I know you've been saying this for awhile, but I *just* don't read this into existentialism, and I don't find myself getting this kind of student when I teach it. This is not to say, of course, that I can't see the temptation that some people would misread existentialism this way, but I think it's a big ol' misunderstanding of what existentialism's about.
It seems to me legitimate that philosophers take on the question of whether life has any meaning. Why do anything if it doesn't? And then there's the problem that my individual life is, ultimately, up to me to create. (This does NOT mean, and never did mean, I can do whatever I want and no forces limit my choices...it means that, given whatever limitations I do face, I have to act somehow....that or die.) If life does not have any meaning, then poverty doesn't matter, genocide doesn't matter, totalitarianism doesn't matter, etc etc. Of course, Camus meant to disprove that nihilistic claim in both the Myth of Sisyphus (on the individual level) and the Rebel (on the political level). But it was a position that had to be addressed, particularly in the middle of the twentieth century. Whether it's as poignant now as it was then is an open question I'm always interested in.
Anyway, my thought about why teenagers like existentialism (if they still do...I hadn't really noticed that they connected with it so much lately) is that they are at a stage in their lives where they're struggling with who they are going to be versus everything their parents expected of them. Also, they start to realize that everything they assumed about what the world meant (often taught to them by parents, community, church, etc.) is not so obviously true. The opposite terminus on that pendulum thing is--it's all arbitrary and inherently meaningless. Existentialism tries, I think, to be a midpoint on that pendulum.
I think the parallel with "bootstrap" views is interesting, and a bit surprising.
I remember in my youth being very put off by the question "what is the meaning of life?" I, to be perfectly honest, found the sort of atheistic, nihilistic conception of the existentialists (not knowing what I was talking about of course) very attractive. It appealed to me because it justified my disaffected feelings towards society. It not only made it cool to be that sort of disaffected observer, but made it feel superior.
The freedom bit played a part in that, but it had little to do with justifying action within society, it was more about having freedom to be justifiably different. It was a "romantic view of the self" (I think an apt phrase), but not about transcending up into greatness, but about bringing greatness down to me.
But what do I know, I am in one of the geeky fields of the geeky side of philosophy ^^
Also, so glad to see your blog back in full swing! I hope you are enjoying your new digs.
Forgot to add - I think your point about a certain stage in cognitive development fits the person (me) I was describing to a T.
First and foremost: great to have you writing again. Second: what *I* said in her middle paragraph (and I think it still is pertinent, even if not quite as poignant).
If life does not have any meaning, then poverty doesn't matter, genocide doesn't matter, totalitarianism doesn't matter, etc etc.
I hope this question doesn't come across as insincere, because it's one that definitely has the potential to do so. What does "meaning" in this sentence mean? I'm really curious about this, because it seems to me that there are reasons for these things mattering to our just getting along in the world without appealing to any sort of meaning-of-life.
Is meaning a sort of pointing to an intrinsic value to human life? Or is it sort of teleological, thus giving us the source of the reasons that these things matter? I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around it.
Well, I guess I'm still put off by the question for precisely the ambiguity you describe 71. I think that "meaning" tends to be a misleading way of putting questions of significance because it tends to suggest a single (even if contextual) answer. (I think that's what makes "42" such a witty answer). Anyway, in my naive youth, I didn't appreciate ways of rephrasing the question in other terms which make it more approachable.
Indeed, I think the only way the inference from "no meaning" to "poverty doesn't matter" etc. works is if we take "meaning" to be something like significance. If, on the other hand, it means that life has *purpose* then that does not discount ethics. I don't know how to deal with applying the concept of purpose to that of life, and it was rejecting that notion that probably led to my brief interest in that sort of thought. (Perhaps my association of "meaning of life" with "purpose of life" is religious in nature?)
Significance is, of course, super vague and not very helpful. Still, it rephrases the question in ethical terms, which is really my point. I wonder if I had that distinction available - would I have been so skeptical of "meaning."
I think "significance" is an excellent interpretation. Of course it begs the question "significance to whom and in what sense?" but that was exactly the point of the question.
I remember being blown away by the opening lines of the Myth of Sisyphus when I first read them in college (bourgeois kid that I was) 
"Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest – whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories – comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer"
So I guess "meaning" translates into the significance of life that makes it worth living. Probably not a clear and distinct statement, but it isn't supposed to be. It's supposed to invite reflection, I think.
I think there is definitely something here. Existentialism is like Rand for lefties. It is anti-capitalist, but still has the same rejection of sociology/psychology, you are responsible for your successes and those who are not as successful just need to end their bad faith.
At the same time, the attraction often predates the understanding of the principles. Many of those drawn to existentialism don't yet understand what the word means. That I still find interesting.
