Study notes for M. Rozahegy's final exam, Existentialism, fall 2004.

11.12.04

welcome to existentialism!

Hello, all the answers should be in seperate posts. Get what you can from them and email me ( jer[at]simianuprising.com ) with any corrections or post a comment and i'll try to change it.

PLEASE ADD ANY FURTHER ANSWERS OR DETAILS YOU COME UP WITH WHILE STUDYING. This works best if everyone tries together to make it awesome. There's only like 10 people that will be using it so we can all get A's without affecting the overall ratings he's giving. think about it.

(this page will start to get really long and incoherent pretty fast, the links at right will be handy for organizing your reading of the content)

-jer www.simianuprising.com

DEFINITIONS

The moment:


[Keirkegaard]
Freedom succumbs as it thinks itself guilty. Where time intersects with eternity. The moment is where the individual realizes that they exist all possibilities, comes with sin, which comes from anxiety from hereditary sin.
[chelsea]

[Kierkegaard.]
The moment is ambiguity, anxiety, uncertainty, and indeterminate. It is possibility as you do not know what state your in (haven’t yet made the leap)
[laura]

dasein:


[Heid.]
Being there. Human existence. The being there. The starting point from which everything begins. Through Dasein, time will reveal itself as it actually is.
[laura]

[ Heidegger ]
Heidegger uses this term as meaning ‘human beings’. A direct translation of the term Dasein would be ‘existence’. However, the literal translation from German is more specific, with ‘Da’ meaning there and ‘sein’ meaning to be.

[hdg]
Human being, a being capable of pre-ontological self-reflection. Distinguishable from animals in that it has the ability to turn its consciousness inward on itself. Traditions of language, logical system, or belief may obscure Dasein's authentic primal nature from itself.

-it can be both mine and of the others
-the being thereness of life which occurs in time
-Dasein has a fixed end points "my death"but everything in between is indeterminate

phenomenology:


[heidegger]
To Heidegger, phenomenon means ‘showing something’ ‘or making manifest’, something which shows itself in itself. Thus, phenomenology is the science of philosophy: to give a precise and exact account of a phenomenon (appearance) without the use of personal opinions and interpretations. Phenomenology, according to Heidegger, is what allows us to observe something’s ontology.
[annie]

[Heidegger]
"To let that which shows itself be seen from itself in the very way in which it shows itself from itself." -  Basically to see things outside of the constructs of space and time.
[chelsea]

Phenomenological method->
radical empiricism which takes as its subject matter how we directly encoutner and experience the world. It seek to give an accurate and unprejudiced description of how the world, including the self, is experienced .

Description of existence.  Careful analysis of the intellectual processes of which we are introspectively aware, without making any assumptions about their supposed causal connections to existent external objects.  Essentially, an analysis of the things we can actually experience, and not only things which we assume are to be true.
[andrew]

abandonment:


[sartre]
According to Sartre (maybe others), the nonexistence of God means that there are no objective values and no objective meaning in human life (similar to Nietzsche). Humans are thus "abandoned," propelled into a world where they must make decisions on their own, without anyone to "make it all better" in the end, should their decisions turn out badly.
[andrew]

individual:


( Kierkegaard)
what every man can and should be be removing himself from the race and being alone before God.

{kkd}
Heidegger uses this term to describe one’s possibility of being a self. When one sees oneself and reflects on one’s own life, one is being an individual.
[annie]

For the existentialists, the project of authenticity can only be carried out in the life of the responsible individual standing alone. In Kierkegaard, the individual is reponsible for bringing original sin on herself. K critiques institutionalized religion as a distraction from the personal task of becoming an individual. The individual must struggle against the crowd mentality and assuem personal responsibility before God.


forgetting:




world-historical:


[Keirkegaard]
The finite world around you. You are not supposed to concentrate on it, not subjective.
[Chelsea]

[kierkegaard]
to become involved as a concrete existent in an actual world so as to have a ‘history’
[laura]

