Sunday, April 3, 2011

My Problem with the Philosophy of Existentialism…



As we come to the close of the semester I reflect once more upon the subject of the class. Being in the title of itself, one would think that I have at least come to understand what the class is about. The problem with this is, however, that I still have absolutely no clue as to what we are trying to accomplish.

Now, please understand, I am not trying to insinuate that the professor is not teaching the class or is inapproachable. Quite to the contrary, Dr. Rand is very clear in his lectures and explanations of the texts in relation to the class. During the times outside of class, Dr. Rand is quite approachable and is willing to discuss any of the thoughts or interpretations that I have in relation to the texts and subject. Dr. Rand is even willing to go off of the beaten path in outside discussions and give advice on a large swath of issues.

But even with all of this, I simply cannot wrap my head around what it is we are trying to accomplish. What makes this worse is that a few of my friends have suggested that I would very much enjoy a class on existentialism and that I myself am probably an existentialist.

Having studied a few works in psychology in regards to the foundations of what is dubbed as an ‘existential crisis’ by the likes of Viktor Frankl, I came into the class with a vague notion of what I assumed we would be discussing. To be clearer, what I understand as an ‘existential crisis’ is to mean, is the situation a person experiences when they come to the conclusion that nothing that they do has any meaning or value. That the life that they live holds no intrinsic value and that all of their actions are bankrupt in the sense of having any type of actual effect in their life or upon the world [in a social or historical landscape meaning, not in a sense of carving your initials on the moon much like a comic book villain, though admittedly this would likely be of historical significance in and of itself].

This concept was, however, bunked as a definition for the class in any way or meaning within the first week. I understood that the two may not be even similar, but I had still thought that they would be related in some way.

As we went further in the class, the subject of existentialism in art and film also came up as a subject. By this point I admit I was unsure as to what to expect. As it turned out, it was something that I could wrap my head around, though I have trouble accepting the style as an actual art form or even a statement.  

Basically, as I understand it, in film, the point of existential expression is to continuously break the fourth wall as to remind the audience that the film they are watching is just that, a film. That yes, the audience has approached the film as a film, but that their suspension of disbelief should not be in place. In other words, it is much like the director constantly telling the audience ‘this is a film, none of it is real, let me break a few more rules to prove this’. 

Of course, the basic issue with this is that I have trouble thinking that the audience every really loses sight of the fact that they are watching a film. Especially today, when a person takes a date out to a movie, pays $20 for the tickets and another $20 for the concessions, I have serious doubts that they ever think ‘I’m not watching a movie’. Though I do admit, there is a likelihood that the person may not even pay attention to the movie at all considering that they may realize what they could have done with $40 aside from going to see some film about existentialist expression.

Likewise, when dealing with existentialism in art, the point of the artwork seems to be to question the concepts of recognition of intention. For example, the artist presents the audience with a figure that has the shape of a human, with features that resemble features found on a human, yet the figure is rough and undefined in certain places. The figure is distorted intentionally, as so that it would be impossible for such a human to exist, yet it is quite obvious to the observer that it is indeed meant to represent a human. With this the artist can ask ‘why do we think of this as a human figure?’

Once again, I have my doubts as to whether these styles are anything other than self pretentious airs. The attempts of the artist to question a person’s perception can be quite effective, but in reality is often misdirected by the artists themselves. A sculptor that looks at a statue from ancient Greece thinking that the statue was meant to accurately depict a person would most likely be incorrect considering just how gaudily the statues were painted [yes, those white marble statues were painted[1]]. Even if the original artist were attempting to try to recreate a person with 100% accuracy, the reality is that they would fail. The closer such things get in looking more realistic, the further into the ‘uncanny valley’ they get, effectively causing the intention to fail[2].

As interesting as this all is, it still leaves us with what is meant in Philosophy when we are discussing existentialism. As I have understood it in class, there is a separation between a person’s self, and the moral or ethical structures in which a person claims they base their decisions on.

To say it in a more precise way, a person may claim to have a logical or systematic reason for an action, but this is false. A person makes a decision in and of their ‘self’ without discernable moral reason and then assigns a reason to the decision. Accordingly, as I understand it from class, the existentialist is concerned with this situation and strives to explain it and solve the problem of the ‘consciousness gap’.  For example, Sartre, as I understood it, proposes that a person makes a decision given the situation and in making this decision claims that a person in an identical situation must make the same decision as there is no other option. Granted that the situation can never actually be identical, but this is beside the point.

The problem that I seem to have with existentialism as it relates to Philosophy is that I don’t actually see a problem. I acknowledge that a person is ultimately responsible for their actions and that a person makes these decisions in an internal fashion, almost to appear arbitrary to an observer.  Moreover I accept that there is a gap between a person’s actions and the reasoning or excuses that the person attributes as a cause. But I do not accept that this is a problem. To be honest, I would say that this is a consequence of ‘free will’ [of course this assumes that we actually have free will, but that complicates the issue a bit too much I think].

I simply do not see why an existentialist would look at the situation and say ‘this needs to be acknowledged and fixed’. What is there to fix? How is this broken? Yes, the average person likely states things such as ‘I must do x because I am in situation y’ when in fact, they are not required to do ‘x’ at all. The average person may not recognize the potential for choice that they have and actually honestly believe that they have no choice. Yes this is incorrect, but it is incorrect only inasmuch as they are tied to such concepts as ‘social contracts’ and the like.

What I mean by this is that a person may stop and realize that they actually are not truly required to do any such action as ‘x’ in any situation, but as long as they are bound by the social contract that they are a part of, then it follows that they don’t have any option aside from ‘x’ that concludes with an outcome that is positive in nature. More specifically, if one wants an outcome of ‘s’ then one is restricted to do certain actions as opposed to others. For example, if I want to be fit, then I should choose to exercise and eat certain foods. It is ultimately my decision as to whether I exercise or eat those foods, but as stated, if I want to be fit, then I am restricted to those activities.

Outside of the inherent restrictions present in being bound by wanted outcomes, the existentialists are correct, there is a gap between the self and the categories of morals and excuses. Existentialists are incorrect, however, in believing that there is either a problem with this or that there must be some type of understandable or stated bridge between these two concepts.

It is from this standpoint that I rest. As stated before, I have an inherent problem in understanding what it is exactly that we are trying to accomplish within the course. Perhaps I have completely missed the point of the texts which, quite honestly, would not be surprising in the slightest. If I am correct in my musing in relation to the proposed question, then I am stumped.

-T. West

No comments:

Post a Comment