I’m going to mess
with your head.
Join me on this
journey…
and entertain a
different way of
thinking.
If you fight me,
you’ll just feel
bitter…
and there’s no
need for that…
Humans are conscious
of their mortality, and
must make decisions
about their life.
The actions or choices
that a person makes are
very important.
Every person has to
decide for themselves
what is right and wrong,
and what is good and
bad.
The only nature we as
humans have is the
nature we make for
ourselves.
The world and human
life have no meaning
unless people give them
meanings.
Human essence or
nature (the way of being
in the world) is entirely
and simply existence.
Existentialism is
different from Nihilism,
but there is a similarity.
Nihilists believe that
human life does not
have a meaning or
purpose;
Existentialism says that
people must choose
their own purpose.
What is it like to be a
human (a person) in the
world?
How can we understand
human freedom (what it
means for a person to
be free)?
Existentialism is very often
connected with negative
emotions, such as anxiety
(worrying), dread (a very
strong fear), and mortality
(awareness of our own
death).
Started in mid-1800s.
Flourished in post-Great War
Europe, especially with the
Germans.
Guesses as to why?
There are many different aspects of
Existentialism; therefore, we will
approach our studies similarly to our
Gatsby approach. As a class we will
discuss the various aspects;
however, you will choose one or two
aspects from which to view the
texts.
We are
condemned to
be free.
-- Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre
Existence precedes essence
Would a rose by any other name…
The most important consideration for the
individual is the fact that he or she is an
individual—an independently acting and
responsible conscious being ("existence")—
rather than what labels, roles, stereotypes,
definitions, or other preconceived categories the
individual fits ("essence").
“I am awesome.”
“Actually, you suck.”
“Nope. Awesome.”
The actual life of the individual is what
constitutes what could be called his or her "true
essence" instead of there being an arbitrarily
attributed essence used by others to define him
or her.
“I think I am ethical; therefore, I am ethical.”
“You have no ethics.”
“Still thinking ‘ethical.’”
Thus, human beings, through their own
consciousness, create their own values and
determine a meaning to their life.
“I am a bird.”
“Dude, seriously?”
It is often claimed in this context that a person
defines himself or herself, which is often
perceived as stating that they can wish to be
something—anything, a bird, for instance—and
then be it.
However, according to most existentialist
philosophers, this would constitute an
inauthentic existence.
“Okay, so I’m not a bird. Whatever.”
Example:
Unless other genetic complications exist, you – a
female – cannot say, “I am a man” and therefore
be a man because this directly goes against your
essence – whether you like it or not.
Ummm… ?
Instead, the phrase should be taken to say that
the person is (1) defined only insofar as he or
she acts and (2) that he or she is responsible for
his or her actions.
Roar! I surge!
As Sartre writes in his work Existentialism is a
Humanism: "...man first of all exists, encounters
himself, surges up in the world – and defines
himself afterwards."
Do I beat this person bloody?
Of course, the more positive, therapeutic aspect
of this is also implied: A person can choose to
act in a different way, and to be a good person
instead of a cruel person.
What will beating this person bloody do to my
essence?
Ahhh… a single choice does NOT determine my
essence… right?
Here it is also clear that since humans can
choose to be either cruel or good, they are, in
fact, neither of these things essentially.
The Absurd
Dude, no pressure!
The notion of the Absurd contains the idea that
there is no meaning to be found in the world
beyond what meaning we give to it.
Boo hoo, why is the world so unfair?
This meaninglessness also encompasses the
amorality or "unfairness" of the world.
Sooooo, Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, and
Jeffrey Dahmer are not essencially bad
people? Whatever you say, Existentialists!
This contrasts with the notion that "bad things
don't happen to good people"; to the world,
metaphorically speaking, there is no such thing
as a good person or a bad person; what happens
happens, and it may just as well happen to a
"good" person as to a "bad" person.
I turned into a bug!
Because of the world's absurdity, at any point in
time, anything can happen to anyone, and a
tragic event could plummet someone into direct
confrontation with the Absurd.
Don’t jump! Suicide is for Nihilists! So long
as you are a rational, conscious being, you
have purpose!
It is in relation to the concept of the devastating
awareness of meaninglessness that Albert
Camus claimed that "there is only one truly
serious philosophical problem, and that is
suicide."
Facticity
Fak-tis-i-tee
It’s an essence thing.
My brain hurts.
I don’t have a clue what this means.
Facticity is a concept defined by Jean-Paul Sartre
in Being and Nothingness as the "in-itself", of
which humans are in the mode of not being.
So I am my past choices?
(No way this concept is this easy.)
This can be more easily understood when
considering it in relation to the temporal
dimension of past: one's past is what one is in
the sense that it co-constitutes oneself.
Nope. Still confused. I don’t like
facticity. Can’t we just skip this
part?
Sorry, Shareefa, but this is kind of
important.