Kierkegaard sees the world-historical as the inauthentic world of the "out there". He feels that if the world-historical is the history of the human race, it neglects the individual and renders every effect infinitely indifferent. If viewing the history of the race through their deeds, the indifferend fail to recognize these as reflections of the individual or ethical, merely the historical truth. He feels that world-historically the ethical relationship between the individual and God is devalued.
 

unpreoccupied:


[According to Ortega in ‘What is Philosophy’]
Those “occupied with becoming un-occupied…to renounce the responsibility of their own destiny, and dissolve it amid the multitude.” (251)
[Laura]

[Ortega]
Concentration on the self (subjectivity), not concentrating on the world. Being unpreoccupied is positive. you are supposed
to be unpreoccupied.
[Chelsea]


vocation:


[ortega]
One of the three powers of being - "I am the one who inexoribly requires to realize myself" "I am the one called to be this or that" - says that we do not necessarily succeed in realizing ourselves. Basically this is the same as saying we exist our possibilities.
[chelsea]

(Ortega)
what you are. And what you are is the future – your present self is what it is in virtue of my future self. Your vocation is what you are and you are living your future. Living as a possibility.
[laura]

performativeness:


[Ortega]
Self's presence to itself, it makes or performs itself. Based on convictions.
[chelsea]

(same as Sartre’s ‘making oneself’ in his timeline)
To perform ourselves. Perpetually re-creating ourselves as we have no essence while existing.
[laura]

the way in which I exist in the world by acting. we do not have an essense but establish it thorugh acting on the world, using consciousness as but a realtional tool.  contrary to Descartes, in Ortega and Sartre, we do not exist because we think. In Ortega, I am the performance of my act, and that is the absolute reality, in which thew other is relegated to that which is being acted upon.

mood:


{heidegger}
We are “thrown” into the world.  This means that there are circumstances of our experience that we did not choose and cannot control, such as having been born to certain parents in a certain time and place, having a certain skin color, etc.  Our moods are a reaction to these circumstances, and reveal to us that those circumstances exist and are beyond our control. Thus, one aspect of being-in-the-world is state-of-mind, the emotional reaction we experience to our impinging surroundings (including our bodies).
[mood]

We have a pre-ontological relationship to our beings, our mood. we are always in a particular mood. it is the mood that determines how we are THERE, our being THERE. Fear and anxiety are states of mind, moods (fear puts us in the world).
[jeremy]

[heidegger]
Used by Heidegger to describe the various states of mind of human beings. It is his view that moods are what allows one to see oneself, and thus, to be/remember one’s authentic existence.
[annie]

image of man:


(Sartre)
The individual should be aware with every decision he is creating an image of man – ultimate responsibility.
[laura]

Sartrean (ethical) idea that we must act as if all mankind would act the same way.  For example, I might think it dismissable if I were to steal a loaf of bread... but what if everyone stole a loaf of bread?  This is similar to Kant's categorical imperative.
[andrew]

original sin


(kierkegaard)
passing from a state of innocence, sinning, and becoming an individual. Just as Adam did in the Garden of Eden. Adam was the original sinner.
 [laura]

Used by Kierkegaard as one’s first sin. This first sin is the free act which for the first time makes one a free individual; it is the leap out of the state of innocence and ignorance. Sin is the result of the exercise of human freedom.
[annie]

Sin is the theological term for a problem in one's own being. In the Concept of Anxiety, K argues that every person's sinfulness begins with a sin that must be understood as one's own deed. Anxiety is the state that reveals our underlying sinfulness and the catalyst to take a leap
towards faith. IN K, sin is an avoidance of being an authentic person, which one can only be in a Chrsitian relationship with God.

guilt:


(Kierkegaard)
Guilt comes from the act of sinning, and thus is succeeding state. Because sin takes the form of a willful opposition to God, one must understand oneself as being guilty in order to move through it. To minimize or leave the phase of guilt, one must become subjective and move towards faith.
[annie]

[heidegger]
aspect of authentic dasein. to describe dasein's relationship to the past by the term "guilt" is to recognize that dasein has achieved an awareness of freedom from and lack of necessary connection with the past .

