Introducing Existentialism Introducing Existentialism - Oscar Zarate - E-Book

Introducing Existentialism Introducing Existentialism E-Book

Oscar Zarate

0,0

Beschreibung

Richard Appignanesi goes on a personal quest of Existentialism in its original state. He begins with Camus' question of suicide: 'Must life have a meaning to be lived?' Is absurdity at the heart of Existentialism? Or is Sartre right: is Existentialism 'the least scandalous, most technically austere' of all teachings? This brilliant Graphic Guide explores Existentialism in a unique comic book-style.

Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:

Android
iOS
von Legimi
zertifizierten E-Readern
Kindle™-E-Readern
(für ausgewählte Pakete)

Seitenzahl: 122

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:

Android
iOS
Bewertungen
0,0
0
0
0
0
0
Mehr Informationen
Mehr Informationen
Legimi prüft nicht, ob Rezensionen von Nutzern stammen, die den betreffenden Titel tatsächlich gekauft oder gelesen/gehört haben. Wir entfernen aber gefälschte Rezensionen.



Published by Icon Books Ltd, Omnibus Business Centre, 39–41 North Road, London N7 9DPEmail: [email protected] 

ISBN: 978-184831-983-7

Text copyright © 2012 Icon Books Ltd

Illustrations copyright © 2012 Icon Books Ltd

The author and illustrator has asserted their moral rights

Originating editor: Richard Appignanesi

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

A question of absurdity

Into the night and fog

Vichy water into blood

Republic of silence

Light without effulgence

Bergson’s resistance

Swimming in polluted waters

How is it with Heidegger?

For the time being …

A graveyard of words

What is the attraction of Existentialism?

A voice from the dark

The surfeit

Self-deception, bad faith and authenticity

Meaning for a “KZler”

Conscious distance from oneself

Have the “Night and Fog” truly lifted?

The natural attitude of self-preservation …

Metaphysical or “virgin” suicide

An absurd syllogism

The absurd forbids suicide

The condemned man’s reprieve

Is death necessary?

Technology is a metaphysics at its end

The anti-geneticist Kirilov

The limit-situation of meaning

What Existentialism isn’t

Is no one an Existentialist?

Convalescence of memory

The origin of Existentialism

And where is Heidegger?

A victim of Gleichschaltung

A philosophy relevant to life

The spectre of phenomenology

The looking-glass rivals

Husserl’s manifesto of a vocation

The subject-object differential

Natural and theoretical attitudes

A case-history of scepticism

Ego cogito, ergo sum

Descartes’ great error

Res cogitans: the thinking thing

The sceptical booby-trap

The existential sacrifice

Whose “crisis” is it?

Suicide by economy of thought

Cartesian meditations on epochē

The Husserlian epochē

In what sense “is” consciousness?

A parenthetical gaze

A template of suicide

A technicolour Joseph’s-coat of suicide

A sceptic skeleton in the closet

Sartre on suicide

“In-itself” and “for-itself”

Being free for death …

… a resoluteness for history

… also in 1927

Does philosophy have office hours?

Living in (im)partiality

The life problem of vocation

Entireness in parenthesis

To see originally

The problem of intentionality

Cutting the umbilical cord

Only a question of words

There is no beyond language

Abschattungen – perception in profile

Funes the Memorious

Is undivided attention possible?

Where is invariance?

Shadows in Plato’s cave

Are ideas “real”?

Husserl’s nonconformist Platonism

What is evidence?

When the walls sweat

Kierkegaard’s dramatis personae

Kierkegaard’s bogeyman, Hegel

The unrelieved conscience of being

Falling into faith

The scandal of faith

A man in dark times

A strategy of pessimism

The failure of science

The spectre of Marx

An Existentialist anti-colonialism

The Existentialism that never was

A vintage Existentialism

Heidegger on parole

The sting in the tail

Heidegger on endless parole

… is it over with Husserl?

