Sartre and Responsibility

      In "Existentialism is a Humanism", Sartre argues that existence precedes essence. Sartre wants to disprove the idea that people are predestined to be a certain way or have predetermined projects. I personally agree with this idea that the individual is in control of their own lives and are able to determine their own works. Sartre also talks about the effect that predestination, especially by the hand of God can have on a person and society. When a person believes that they are predestined to do something especially by their God, they lose a sense of responsibility in the matter, because they can attribute their actions to something else. This has the tendency to have very negative repercussions in society and I think that this idea was linked to Sartre's own experiences with people not taking responsibility for their actions.
      Sartre wrote this work in 1946, one year after the end of World War II and the fall of Nazi Germany. Sartre himself was in the French military during the beginning of WWII and later the underground French Resistance. Sartre would have witness first hand one of the greatest atrocities in history, the Holocaust. Being in the French Resistance he would have worked to secretly evacuate Jewish families into either Spain or across the channel to England. After WWII was over he would have been able to see the photographs and news reals of the death camps and the extent that the Nazis when to exterminate Jews. Sartre must have looked at this and wondered how people would be capable of doing these things to other humans. I think this is an instance where responsibility was absent due to a couple reasons. The first reason was that Hitler had tied promotion of the Arian race and extermination of the Jewish faith to Gods will and that it was their duty. Secondly during the war crimes tribunals when asked why they committed these horrific acts many answered that they where simply following orders. This is a prime example of what can happen when responsibility is taken away and individuals can defer their accountability to a higher rank, wether that be a general or God. I think that Sartre believed that a lot that is wrong with society is that there is not enough accountability and sometimes this can manifest itself in extremely destructive ways.  

Must existence precede essence?

Jean Paul Sartre, French existentialist philosopher and writer, was arguably the most influential existentialist figures in the 20^th century. In Sartre’s 1946 writing, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” he sets out to clear the air about what exactly existentialism is. Acknowledging the generally pessimistic view of existentialism by the population, he gives his reasons for being a proponent of the philosophy.

            One of the points he makes pertains to the age-old dilemma of essence and existence. Essence is defined by Dictionary.com as "the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc." In other words, they are the defining internal characteristics of a substance, that, if they were to be changed, the object or substance would no longer be the same. Sartre believes that this essence is not inborn in humanity, but rather, is achieved after it is defined in one's existence. Contrary to many philosophies which suggest that essence is the underlying theme (or themes) that defines our actions, and therefore, existence, existentialism asserts that one's actions determine their essence. His reasoning behind this is because there is no Creator, therefore, we were not created for any specific purpose or with a specific essence. 

            However, what reasoning does this leave for our own existence. Had we not been created, thus, by a Creator, for some purpose, why do we exist? Granted, this is a complex question; there are biological theories for why humans exist, but there must be some sort of underlying reason for life. Using Sartre's "existence precedes essence" definition, we exist merely by chance. Therefore, from Sartre's point of view, we are not born with a reason for living. In addition, although we never achieve a purpose for life, we ascertain an essence, which is likely the most similar idea. 

            On the contrary, I believe that there is a Creator, and that he has willed us to discover our essence during our lifetime. I believe that Sartre never considered the idea that we were born with an essence, but we do not become conscious of it until we reach proper maturation through both actions and probability. This theory as it pertains to essence is not overly contrastive to Sartre's existentialist point of view, and yet, the mere addition of a God makes a great distinction. As does Sartre, I believe that we have an essence, and that it is expressed by our existence; however, I believe that this essence is present and determined prior to birth, and is unveiled over the course of our existence. 

When Did the Roles Reverse?