my life:


[ortega]
quote by Ortega "I am not my life. This, which is reality, is made up of me and of things. Things are not me and I am not things: we are mutually transcendent, but both are immanent in that absolute coexistence which is life."
Ortega identified reality with "my life", which is "myself" and "my circumstances" (yo soy yo y mi circumstancia - I am I and my circumstances).  We participate in our lives, though we are not "our lives".
[andrew]

[Ortega]
The coexistence of myself in the world. It is to be occupied in the world, the “I” acting upon the world and vice versa)
[Laura]

For Ortega, there is nothing outside my life. I exist within the horizon of my life, this is the absolute reality. Primordial reality, that which is bestowed upon me at birth, essence.

my past:


This term is used by Heidegger as the authentic “how” of my Dasein. In my running ahead to the past, to my extreme certain but indeterminate possibility, thus in living my future I am revealing my how. “The past brings all the ‘what’, all taking care of and making plans, back to the ‘how’.” [C.T. 13] 

Past, Present, and Future are all tied together and are dependent upon each other's existence.  For example, Presently I am researching Heidegger because in my Past i realized that we have a final exam tomorrow.  I am also Presently researching Heidegger because I will use this knowledge in the future (on the exam).  Without recognition of our past and future, anything we do in the present seems illogical.  Why would I be going to school right now if I did not have future plans?
[andrew]

[Heidegger]
past is a repository of possibility. To appropriate this is to make that past your own. 'The past' becomes 'my past' - it is operative at a conscious level.
[chelsea]

(??)
the future is my past; the past I will exist. The past is the source of all my possibility. Take ‘the’ past and repeat it in ‘my life’ then it becomes ‘my past’
[laura]



non-mediate:


(ortega)
the appearance of something for me. The ensemble of all entities which are present by themselves, which exist on their own and make themselves manifest.
[laura]

pre-ontological understanding:


Heidegger describes this as our primitive understanding of being. ex: this IS a pencil. We must have a pre-ontological understanding of what it means to be a pencil.
[maria]

[Heidegger] The idea that although we have not properly defined something, we know what it is.  In the intro to Being and Time, Heidegger says that when we say "to be" we know what we are talking about, however, we have not defined our terms.  Even though we don't have an exact definition of "being," we do have an idea of what we mean when we say "to be"
[andrew]

convictions:


[Ortega]
Your base beliefs - what you base everything else on. You reaffirm them with every action. The world counts on you to give it meaning.  Convictions allow us to act.  We exist our convictions.  Ortega suggests that we try to be aware of our convictions in order to understand our relationship to the world.
[chelsea]

forsakenness:


Essentially, abandonment.  Applies well to Sartre and Heidegger.  The idea that we are left in the world alone and are thus free, anxious, and responsible.
[andrew]

absolute reality:


(ortega)
I co-exist with the world. The absolute reality mediates the second reality which is the being of things.
(laura)

both Kierkegaard and Hegel feel philosophy seeks to understand world history as the systematic development of Reality. It is only the whole of Reality, in all its complexity, that is completely rational and therefore completely real. Hegel calls this totality "the absolute" and the task of philosophy is to exhibit the rational dynamic structure, the movement of Reason, which culminates in the Absolute's knowlege of itself. For Hegel, the totality - absolute reality- is spiritual.
(is this just from a philsophical dictionary?)

pre-reflective consciousness:


Pre-reflective consciousness is essentially the same as Sartre's non-positional consciousness.  In order to be conscious of an object, one must first be conscious of one's own consciousness.  To be conscious of an object is *reflective* (or positional), but to be conscious of one's own consciousness is *pre-reflective* (or non-positional).  It is easy to distinguish the two terms because you must you must always be conscious of your consciousness first, and the prefix "pre" in pre-reflective means "before" reflection.  The necessity of a pre-reflective consciousness is that without it we would be stuck in a cycle of making reference to the origin of consciousness.  The pre-reflective gives us a starting point for consciousness.
[andrew]
 
self’s presence to itself.
[laura]

is the consciousness of being conscious. It's the non-mediate relationship with the world that sees life happening to itself. Ortega places it in the context of 'my life'. Life is so close to you, you never question it; it evidently belongs to me. I Heidegger, if the wordl offered no resistance, we would never becoem aware of it, and start to analyze it as an object. Exsitentialists are trying to get awawy from this, and return to a way of viewing the world as immediately existign for me.