A sordino theology

Preaching the futural

Perhaps by accident …

A return to fulfilled scepticism

The grey breath of reasoning

For reasons of history

Words of reckoning

A reduction to absolute existence

Existence need not be

Being is history

What hope of human still “being”?

Being and recession to nihilism

Salvation from the thing

A purge for nausea

Acts of nihilation

A conscious pact of freedom

A lack of being

“Existence precedes essence”

Freedom is without history

The ecstasy of time

A draught from the well

The redeeming Advent

Time talk …

The time-partials of consciousness

The retained slipping-away

The socially partial horizons

The moment of history

Heidegger’s Mein Kampf

Rassengedanke: racial thought

A prophecy from Germany

The crisis of modernity

Will to Power as art

The rising star

The poverty of repentance

A word in the heart

The right to remain silent

Existentialism without illusions

Speaking of deception

A schism in consciousness

A lie without a liar

Is there undeceived choice?

Solipsism or intersubjectivity?

Falling into “theyness”

Being among one another

The Turing Test

The new superstition

Transubstantiated performance

Because it is possible …

Notes on a nameless philosophy

Flight from meaning

Further Reading

The Authors

Index

A question of absurdity

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.” So begins Albert Camus (1913-60) in The Myth of Sisyphus (1942). He stiffens the dose by quoting Nietzsche: “a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example.”

IN SHORT, THE ANSWER I GIVE COULD BE MY LAST …SO, I HAD BETTER FIND A REASON FOR LIVING.

But then, Camus at once sees that “a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying.” In either case, a sacrifice might be at stake. The question is – must life have a meaning to be lived? He concludes no, in view of the absurd, “it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning.”

Into the night and fog

Camus has chosen an “absurdist” estimate of living at a dangerous time, in 1942, in defeated Paris under Nazi Occupation. Others, like himself, are members of the Resistance, an “army of shadows” – men and women who flit unseen in acts of sabotage – always in peril of arrest by the Gestapo, torture and death.

AT ANY STREET CORNER THE FEELING OF ABSURDITY CAN STRIKE ANY MAN IN THE FACE …

Absurdity, he says, “in its distressing nudity, in its light without effulgence …” Of course, there is a sub-text to Camus’ essay on absurdism in this time and place, one which evades the policing of Occupation censorship and is itself an act of defiant resistance.

Absurdity had the evidence of terror. In a fit of Wagnerian megalomania, Hitler issued the Nacht und Nebel Erlass – “Night and Fog Decree” – on 7 December 1941, reserved for the inhabitants of the conquered Western territories. It ordered that anyone endangering German security would be seized and made to “vanish without trace into the night and fog of the unknown in Germany.” In effect, deportation and death.

AS AN IRISH NEUTRAL, I COULD REMAIN A SAFE BYSTANDER, BUT I ALSO HAVE A CHOICE …

The dramatist Samuel Beckett (1906-89) in Paris at the time, guaranteed safety by Ireland’s neutrality, chose to imperil himself by joining the Resistance. Why? Because to forgo common sense and accept absurdity in these circumstances is rectitude.

Vichy water into blood

France surrendered to the German invasion after only six weeks’ fighting. Without allies – Britain unprepared for war, America neutral, and Hitler now master of Europe – there was no option. On 21 June 1940, Marshal Philippe Pétain (1856-1951) signed an armistice which divided France into two zones – one controlled by the Germans, the other “non-occupied”, governed from the spa town of Vichy, famous for its curative waters. Political compromise is one thing, quite another was the Vichy government’s policy of active collaboration with Nazi Germany.

THE VICHY COLLABORATORS SERVE AS HITLER’S HENCHMEN …BUT IT WON’T GIVE FRANCE ANY EQUAL FOOTING IN HIS EYES.

Republic of silence

A right-wing element in France seized on the Occupation as the ideal opportunity to adopt Hitler’s “Final Solution” for its own unwelcome Jews and Communists – carried out with such zeal that it surprised even the Germans. Vichy transubstantiated the water of political compromise into Nazi blood racialism and with that fed the “shower rooms” of Hitler’s concentration camps.

