Showing posts with label Week 12. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Week 12. Show all posts
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Burden of responsibility
Last week, we discussed “Existentialism is a Humanism” by French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. I found Sartre’s work extremely interesting and definitely easier to comprehend than previous philosophical texts; simply because of his use of in-depth explanations and specific examples. I particularly enjoyed his take on the role of responsibility in our lives. Sartre writes “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself”. We have choice, we have subjectivity, and we choose what we will try to make ourselves out to be; we are entirely responsible for our existence. Sartre’s idea that human existence is characterized by transcendence also explains why he writes “if existence really does precede essence, [then] man is responsible for what he is.” Personally, I see Sartre’s philosophy serves as a motivational tool to make something out of existence. For let's face it, at the end of the day, your ideals aren’t what matter; what matters is what you actually did.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
which stage am I in?
Reading about Soren Kierkagaard, and how he sees all humans able to be categorized into three stages caused me to think: well then, what category would I fall under? Why are there only three? Is is good to be in one stage and bad to be in another? What does is mean to "deliberately" jump from one to another? Can some people adhere to not every characteristic of one who is also in that stage? I ultimately found myself struggling between weather I belonged in the ethical or religious stage of life's way. I like to consider myself especially able to choose to accept moral standards and recognize my duties over pleasure, which would make me in the ethical stage, but I also find myself further and more deeply identifying with the religious stage as well, just not as consistently. I see it as important to distinguish the voice of society (the universal), verses the voice of the "Absolute." Do I always choose one over the other? No. So even if I strive to be in the "religious" stage, does that make me a part of it?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Class Synopsis- March 28th, 2011
Subject 1: Søren Kierkegaard
Monday’s class began with the introduction of philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. As a student, the Danish writer had a Peter Pan-esque attitude toward life. He had difficulty even choosing a major in school, even finding philosophy dissatisfying as he was not interested in the abstract. These conundrums ultimately lead to the central theme of his work. Kierkegaard prioritized living over abstract thinking, affording him the title of “Father of Existentialism”, which promotes the importance of decision and decisiveness. Kierkegaard valued his anonymity, using many pseudonyms, or characters, as personae in his work. In his work Either/Or, Kierkegaard uses five different pseudonyms as personae. These characters voice different opinions so that the soul of the author is not considered as part of the work but seen as part of the character. Kierkegaard believed that the reader should be left alone with the work rather than in a dialogue with the author, thus allowing the point of view to speak for itself. He goes on to deny the intention of a religious telos in his working, attributing it to some divine providence. Kierkegaard believed that there is no authorial privilege, so the intention of the author does not matter and is not the meaning of the text. Dr.Layne used the example of her painting as intending to paint an apple, yet whatever is on the canvas is not her idea but is separate from her since the viewer adds meaning by what is extracted from it.
Subject 2: Existentialism
In Existentialism, Kierkegaard teaches the importance of giving life meaning and living “authentically”. The authentic life focuses on emotions such as guilt, boredom, and anxiety. Kierkegaard believes anxiety is the telos of being human as everyone has some form of anxiety stemming from our incompleteness or sinfulness. What matter is not the general or universal truth but the truth that is true for a person specifically and seizes their life; the subjective truth. Dr.Layne told us how she was seized by love for her husband before even knowing it. This truth led her to where she is today and shows that she is indeed living authentically. Chris then pointed out that Kierkegaard’s view of the truth points out a problem with divorce.
Subject 3: The Stages of Life’s Way
Kierkegaard’s Stages of Life’s Way has 3 levels of the aesthetic, ethical, and religious. All individuals fall into one of these forms. Dr. Layne explained that one cannot choose a sphere, but can sometimes move between them by a movement of the will. Each level is defined by how one answers the question, “What is the good life?”