hereditary sin:


[Kierkegaard]
the sin that is put into the world as people make 'qualitative leaps'.  It contributes to overall anxiety and thus puts pressure on people. (The pressure of anxiety.  Anxiety builds up and builds up because one thinks one is guilty until one sins and becomes guilty.  Anxiety becomes overwhelming.)
[[Chelsea]]

Hereditary sin: what we are born with. Does not make us an individual. Classifies us with the race.
[laura]

This term is used by Kierkegaard to describe the sin that man transmits to one another in reproduction, which is in fact Adam’s sin.
[annie]

Kierkeggard de-empahsizes the improtance of this, the traditonal concept of original sin that Adam brought upon all humanity in the Bible. K argues that the belief in hereditary sin is purely dogmatic, because it pressuposes itself in order to explain its existence.

the They:


{heidegger}
Used by Heidegger this term, translated in English means ‘one’ as in ‘one says’ or ‘one does’. In German ‘one’ is simply ‘man’, 3rd person singular. Heidegger uses ‘They’ as the who-ness of Dasein in its’ everydayness. He does not use the term ‘I’, for Dasein’s authentic self is something that needs to be achieved, and therefore is not a given. One can potentially lose the possibility of being a self, in which case it would remain a ‘they’.
[annie]

[Heidegger] This expression makes more sense in German than it does perhaps in English, for it does not refer to the 3rd person plural, but to the sense in English when we say ‘one says,’ or ‘one does.’  Reference to the everydayness of Dasein, and the possibility that Dasein can lose the possibility of being a self and most of the time, Heidegger would say, it does do so in the alienation of modern life.  This "who" of "everyday" Dasein is the "they" [das Man], which is characterized by distantiality, averageness and levelling down and constitutes "publicness." The "they" is both everybody and nobody "to whom every Dasein has already surrendered itself in Being-among-one-another."

[heidegger]
inauthentic mode of existence in which we forget that we are existing individuals and become lost in the "one like many."

10.12.04

First short answer

short questions (choose 2 of 4 to answer, all will be present)

1. Explain how sartre develops an ontological proof for the existence of both the pre-reflective cogito and the world from the fact of consciousness.

ANSWERS:
{maria}
Consciousness is constituted in such a way that it intends toward a transcendental object which it is not. In order for consciousness to be intentional, there has to be some thing to be intended. So, if there were not some sort of object outside of consciousness, then consciousness could not exist.

Therefore consciousness is a being such that in its being, its being is in question in so far as this being implies a being other than itself.  

Consciousness has only the obligation to be a revealing intuition of something. Pure subjectivity cannot posit the outside world because it is strictly conscious of being conscious.  Consciousness of being consciousness is still a revealing intuition and a revealing intuition implies something revealed. A revealed revelation of being which is not consciousness constitutes a pre-reflective consciousness as well as an object outside of consciousness.

[LAURA-DIFFERENT ANSWER SAME QUESTION]

The fact of consciousness exists in two parts: intentional and non-intentional awareness. Consciousness must have consciousness of itself - otherwise, anything it was conscious of would have no context in which to exist. {How can you be conscious of something without realizing you are conscious of it?} The intentional awareness is the consciousness of some thing, and the non-intentional is the reflective awareness (pre-reflective cogito). It is a reinvention of consciousness.


     The non-intentional awareness or, the pre-reflective cogito is defined as having no essence – “being what it is not, and not being what it is.” {also, it cannot be objectified} The pre-reflective cogito is subjectiveness, and remakes itself by constantly being aware of its consciousness – it has no essence {in order to be sad, one must make oneself sad from beginning to end, and in order to make oneself sad, one must not be sad to begin with – “I am what I am not”} To objectify one as sadness would be to give an essence for consciousness (which it has not).

