Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
French adaptation of Heidegger's phenomenology. According to Heidegger, one cannot simply be or simply live: any being is always for something and for something, just like human life. But unlike other things, a person can determine for himself what his life is for and for what. To define just like that, without any previous grounds, is absolutely free and irrational. This is the absurdity of being.
What is truth? What do we see in front of us? No. Our senses prevent us from seeing the truth. They distort it. Someone sees the sea green, and someone blue. What is it really like? We don't know. The structure of one person's sense organs is slightly different, but it differs from the structure of another person's sense organs. At least the size of your eyes. Or your ears. One person sees better, but hears worse, and vice versa.οΏ½
What should I do? We need to reach out to our inner selves. It “sees” the world directly, bypassing the senses. This means that the world “seen” from within this Self is exactly what it really is. However, this is Me, it is not clear where it is in the human body. And it “sees” not with images, but with experiences. I am always experiencing something-fear, sadness, joy, happiness, absurdity, anxiety, freedom, etc. But on the other hand, I never doubt my feelings.
So, existentialism is an attempt to describe the process of communication between our inner Self and the outside world. And through this description, the search for some true reality of being, which we cannot find, only on the basis of rational knowledge of the world.
In very simple terms, the idea is as follows. Initially, there is no meaning in life, but people can create this meaning out of nothing, just by inventing it themselves.
For example, Elon Musk initially had no meaning in life. But he just decided for himself that it was necessary to work on colonizing Mars. And I was so imbued with it that I devoted my life to it. And now he feels good. Because the question of the meaning of life is closed to him. At every moment, he knows what to do. Whenever possible, you need to do something that brings the colonization of Mars closer.
To answer this question, we will have to assume that the philosophy of existentialism exists, and this philosophy has a certain basic idea.
Generally speaking, this is not necessarily the case.
However, I'll give it a try.
If you try to draw the entire history of philosophy in VERY large strokes, it will be the history of the search for”higher knowledge”. That is, the foundation, the foundation, the source of all knowledge in general. The main truth. And – “reconstruction of reality”, proceeding already from this truth.
That's how I'd draw it, anyway.
There would be some of the brightest spots in this picture. The first is: “There is being, but there is no non-being at all,” which tells us that such a search is possible at all, and there is something to look for. And also that the absence of truth is not truth. π
This is a non-trivial statement that needs to be understood, and philosophers did not immediately think of it. And not everyone accepted it.
Second spot: “I know I don't know anything (and you don't even know that),” became a common phrase, and its meaning “blurred”. Half the world imagines itself to be Socrates, without even knowing what the author meant. I hope you're not.
Third: “I think, therefore I exist.”
This third spot is also perceived by many as an obvious truth. While the author came to it as a result of a long reflection, consistently rejecting all possible other (one might even say “all possible”) statements about the existence of ANYTHING, as unprovable.
And this is one of the greatest achievements of thinking humanity.
Strictly speaking, Descartes did not quite succeed in proving his own existence. He proved only the existence of thinking – and not even thinking at all, but the thinking of the doubter.
Thanks to him, we can not doubt that we can doubt. π
Having established this absolute truth, Descartes became convinced of the existence of himself, then convinced himself of the existence of God, and from this he deduced the existence of all other things.
Unfortunately, as I have already said, all these further steps were no longer as perfect as his “path to self”.
And so.
From here, in fact, begins existentialism. Or rather, as I understand it, he returns here (after Descartes, there were other “large strokes”).
Existentialists sort of say: “Well, figs with it. If we can't prove it, then we can't. And in general, we will dispense with these proofs of yours (which, probably, the Jews also invented, as some write here). It is not so important, in the end, how this world works and what everything consists of. Maybe it doesn't exist at all, why break spears? The main thing is that we are there.”
This does not mean that they reject cognition and “reconstruction of reality.” Not at all. Total agnosticism is the lot of the philistine, not the philosopher. Existentialists simply shift the focus. View direction.
From the point of view of existentialism, the “view” itself is real, first of all. The way you look. Following Descartes: your doubt, your thinking, yourself.
Your “here being”.
Reality starts with you.
Descartes would most likely disagree here (since he came to this conclusion under duress, and spoke of himself as the starting point of knowledge, and not of the whole of Reality). Existentialists, starting with this idea, also do not all agree with each other, although in one form or another it is present and serves as the support of all their reasoning.
It may seem that existentialists do not consider the world to be something real and deny the existence of “things”. That only your very thinking, your ideas, your experiences, or at least your interaction with the world is real, and not the world itself.
However, they simply follow their own logic, in which the world is not what you see outside the window (and the existence of which is questionable), but what really exists. In which there is no need to declare the unknown known, and then find out what it really is. It is better to do what is given to us directly, and in the existence of which we can no longer doubt (see above).
So for an existentialist, the world is not what you think it is, nor is it a mirage outside the window… and not even your “feelings” that you're worried about. The world is the experience itself.
Simple enough? π
To put it quite simply: the realist says: “I live for myself,” the idealist says: “I live for something,” and the existentialist says: “I live to live.”
Existentialism, in a simple way, is the philosophy of the irreducibility of the experience of one's own life to external intelligible meanings.
Science, religion and art surround our life, but our own intimate experience of it is not limited to them, there is something more and it is inexorably irrational, it is accepted “blindly”, for reasons that have significance only within this very experience of life:
“Few of us hear the music inside – but each of us dances to it”
There is a difference between right and left existentialism. Both focus on the study of the human subjective social world. There is no other world for us but that which is limited by our subjective human vision – we know nothing beyond ourselves.