Nietzsche most definitely raised some interesting points when he spoke of the essential difference between good and bad in the essay that we read in class. He defined good as being strong and useful, and bad as being weak, and somewhat helpless. These definitions of good and bad definitely differ from the norm, because we normally view good and bad as how they compare to morality. As in, if I commit adultery  it is bad, but if I help feed the poor and donate to charity, I am considered good. Nietzsche made me think about the definition of good and bad in a different light, in that being good or bad is more of a social standing rather than a moral standing. However, what I noticed about our class discussion is that everything becomes misconstrued depending on what side of good or bad you are on. During class, I could not help but think about Marx's works on Communism. Virtually, in his eyes, if you are wealthy you are essentially bad, and if you are of the poor working class then you are good. Yet, from Nietzsche's view point, the weak are bad simply by nature, just as the strong are good by nature. But what Kind of comparison is that to make? Good is good and bad is bad right? Everybody has their own definition, and that whats makes an individual an individual. There was a comment made by Dr. J in class about the slave revolt which reversed the "noble mode of evolution." In my mind, I believe that is when the role of good and bad was reversed. Take today's society for instance, I know I have mentioned this before, but the Wall Street movement virtually ostracizes the rich "AKA strong" as being bad. When did this come to be? When we were all little did not we dream to grow up to become rich and famous, so why are we criticizing them  now? Believe me, I came from a very humble back ground, and I have worked very hard to get to where I am today. Although that might not be much, it is a start.  I cannot buy into the idea that the upper 1% are the evil aristocracy that are ruining the nation, because deep down inside I know that everybody wants to be that 1%.  According to Nietzsche, you would be strong. And, who would not want to be strong?

This or that?

In class on Tuesday, we discussed Marx’s concept of estranged labor. He believes capitalism is bad due to the fact that the class struggle between the owners of production and the workers leads to alienated labor. This means that the workers work for the owners to earn a wage which they then use to survive. This is in contrast to Marx’s communist society in which everyone works and produces, no one is subject to wages, and you take what you need to survive. Under capitalism, our relationship to the material external world which is required for production becomes an estranged and broken one. The workers relationship to their work and fellow workers is broken as well as to themselves. Supposedly, capitalism even destroys our sense of what it means to be human which Marx calls species-being.

Conceptually, capitalism appears to be a heavily flawed system while communism appears perfect. However, I believe each system has its own strengths and weaknesses. Realistically, countries become stagnant under communism. Without the presence of competition, innovation falls by the wayside. Without innovation, countries fall behind. The more important issue though is the morality of both systems. The main flaw of capitalism is that the proletariat is exploited and driven down to a mere subsistence level. Workers are treated as commodities versus being considered human beings. Private property becomes more important than the humans that produce it. Personally, I find this concept hard to believe. Obviously no one values any of their possessions more than a human life. However, coming from a family that has provided for me throughout my life, I do not think I’ll ever really be able to understand this concept. Do we all really value our possessions more than a human life? I hope this is not the case, but then again I am not the one to say.

It is hard to say which system is the better one. From a sort of macro point-of-view, you could say countries thrive under capitalism due to the competition of it. But it is the lack of competition that gives communism the edge. Humans are treated as such and everyone works and produces. I’ve been raised under capitalism so it is all I know. The way I look at it is the struggle to survive is innate and, therefore, we should live under a system which appeals to that. In a way, capitalism keeps us sharp and hungry while communism leads to passivity and laziness. It’s similar to an animal that is domestically raised. That animal was provided for and, if released into the wild, will not survive. In the end, capitalism may be the “darker” of the two, but I still believe it to be superior.

Upsetting the System

My understanding of Nietzsche up to SEARCH 201 was superficial at best and I write this blog post hoping to clarify some obvious confusion I still have with his ideas. I struggle to grasp what exactly Nietzsche meant in his attempt to overthrow the traditional moral explanations of humanity before him. I hope to further discuss the ramifications of his overthrow means for all of us in how we live our lives.

According to Nietzsche our society is simply a system of beings. Nobody is good or bad simply because we are doing precisely what we are. To ask us to do anything else is ridiculous.