     The intentional consciousness is always conscious of something which it is not (because it is what it is not) and must transcend itself toward the object of intention. Consciousness is empty and must intend toward towards an object which is always external to consciousness. It appears to my consciousness as opposed to in. Again, if an object were to be in consciousness, it would intend an essence which consciousness has not.

     Thus, the two parts of consciousness are dependent on each other. Consciousness constitutes both elements. Consciousness has to be intentionally conscious of some object in the world (hence the world) which it is not. But it is impossible to be conscious of an object without be self-conscious (pre-reflective cogito). The pre-reflective cogito is not possible without being conscious of an object-in-the-world of conscious. So, from the fact of consciousness, both the pre-reflective cogito and the world must exist.

9.12.04

Second Short Answer

2. explain the distinction between the two realities -- the latent and the manifest-- in ortega's thought and how these realities are lived within "my life".

[[LAURA]]

     The distinction between the two realities (the latent and the manifest) is brought about in Ortega’s re-evaluation of the Cartesian theory.


     If it is unquestionable that the appearance of thoughts exists, there must be something latent within that reality: ‘latent’ being that ‘which appears in that appearance, which sustains it and which it truly is.’ The latent reality I call the “I”, the self, my real self I do not see, it is not evident to me and must therefore be reached through a conclusion (‘hence’): “I think, hence I exist”. But Ortega asks, ‘who is the “I” which exists?’ It is the thing. The ‘I’ is not thought, but a thing of which thought is an attribute, or a manifestation. The “I” is the latent, it is not thought. Thought is the manifestation of this thing which is the “I”.


So, instead of “I think therefore I exist” (“In the same phrase Descartes discovers a new world for us, he withdraws it from us and annuls it.”) Ortega says, “I exist, therefore I think.” The thought and the self are not one and the same thing. Thought, in order to exist, needs nothing.


     In terms of ‘my life,’ I (the latent) who think (the manifest) and the world about which I think also exists; the one exists with the other, having no possible separation between them (‘I exist for the world and the world exists for me) If there were no things to be seen, thought about or imagined, I would not see think or imagine (the manifest); that is to say I would not exist. “My Life” is my interaction and preoccupation with myself in the world.


     Therefore the basic and undeniable fact is not my existence, but my coexistence with the world. My life is occupying myself (the latent) with the world, thinking about (the manifest) and being open to the world.

[[/LAURA]]

8.12.04

third short answer

3. Explain heidegger's notion of phenomenology using his investigation into the phenomenon of time in THE CONCEPT OF TIME as an example of the phenomenological method.

[annie]

3. The word phenomenology is made up of two Greek words: phainomenon and logos. Heidegger’s analysis of the verb phainesthai, from which derives phainomenon is that it means to ‘make appear’ or ‘self- showing’, what Heidegger calls ‘the manifest’. The verb is a form of the verb ‘paino’, meaning ‘to bring into the light’. Heidegger therefore translated ‘phenomenon’ as meaning that which shows itself in itself. The term ‘logos’, has had its meaning concealed throughout philosophy’s history, according to Heidegger. It has been used as ‘positing’ or ‘judging’. However, Heidegger uses it as meaning ‘showing something’ or ‘making something clear’.

The notion of phenomenology can therefore be literally defined as giving a precise account of a phenomenon; of an appearance. It is a descriptive philosophical method that attempts to represent how things appear, to grasp their immediate evident ness without using extraneous points of view and opinions. In order to successfully conduct the phenomenological method, one must set aside all preconceived notions and biases and truly describe with exactitude what is being seen in a particular phenomenon, while taking care not to interpret it.  According to Heidegger, if this method is properly performed, it will show something’s ontology, for what is concealed in phenomena is something’s being.  Phenomenology means... to let that which shows itself be seen from itself in the very way in which it shows itself from itself [BT 34].