Subject 4: Aesthetic
In Kierkegaard’s first stage, the aesthetic, one lives in the immediate. The individual is a detached on looker, avoiding life via immediacy which does not require reflective thought. Pre-ethical, right and wrong play no part in the aesthetic view of life. Kierkegaard argues that there is no authentic self in the aesthetic stage as everything is relative and there are no real matters in life. Commitment and either/or decisions are avoided. If one chooses one path, others are cut off. A student posed the question “How is a decision made if decision is not involved at all in paths (aesthetic, ethical, or religious)?” Dr. Layne explained that there is never an option, only the severed self from other possibilities, which are not actual options. The aesthetic person lives in the moment, only experiencing a series of “nows”. Chris asked, “Is this placing judgment because these claims are only made within the realm of the ethical?” Dr.Layne refuted that this doesn’t matter in the aesthetic since, once again, everything is relative. Kierkegaard claims that those of the aesthetic stage do not know who they are, leading to the despair of the unwillingness to be oneself.
Monday’s class began with the introduction of philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. As a student, the Danish writer had a Peter Pan-esque attitude toward life. He had difficulty even choosing a major in school, even finding philosophy dissatisfying as he was not interested in the abstract. These conundrums ultimately lead to the central theme of his work. Kierkegaard prioritized living over abstract thinking, affording him the title of “Father of Existentialism”, which promotes the importance of decision and decisiveness. Kierkegaard valued his anonymity, using many pseudonyms, or characters, as personae in his work. In his work Either/Or, Kierkegaard uses five different pseudonyms as personae. These characters voice different opinions so that the soul of the author is not considered as part of the work but seen as part of the character. Kierkegaard believed that the reader should be left alone with the work rather than in a dialogue with the author, thus allowing the point of view to speak for itself. He goes on to deny the intention of a religious telos in his working, attributing it to some divine providence. Kierkegaard believed that there is no authorial privilege, so the intention of the author does not matter and is not the meaning of the text. Dr.Layne used the example of her painting as intending to paint an apple, yet whatever is on the canvas is not her idea but is separate from her since the viewer adds meaning by what is extracted from it.
Subject 2: Existentialism
In Existentialism, Kierkegaard teaches the importance of giving life meaning and living “authentically”. The authentic life focuses on emotions such as guilt, boredom, and anxiety. Kierkegaard believes anxiety is the telos of being human as everyone has some form of anxiety stemming from our incompleteness or sinfulness. What matter is not the general or universal truth but the truth that is true for a person specifically and seizes their life; the subjective truth. Dr.Layne told us how she was seized by love for her husband before even knowing it. This truth led her to where she is today and shows that she is indeed living authentically. Chris then pointed out that Kierkegaard’s view of the truth points out a problem with divorce.
Subject 3: The Stages of Life’s Way
Kierkegaard’s Stages of Life’s Way has 3 levels of the aesthetic, ethical, and religious. All individuals fall into one of these forms. Dr. Layne explained that one cannot choose a sphere, but can sometimes move between them by a movement of the will. Each level is defined by how one answers the question, “What is the good life?”
Subject 4: Aesthetic
In Kierkegaard’s first stage, the aesthetic, one lives in the immediate. The individual is a detached on looker, avoiding life via immediacy which does not require reflective thought. Pre-ethical, right and wrong play no part in the aesthetic view of life. Kierkegaard argues that there is no authentic self in the aesthetic stage as everything is relative and there are no real matters in life. Commitment and either/or decisions are avoided. If one chooses one path, others are cut off. A student posed the question “How is a decision made if decision is not involved at all in paths (aesthetic, ethical, or religious)?” Dr. Layne explained that there is never an option, only the severed self from other possibilities, which are not actual options. The aesthetic person lives in the moment, only experiencing a series of “nows”. Chris asked, “Is this placing judgment because these claims are only made within the realm of the ethical?” Dr.Layne refuted that this doesn’t matter in the aesthetic since, once again, everything is relative. Kierkegaard claims that those of the aesthetic stage do not know who they are, leading to the despair of the unwillingness to be oneself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)