I think there may be another reason for the appeal, which ties into the meaning/significance issue. De Beauvoir writes somewhere (Ethics of Ambiguity?) that existentialism is the only school besides Christianity that takes evil seriously. By this, I think she meant (in part) that existentialism's concern is figuring out how to live a good life--which rescues philosophy from the dusty esotericism of academia.
Existentialists may not deny the value of hard core linguistic analysis (for example)--although Sartre is famous for once saying he'd rather read detective stories than Wittgenstein--but they want(ed) to revitalize philosophy as an attempt to make concrete sense of what it means to be a human being faced with perplexities that are more than just cerebral. Why am I unhappy or happy? How ought I to live my life? What's my responsibility when faced with human suffering? Is my way of living genuine or fake? Can I manage to lead a fulfilled and good life in a universe indifferent to my existence? Does it make a difference whether I lead nations or drink alone in bars? Is there a sense of mystery that goes beyond the merely problematic, and how does it relate to the way I relate others? The seriousness of these questions resonates, I think, with young minds that haven't yet (thank god) become cynical. They (the questions) have a realworld flavor to them because they forthrightly step up to the weirdness (and wonder) of being a person. It's important to think about the proper applications of the term "meaning." But trying to import some sense of meaning/significance/purposefulness to one's life is a project that most of us find more urgent.
OK, lots to respond here. (Was on Maddie duty last night). First of all, I don't think that *I* and I disagree about is valuable about existentialism. In fact, what Kerry just wrote above, especially de Beauvoir's line (which is indeed from the Ethics of Ambiguity) is precisely why I return to existentialism again and again.
I was not arguing against existentialism. I love the stuff. I just don't like the way that many bourgeois white boys take it up. That is what drives me nuts. And, so to solve the problem, I add in de Beauvoir, Fanon and in the future I will add in Toni Morrison. What I have found is the students (a) didn't read the chapter from the Second Sex (they are mostly men) and (b) they couldn't see what de Beauvoir's feminism had to do with existentialism.
For example, de Beauvoir clearly argues for the transformation of institutions in the Second Sex, particularly in a way that frees mothers from (a) enforced motherhood, and (b) dull repetitive housework. She argues that we need to reconceive raising children as the work of more than just the nuclear family (read: mother). She argues this for the health of the child, if nothing else. When I asked my students about why de Beauvoir was for Day care or reproductive rights, they just didn't see what it had to do with existentialism. I had to point out her line: "there is no such thing as an unnatural mother" to get them to see the "existence precedes essence" bit.
So, my beef is not with the content. I LOVE it. My beef is the way that the uninitiated take it up. I don't think the students in my class got drawn to it for the reasons Kerry and *I* have put forward.
I think they got drawn to it for the reasons that Jeff put forward.
"you are responsible for your successes and those who are not as successful just need to end their bad faith."
I just don't see where this is in Sartre....except in a horrible misreading of Sartre. Are you suggesting that the Randians are just misreading Rand?
I think Kerry's hit on something important here. In an era when the majority of philosophy turned its back on the broad questions of the meaning of life, existentialism took it up. That seems like it would appeal to an undergraduate more than "how do I know this chair is really there?" Or "what is the truth value of the statement 'I know the chair is really there'?" Or "I am presented with adumbrations and profiles noematically structured into something I intend to sit on." (Apologies to better Husserlians than I am out there.)
Hey again Spaz (this is so cool to have you back!)--I get your distinction now. It's interesting that you get those students. Maybe I get 'em too, but I just don't tune into it. I mean, there's always the kid who thinks Nietzsche's all about beating the crap out of the weak, but I just find this a welcome necessary foil in class so that I can get to eternal recurrence and fry their brains a bit. I also, for some reason, don't get a disproportionate number of guys (well, no more disproportionate than in any other philosophy class). Maybe we either have different situations or we attend to different things about those same situations.
I really do not get the whole meaning of life question.
*I* asks Why do anything if it doesn't?
Why go out for ice cream if life has no meaning? Because it tastes good. Why fall in love if life has no meaning? Because its not really a choice. Why watch football and drink beer if life has no meaning? Because I really enjoy it. Why help your neighbor who house is flooded if life has no meaning? Because being helpful to those in need is a fulfilling experience.
Why would poverty not matter if life has no meaning? The meaning of life has nothing to do with my concern for others. At all.
Kerry writes: By this, I think she meant (in part) that existentialism's concern is figuring out how to live a good life--which rescues philosophy from the dusty esotericism of academia. The claim before was that only Christianity and Existentialism takes these questions serious... which strikes me as utterly false. It is Aristotle's question, Hume's question, Kant's question, in short, a major part of the history of philosophy's question... but the answers are not put in "meaning of life" language.
I think this is all connected to religion. If God's purpose for you gives you your meaning of life, then the recognition of his non-existence, or the awareness of problems with that view cause you to rethink it, then suddenly the meaninglessness of life is a problem. You had an interpretation of your life which gave you comfort and direction, and now its gone. So then you search for another "meaning" to fill the new found void. It isnt easy, so you feel disturbed.
