Existential Doctrines and The Consolation of Philosophy

In my previous post, I discussed free will and determinism as a foundation for the philosophical paradox that corresponds with existentialism. In addition, the meaning of knowledge and experience play a role in existentialist doctrines. As promised, this post will address existentialist theories, arguments on free will and determinism, and a diverse philosophical discussion of other beliefs.

Existential Oscillations is quite similar to fallibilism. It believes that humans have the capacity for knowledge and innately susceptible to fallacies in logic, perception, and choice. This basically means admitting that your beliefs could be wrong without completely dismissing them. Existentialism believes that each person has absolute freedom over their choices, and furthermore, life’s outcome.

What Else do Existentialists Believe?

As I discussed in my last post, existentialists subscribe to the Kantean argument as the source of pure knowledge. Therefore, they also believe that the internal (mental) world trumps the external (physical) world. We’ll look at some opposing arguments to this doctrine later, as this also enters a metaphysical debate.

Radical Freedom

Existentialists believe that every person has the freedom to choose their actions and decide the meaning of their lives. This belief system denies deterministic doctrines, which argue that the events in life are both permanently defined and hidden from human knowledge. Radical Freedom is the absolute capacity to choose one’s own actions and create oneself in a world we cannot control.

Meaning and Purpose

Existentialists derive the meaning of life from subjective, individual perceptions free of the external world’s societal hierarchy, monetary system, and founding religion. For this reason, existentialism often requires solitude, even absolute separation, from humanity’s vices. Purpose is defined as the fundamental feature of explaining the nature of things by their means to an end.

Dread and Anxiety

To become an existentialist, is to become a Spider-man of sorts– with great power comes great responsibility. One’s awareness could influence angst, despair, and dread. Existentialism actually encourages absolute experiences and emotions, however negative they may seem, because it allows them to know themselves more fully. Dread means the understanding the nature of nothing and being, according to Heidegger; the contemplation of one’s mortality and finite essence; and grasping the implications of freedom, that nothing is predetermined, and one might do anything at all.

Jean-Paul Sartre’s Bad Faith 

Like any form of faith, one must believe wholly in its doctrines; otherwise, his or her doubt will lead to what existentialist Sartre calls bad faith, or what we call existential oscillations. Bad Faith assumes that human beings are always and everywhere radically free. We experience the anguish and uncertainty that we are absolutely responsible for our choices (dread). To commit bad faith, one employs strategies to deny his or her freedom in order to diminish the uncertainty of freedom. However, the paradox lies in the ability for people to be simultaneously aware and unaware that they are free.

The Case of the Green Lights

For me, the greatest mystery of reality started with a series of green lights. I noticed one day that in driving 10 miles, I did not stop once. What caused such fortune, I wondered. After deliberating, I concluded the following potential options:

1. I had performed some good deed and, by the grace of God or Karma, received a reward.
2. I reached the first light at the precise moment necessary to arrive at the subsequent lights before each turned yellow.
3. I believed in the power of potential of positivity to drive without disruption.
4. The universe granted me one day of green lights and good songs on the radio.
5. I didn’t actually notice, or take account of, the one red light in a series of green.
6. Streetlights mean nothing.

This is your basic Why did the chicken cross the road? question. And there are plenty more answers, trust me. Suppose this chicken is an existentialist, its answer would fluctuate between (2) and (3).

Number five might have something to do with Idealism, which suggests the nothing outside the mind has value. Therefore, if you believe something to be true in your mind (against what reality says), then it is true. George Berkeley’s Idealism denies the existence of everything, other than the mind and ideas within it. There is no external world underpinning our experience. Furthermore, our illusion of the external world is created by collections of our internal experiences.

The last option is definitely a nihilistic point of view, which argues that nothing has value or exists in either internal or external worlds.

The first and third options lean more towards determinist arguments because they rely on “God” or “the universe” to initiate the sequence of green lights. Not all existentialists completely deny the existence of a higher diety, they just believe that these entities have no control or influence over the events in their life.

What is the Consolation of Philosophy?

The Consolation of Philosophy written by Boethius provides an interesting perspective on the correspondence between free will and determinism. During extensive conversations with Philosophy, Boethius addresses several issues associated with his crisis of faith (which is quite similar to the idea behind existential oscillations). My favorite arguments concern fortune, fate and providence, time, and the origins of knowledge. Boethius drew from several ancient philosophers including Plato and Aristotle, as well as the religious (mainly Christianity) and Stoic beliefs.