FRANCE IS NOW DIVIDED BY A CHOICE – COLLABORATE OR NOT!

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-80) at this time remarked: “Never have we been freer than under the German Occupation … This total responsibility in total solitude, wasn’t this the revelation of our freedom?” (From the essay “La République du silence”, 1944.)

Light without effulgence

In such “dark light”, does life go on as before? Perhaps one’s eyes adjust to reality in the negative. In 1942, Picasso (1881-1973) paints his “Still Life with Skull of a Bull”, carries on his affair with Dora Maar, and deals in illegal currency. He too enjoys safe neutrality, as a Spanish national, but unlike Beckett does not join the Resistance …

COWARDICE? I CANNOT JUDGE.NOR CAN I UNDERSTAND WHY THE URBANE, AESTHETICAL DRIEU LA ROCHELLE BECAME A COLLABORATIONIST …

The novelist Pierre Drieu La Rochelle (1893-1945) described Occupied Paris as a raped female: “from the central avenue of the Tuileries I can view the Obelisk of Luxor in the Place de la Concorde piercing the Arc de Triomphe …” The sexual allusion is fully conscious. Was this reason enough for him to embrace the perspiring masculinity of Nazism?

Bergson’s resistance

Nor can I fathom the vile anti-Semitic Collaborationism of such talented novelists as Louis-Ferdinand Céline (1894-1961) and Robert Brasillach (b. 1909, executed 1945), editor of the sewer-rat fascist paper Je Suis Partout. The philosopher Henri Bergson (1859-1941) had long foreseen “the formidable wave of anti-Semitism about to break upon the world.” Bergson arose mortally ill from his sickbed to register as a Jew in accord with Vichy government law. He refused the exemption offered him.

I AM A JEW AND WOULD RATHER PERISH AS ONE THAN CONCEAL MYSELF.

Is there an image more nauseating than to witness gendarmes of the French Republic and SS troopers “fraternally joined” in the mass deportations of Jews?

Swimming in polluted waters

Paris “after dark” reveals every species of player. Few are actively “Resistants”; most will be attentistes, those who literally wait to see which side will prevail before choosing between Allies and Nazis. Self-preservation in war-time is indeed a doubtful business, but I can name two at least who chose Resistance – Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre – both so-called Existentialists, if they are in fact really that. They meet in the office of the underground newspaper Combat…

WE SHOOK HANDS IN 1942 – AND BY 1952 WE WERE BITTER ENEMIES …… OPPOSED ON THE ISSUES OF MARXISM, THE SOVIET UNION, AND SOON AFTER ON THE QUESTION OF ALGERIAN INDEPENDENCE.

There is an obscure sense of “betrayal” at the heart of Existentialism. Let’s consider the case of Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), totemic “founder” of Existentialism who utterly disclaimed that role.

How is it with Heidegger?

Karl Löwith (1897-1973), a former student of Heidegger and a refugee Jew in Italy, records their meeting in Rome on 2 April 1936. Heidegger had lectured there on “Hölderlin and the essential nature of poetry”. Löwith wondered: what has the Swastika in Heidegger’s buttonhole (obviously he doesn’t believe it is offensive to me) got to do with Hölderlin’s poetry? He then asked the Professor: did his support for Hitler rest on his philosophy? Heidegger agreed it did …

FRAU ELFRIEDE HEIDEGGER IS POLITE BUT COLDLY FORMAL WITH ME …I AM CONVINCED THAT NATIONAL SOCIALISM IS GERMANY’S PRE-ORDAINED PATH. IT IS JUST A QUESTION OF SEEING IT TO THE END.

… seeing it to the end? After his initial but soon disappointed enthusiasm for Nazism, Heidegger would pretend to “inner emigration”, a “flight inwards” to silence, the German equivalent of the attentiste waiting and seeing.