 Heidegger makes use of phenomenology in his search for the essence of time in his essay The Concept of time. He asks the question “What is time” and attempts to answer it by first finding its starting point. Since time finds itself in eternity, eternity should be time’s starting point. Heidegger then tries to figure out who would be the best expert on the topic by looking at the Christian, the theologian, the philosopher and the physicist. He finds symptoms of time in order to get to its ontology. These symptoms are phenomena. He looks at change. Change is a direct symptom of time, for something can only change within time.  The difficulty arises in the way that, in order to properly see phenomena and therefore be able to get to something’s ontology, one must put aside all opinions and personal views, one must care for the object/thing in question in order to see it as a thing in itself; as a separate existence. To get to something’s true being, one must live less in immediacy, must live more authentically so that one may stop seeing external things as being ready-at-hand or ‘for me’. Heidegger uses this method which enables him to look through the symptoms or phenomena, through the changes in objects and thus see time. His conclusion is that Dasein is time. Dasein must be time, for Dasein is the only being who cares about time. Dasein is concerned with time in its everyday existence, but it cares about it in its authentic existence. Because of this caring, reflecting, noticing and use of time, Dasein is time. Heidegger’s use of phenomenology is what enabled him to get to this conclusion.

[/annie]

[mel and bil]
       The phenomenological method models itself after science and its radical empiricism. Following the ph. method H investigates the ways in which we encounter time, in every dayness (that in which events take place) as the physicist (by scientific measurement, ie. clock) and as dasein existing in time. H takes dasein as the basis for his investigation into time in the Concept of Time, in the existentialist mandate as man as the subject.
       Ph's method is to let that which is being investigated be seen as it shows itself, from itself. But H concludes that time cannot be investigated that way because it does not show itself directly to us. Change in our lives is the symptom through which time announces itself (movement).
       Dasein has priority as an object of ph study of change because dasein has a relationship to time. We usually view time as an infinite sequence of moments, each of which is now. But the scientific conception of time is problem atic because if we experience time as a series of nows of events flowing by then we can have experience of the present but not of the past
and future. Dasein on the other hand, is a single Being that is now past, present, and future. Because I am determined by my past it has reality, because I am now in the future, my future is now  because my present conception of myself depends in part on what I take myself to be in the future. In otherwords, Dasein is now past present and future. Therefore
through our own temporality, Dasein can think that time is a single entity in which past, present, and future are all real. Therefore, time is an abstraction from the temporality of dasein.
[/mel and bil]

5.12.04

fourth short answer

4. if one were to define existential philosophy as " being wholly absorbed in a study of the venture of human freedom and its pitfalls" comment on the validity of this definition in relation to kierkegaards writings studied this term.

If one were to define existentianl philosophy as, "being wholly absorbed in a study of the venture of human freedom and it's pitfalls" they would not be doing kierkegaards writing justice. Oppennets of exestientialism always try to paint existenialism as being a negative or gloomy philosophy. But Kierkegaard'swriting are devotional pieces aimed at defining man as an individual and stressing the immportance striving for a realtionshiop with God or "the Infinite."
-Kierkegaard is saying that trying to study the infininite and know it is hubris because we can never know because we are here for a finite amount of time.
-living the venture of human freedom not studying it
-the best way to live your life is through the pitfalls

[nick]

According to Sartre existentialists are concerned with how we exist. The answer to how we exist is existence precedes essence. Our existence is then that freedom to create our essence, such is human possibility. This is how we exist in the world, as freedom/possibility. To Kierkegaarde, accessing this possibility means accessing the infinite which is man's
true form. It is constant reflection on the self as the possibility of the infinite that allows for this access. "the development of the subject consists precisely in his active interpretation of himself by reflection concerning his own existence, so that he really thinks what he thinks through making a reality of it" (K in Becoming Subjective, pg. 151 from coursepack)

The definition "being wholly absorbed in a study of the venture of human freedom and its pitfalls" seems to me to be a bit of a trick. According to Kierkegaarde, being wholly absorbed in one's own freedom and acting only in subjectivity to the reality of being a human being in the world ( a human being being that freedom (blech, this course drives me nuts!)) is existential philosophy. Because human freedom is the how of how we exist. The existential philospher does study and refute the pitfalls of this philosophy, ie, Hegel's System, objective philosophy. The first part of Kierkegaard in the coursepack is refuting objectivity, and he continues to refute it through his discourse on world-history, the individual, etc.

