religion 56 study guide 2

8/6/2019 Religion 56 Study Guide 2

1/27

Religion 56 Final Exam Study Guide

Spring 2011

Part A: IDs (60 minutes)

1.)Hegel (1770-1831) Geist- Absolute spirit

Hegels God which becomes actualized only by its particularization in the minds ofits creatures.

God is not transcendent but is reality. It develops itself though the development ofour own consciousness.

The Universal and Ethical Every human has the same telos. It is to give up our individuality to be situated

within the universal/ethical. There is nothing higher than this telos.

The ethical, the universal social norms, is a fundamentally social morality. We fulfill our duty to god by following these universal norms. Kant agrees but sees

religion and god as secondary to the ethical.

Kierkegaards critique It is impossible to think in an absolute, God-like way. Life does not begin without

presuppositions.

People are individuals with limited cognitive abilities and are imperfect. Knower isthe finite, existing individual.

We cannot take the individual as humanity because we make too grand and broad ofclaims. For example, there is no one ultimate telos; everyone must find their own.

Truth lies in the how, not the what.

2.)Spontaneitya. Hannah Arendt (1906-1975): Total destruction of Man

i. Destruction of the juridical person/citizen placing one outside theprotection of the law

ii. Death of the moral person1. Choice between murder and murder. A moral choice cannot be

made.

2. Humans do not understand absolute good and evil but are subjectto change.

iii. Death of the unique individual and spontaneity1. Biggest point. To destroy individuality is to destroy spontaneity.


2/27


3/27


4/27


5/27

life is impossible, that God is impossible. Affliction is inescapable and unjust by nature;

affliction can impress itself on a person for no particular reason (no matter how innocent

a person, that person can still be afflicted). It renders a person utterly alone and

abandoned in the world. Within the context ofWeils work, this abandonment and

loneliness, this knowledge of nothingness is the beginning of any kind of knowledge.

Only after everything has been stripped away, the only thing that remains is the ability to

say I. And according to Weil, we must willingly and readily give that I up. Within

context, Weil first came up with the idea of affliction through her work as a Renault

auto-plant worker. She claims that these workers, who are so innocent and oppressed,

have become afflicted (and are not just suffering).

14.) Moral Ameliorism15.) Perspectivism

Definitiona. Perspectivism is a worldview that is against systems or an overarching world

narrative. It argues that truth is many and needs to be articulated from manyangles or perspectives.

b. Humans attempt to interpret the world from their own perspective. Differentphilosophies arise from different perspectives.

c. There is no objective, transcendent truth.d. There is no such thing as objective, abstract though. You cannot separate thought

from action.e. Builds off the idea of the subjectivity of truth. Perspectivism doesnt demand that

all truths are valid. It, however, acknowledges the possibility of multiple valid

truths for multiple perspectives.i. Doesnt argue that there is no truth or that truth is what everyone thinks.

ii. Truth has a pragmatic test is it life affirming?Persons

f. Primarily Nietzscheg. Related to Kierkegaard

i. Idea of truth as subjectivitySignificance

h. Nietzsches critique of rationalismi. The single individual cannot access any sort of universal truth.

ii. Knowledge is functional. (The Gay Science)1. Knowledge is an accumulation of errors.2. We need knowledge to make worlds to live in. It is how we make

sense of the world.3. Possession of knowledge soothes us, but it doesnt make it true.

iii. No absolute, objective truth in the Hegelian sense. There is no realHegelian system according to perspectivism.

Contexti. Related to Kierkegaards idea of truth is subjectivity.


6/27

i. Both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard critique rationalism arguing that there isno such thing as an objective transcendent truth or universalistic order.

ii. The knower is the single individual. There isnt abstract humanity.j. Critiques Hegels system. Perspectivism argues that philosophy arises from

different perspectives, while Hegel believed his system was abstractly and

objectively true.

16.) Anxiety, Distress, ParadoxDefinition

a. These are three words Kierkegaard associates with true faith, the journey of theknight of faith.

b. If the ethical is the universal, then an individual with faith places himself abovethe universal.

c. Faith is namely the paradox that the single individual is higher than theuniversal. (BW 9)

d. Describes the teleological suspension of the ethical that Kierkegaard describesthrough the story of Abraham, the knight of faith.

e. Anxiety, distress, paradox are the feelings the knight of faith undergoes as he iscompletely alone in subjugating the universal to his individual quest. The knightof faith is ultimately alone in his quest, as no one else can understand him.