For the time being …

Heidegger cannot be held responsible for betraying a “resistant” Existentialism that he never espoused. But a question lingers. Does his philosophy withstand, no matter his allegiance? Does history matter to the deepest findings of philosophy that are absolute and universal? In reply, I do know one thing – in the Paris of Camus and Sartre, in the Germany of Heidegger, I suffocate. I cannot answer to their conditions. What would I be? Would I collaborate, resist, wait? I can only return to the present question …

WILL YOU REALLY COMMIT SUICIDE?NOT FOR THE TIME BEING …

… for the time being. What a miraculous colloquialism, unique to English. What does “time being” mean, lifted out of its everyday commonplace? It is like saying moment, but more, a “provisory expectancy”. Truly an astonishment to thinking, if I listen deeply to it.

A graveyard of words

Heidegger’s armoury is notorious for its teasing, torturing and garrotting of German expressions to arrive at their philological roots and restore primordial freshness to words. The “freshness” of words? What is that?

WORDS ARE BORN AGAIN IN MY MOUTH BY FORGETFULNESS OF THEIR ONCE HAVING BEEN IN OTHERS’ …

I am aware that to write is not only “saying anew” but commemoration. With every step I take as a writer, I proceed on others’ graves. The dictionary is a mortuary register but one which strangely inspires rebirths. Hence, precisely as a writer, I must be vigilant to avoid the temptation of literature. What do I mean by that?

What is the attraction of Existentialism?

Could it be that the residue popularity of Existentialism today continues from a legacy of words that still have a power to scandalize? Anguish, despair, anxiety, the absurd, authenticity, nothingness, and so on, are literary features that have almost the status of genuine “categories”. There is a risk of degrading these existential feelings to frivolity, “playing at despair” that Camus so detested. Sartre warns against this in his lecture “Existentialism is a Humanism” (1946).

FOR IN TRUTH, EXISTENTIALISM IS OF ALL TEACHINGS THE LEAST SCANDALOUS AND THE MOST AUSTERE: IT IS INTENDED STRICTLY FOR TECHNICIANS AND PHILOSOPHERS.

Literature is therefore a “scandal” impermissible to Existentialism. And yet, did not Sartre write novels and plays, also Camus, and even the redoubtable Heidegger compose verses? In consequence, Existentialism too readily defaults to literature. I am advised to consult Dostoyevsky, Kafka, Beckett – anything but the “austere teaching for technicians”.

I would say instead that literature all too obviously appears “existentialist” in retrospective view of that name, and thereby disqualifies itself from the authentication of Existentialism. Consider the term “existential”: it is simply an adjective and a logical predicate of being. But to affirm or deny that something is (as Wittgenstein warned) is a logical proposition of fact that does not “give existence to”. Logical usage has no use for an “ism” affixed to “existential”.

BUT “EXISTENTIAL” MORE COMMONLY MEANS FOR US “THAT WHICH IS GIVEN TO US TO BE AFFECTED BY” …TO BE, OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION …

Hamlet’s “problem of being” does not of course make him an Existentialist. Besides, he is a fiction, and his speech is Shakespeare’s ironic reminder of that. Is this not a clue to disavowing the temptation of literature?

A voice from the dark

Maybe it is not clear yet. I am told, “If you want Existentialism in the raw, go to Dostoyevsky.” Very well, I shall. (In this text I do not teach, I undergo. To seek authentication is to risk “going under”. Humiliation could well be the reward for such study.) I hear a voice like none other, like never before, calling de profundis, from the deeps of self-tormenting confession …

I AM A SICK MAN … I AM A SPITEFUL MAN. I AM AN UNATTRACTIVE MAN. I BELIEVE MY LIVER IS DISEASED. HOWEVER, I KNOW NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT MY DISEASE, AND I DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHAT AILS ME … I REFUSE TO CONSULT A DOCTOR FROM SPITE.

Who is this man? A “retired collegiate assessor”, some lost soul from a closet in the vast apparatus of Tsarist bureaucracy. No one important. He is a fiction, of course, in Notes from the Underground (1846) by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-81).