Let’s try again…
Facticity –
the concrete details of a person’s
past that create freedoms and
limitations.
Facticities (or limits/freedoms) may include the
time and place of birth, a language, an
environment, an individual's previous choices,
as well as the inevitable prospect of their death.
Example
A person who is born without legs is limited in
that they cannot walk on a beach.
If future medicine develops a method of
growing new legs for that person, her facticity
might no longer exclude this activity.
I was born in Kuwait.
It is part of my past, and it was NOT my
choice… is this a limitation or a condition?
Facticity is both a limitation and a condition of
freedom. It is a limitation in that a large part of
one's facticity consists of things one couldn't
have chosen (birthplace, etc.), but a condition in
the sense that one's values most likely will
depend on it.
But saying we are only what our past made us
isn’t reasonable because it ignores the present
and future.
Conditions of the present and our goals for the
future also are our facticities. Conditions in past,
present, and future form the freedoms and
limitations that mould our essence.
If this is true, than would it be fair to say that
existentialists believe:
They aren’t their choices, but they are
their facticities?
Let’s put it to a TOK test:
Aimee Mullins
Aimee Mullins was
born with a genetic
condition requiring
amputation of both
legs. Without legs she
could not be a track
and field athlete.
Did advancements in
medical science alter
Mullins’ facticity?
Medical science has
created prosthetic legs.
Mullins was a track and
field athlete at
Georgetown University.
But are all choices dictated by
facticity?
A person can deny the conditions of her own
concrete past, present and future; however, this
constitutes an inauthentic lifestyle.
Wasn’t existentialism supposed to
be freeing for former soldiers
suffering from PTSD?
If thou shall not kill is part of Joe’s early facticity,
but America mandates that he shall kill for his
country and therefore killing is part of his
present facticity, and his goal remains to follow a
religious moral code and therefore gain entrance
into heaven by abiding the religious facticity into
which he was indoctrinated by his parents… Is
killing in a war unauthentic to his essence?
Get out of jail for free card
Even though one's facticity is "set in stone" (as
being past, for instance), it cannot determine a
person’s essence: The value ascribed to one's
facticity is still ascribed to it freely by that
person.
So Joe decides how important that “thou shall
not kill” facticity is to him…
These existentialists need to stop
talking in circles. We’re getting
nowhere.
How’s this for an existentialist explanation:
We are our facticities; however, it is our choice
as to how much value we put into any one
facticity. If we put a great deal of value into a
facticity, but then act contrary to that selfvalued facticity, we are unauthentic. However if
we do not value a facticity and we act contrary
to it, we are authentic. Once again…
existentialists choose their own dangerous
routes.
Gotta love a good TOK J-Drama.
• Consider Kyo and Hiro.
– Kyo has no memory of his past.
– Hiro remembers everything.
• Both fought in WWII and killed many people.
– Kyo suffered a blow to the head and does not remember
the war. Knowing nothing about his role in the war, Kyo
leads a rather normal life.
– Hiro, though, remembers everything and feels trapped by
his own past. He continues killing after the war and blames
his own past for "trapping" him in this life.
• There is nothing essential about Hiro committing
crimes, but he ascribes this meaning to his past. So is
he acting authentically or not?
Facticity also includes “freedom”
Freedom to choose to value or not value a
facticity.
For example, one may be born into a culture
that does not value shoes; however, an
existentialist believes it is her right to personally
devalue this cultural part of her facticity and
become a shoe-a-holic.
Devaluing a facticity has
consequences
A shoe-a-holic in an anti-shoe culture may face
shunning from her community. This is her
freedom.
It is also her responsibility. She has freely chosen
shunning by devaluing a cultural facticity.
Devaluing a facticity has
consequences
Does this mean her anti-shoe facticity stops
existing?
No.
It means it is in a “mode of not being” – it is a
facticity that is there but not followed.
Sort of like how a black hole is there but not.
The lack of a star is still felt.
In other words, the origin of one's projection
will still have to be one's facticity, although in
the mode of not being or valuing the facticity.
So essence is facticities – but the
individual decides to value or not
value different facticities.
A lack of value is just as powerful
as a value when creating essence.
Essence is irrefutable because it is
facticity – both the star and the
black hole.
Dr. Debs is both her American facticities and the
facticities created by her devalue of many of her
American facticities.
I am both an American citizen and an ex-patriot.
Authenticity
Authentic existence involves the
idea that one has to "create
oneself" and then live in
accordance with this self.
For example, I believe strongly that the
American pledge of allegiance directly infringes
on my constitutional right to a separation
between church and state; therefore, to remain
authentic to my facticities, I never say the
pledge.
What is meant by authenticity is
that in acting, one should act as
oneself, not as "one" acts or as
"one's genes" or any other essence
requires.
This is the existentialist crying out:
“Don’t be a sheep! You have a right to choose!”
In contrast to this, the inauthentic
is the denial to live in accordance
with one's freedom.
But remember, an existentialist’s freedoms are
also her responsibilities.
This can take many forms, from
pretending choices are
meaningless or random, through
convincing oneself that some form
of determinism is true, to a sort of
"mimicry" where one acts as "one
should.”
How "one" should act is often
determined by an image one has of
how one such as oneself (say, a
bank manager, lion tamer, hobo,
etc.) acts.
This image usually corresponds to
some sort of social norm, but this
does not mean that all acting in
accordance with social norms is
inauthentic
The main point is
authenticity is determined by the
attitude one takes to one's
own freedom and responsibility,
and the extent to which one acts in
accordance with this freedom.
The Other and The Look
Vocab…
Object – a material thing that can be seen and
touched.
Objective – not influenced by personal feelings
or opinions in considering and representing
facts.
The world is an object.
Vocab…
Subject – a person or thing that is being
discussed, described, or dealt with.
Subjective – based on or influenced by personal
feelings, tastes, or opinions
Intersubjective – existing between conscious
minds; shared by more than one conscious
mind.
The world is an object.
When I am viewed by The Other, I
am the subject in a shared object
(the world).
Existence is verified in The Look I
receive from The Other.
And I can only perceive myself in
The Look that I receive when
interacting with The Other.
(You can’t perceive yourself in a
mirror… but there is a catch-22
we’ll get to in a few slides.)
Sartre's own example of a man peeping at
someone through a keyhole can help clarify this:
at first, this man is entirely caught up in the
situation he is in; he is in a pre-reflexive state
where his entire consciousness is directed at
what goes on in the room. Suddenly, he hears a
creaking floorboard behind him, and he
becomes aware of himself as seen by the Other.
He is thus filled with shame for he perceives
himself as he would perceive someone else
doing what he was doing, as a Peeping Tom. The
Look is then co-constitutive of one's facticity.
So the existentialist is always perceiving herself
through a lens of facticities.
But there’s the catch-22… The Other need not
have noticed the peeping existentialist, the floor
boards might have just creaked and freaked out
the peeing existentialist for the existentialist to
give herself The Look and therefore perceive
herself.
The imagined perception of The Other is enough
of a “mirror” to reflect an existentialist’s
essence.
In the end, an existentialist only can understand
her essence through the lens of her perception
of how someone else perceives her.
And perception is created entirely by facticity.
Angst
Existential Angst : a negative
feeling that arises from the
experience of human freedom
and responsibility.
I am so free…
I’m freaking out.
The archetypal example is the
experience one has when
standing on a cliff where one not
only fears falling off it, but also
dreads the possibility of
throwing oneself off.
In this experience that "nothing
is holding me back", one senses
the lack of anything that
predetermines one to either
throw oneself off or to stand still,
and one experiences one's own
freedom.
…. Freaky…
In experiencing one's freedom as
angst, one also realizes that one
will be fully responsible for these
consequences.
If I remain atop the cliff, I shall be
killed by the bear chasing me.
If I jump off the cliff, I may break
my leg.
If I remain atop the desk, Ms
Jacki might fire Dr Debs, and
we’d not have a teacher, and
we’d all fail IB English…
If I jump off the desk, I could
seriously damage Reem.
This is not fear.
This is feeling the weight of the
consequences of your choices.
There will be no one to blame for
the consequences EXCEPT
yourself.
Despair
Existentialist despair is the loss
of hope as a result of a valued
facticity (defining fact) beign
corrupted.
7:00am Present Facticity – I am a dancer.
7:01am Present Facticity – My legs are
irreparably crushed in a car accident.
3:00pm – Present Facticity – The doctor
informs me that I will never walk again.
3:00pm – Despair –
I realize that a valued present facticity has
become a past facticity.
Am I now a former dancer? How will I
identity myself? I cannot emotionally
accept that I am other facticities because
the high value I placed on being a dancer.
Who am I now? Am I nothing? Am I the
void left by the present facticity that
became a past facticity?
*tear*
Am I now a former dancer? How will I
identity myself? I cannot emotionally
accept that I am other facticities because
the high value I placed on being a dancer.
Who am I now? Am I nothing? Am I the
void left by the present facticity that
became a past facticity?
*tear*
BUT existential despair is a little different:
So long as a person's identity depends
on qualities that can crumble, he is
considered to be in perpetual despair.
Despair is a universal human condition.
Additionally, focusing on the individuals
lack of control over the world will only
make people more unhappy.
Existentialist Philosophy and Texts
Remember that existentialism is a lens
through which we may view the world
and texts…
And most existentialist philosophers
weren’t “existentialists” … they just
entertained aspects of the philosophy.
An author who is influenced by
existentialist philosophy is not
necessarily an existentialist.
Don’t make that assumption.
And remember that to examine a text
using the existentialist lens does not
mean you must address all subsections
of existentialism…
Lots of existentialist philosophers
disagree with large sections.
Pick and choose your battles wisely!