But to be existential is to be wholly absorbed in the self. IT seems that to also include the pitfalls would be, to K, to keep acting and not allow for one to live in the possibility of human freedom. If the self keeps seeing these pitfalls and concentrates on them, they will keep building anxiety, imagine themselves guilty and sin time and time again.

So this is sort of a weird answer. I think the pitfalls thing is the tricky part. If anyone wants to refute one of my stances on pitfalls, do so. I tend to read too much into questions and get caught on words.

First Long Question

(answer 1 of two which will be present. so learn two)

QUESTION1

1. in existentialism and humanism, sartre states tha the first effect of existentialism is "that it puts man in posession of himsel as he is and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely on his shoulders" (29) explain whether you agree or disagree with this statement. and defend your position by drawing on the work of at least three of the philosophers studied this term.

[annie]
According to Sartre, the first effect of existentialism is “that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely on his shoulders” [E.H. 29]. Existentialism puts each man in possession of himself in the sense that man makes itself. Man has no essence; he surges up into the world and exists. His essence becomes what he wills it to be, what possibilities he exists. Since there is therefore no ‘model’ of man, each man creates himself, each man chooses whether or not he will be an individual, and if so, he makes his own individual self. He is aware of his moving towards a future. According to Heidegger, it is his authentic existence, or consciousness that makes him different from objects that exist after their essence. Along the same lines, Ortega claims that man acts out a ‘self-fashioning’, a carrying-out of oneself, a self-performance. Man makes himself.

Each man is responsible for himself and his own actions. Existentialists believe that passion is not something that can take over an individual; it is something that one is in power to control. Also, there is the absence of ‘fate’, therefore no one can blame a turn of events or one’s own actions on something that was pre-decided.

[NICHOLAS]

Sartre says: existentialism puts a person in possession of him or herself as he or she is and places the entire responsibility for his or her existence squarely on his or her shoulders. I agree with this. All philosophers from the course posit that in order to understand one’s place in the world, the only starting point, the only certainty is the self. If the only thing one can be certain of is the self, then a person has no point of reference to base his or her own actions on (Sartre and Ortega say this, I imagine Heidegger does, I’m not sure)
Therein, a person can only realize him or herself by using the self and the fact that that self is living in the world as a filter for which to act. This is subjectivity. Kierkegaard is all about reflecting on the self as an infinite being in a finite world, and therefore unleashing possibility and being able to be act ethically, but only through the subjective as the subjective is the only way to the infinite and in the infinite is God. Sartre’s foresakeness is based on this idea, that there is no reference point “the existential thinker finds it very embarrassing that there is no God”. The definition of Dasein is the self living alongside the self in the world, which is existence. Therefore, the individual perceives the world, and realizes that he or she perceives the world with them as part of it and acts accordingly. Therefore, they are responsible for their own actions as they are an individual in the world.

4.12.04

Second Long Answer

2. by uncovering the subjective moment in which man encounters himself, according to sartre, as a "project with a subjective life"(28), before surging up into the world, the first effect according to sartre is to put "every man in poession of himself as he is" explain how three of the existential philosophers that we have studied this term articulate or express this pre-reflective and pre-objective movement of self-posession and how this moment is important in their work.

sartre


Sartre's idea for this is simply his pre-reflective cogito, the idea that one must be conscious of oneself before one can be conscious of others.  I myself am "being-for-itself," in that I exist as a wholly independent and conscious being.  The things that I observe, then are objects, and are "being-for-others".  The reason I am"being-for-itself" is that I have the ability to reflect on myself.  The pre-reflective consciousness is integral for Sartre to distinguish between types of existence.