But for those of us who never had their value scheme shaped by a "meaning to life" its absence is not even worth noting. It is not disturbing. then the search for meaning in life seems... bizarre.
I don't ask that, Camus did. His answer sounds kind of like yours (at least in part). I dunno, maybe people were more worried in 1952 about whether their lives had objective meaning. Good to know we have become liberated from that concern.
Oh, and yeah, it was all connected to religion in a big way. You know, that God is Dead thing......
But I don't think an individual needs to have been religious to appreciate the concern for the meaning and worth of one's life. Maybe one just has to have been depressed at one point. I dunno.
"Why would poverty not matter if life has no meaning?"
If people's lives have no value then why care if they are poor, starving, or murdered? Of course, Camus is going to answer that there *is* a reason, but not base it on the objective worth of a human life. So, I'm guessing you wouldn't so thoroughly disagree with him. Maybe nihilism seems like a non-problem these days, but it wasn't when the existentialists were writing.
It does not follow from life not having meaning to life having no value. We care because most people have a genuine concern for others... we feel bad when we see others feel bad, we feel happy when we see others feel happy, as Hume noted. We care because for most people it is in their nature to care. But we do not get that value from some objective purpose of the human being, our role in the universe, or what have you.
But I think you were right in guessing my response... And I think you are right in the last comment.
And I have been depressed before... but I consider it a simple psychological state, and not connected to our philosophy of life. I think our psychological states are, to paraphrase Quine, radically underdetermined by data, so that we can interpret them in a variety of ways. You take a thought, a feeling, and tell yourself a story which makes sense of how you feel. But the intellectual part is only the surface part, there is much more at work physiologically and psychologically. The story I told myself had nothing to do with nihilism... someone else may take the same feeling and interpret it through the lack of purpose in our lives. I got better when I told myself a better story. But I didn't know that is what I was doing. Nor do I think it was really that simple.
Well, I think that the questions about evil that Aristotle, Hume, and Kant ask aren't at all the same kinds of questions existentialists ask. It's not simply that the latter ask the same questions as the former with a "meaning of life" spin. The "spin" is in fact a different sort of question.
For the existentialist (I think) one of the key facts that all of us must come to grips with is the fragility of life. That fragility is often seen as an evil, or at least an obstacle to a sense of purposefulness or meaning. Taking it seriously doesn't merely mean asking "what ought I to do to be moral?" It means "is it possible to live fully, richly, purposefully, AND morally in the short and seemingly arbitrary time I have?"
I think the haunting awareness of life's fragility frequently gets expressed in religious language, but surely isn't exclusively religious. In fact, it may be the origins of the religious sentiment. And I think it's part and parcel of being human, to such an extent that those of us who claim to have no awareness of it are either in egregious denial or have managed to find a mode of life that reconciles them to it.
The question "how can I live a purposeful life" depends on finding a purpose in life. But the question of finding a rich and full life, a moral life, does not. The initial point you made was that the Existentialist asks how we lead a good life. And, unless you include purpose in the notion a good (which exactly is what I deny), then the question is as old as philosophy. Everyone asks how can we live the good life. Not everyone includes purpose as an essential (ha!) feature of the good life.
I know the fear of death haunts some. They want to know: Why this life, if I am just going to die anyway? You are toying with me, God! Why give me something just to take it away? And I accept that the Existentialists speak to that haunting fear. I do not have it, and I do not see why that is a problem. Yes, life is fragile. Why do i need a meaning of life to help me cope?
But I could be in egregious denial. How can I tell if I am in denial or not? Do I have to dance next to the abyss of nihilism in order not to be in denial? Do I have to be haunted by the fear of death? Do I have to share your misery before to understand? I think I will pass... And you who know me can see my smirk...
Come to the light...
I see your point, you smirker you. But I don't think that the existentialists--the atheistic ones, anyway--are asking "What's the good life?" in the same context that earlier folks asked it, and so the question is radically different. When an Aristotle or a Kant (for example) ask the question, they do so from a worldview that's already convinced of the deep purposefulness/meaning of the universe. Living a good life for them doesn't include having to find a way to cope with an indifferent universe. But for a Camus or Sartre or Unamuno--and even for an SK or a Marcel--the question of whether a "good life" is possible is squarely situated within and birthed by a different, less friendly reality. When they ask about the good life, meaning isn't a given that can be taken for granted. It's an acutely felt absence.
Second point: I don't want to equate a sense of the fragility of life with death terror, although the two are obviously connected.
The acute felt absence seems right... but only for those people who felt it and rejected it for some reason. The pain of a love lost only happens to those who have loved, and the greater the love, the more the loss is acute. But for those who never loved...