Does this not blow anybody else’s mind? The Nietzsche mentality is absolutely maddening me. As I am sitting here writing this blog post and as you are reading the same post we are each being ourselves, we are doing what we are. There is no longer any moral will in our action. Nietzsche provides the example of the lightning in section 13 where we mistake the thunder as the action of the light. We separate the sound from the thing itself and we say that the lightning caused the thunder. Instead we now see that the lightning is the thunder and the thunder is the lightning.

Sounds pretty crazy initially, but the ramifications of Nietzsche’s proposal are mammoth. Where the hell does our free will then go? I am guessing free will is simply gone in Nietzsche’s world. Our decisions are simply determined before we are even aware of them.

I would then ask why exactly we attempt to reform criminals and gang-bangers if they have no will in their decision making? They are each doing what they are; to ask them to do anything else is irrational. What they do in the future is simply determined by fate and chance. Just as Prof. Johnson’s villain from “No Country for Old Men” exists and his decisions to murder are fatalistic.

Subsequently, what about the reformed criminals? Are they the ones whom chance favored? Where does this chance derive from and what exactly are the odds of certain situations?

How can we be sure of Nietzsche’s claims that upset the system that we still cling to today? With every step we take towards achieving a better society as a whole under the Judeo-Christian scheme, we must reject the reality of what really is taking place according to Nietzsche.

Are we really living in a world of chance?

Society's Reversal of "Weak" and "Strong"

In class Thursday, we discussed the Genealogy of “good” and “bad.” Good and bad were originally aristocratic modes of evaluation.  However, eventually the roles were reversed due to ressentiment. “Good” which is noble is powerful is beautiful is happy is beloved by God was reversed by the “bad.” Nietzsche calls this reversal of “good" and “bad” the slave revolt in morality or the reversing of the noble mode of evaluation. We then discussed how Jews did the same thing and Christians made it worse. They begin to associate things that were really good with things that were self-denying. Nietzsche has a problem with this because he believes that by denying self, we no longer express our strengths. Instead, we exemplify our weaknesses. In my opinion, I think it was very clever of the weak to reverse the definition of what it means to be strong in order for them to be seen as the ones that are actually strong. However, I do agree with Nietzsche that we are doing ourselves a disservice and making it okay to be weak. While in class, I thought about how today’s society is still using this same technique to make their selves appear as the good guys. For example, everyone has been talking about the One Percent and how powerful and rich they are. Last time I checked, being powerful and rich was a good thing but because the majority of society is not powerful and rich like the One Percent, we have decided to equate powerful and rich to being evil and negative. If powerful and rich are negative, does that make incapable and poor positives? The same thing has been done with slender individuals. As of late, they are being described anorexic. Although the slender person is a healthy weight and does not have an eating disorder, they have been portrayed as weak, sick and fragile while women that weigh more or are obese, are being described as the wealthier individuals. Let me first say, I am not trying to attack anyone and their weight. I am just trying to make the point that a major reversal of roles has taken place in society. The weak are not trying to become strong. They are changing the definition of what it means to be weak in order to make weak acceptable. Although it may help the weak and their confidence level, it is not helping solve the issue and make the weak stronger. If this continues, I believe society will no longer strive to be noble, powerful, beautiful, and happy in their original context. Society will strive to noble, powerful, beautiful, and happy in their new unrealistic context.

Seeing Through the Cage



Morality is as artificial as is this morality meter

I have had a hard time understanding Western philosophers we have encountered in Search so far. Before I read Nietzsche’s First Essay, I have even, in jest, said that western philosophy has gone downhill since Ancient Greece.  Western theologians and philosophers such as Aristotle, Augustine, Luther, Descartes, Kant, and Marx, all believe in some unifying or exemplifying ideal. There must be something that is the very best of things. For Plato, it’s the Forms; for Aristotle, it’s the eudemonia; for Augustine, Luther, and Descartes, it’s God; for Kant, it’s the objective maxim. Because of their confidence in the perfect ideal, they believed in the perfect morality. I was skeptical of their stances on morality based on one single doubt: can there really be perfection? I can find no evidence for one set of moral values being the best of them all. The idea of God seems to be a mere extrapolation on the idea of the Socratic Form.  The Western thinkers were trapped in a cage of perfection. They assume the necessity of perfection while there is none.

