EXISTENTIALISM INTRO

I suppose my most profound feeling after the first day of PHI 304 was that of relief. Relief because I could stretch, really stretch, and move my legs for the first time in about one hundred and twenty minutes. Relief because I was now free to return my sister's phone call and ask my nephew how his first day of kindergarten was (although an existentialist might tell you that I am free to call my sister at any time, and in the same breath tell you that I have a responsibility to myself and to my future to be present for every minute of every class, but I'll save that for another post...). Relief because the sun was beginning to set, making my bike back to my apartment slightly cooler, slightly less hellish. Relief because after a couple of hours with Thad, existentialism didn't seem so daunting. It seemed intriguing and important and impossibly profound. And most importantly, on a level that I can grasp and understand and really appreciate.

Existentialism has a reputation for encompassing some pretty heavy stuff, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The austerity and gloom and potential for sorrow that accompanies “heavy” stuff, has a certain allure and promotes catharsis, which I believe is a fundamental component of the human condition and totally necessary to maintain sanity. And austerity and gloom and sorrow must be purposive or else they wouldn't exist (and neither would The Smiths), right? But the austerity and gloom and sorrow that might accompany existentialist thought can also be super intimidating and unwelcome and not something you want to get into too often. This may be why so many people dismiss existentialism as – like my friend eloquently put it - “sad shit.” Forty eight hours ago, I might have agreed with him. But now, I'd beg to differ. I might even flat out tell him he his wrong. Either way, I'd certainly argue his definition and put up a fight, armed with little more than a few pages of Soloman's scholastic introduction to existentialism, and a couple hours discourse with a self-proclaimed “non-expert” Ph.D (I might also argue that claim).

I guess I'll start where Soloman did, with a quote from Sartre: “The idea I have never ceased to develop is in the end that a man can always make something out of what is made of him.”This suggests that no matter what one's circumstances, no matter what kind of hand one has been dealt in life, it is not only each individual's choice, but each individual's responsibility to make the best of it. This proposition lies directly in line with one of the more famous or perhaps infamous existentialist quotes, Nietzsche's “God is dead.” Although I'm sure Nietzsche's quote has been misinterpreted - it's unlikely that a great thinker such as Nietzsche would accept the most common notion of God, that of an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, totally omnipotent creator, and even more unlikely that he would suggest that an entity so powerful could die as man dies – parallels can be drawn between the two aforementioned quotes. If “God is dead,” meaning that human logic defies and disproves the existence of God or any other omnipotent deity, than man can no longer take comfort in or hide behind the notion of God. Man must take responsibility for his actions and forge his own path. Although we are thrust into this world with varying physical and mental capabilities, every human being has the ability to choose, and with this ability comes the responsibility to choose the path most beneficial for himself and humanity as a whole.

I know I'm just scratching the surface, and as a novice, my ideas may be a bit vapid or misguided, but I look forward to learning more about existentialism, and I hope that by the end of this semester I'll have a semi-firm understanding of existentialist thought that will allow me to form thoughtful and informed opinions on the subject.