Without the initial view that life has meaning, and comfort in that view, there is no acute felt absence... there is only life, and even, for some, the love of that life.
PS: Is it still ok if I come up?
Age 18 in 1957. The one and only time in my life I acted with no care for the consequences of my behavior. I was like that Russian girl Ivich in Sartre's book, *The Age of Reason,*which all us budding intellectuals were reading in the 50's.
It rather surprises me that existentialism has become a pose, because it was not for us. We lived it. Mostly, it wasn't glamourous, a good deal of it was boring as hell, and I for one failed very badly sexually and academically, in ways that took me years to straighten out.
We were desperate characters then, but most of us survived. I have a lot of affection for that girl I was, who at least was not trying to be Gidget.
I first read Age of Reason ten years after you did, Hattie, and I'm not sure I've ever quite gotten over it. Mathieu's dilemma--how to be free AND committed--still strikes me as one well worth pondering. And as for Ivich... She was my first love.
I have to concur with Hanno in spades here. But if he asks, I didn't type that.
I also think a key problem here is word usage. "Meaning", and "purpose" are incredibly loaded words, and religious doctrines, prior culture biases, personal experiences etc., will all come into play when one interprets their usage.
Perhaps, simply because the good life is the good life is purpose (reason) enough to pursue it. And perhaps that is all the meaning (content) one needs. The deeply religious or formerly deeply religious might find this severely traumatizing, but sometimes the choirboy just has to grow up. But in the end, you don't need a reason to help people. People need help. That's enough.
I don't think there is any way I can actually convince those who don't connect with existentialism to do so (I think that's part of its literary nature, and a good thing at that), but I will reiterate one fact, hopefully for the last time, so that it may serve as a counterexample to this oft-repeated claim that a quest for "meaning" in life necessarily comes from the notion of religious meaning.
I am not religious. I have never been religious. I was not baptized nor brought up according to any religious tradition, save consumer-Christianity (we got a tree and visits from Santa on the 25th and easter baskets on Easter). Despite this fact, existentialism profoundly affected me when I first read it and had been wrestling with "what's the point of it all?" I'm glad some of you find "the point of it all" to be tautologous with being alive, but I didn't.
So, to be "logical" again. It is not the case that all those who connect with existentialism are or have been deeply or even shallowly religious. Instead of assuming that a "meaning" to life *must* have religious connotations (because that's what you hear in it), why not suppose that maybe it has different connotations for other people and then stretch your imagination to think of what that might be?
Maybe it is just that my angst is all ethical, and hardly existential 
I
Instead of assuming that a "meaning" to life *must* have religious connotations (because that's what you hear in it), why not suppose that maybe it has different connotations for other people and then stretch your imagination to think of what that might be?
I accommodated that: "Meaning", and "purpose" are incredibly loaded words, and religious doctrines, prior culture biases, personal experiences etc., will all come into play when one interprets their usage.
Religion is mentioned along with other possible influences. Religion is non-essential. And that should make everyone happy. You know who you are.
Perhaps this helped inspire your reply? The deeply religious or formerly deeply religious might find this severely traumatizing, but sometimes the choirboy just has to grow up.
You don't know me well enough to realize that statement was directed at my own person. Maybe Hanno got a grin out of it. But I insist that I have the right to self-deprecate.
I don't think there is any way I can actually convince those who don't connect with existentialism to do so (I think that's part of its literary nature, and a good thing at that)
I'll never argue against the value of literature. I'm very sympathetic to existentialism, but find (IMO, be it humble or otherwise) that over complicating and/or over analyzing meaning/purpose is tantamount to rejecting other values in life. It (the practice/search) can easily become self-defeating (i.e., can defeat you) and perhaps that is part of why I tend to be critical. If you are looking to find life to be meaningless, then you can probably accomplish that. If you want it to be meaningful, then you can probably accomplish that as well. The teachings of anatman, the skandhas, and shunyata all relate to existentialism quite easily. There's certainly something to it, but that doesn't make it any less problematic.
"You don't know me well enough to realize that statement was directed at my own person."
Good point indeed. Context is everything.
"As every masochist knows, context is everything."
Hanno--
You never tire of that line, do you?
Can't you see its a classic?
This is a very interesting post; one I think has a lot of truth to it. It is certainly worth further exploration.
camus grew up poor - in Algiers
he wasn't privileged
bob dylan wrote about wanting someone to say hello to someone else who might be in Tangiers. and he wasn't privileged either. and if he was wise at all, his "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now" might just be the only line every that could be brilliantly existentialist and Aristotelian at the same time. Part of the blog here tracks the difficulty of defining existentialism, and I concur it is a label w/o a clear def. If classical exist. died w/Sartre, perhaps we are in the mood for a revival, and the little neos will i'm sure be of all persuasions, and no longer very camus-like. But i could be wrong.
Commenting by HaloScan