Nietzsche sees through the cage. What we called “good” in the Roman times, was nothing but what the ancient Greeks thought best exemplify what people want the most - the virtue of a knife is in its sharpness. Utility or usefulness dictates goodness. Such etymology of good is found in Chinese language even today: the term YICHONG, or Useful Bugs connotes goodness, the term HAICHONG, or Harmful Bugs connotes badness. There’s nothing confusing here. Morality started off the same way. After Socrates’ failure at defining the Just, the Romans created a noble morality. Morally good actions are just actions that are useful. Aeneas' leaving Dido may be heartless, but he still proves to be a good Roman because of his obedience to duty, a useful conscience for a strong Roman. As Nietzsche points out, the noble point of view sees values different from theirs as barbarian (Genealogy of Morals 477). I find a mocking tone in his defense of the Roman values.  A powerful herd of people believe: whatever my people think is good, is good, whatever we think is bad, is bad. Anyone thinking otherwise is just underdeveloped. This is as ridiculous as the weak herd of people believing: whatever those against us are, are evil; whatever least like those against us are, are good.

There’s no reason to adopt either the week's or the strong's side of the moral debate. The Christian morality we have today is there, but it is not founded on anything, certainly not God – since he has long been dead. These values are here only because they were useful once, when the week became numerous and carried a mutual ressentiment. A reverse of the Roman morality is just as authoritarian and false as the original. Here we come to a realization: there is no morality. But wait! What of the consequences?

If there is no morality, how do people live in harmony? If we can’t tell our kid, taking things from other kids is wrong, what of our peaceful society? We have only unsatisfactorily appeased the concern when we inform everyone in a society that moral laws are useful though artificial, just like a knife is artificial, but useful. A societal moral code may then be able to take the place of a Christian morality, however not fully. The Christian morality with a God as overseer is strong beyond doubt. No Christian wants to forgo blissful afterlife and extend their lifelong suffering even more. However, we can't always rely on the Christian morality. It is way too rigid. Its content has become obsolete decades ago if not more. We are now in this sticky situation where we have no readily-available moral code with the same weight to replace the Christian one in a post-Christian era. Some might ask: do we really need something to replace the blank left by Christian morality? I am leaning to the positive answer.

Growing up as one of the weak in a Godless country, I have experienced the effect of having merely suggestive moral laws on society. Unfortunately, the new artificial morality doesn’t work as well as some atheists in this country have hoped. In a country with new moral codes, People can only guess how to be a good person, an inconvenience that has resulted in the strong herd tacitly defining how a society works. I did not see myself surviving in that climate. Most of us are just slaves; we can’t survive without a slave morality at least around us, if not in us. I am in such a predicament: I know a Christian morality is irrational in itself and harmful when involved in governing; however, I cannot deny its nonparallel efficiency in maintaining a society congenial to the weak and numerous (which I am a part of).

I think, when one sees the world in its reality, underneath its pretense, one is doomed to despair. That the world is the best of all possible worlds is a wonderful, fulfilling belief to have. It is beneficial for my mind if I can un-see the ugliness of the world, to know that the world (or rather human society) is not created by human, but by some other intelligent, perfectly free being, I am free from the guilt of participating in the creating of an ugly world. I am also free from the loneliness of a prophet. The only one who sees the world as it is, is necessarily alone. We want to have companions; therefore we must deny the ugliness of our companions and ourselves. Inconveniently,I feel incapable to self-deceive. I found empathy in Nietzsche’s view, however a dim light for my future sanity as well.