Personsf. Sren Kierkegaard Fear and Tremblingg. Kierkegaard uses Abraham as his example of a knight of faith

Significance

h. Kierkegaard writes about what it means to have faith. Faith is, ultimately, higherthan the universal. This is the paradox.

i. Problema 1: Is this a teleological suspension of the ethical?1. Faith is a paradox as it contains a teleological suspension of the

ethical.a. The story of Abraham contains, then, a teleological

suspension of the ethical. As the single individual hebecame higher than the universal. This is the paradox

which cannot be mediated. (BW 22)ii. Problema 2: Is there an absolute duty to God?

1. Faithful man determines his relation to ethical (universal) onlythrough his relation to God (the absolute).

a. The paradox may also be expressed in this way: that thereis an absolute duty to God, for in this relationship of dutythe individual relates himself as the single individualabsolutely to the absolute. In this connection, to say that it

is a duty to love God means something different from theabove, for if this duty if absolute, then the ethical is

reduced to the relative. (BW 27)2. Abraham cannot think this is a spiritual test. When asked Why

kill Isaac?, Abraham has no other answer than that it is an


7/27


8/27

Personsf. Albert Camus The Myth of Sisyphus and The Fall

Significanceg. What happens when one realizes absurdity?

i. You can escape.1.

Philosophical suicide2. Hope

a. Camus categorically rejects hope.ii. You can learn to live and be happy with the disease.

1. The absurd hero Sisyphusa. Happiness borne out of defiance and revoltb. Why live without external or internal meaning? to be

defiant, to not fleec. Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless, and

rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretchedcondition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The

lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same timecrowns his victory. There is no fate that cannot be

surmounted by scorn. (BW 491)h. Example Clamence in The Fall

i. He lives a happy life as a respectable lawyer, until he undergoes a series ofexperiences, notably his inaction while he watches a young girl commit

suicide.ii. He reflects upon himself and realizes that his life has been insincere,

turning to debauchery to try and escape this ambiguous laughter thatfollows him, this absurdity.

iii. Clamence judges others and turns the mirror to the reader in the end.Context

i. The whole essay is about absurdityj. Within the course, the term absurdity is part of the what it means to be human

uniti. The feeling of absurdity is a uniquely human feeling

18.) LogotherapyDefinition

a. Logotherapy is meaning-centered psychotherapy. (Frankl 98)i. It is a form of psychotherapy that intends to help man find true meaning in

his life.

b. Logotherapy is oriented towards the future.i. In comparison with psychoanalysis, [it] is a method less retrospectiveand less introspective. Logotherapy focuses rather on the future, that is tosay, on the meanings to be fulfilled by the patient in his future. (Frankl

98)c. Meaning is the primary motivation in mans life.

i. He desires for a life that is as meaningful as possible. (100)d. Logotherapy is thus the process by which one helps man find his meaning.


9/27

Persone. Viktor Frankl Mans Search forMeaning

Significancef. Frankl was in a concentration camp, and he had to bear terrible suffering.g. How does one make it through something like a concentration camp? - meaning

i.

A man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears toward ahuman being who affectionately waits for him, or to an unfinished work,will never be able to throw away his life. He knows the why for his

existence, and will be able to bear almost any how. (80)h. Meaning is a specifically human concept. It is mans primary quest.

i. Freud life is a quest for pleasureii. Adler life is a quest for power

iii. Frankl life is a quest for meaningi. Existential frustration (100) and nogenic neuroses (101)

i. existential frustration1. frustration over existence, meaning of existence, or, most notably,

the will to meaningii. this frustration can lead to neuroses, specifically nogenic neurosesj. How to find meaning?

i. Importance of responsibility1. Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is,

but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word,

each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life byanswering forhis own life; to life he can only respond by being

responsible. Thus, logotherapy sees in responsibleness the veryessence of human existence. (109)

ii. What isnt important logotherapy asks man to take responsibility for hisown meaning

iii. Three ways to discover meaning of life (111)1. 1) by creating a work or doing a deed2. 2) by experiencing something or encountering someone

a. by love, for example3. 3) by the attitude we take toward unavoidable suffering

a. suffering is not necessary for meaningb. but meaning is possible in spite of suffering, if it is

unavoidable

c. lifes meaning is an unconditional one, for it even includesthe potentiam meaning of unavoidable suffering (114)

d. in concentration camp, Frankl realized the question was notwill we survive, because if not our suffering has no

meaning, but rather the appropriate question was has allthis suffering . . . a meaning? because a lifes meaning

would be not be worthwhile if it depended on something sohappenstance as escaping (115)

k. Super-meaning


10/27

i. What is demanded of man is not, as some existentialist philosophersteach, to endure the meaninglessness of life, but rather to bear his

incapacity to grasp its unconditional meaningfulness in rational terms.Logos is deeper than logic. (118)

Context

l.

