Sunday, November 23, 2008

And yet another Implication of Man Making Man

In Existentialism Is a Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre lays out the basic premises and principles of existentialism. The first, and what I think is probably the most important, is that man's existence precedes his essence. It is because of this that, as Sartre says, "[man] will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself" (22). But what does this really entail for humanity, this idea taht we are what we make of ourselves (and not just what we eat)?

One answer, and one that I find particularly and paradoxically inspiring and depressing (but mostly depressing) is Absurdism. Absurdism, as most of you know, is a branch of existential philosophy. Its main tenet is that it is humanly impossible, or "absurd", to find meaning in a world where we are constantly creating and recreating meaning for ourselves. Albert Camus' The Stranger is the work Absurdist fiction, and I find it to be one the best pieces of fiction I've ever read. So, what I mainly want to do is shed some light on the scarier implications of the first principle of Existentialsim that Sartre shies away from.

The story of The Stranger follows a man named Meursaulf, whose mother has just died. He is conspicuously not grieving but goes through all the motions–goes to the old folk's home, goes to the funeral, everything. But where is his emotion, where is the pain he should feel for the loss of his Maman? This absence of emotion, I feel, hints at one of the first scary implications I referred to above: namely, that, in a world where we create our meaning almost ad infinitum, our emotions are queasily close to meaningless. This can be summed up beautifully in an exchange between Meursault and his mistress, Marie:

"She was wearing a pair of my pajamas with the sleeves rolled up. When she laughed I wanted her again. A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn't mean anything but that I didn't think so. She looked sad. But as we were fixing lunch, and for no apparent reason, she laughed in such a way that I kissed her."

Or another instance when he is asked by his attorney if he ever truly loved his Maman:

"I answered that I had pretty much lost the habit of analyzing myself and that it was hard for me to tell him what he wanted to know. I probably did love Maman, but that didn't mean anything. ... I explained to him, however, that my nature was such that my physical needs often got in the way of my feelings."

So in these moments set-up for a confession of emotion, we merely get Meursault acting on impulse and sloughing off any claims to emotion. He has no rational or even emotional basis for anything he does. This can also be seen in the reason's for Meursault's shooting an Arab. He cannot come up with anything other than a description of the burning sun on the beach.

So it is apparent in the Absurdist school of Existentialism that emotions mean a-whole-lot of nothing. But what does that mean for our actions? Does it mean that any emotional bases I have for being friends with someone are in bad faith? Does it mean that any meaning I derive from my emotional exchanges with the people I love are, in the end, mere buffoonery? Camus, I assume, would nod and reply with a terse, "oui". I, on the other hand, am left screaming it can't be so. This is a reason I have a love-hate relationship with Existentialism. On the one side, it leaves me free to just be. But on the other, it leaves me with no way to get meaning out of my relationships with other people.

7 comments:

Doctor J said...

"This is a reason I have a love-hate relationship with Existentialism. On the one side, it leaves me free to just be. But on the other, it leaves me with no way to get meaning out of my relationships with other people."

On the contrary, Dev, existentialism leaves you with no way to NOT get meaning out of your relationships with other people... even if that meaning is "absurd" or does not permit easy articulation/understanding. What existentialism will not give you is a pre-fab meaning for those relationships, which of course is what makes you ultimately responsible for the meaning, meaninglessness, or absurdity of your own life.

Very good post. An examplar of just the sort of existential struggle for meaning that Sartre claims is fundamentally human... and ultimately humanist.

Shannon said...

Although I can say to myself, “yes, my life is meaningful,” I guess I still crave some kind of external reassurance that my life is, in fact, meaningful.

I don’t see how the freedom to derive an “absurd” meaning is any more comforting (or really any different) than the inability to find meaning at all. Sartre gives an example of a young man who flunked out of military school and took that failure as a sign to join the order. In the same scenario, someone else is just as likely to interpret that event as a call to become a carpenter or a revolutionary, as Sartre points out. While the actual event (flunking out of school) was meaningless in and of itself, the young man gave it meaning by his action (to join the order). It seems as if looking for and acting upon a derived meaning is merely a way to slough off some of this immense responsibility for our actions. While this could be comforting momentarily, it’s scary to realize that in retrospect, a life-changing decision was motivated by imagined guidance. The paradox of existential freedom is that we are never free from responsibility for ourselves, and I wonder if Nietzsche would consider an übermensch the only “person” capable of fully embracing, without any anguish, the responsibility that comes with Abandonment.

Dev Varma said...

I guess to use an analogy to elucidate my "love-hate relationship" with existentialism, I want a Tom-Tom when it comes to my human relationships. I want to be able to go to whatever restaurant I please (meet whatever people I choose) but I don't want to worry about whether to take a left or a right at this street or that. I want both the freedom and the guide. Call me picky, I don't care. I want both...

Emily said...

I agree with Shannon that the übermensch is the only “person” capable of fully embracing, without any anguish, the responsibility that comes with Abandonment. It seems to me that belief in God points to the fact that most people are not comfortable with total freedom. (I think my post about the problems with pure capitalism also is an example of the fear of total freedom.) In a religion or faith people gain comfort in the belief they are not alone. It is comforting to believe that something (God) is looking out for you or is at least aware you exist.
I again agree with Shannon that it scary to be totally on your own. I know Sartre would say it is totally liberating, but I with "great power comes great responsibility" to quote Albus Dumbledoor in one of the Harry Potter books. As much as I would like to be the person who is comfortable with being independent there is always apart of me that wants to be saved. Maybe it is just the stress of the end of the semester, but escapism is an appealing option right now.

Octo-hobo said...

Escapism is indeed an appealing thing at this point. And, yes, I share Dev's desire for a Tom-Tom of human relations. Having the path set before you and having the freedom to chose is an excellent place to be, but unfortunately that isn't always an option.

Total freedom may not be possible because of that responsibility of the self, but I find the idea of that supernatural omnipresence to be more frightening than the freedom offered without the responsibility of the self. Maybe I just don't like authority, but having the presentation of my options (Tom-Tom) without the limitations given by a superior being is just something I am not down with. The awareness, though, I do not have so much a problem with as long as my choices are my own and my affairs remain my own.

Colin said...

Dev, your anguish is based in the true beauty of existentialism, you have endless possibilities and readings that can be gained from any existentialist text. It seems to me that you prefer to be hopelessly despairing, for you draw only on Sartre and Camus' less than hopeful texts. It would be helpful for you to remember that these are just men, like you and me, and their words are not written in stone as THE existentialists to live by. Existentialism will give you only what you wish to take out of it, and only you can determine that. Sooo, either live in despair at your attempts to live an authentic life that is not in bad faith...or you can do the logical thing and read some other existentialists.

MVP said...

I think the implications here have both good and bad potential. As with existentialism itself, it's what you make of it. Make yourself, as Incubus put it in their song. This is the "paradoxically inspiring and depressing" nature of existentialism that well mimics the course of life.

In the end, what do our emotions matter anyway? They matter in the sense that we give them their significance. You can go either way with this, by either refusing to allow it significance (Camus) or follow man's predisposition toward feeling the full force of emotion.