The “objective”(scientific), so-called, is still our subjective, our social, our experience, there is no escape from this, there is no other “fact” than “human perception of a fact that a person has created for himself”.
Left existentialism is politically connected with liberalism and socialism(one follows from the other) and is defined by Sartre not only as a statement of existence, but also as the following attitudes directly from it:
1. Since a person cannot be reduced to the sum of what makes up him, he is forced to accept that he has no signs, except for those that he will create for himself by his actions, there is no meaning to life, except for the one that he will create.
A person-regardless of the circumstances-is always free and responsible.
Right-wing existentialism in the political sense is closely connected with the philosophy of the right-wing political spectrum, with Nazism, fascism and conservatism, with Heidegger and his interpretation of the meaning-creation of man in his Being through the Call of Being, which is limited by the boundaries of the national collective meaning expressed through language.
So, for him, this Call was Hitler's appeal to the truly human through the removal of alluvial, inauthentic, speculative meaning, which Heidegger himself understood as unrooted, alien and false.
The physical embodiment of this meaning was what Heidegger understood as World Jewishness, that is, the displacement of meaning, which is fundamental to the national existence of a person, by drawing him into a false nothingness and capturing his being with Jewish lies, economic speculation, and the global displacement of what is really needed – what only seems to be so.
Beingness cannot be destroyed, but it is possible to deprive a person of connection with himself and his national meanings through manipulation and what Heidegger very broadly understood as Machinations.
The world built on them ceases to respond to its own challenges in essence.
If you are very rude , then you can use the modern word “zombie “(Heidegger did not know it at the time of writing Genesis and Time, but he was looking for a way to express something infinitely subtle, without using inaccurate words like” dead living”,” fake present”, because that's not the point at all) to describe being that is involved in the inauthentic through the machinations of World Jewry. Only not even in relation to man, but in general to the entire “world of man”.The external is preserved, but the meaning seems to “disappear”.
The Jews, as a people themselves unrooted in being, can exist only through machinations, parasitizing on the authentic.
Accordingly, according to Heidegger, there is no annihilation of what does not exist, that is, machinating beings(non-beings, non-organic, non-Being-relative-to-time).
Even easier: watch the movie “The Matrix”, this is left-wing existentialism in a pop form.
Right-wing existentialism is also about “Getting out of the matrix and realizing that you are a slave”, but at the same time the Matrix is Jews(although more precisely – Jews, and even more precisely – Jewishness as an entity), and you are a Neo nationally rooted in being, who is sucked through the substitution of the concepts of οΏ½in Christianity and an exploitative economy.
Right-wing and left-wing existentialists therefore rub up against each other harshly.
For the former, the left-wing existentialists are victims of the Jewish Matrix(Christianity, Marx, Engels and their teacher Moses Hess), and the task is to free oneself to the authentic through the call of the national.
Humanism must be reinterpreted by redefining who is considered human and who is only impersonating it, separating Neo from the Smiths ' Agents
For the left, they are right – wing reactionaries, and they must move from the national matrix to the universal one through the class and humanist one, discard the false superstructure and critically rethink the world through the conflict of existential values.
Humanism must be redefined through a universal human transition:
Sartre:
“…it is impossible to find a universal entity that is human nature,…. (but)
Nevertheless, there is a certain commonality of conditions of human existence. It is no coincidence that modern thinkers often talk about the conditions of human existence rather than about human nature. By them they mean, with a greater or lesser degree of clarity, a set of a priori limits that delineate the fundamental situation of a person in the universe. Historical situations change: a person can be born a slave in a pagan society, a feudal lord or a proletarian. What does not change is the need for him to be in the world, to be in it at work, to be in it among others, and to be mortal in it. Limits are neither subjective nor objective; rather, they have an objective and subjective side. They are objective because they are found everywhere and can be identified everywhere. They are subjective because they are experienced, they are nothing if they are not experienced by a person who freely defines himself in his existence in relation to them. And while there may be various projects, none of them are alien to me, because they all represent an attempt to overcome limits, or push them, or not recognize them, or adapt to them. Therefore, every project, no matter how individual, has universal significance. Any project, whether it is the project of a Chinese, an Indian, or a Negro, can be understood by a European. It can be understood β this means that the European of 1945 can also go from the situation he has understood to its limits, that he can recreate in himself the project of a Chinese, Indian or African. Any project is universal in the sense that it is understandable to everyone. This does not mean that a given project defines a person once and for all, but only that it can be replicated.
You can always understand an idiot, a child, a savage or a foreigner, just have the necessary information.
In this sense, we can speak of the universality of man, which, however, is not given in advance, but is constantly being created.
By choosing myself, I create the universal. I create it by understanding the project of any other person, no matter what era they belong to.
This absoluteness of choice does not eliminate the relativity of each individual epoch. Existentialism also wants to show this connection between the absolute nature of free action, through which each person realizes himself, while at the same time realizing a certain type of humanity β an action that is understandable to any epoch and any person, and the relativity of culture, which can be a consequence of such a choice.”
An idea in the socio-ideological model of the meaning of life, which fits in the context of the philosophy of existentialism. Existentialist philosophers usually always built their judgments more within the model of the meaning of life, combining being, God and man in a single field.