So Monday was our last day of presentations and it was sort of a recap of what the entire semester consisted of. The main question of the presentation was what is existentialism to you and how does it affect you. Before this class I only briefly knew of existentialism. I had only known a few philosophers and their general ideas. Taking this class has taught me so much more about these men and women philosophers and how profound they all are (in my opinion). For me, existentialism is an awakening. It’s an idea that thrusts you into real life. Existentialism has helped me to look at situations differently now. I reflect upon my actions more, I think outside of myself more, and I have a new way of thinking about things that can lead to a concise answer. I found the works of Albert Camus to be spectacular, especially “The Stranger”. Through this story is where I find inspiration to reflect on my life. It has taught me to accept responsibility for my life and if I want something changed then I must change it. Kierkegaard and his subjective truth also greatly impacted me. One struggle for me has been growing up in a Christian family and then changing my views to atheist. I do not believe that God exists and being around my family for 20+ years has made it difficult to accept their decisions to keep their religion. When I learned about subjective and objective truth, it kind of put my mind at ease from this internal struggle. In a way, we all subjectively know our own god or gods. This can even include the option of no god. Kierkegaard has helped me realize that it is just fine to have different views of what god is or isn’t.

Wednesday’s class was Hazel Barnes examining the works of Sartre and looking for misogynistic clues in his writings. To deviate a little bit, I would like to focus on Barnes’ translation of Sartre’s philosophy of the body and consciousness. Sartre says that consciousness is the body and at the same time, transcends the body. This makes sense in that consciousness is not a tangible object, but it can manifest itself into what we are: humans. Without consciousness, how would we know our place in the world? If the body and consciousness can be separate, then Barnes’ reply is that “neither anatomy nor physiology” can describe who we are. Those two traits do not make us who we are. If I understand this correctly in the proper context, in regards to feminism, men and women are no different. We are not seen as humans with this certain gender or body part, but as a body of consciousness. Just because a child is born female does not mean that she must grow up into a “female mold”, wearing dresses and having tea parties. Where does this kind of “female mold” originate then? Was it placed there by society or did we bring it into actuality? Society tells us that we have standards that we need to live by. But who created this society? WE DID! The pressures that you feel from society are the pressures that we have forced on ourselves. A blind slap in the face. So society fuels into the stereotyping of genders, which Barnes says advocates misogyny. This means that it is up to us to break these gender standards we are “forced” to live in. When the consciousness is the body, we are aware for two reasons: our self-awareness and the awareness from others. In the case of Barnes, she views her body as an object and a “treacherous instrument”. She views her body as on object because she is consciously aware of it. However, it is a “treacherous instrument” because society has sexualized females.

On Monday’s class we discussed Sartre and judgment. On the presentation, one of the questions asked: Would you be different if you were unaffected by the “objectified judgment” of others? I definitely think I would be a different person, perhaps a more sane person too! As we get older and start having more experiences in the world where we run into other people we have more of a sense of self. Our awareness is opened up and we are able to see our selves through others. I think Sartre was talking about this subject and “hell is other people,” meaning through other people we are constantly reminded of our selves and the judgments against ourselves. If no one were there to give an “objectified judgment” there would be less of an internal struggle in the world. One would have a sense of identity, but it would not be expansive due to the lack of external judgment. Another question that was asked was if you were stranded on a desert island, do you have a sense of yourself? Hypothetically, if a person were stranded on an island (since birth) and that person grew up alone there with resources to live, then that person would absolutely have no sense of his or her self. Based on Sartre’s philosophy, people are sort of like mirrors and they reveal to us our self-image and traits. The simple look that a person can give you can bring out any insecurity tucked deep away. Thus, this person on the island has no concept of his or her self. But think about this, would it be so bad to live ignorantly rather than in fear of constant judgment? If we accept the way that others see us we are not displaying courage. If we do so, we fall into a mold that is not necessarily true. We are no longer free once we are not living by how we see ourselves.

Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the first existential philosophers that I got into. (In fact, Nausea was the first philosophical book I bought.) The handout states that Sartre’s philosophy is about freedom, which is strange because the impression that I get from the text is confinement and power. Perhaps the freedom comes out of the power. The introduction to Sartre began to develop his theory about being held responsible for our actions, which includes our emotions, and he uses the phrase “emotional consciousness” which is simply beautiful. If you couldn’t tell from my other blog posts, I have such a passion for exploring consciousness. Emotional consciousness is what brings an emotion into possibility. Before we can act upon an emotion, we have to feel that emotion first. In order to feel that emotion, according to Sartre, there must be a physical reaction in the brain to induce that emotion. Emotional consciousness is the unperceived set of events that leads you to experience an emotion. The emotion doesn’t exist yet, but the probability of emotion is very high, thus bringing the emotion into life. I also agree with him when he says that our emotions are strategies. Often when I am at school I act nicely to everyone. When I act nice my emotions show it; I appear happy and content. To me, this is just a strategy for a way to fit in. I can also see it as a strategy to not draw attention to myself, to not start arguments with anyone. Basically by being happy, I go to class and then go home, which can all be seen as a strategy to get by. Bad faith, as described by Sartre, is when someone uses their emotions strategically to avoid their fears and come to terms with their fears. I am definitely guilty of doing this sometimes. Reflecting on this, it is important to take control of your emotions and learn to master them, not let them master you.