Fortune 

Classical fortune is depicted as a woman spinning her wheel, which deals out both good and bad circumstances to people. In philosophy and religion, believing in and gambling with fortune is known as one of humanity’s many vices or sins. In Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius writes:

For bad fortune, I think, is more use to a man than good fortune. Good fortune always seems to bring happiness, but deceives you with her smiles, whereas bad fortune is always truthful because by change she shows her true fickleness. Good fortune deceives, but bad fortune enlightens… And so you can see Fortune in one way capricious, wayward and ever inconstant, and in another way sober, prepared and made wise by the experience of her own adversity. And lastly, by her flattery good fortune lures men away from the path of true good.

Fortune describes events or circumstances that ultimately change one’s life for better or worse by introducing some new aspect such as money, land, or power. Eventually, one uses these resources up and is left with nothing at the end, blaming it the forces of misfortune. The vice lies in the perishable nature of fortune’s gifts, which unlike virtue and spiritual salvation, destroy the purity of one’s mind and soul.

Fate and Providence

As I mentioned last week, Determinism is a branch of philosophy that argues events occur as a result of some outside, universal source, which human beings can neither know nor control. In addition, determinism also believes in causation, or cause and effect, which requires an initial action that decides all subsequent outcomes. The Consolation of Philosophy offers a deterministic argument to explain fate and providence. Boethius writes:

The generation of all things, the whole progress of things subject to change and whatever moves in any way, receive their causes, their due order and their form from the unchanging mind of God… The mind of God has set up a plan for the multitude of events. When this plan is thought of as in the purity of God’s understanding, it is called Providence, and when it is thought of with reference to all things, whose motion and order it controls, it is called by the name the ancients gave it, Fate.

I might reference Boethius in future posts when discussing the existential issues of time and knowledge.

What’s Next?

The next blog post will go further into existential issues and conflicting metaphysical and ontological arguments, such as the mind-body problem and origins of knowledge. These will build upon the Locke vs Kant debate discussed in last week’s post.

Quote of the Week

“The good news is that the moment you decide that what you know is more important than what you have been taught to believe, you will have shifted gears in your quest for abundance. Success comes from within, not from without.

~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Foundations of Existentialism

From here on, we embark on a philosophical journey toward undefined destinations. You may choose to escape at any time, but I insist you keep an open mind. Many adventures lie in wait for those with curious eyes.

In my last post, I defined the meaning, purpose, and parameters of Existential Oscillations. As promised, this week’s blog post will cover the Foundations of Existentialism by examining its philosophical roots. Topics will include epistemology, logical arguments by Locke and Kant,  metaphysics, and free will and determinism.

There is quite a bit of ground to cover, so take your time. If you don’t have time, feel free to speed read your way through the main points. It’s your choice, argues the existentialist. In either case, I highly recommend picking up a copy of 30-Second Philosophies. This book provides bite-sized information for modern day busy bards. I will use this text periodically to define philosophical terms and outline basic arguments.

What is epistemology?

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge– its nature, origin, and limits. In other words, epistemology asks ( and attempts to answer) questions like: What is knowledge? Where does it come from? Can human beings truly know anything? If so, how? In general, we perceive knowledge as reasonable facts or justified truths. For the purposes of this post, we will assume that human beings can and do have knowledge. However, it is served in two flavors: a posteriori and a priori. These arguments closely resemble the psychological nature vs. nurture debate.

A Posteriori knowledge is attained through or justified by experience. John Locke argued that human beings were born with blank slates for brains. According to Locke’s theory of empiricism, one can only acquire knowledge through sensory experience. Ultimately, knowledge is only reasonable or justified if one has primary evidence of the fact or truth in question.

Example: Children are born without the ability to understand and communicate in their native language. In order to gain this knowledge and ability, children learn through sensory experience (primarily by listening to and mimicking sounds and words). 

A Priori knowledge is present before and absent of experiential justification, as if an innate characteristic of human beings. Immanuel Kant claims that a human brain contains the capability to gain and produce knowledge without prior sensory experience.  By assuming that human beings gain and produce knowledge a priori, it follows that sensory experience does not determine meaning.

Example: Children are born with the capacity to think and communicate through language. Their innate knowledge of language exists separately from the world’s accepted form communication. Furthermore, children produce their own sounds and words until they find combinations understood by another human being.

Kant’s arguments provide the philosophical foundation for existentialism (and a plethora of other isms for that matter).  Existentialists rely on the ability to create their own meaning in the world, and believe that the purest form of knowledge is derived from within oneself. This relates to another set of philosophical arguments, which debates the relationship between human beings and the world.

What is Metaphysics?

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature and origins of reality. In other words, metaphysics questions ( and attempts to answer) concepts like: What is reality? What causes or creates it? How does we know something is real? What does it mean to exist within a reality? Do we actually exist? If so, why? In general, we perceive reality to be the state of the natural world as it is simultaneously witnessed and experienced.

