall of the Roman Empire.
The problem with all of this is that faith is based on ideas and never on evidence or truth (because the truth would point to a "we know" scenario). We can imagine being able to trust another human being to keep a secret, we can imagine that our personal information is kept safe by the authorities and we can imagine that there is an afterlife, but we can only believe such things, we can never prove them.
"Why are so many existentialists' atheists?"
It's a question that has been ringing in my head for a long time. Imagine that you were not allowed to go outside ever and that you would be imprisoned inside your house for the rest of your life, if the opportunity rose for you to escape outside, would you not take it? If you could redo all the mistakes and evil deeds you have done, you would surely take this opportunity with open hands. So, let's say that Christianity has limited information and possibilities from you for almost an eternity, would you not at least like to see what this so-called atheism meant? Of course, there is a certain ignorance, but also a very ingenious purpose behind this example.
Of course, atheism is a very extreme opponent of Christianity. Alas, there are times I also feel sorry for the church. Worst of all is the ability of atheists to abuse the reputation of the existentialist man by making people hold the existentialist argument merely as a weak atheistic argument. Alas, they are completely wrong. Namely, the existentialist man sees the existentialist possibility of choice. Perhaps it is as Sartre pointed out the condemnation of man or as the father of existentialism Kierkegaard famously put it for us in Either–or:
“If I were to wish for anything, I should not wish for wealth and power, but for the passionate sense of the potential, for the eye which, ever young and ardent, sees the possible. Pleasure disappoints, possibility never. And what wine is so sparkling, what so fragrant, what so intoxicating, as possibility!” – Søren Kierkegaard
If you now wish to find a middle ground regarding your relationship with belief and God, you may well follow the Theists Argument, something that Kierkegaard unconsciously described. After all the theist is not the opposite of the atheist, rather theism is somehow the middle between religious dogmas and atheism and non-believers. However strong theistic views Kierkegaard presented in his philosophy, the Dane actually studied theology and to a large extent he was a man of God from the influence of his father, but Kierkegaard was also famously critical again and again against the Danish national church and occasionally the whole of Christianity, as well as totally objected and attempted to nullify Hegel's systemic philosophy (Systems of Ethical Life) and devoted his life to burn down everything Hegelian (in philosophy), although this was mostly done indirectly and rarely did Kierkegaard criticize Hegel, rather the systemic elements of his philosophy. Among other things, Kierkegaard called Christians lazy and forgetful of their Christian background. They needed to be awakened from this laziness. Kierkegaard's life's work focused a lot on how then the already appreciated "subjective being's" relationship was shaped with God, and what followed this, which on all accounts must be regarded as a subjective truth. Kierkegaard also understood that it was an extremely difficult and demanding task for the Man to commit himself to Christianity again, but also the difficulty for the man to seek beyond Christianity, beyond the known, and beyond order.
"What does the task look like in everyday life, for I continually have my favorite theme in mind: whether everything is indeed all right with the craving of our theocentric nineteenth century to go beyond Christianity, the craving to speculate, the craving for continued development, the craving for a new religion or for the abolition of Christianity. As for my own insignificant person, the reader will please recall that I am the one who finds the issue and the task so very difficult, which seems to suggest that I have not carried it out, I, who do not even pretend to be a Christian by going beyond it. But it is always something to point out that it is difficult, even if it is done, as it is here, only in an upbuilding divertissement, which is carried out essentially with the aid of a spy whom I have go out among people on weekdays, and with the support of a few dilettantes who against their will come to join in the game." – Søren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript
Kierkegaard's theology or rather philosophy (even if he himself would not have acknowledged it to be that) would be based on the possibility no matter how difficult it may be. Just like that the troublesome possibility or the choice is, whatever we desire to call it, the core of the Theists argument. The theist argument states the following: i. the basic principle of Truth is that we need to accept and acknowledge the existence of God as a possibility; not the religious or secular way which way to commonly have been presented and offered as an extended invitation falsely, but the possibility that we may be forced to accept the existence of the creator of everything, the original cause, the core of causality and the consequences, and the origin of all life, ii. but fortunately, the theist knows to neither impose non-believers nor to insult the believers and iii. the truly divine secular finds in it the conscious Truth of Choice. Like the ordinary man, just like the ordinary man, the existentialist man has a choice. He can believe or not believe in something or anything at all, but he also may refrain from believing and not believing and from giving his opinion at all. Because of our ability to make a choice, we should devote our eternal gratitude to the doomed and anguishing truth of our nature of being free. In addition, the existentialist man is aware of the choice and so must the ordinary man be (even if it is only halfway conscious), because the ordinary man (YOU!) has the opportunity to choose to believe in the nature of the existentialist man and in your need to be the existentialist man. After all, you want meaning and value, the real thing, in your life? Right? Now I am certainly crushing my almost divine bond with one of the most remarkable philosophers and perhaps my greatest "teacher", Kierkegaard, by stating that what matters is not Either-or, but Either-or-or not.