How do we even go about answering the question “why do things exist rather than not exist?” Is it difficult because all we know is existence? If you think about it, we are only cognizant of our existence and not our death and what occur after death. So if we try to relate the question to ourselves, is it not but impossible to answer? Perhaps an example of this question can be related to our actual existence. Why are the only humans in the known universe alive on the planet earth? Why do we only exist in one place and not any other place? If we say that to exist is one state of being, then reciprocally, we can say that to not exist is another state of being. Does one state simply transition to the next, or is there some kind of order in these states? If we try to apply my example to answer the question then this is the following: We are only alive on earth because it is suitable for our needs. We have oxygen, water, shelter, and food. We are alive because, so far, we cannot exist anywhere else in the universe. This must mean that to be alive right now, everything before our existence had to have been set up perfectly. There are behind-the-scenes events that are taking place, without our knowledge. In other words, there was a design for our existence. So to try to answer the question initially stated with this side-example, things exist because there was an order that formed the said thing into existence. If something does not exist, there was no order, design, or plan for it. Or maybe the reason something does not exist is because the order that brought it into existence has terminated. What brings about the termination of order though? Is it just the natural cycle to go from start to finish? Does that mean that there is also an order for non-existence that constantly stays at finish or end?

Wednesday’s lecture was Heidegger’s views on death. Heidegger uses the term Dasein to describe human existence or the act of existing/being. We cannot have a learned or remembered experience of death because we are dead after it happens. This leads us to question how we can fully understand Dasein, in its entirety, if we cannot experience the end of Dasein. Heidegger says that by learning about the end of Dasein in others, by this he means the death of another person, we can have a better understanding of our own Dasein and what it really means to die. Thad brought the lecture to an interesting point when he said that Heidegger wants you, the individual, to relate to yourself to death. We all know that we will die, but none of us know when or how death will come. There is really only one thing you are guaranteed in life and that is death. Everything living must die at some point. Millions of humans have died before you even existed and even after you die, millions more will die. I think a lot of people try to have this philosophy of “live today like you will die tomorrow” and I think that’s bullshit. I bet that no one is constantly thinking about their death, which inspires them to live. (I am excluding people who are sick or have a terminal illness.) However, my opinion doesn’t change the fact that I still could die at any time. Just like any other human being, I have thought about what it would be like to die. I’ve sat in boxes before, acting like they were coffins, and who hasn’t sat in bed at night randomly thinking about mortality and death? One of the questions on the power point slide asked, what does it mean to exist, and I believe that it means being aware of consciousness, being aware of nature (this earth we live on, this galaxy earth lives in, this universe our galaxy lives in), being aware of other humans, and not knowing the answers to everything which makes us strive to find those answers. We do not know what is in store for us in death, anything is possible.

Being aware of other people heightens my sense of being. There are many reasons for me to think this way, but two reasons I feel like sharing are because I am self-conscious too much and because of my consciousness. To make this entry an existentialist text and not a therapy session, I will explain the latter reasoning. I believe that everything in the universe is composed of waves of consciousness. Consciousness exists everywhere, and it is through us and every other living, or non-living, thing that consciousness is able to experience itself. This look on life makes me grateful for being alive and all that I do because the opposite would mean that I am not aware of life and I would not exist without consciousness. You can find so much inspiration in life by being able to fully experience it. I mean, thank consciousness or a higher being for manifesting you into a human and not a rock or part of a dust cloud in space. So with my deep love and respect for consciousness, my sense of self is heightened and I am made aware of other people. Other people are a reminder that we are not alone and that consciousness runs throughout everything. Seeing other people live their lives and the fact that they are able to get through their life with all the troubles that tag along reminds me that I am not alone. I guess you can say that other people help me to be who I am, whether I get ideas from somebody or if I can model myself after the goodness I see in them. Therefore, this brings up a question of whether or not I am authentic. I believe everyone is authentic. Yes we can copy each other, but we are all so different. Consciousness is the same in everything and everyone, but it’s through the vessel (human, animal, object, deity) that consciousness is different. We carry out our ideas and our values differently through consciousness, which makes us unique and authentic. The fact that we are alive and can exist right now makes us authentic because this world is full of change and destruction that might not give us the chance to live on it anymore.