kierkegaard


Kierkegaard's moment of pre-reflection is the qualitative leap.  We, like Adam, are born in a state of ignorance and innocence.  We are overcome by an ambiguous form of anxiety that makes us feel guilty though we are innocent.  We make the qualitative leap from innocence into sin, positing sin in ourselves and the world, and from ignorance into knowledge.  The anxiety experienced can be compared to the anxiety that we might be overcome with when we are accused of doing something that we did not do.  Even though we know we are innocent, a feeling of anxiety comes over us.  The qualitative leap is necessary for Kierkegaard in that it is what makes us all sinners, and the reason for which we should make our ultimate goal to become Christian, in order to receive God's forgiveness for the sin we committed through the qualitative leap, and all the sins we commit afterwards.

[chelsea]

2. by uncovering the subjective moment in which man encounters himself, according to Sartre, as a "project with a subjective life"(28), before surging up into the world, the first effect according to Sartre is to put "every man in possession of himself as he is" explain how three of the existential philosophers that we have studied this term articulate or express this pre- reflective and pre-objective movement of self-possession and how this moment is important in their work.

Sartre: Since human ‘being’ has no essence, for Sartre the moment of self-possession lies in the creation of consciousness. The ‘pre-reflective cogito’ is the most basic form of self consciousness. It is categorized as ‘being what it is not, and not being what it is,’ meaning it cannot be objectified since it has no essence. It exists possibility in existing without a blueprint. Basically, since it has no essence, it is pure possibility and it exists everything it is not. Consciousness makes itself, and must continue to remake itself in every moment to sustain its being.  It makes itself by first being aware of some thing, and second having reflective awareness of itself.

Kierkegaard: Anxiety in the state of innocence is a glimpse at the possibility of freedom. Freedom shows itself to itself through anxiety. Anxiety can be seen as a driving force behind the realization of ourselves as individuals, as anxiety pushes us to sin.  When one sins, one is taken out of the state of innocence/ignorance and is given knowledge. The moment of self-possession comes when one is given choice.  It is through sin one gets knowledge, through knowledge one gets freedom and thus choice and it is this freedom or choice that allows an individual to see their possibilities.  This might eventually lead to ‘the moment’ where one turns inwards and sees that they are themselves freedom. This moment is one of faith where the
temporal and the eternal meet as the individual realizes infinitude.  This can only happen for a moment, however, and must be re-realized over and over again to maintain faith.

Heidegger: Dasein has a unique relationship to being and its existence within time and space. Heidegger believes that human beings always exist an understanding of being. He says that our understanding of being, or our pre-ontological relation to being changes the very way in which we ‘are’. Thus our ontological existence and our ontical existence – or how we are, is
related.  Heidegger says that our understanding, or our presupposition acts is a filter on how we encounter and interpret the world. This is what Heidegger calls a ‘mood’.  “By way of having a mood, Dasein ‘sees’ possibilities in terms of which it is. In the projective disclosure of such possibilities, it already has a mood in every case.”(188). Heidegger points out that Dasein creates it own ‘there’. A common ‘there’ for dasein is being-in-the-world, another way of being-there is being-towards-death.  By understanding our ‘there’ we can break free of it.  The idea is not to be at ‘home’ but to be ‘not-at-home’ and expand our objects of study. This relates to the need to live in the state of anxiety for Kierkegaard.

3.12.04

Third Long Answer

3. explain the role that the concept of the future plays in the worlk of any three of the philosophers studied this term.

answers:
[andrew]

For Heidegger, the role of the future is inseparable from the present and the past.  Our present actions are in reference to the future.  For example, right now we are studying not for the sake of studying, but for the sake of doing well on the exam (in the future).   The past is also tied to the present and future in that who I am right now is a culmination of all the things I have done in the past and who I am now is also reflective of where I will be in the future.

For Sartre, the future is completely open and free to us, and this freedom and possibility causes our anxiety.  In the absence of God, we are free and responsible to make ourselves and we have no set future.  We make our own future.  This responsibility instills in us anxiety.

Kierkegaard's relation to the future is essentially the same as Sartre's.  We are anxious about our futures and responsible for our relationship with God.