Metaphysics contains several subcategories that address the complex and often contradictory relationships between human beings and nature. The most important, and arguably the most popular, philosophical debate concerns the nature and cause of events in reality. That is, whether or not human beings have any control over the natural world. These are arguments are known as free will and determinism

Determinism the branch of philosophy that argues events occur as a result of some outside, universal source, which human beings can neither know nor control. This belief is housed by several theistic groups, though the interpretation and enforcement of this doctrine vary. In addition, determinism also believes in causation, or cause and effect, which requires an initial action that decides all subsequent outcomes. This ultimately begs the question of the nature and origin of the initial causation that led to the current state of the world. Whether it be God, the Big Bang, Fate, Nature, etc.– someone or something set the universe in motion.

Free Will is the belief that human beings have the power to make their own choices separate from nature’s inherent causation, thereby taking control of and deciding their reality. This philosophy is the defining doctrine of existentialism, which I will continue to discuss in future posts.

Why do these arguments matter?

Epistemology and metaphysics build the foundation for existential concepts. They can also destroy it. Herein lies the contradictory and paradoxical nature of philosophy, and of human life itself. By exploring and examining arguments on knowledge and reality, we can analyze existentialism from multiple perspectives. Philosophy requires all-encompassing objectivity and attention to an argument’s soundness and validity. I’m quite convinced that no argument will fully persuade me in either direction. Therein lies cause for existential oscillations.

What’s Next?

The next blog post will include a full list and explanation of existential concepts, terms, and related philosophers. In addition, I will discuss existential issues by exploring metaphysical arguments. Since I did not get a chance to finish reading Consolation of Philosophy, I will reference the text in the continued discussion on free will and determinism.

What’s New?

The Philosophy page includes a list of definitions that will continuously expand. I also plan to include short summaries of every philosophical argument covered in blog posts. The Poetry page will feature a new poem every Monday that relates to existentialism. The Quotes page lists quotes of the week from each blog post.

Please feel free to comment with your thoughts, suggestions, and/or corrections. Feedback is always welcomed and appreciated.

Quote of the Week

“My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists”

~Nikola Tesla

Intro to Existential Oscillations

What is Existentialism?

Existentialism is a branch of philosophy that cultivates the individual, subjective experience, but criticizes socially constructed institutions. That’s putting it in simple terms, but their philosophy gets more complicated. Existentialists argue that true human existence and knowledge exist entirely within the individual, and the physical world has no true value. You can read more about existentialists in my next post. I will break down the philosophical roots that laid the foundation for existentialism, and continuously work through their concepts.

What is an Oscillation?   

Oscillations are usually known for the back and forth motion of a pendulum (like the light bulbs pictured in my header). However, for our purposes the more accurate definition for oscillation is the repetitious shift from a set of beliefs, perspectives, feelings, or ideas to one which opposes or contradicts it, and often reverting back.

For example, I originally named this blog “Euphoric Oscillations” and felt confident in my idea. Less than ten hours later I realized that, by nature, oscillations cannot be limited to one force, thought, or emotion (i.e. euphoria). So I changed my entire perspective, my blog idea, and avoided emotional titles. Thus, I am my own oscillation. In the famous words of Walt Whitman:

Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

What are Existential Oscillations?

An Existential Oscillation refers to the intermittent periods of time that a person involuntarily enters a state of mind or being, which causes them to struggle with the philosophical weight of their own existence. I created the term Existential Oscillations to discuss two phenomenal experiences in relation to each other:

1. Dissociation from reality (existential)
2. Major shifts in beliefs, behavior, and personality (oscillation).

I am still in the early stages of developing and refining the term, so bear with me. Like a good thesis, these topics take a good deal of tinkering.

What purpose will Existential Oscillations serve?

Existential Oscillations exists primarily to acknowledge and understand the contradictions and multitudes of human existence and existential thought. I expect to read, write, think, and breathe contradictions before I get any real answers.

Existential Oscillations will allow me to organize and reinforce my philosophical exploration, and hopefully share the experiences with anyone who is interested in or struggles with existentialism. In future weekly posts, I will summarize my readings, share my thoughts and relevant quotes, and provide any resources I think would supplement the topic. As my description mentions, there will be other topics covered outside of philosophy including psychological disorders, existential poetry and biographies, and maybe throw in some existential artwork.

What’s next?

The post for next week will have a run-down on Locke vs. Kant, which will flow nicely into the deeper caverns of existentialism. Also, I will review The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius, which has a fascinating dialogue on free will and determination.

Please feel free to comment with your thoughts, suggestions, and/or corrections. Feedback is always welcomed and appreciated.

Quote of the Week

“The secret of that life of his which had never yet come into being, spread out before him. Involuntarily he left the footpath and went running across the fields, with outstretched arms, as if in this wide reach he would be able to master several directions at once”

~Rainer Maria Rilke, The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge