NOTES : Introduction to Existentialism - Freedom and Existence

Tractate:
"Okay, first real tutorial and I must say I'm pretty bloody impressed, particularly with the writings of the existentialist Nietzsche. The tutorial is blocked for three hours but I don't envision much of a deviation from two hours. The discussions during this time are pretty hefty anyway, with every son-of-a-bitch with a tongue trying to spit out the most profound thing you've heard since the all time favourite "shit happens", or the classic "life is like a box of chocolates...". Our readings for the Freedom and Existence section were the focus of todays tutorial, discussing some of the ideas presented by Nietzsche and Ortega. Due to last weeks tutorial being cut short due to the operation of a pneumatic drill on the other side of the wall of our classroom, which kinda made things difficult, the introduction to existentialism took only ten minutes. Which shows how much he was planning to drag that carcass out if tutorials take around two hours. Frankly, I didn't mind the drill as much as others, but then again, having been exposed to the music of one Bryan Addams for quite some time, I've become a wee bit desensitized. Anyway, on with the serious shit. I will be recording the material covered in each tutorial for my own personal reference and to aid in integration, analysis and cognitive storage and retrieval. It's always better to go away and interpret the information by yourself to the best of your ability in order to ensure that you understand the material discussed. If you can't put it in your own words, your in trouble."


Class discussion:
After initial formalities, Associate Professor Stan van Hooft launched straight into Nietzsche's "The Madman". This is quite an articulate presentation of argument as it is presented in a story format and yet still does not lose the cutting edge of a precise philosophical argument. The principle character, the madman, runs into a crowd with a lit lantern professing his search for God. He is abused by the people for his faith. The man then tells the startled onlookers that God is dead, killed by the very humanity that he apparently created. After telling the masses of this horrible occurence in some lengthy detail, the madman changes his mind after the initial silence that follows and says that, no, God is not yet dead, but it is only a matter of time.

Stan (I hardly feel comfortable calling him van Hooft, sounds like a russian race horse) then encouraged us to write our own interpretation of what was being said. I wrote : " Humanity is inevitably progressing to a point in which God, or such an ideal, is destroyed by their own hand. the disbelief and mockery that already occurs shows that we already toy with such a notion and yet the silence after the madmans speech about the death of God demonstrates that will still need God, or have not destroyed him yet "

This was then shared with the person sitting beside you. I found my companions interpretation to be very interesting, but focused a little more on the events leading up to the madmans speech. He proposed that the madman had become disillusioned with reality as it is and reality as the church professes it. I discussed this with him and yes, he agrees that he was addressing the circumstances leading up to the speech, however, i still believe he captured something I didn't, and he remarked that he was quite impressed with the manner I stipulated that the crowds reactions represented the beliefs and fears of society as a whole (he praised my interpretation of the crowds silence). Writing now it occurs to me that this guy was perhaps analysing the cause of the madmans mental state, having broken from reality? I have seen him at the psychology lecture. Must find his name, he may be my partner in the class presentations that are to occur. We did have some initial rapport, and would have kept discussing the initial passage if the lecturer hadn't stepped back into the fray.

Obviously, says Mr. Russian Racehorse, the piece addresses the "package" that is God. Specifically two aspects of that package need to be addressed if further analysis is to occur.

1) Humanity and whether we were created by God. If so, then this suggests some inferiority of mankind and our 'duty' to offer worship and allegiance to this supreme being. BUT, if God does not exist, then we are truly the masters of the universe we seem to regard ourselves as. this brings up an argument of superiority/inferiority in my mind, and indeed is a facet of the whole story.

2) Morality as dictated by either the supreme being or religion. If God exists, then by all rights he should dictate what's right and wrong, and have control over what humans do and are, if he doesn't, then man must create his own morality.

Now, considering these two points, what becomes apparent? Well, in todays world, we do dictate our own morals and ethical standards and we do regard ourselves as the masters of our own world and indeed our own lives. God is dead. Or at least he's holed up in thehospital in critical condition.

Therefore, the crux of the whole story was to encourage some self actualisation on behalf of the reader that yes, perhaps God is dying, and yes, perhaps without the presence of God humanity would be completely independant and self-reliant. In my opinion, Nietzsche does not suggest that we should abolish God (or does he? The lecturer seemed to think that this was indeed a stipulation of the text!!?), he merely seeks to demonstrate the relationship between God and what he represents and is to the people in reality. People can mock the idea of God, and indeed they may not have any use for God in their everyday lives, and yet they still acknowledge him, and have not yet abolished him, I don't think we can without losing some sense of security in our lives, indeed, in the grand sheme of all things. Hence statements like "it's not fair", which attest to the fact that people believe there is some underlying justice to all things, a path of goodness and fairness. The lecturer said many times - "scratch an atheist and you'll find a believer". incidences of trauma and 'unfairness' make humanity question whether God truly exists and highlights that essential desire for some security and grand purpose in everyday life.

What seperates man from inanimate objects, beyond the scope of being a biological organism, that is, considering the physical mode of existence? We know that a rock exists, we know that a computer exists, but when it comes to defining the function, the action, of existing in relation to man the situation gets decidedly more complex. The verb, to exist, is easily applicable to other objects, but mans existence beyond a physical realm or modality leaves us lacking in concise explanation or definition.

"I can't get enough of that luvin' stuff...oh...and The Musings of Dan"
or
"For a rest from the human race, make a pitstop at The Lair of Dan"