Postscript
“What though the radiance which was once so bright
Be now for ever taken from my sight,
Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;
We will grieve not, rather find
Strength in what remains behind;
In the primal sympathy
Which having been must ever be;
In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering;
In the faith that looks through death,
In years that bring the philosophic mind.” [5]
– William Wordsworth
These five dignified, yet very flawed arguments deserve their farewell. A further review is necessary, I dare say. There are no better words to describe the First Argument than William Wordsworth's poem Splendor in the Grass from Ode to Intimations of Immortality. Our inevitable and gloomy fate is that we all eventually die, yet no one stands in the way of the individual opening himself to the light and embracing it. Radiance belongs to the subjective being if he devotes himself to his true nature and thus becomes from the ordinary man who is halfway conscious to the existentialist man who is completely conscious and truly fully aware. This ability and possibility are presented in the individual's freedom and will as represented in the Third Argument. The Second Argument explained the common nature of the existentialist man and the ordinary man to know the good and what the good is. While the Fourth Argument highlighted the need to take responsibility to be able to distinguish one's individuality from a false need to seek meaning among and from other individuals. Finally, the Fifth argument illustrated both the possibility and the choice. With our hope, awareness of the good, free will, and responsibility, we can choose to believe or not believe, or refrain from believing and not believing. Absolutely the same applies to you readers: you can believe the First thesis on the existentialist man, or not believe in it, or refrain from believing and not believing in it. But since you have come this far, would it not be valuable to spend your days you are still aware in believing in the "oh-so amusing" First thesis? After all, no one has many days left? After all, everyone does have days left? Maybe some under the ground? Who knows? God? Lovely!
We may conclude with the following wise words:
Life is lost for the lost one, but there is no life for the falsely living either, only for the one who sees the lost life; an opportunity to solve it rises from the ashes and blossoms a spring that flies higher than Man has ever seen before. - O.K
PS. PS.
Oh, how stupid I must have been! I have almost only told you, dear readers, what the ordinary and existentialist man has in common, and why the existentialist man is at least no worse than the ordinary man, but I have almost totally omitted why the existentialist man is superior to the ordinary man and what makes the existentialist man something all people should be and have the goal to be (O dear reader I beg you to forgive me). Unfortunately, this is a inquire (or investigation to absolute explanatory) meant for another day, for the next time.
Alas, I have regained my sight. Yesterday the grass was brown, today I see that the grass is green. And now I know that I have to see the grass as green even every "tomorrow", as well as every moment of every "today". Good night! There is always hope that you wake up as the existentialist man, even if the chances are minimal. Of course, the way is yours! - O.K
Oliver Kuivasto, O.K
https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Bob-Dylan/I-Shall-Be-Released
a typical metaphor for Hope.
From Either-or, Part 1, Diapsalmata, p.46
Nietzsche on rationality and science: https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=468412&a=$a&first_name=Friedrich&author=Nietzsche&concept=Rationality
More information and lyrical interpretation on Splendor in the Grass: https://cvirginia.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/ode-to-intimations-of-immortality
Comentarios