|
|
Post by gnicholson3 on Jun 3, 2024 15:49:03 GMT
The introduction that we read about Existential America was interesting in regard to the idea of 'possibility'. I had only ever considered existentialism as being a negative thing that involves crisis, but the goal--investigating existentialism as a way to live one's life more authentically--feels a bit more novel and intricate. I'm not sure the author of the text, but he writes, "Existentialism, then, is not concerned solely with the nature of Being but with the possibility of Becoming" (5). He writes of "paths through nothingness" which sound bleak, but, when mulled over, initiates a hopefulness of finding one's way, one's purpose, through life knowingly walking to the end (5). I have to wonder if every author is somewhat of an existentialist, though. Are we not all finding our way, writing journeys, facing death, choosing life, finding things that are important to us? It feels a bit broad for my understanding.
Another idea that struck me was Sartre’s “maxim that men and women everywhere, as part of the human condition, are ‘condemned to be free’” (3). I understand that there is more than one way to be free, so I’m assuming it means freedom: in a bodily sense as exemplified by the mention of the African American experience and in a spiritual sense with the biblical gift of free-will. I can’t help but to feel that I’m missing more here, like maybe a mental freedom or even a freedom from oneself. I don’t know. The author writes that “once-born individuals may have a cheery disposition and seem untroubled by the existential darkness” (3). I don’t understand his mention of ‘once-born’. Does he mean people who are not religious?
|
|
|
|
Post by shelbygraham on Jun 3, 2024 18:36:17 GMT
I like how you point out there is a positive side to existentialism. Often people focus on the negative complexities of life and what make it challenging; it's interesting to think about the flip side and how we can "live life to the fullest." We don't need to analyze and ponder solely on crises and struggles, but we can also put our effort and energy into studying our purpose, etc. I think I agree with your point about all authors being existentialists.
I can imagine, with existentialism being so broad, it's probably referring to any variation of freedom (the ones you mention and lots more). From the video we watched it seems all the well-known existentialists had their own interpretations that vary somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Post by gnicholson3 on Jun 3, 2024 18:48:22 GMT
Shelby,
I feel like maybe the reason I feel that existentialism is broad because there doesn't seem to be a finite definition. Like you said, "all the well-known existentialists have their own interpretations that vary." The variation makes it hard to consider whether an interpretation is hitting the mark or missing the board completely. I've always struggled a bit with ideas that were more abstract and less concrete in their assertions, but hopefully I learn more as the semester continues and develop a better understanding of what I personally feel embodies the overall concept of existentialism. Also, I think I clung to the positive meaning that I found in our reading, because existentialism seems so negative and often it is negative as it has roots in weightlessness. Nordgren taught a class last semester and we read a book, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, that developed the dichotomies of lightness and weight being the balancing act that makes life bearable. If things were easy all the time, then there would be nothing to hold us down to Earth and if things were hard all the time, then we couldn’t bear to stay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Nemmers on Jun 4, 2024 4:02:46 GMT
Some very compelling stuff here, Grace. And yes, it very much depends on how you look at it-- whether negative or positive, optimistic or pessimistic. I discussed freedom on another thread, so won't belabor that too much here. But authenticity is crucial~
To answer your question: "Are we not all finding our way, writing journeys, facing death, choosing life, finding things that are important to us?"
Many existentialists would say no-- that many people are relying not on their own selves, but just travel upon paths that are pre-given and laid out before them, following cultural norms, beliefs, and ideas that do not belong to them. Most people in fact prefer this, since the burden on freedom may lead to despair, angst, dread, anxiety, etc.
But-- and this is important-- on the other side of this can be positive in that it's authentic and chosen, even if it's futile or absurd. In creating one's own path and rebelling against the strictures of society, one might achieve a meaningful life. That's the positive spin, anyway--- definitely can choose one's own adventure, as you note.
(George Cotkin, by the way-- Existential America. That's the book the Introduction is taken from.)
|
|
|
|
Post by meagangcurrie on Jun 5, 2024 23:57:07 GMT
I guess it really does depend on perspective. For me, I see existentialism in both a pessimistic and optimistic light. I can establish both its positive and negative elements. But to answer your last question, "once-born," I would associate that with those who are not religious. The term "born again" would fit more with religious people. I am now wondering if the author himself believes in God or some other god, and how religious individuals are supposed to view existentialism.
|
|