Beginning of the Religious Existentialism unitm. Frankl asserts that there is an answer to these existential frustrationsi. Logotherapy helps people find this answer through giving them the

responsibility to find their meaning

19.) Dasein1) Meaning there-being or being-there, Dasein signifies both a human being and the

essence of being human. Dasein is a projection of future possibilities, and possesses an

unfinished quality as it perpetually reinterprets and reconstitutes itself. Death confers

wholeness unto Dasein by putting an end to all future possibilities.

2) Heidegger

3)

Present-at-hand (vorhanden) vs. ready-at-hand (zuhanden): Traditional philosophy

characterizes objects as present-at-hand, capable of being known and consisting of forms,

substances, essences, or other properties that may be perceived and described. Heidegger

argues that Dasein perceives objects as ready-at-hand by connecting them to

hermeneutical webs of meaning and considering their function or relationality to Dasein.

Authenticity/Inauthenticity: In order to be authentic, one must constitute their world astheir own. Ignore the pressure of Das Man.

Thrownness and facticity: Dasein is thrown into existence and an environment, which

possesses certain limitations.

Being-towards-death: Das Man conceives of death as an abstract possibility, thereby

obscuring the ever-present and imminent presence of death and fleeing in the face of

death. The authentic individual will acknowledge the inevitability and imminence of

their death.

4) Heidegger claims that traditional philosophy has forgotten the ontological difference

between Being and beings. Being is not being, and can only be understood through

Dasein.

20.) The Second Sex1) Beauvoir characterizes women as the second sex. Women serve as a permanent Other

in the male consciousness as a permanent subject-object relationship. Men as subjects areconsidered absolute and essential, while women are non-absolute and inessential. Since


11/27

existence precedes essence, One is not born a woman, one becomes one. The secondarystatus of women places restrictions on their ability to be transcendent, or have the freedom to

project various possibilities onto oneself.2) Simon de Beauvoir

3) Any philosophy that takes seriously individual identity is incomplete without an analysis

of sexual difference and identity. Beauvoir seeks to identify the possibilities and limitationsof being a woman.4) Prior to Beauvoir, existentialists had failed to consider the role of sexual difference and

identity. With the exception ofHannah Arendt, Beauvoir was the first female existentialist.

Part B: Quotes (60 Minutes)

1.) Author: Fyodor Dostoevsky

Work: The Brothers Karamazov

Date: 1880

The speaker in this scene is Ivan Karamazov, the middle son of the murdered Fyodor Karamazov,

younger brother to Dmitri Karamazov, and older brother to Aleksey (Alyosha) Karamazov.During the 5th chapter ofTBK, called The Rebellion, the atheistic Ivan represents the general

sentient of Russian culture at the time in contrast to Alyoshas optimistic and nave faith. Thetwo brothers go out to a restaurant and have a discussion in which Ivan asks Alyosha whether

hed want to live in a utopia of peace, happiness, and equality on the condition that a young girlor animal had to be tortured for it to happen. Alyosha replies no so Ivan then asks him if he

thought it was right for the people of the world to enjoy the benefits of such a place at theexpense of the child. Alyosha again responds no, but then says that in response to the earlier

question of if there is a creature on Earth that can forgive, Jesus fulfills that role and that is whypeople revere him. Surprisingly, Ivan claims he has been waiting for Alyosha to bring Jesus into

the conversation because people of faith usually use Jesus as the backbone of their argument.

From here, he goes into the story of the Grand Inquisitor in which Jesus is held captive by the

Grand Inquisitor, a man who represents the Church. The Grand Inquisitor has sentenced Jesus tobe burned at the stake the next day, and accuses him of giving mankind freedom but not love.

Giving people freedom means that they are responsible, and if they are responsible for their ownactions it means that no one can tell them what to believe. In a world like this, equality isimpossible because people will follow the hand that feeds them and since Christ did not give

them food they were left to fend themselves. However, freedom does not share bread equally(NOT a direct quote) and the outcomes of this decision are inequality, suffering, and violence.

The Church also argues that Jesus did not provide miracles because he showed humanity toomuch respect and not enough love. In order to cure the world of these ills, the Church saved

humanity from suffering by taking away their freedom and consequently their responsibility to


12/27

make decisions. They gave people food, miracles, and love instead of freedom, which issupported by the statement that the Church is working with the devil for the sake of humankind.

After hearing these accusations, Christ kisses the GI on the lips and the old man shudders. Thisis because bear the Church has bore theresponsibility of mankind and thus receive no love, so the

unexpected show of love by Christ throws him off and he lets him go, telling him to never return.

Ivan has composed this tale as a way of continuing his proclamation that he is not rejecting

God, but simply that he is respectfully returning the ticket that would ensure him a placeinHeaven because the promise of that utopia is based upon a system of suffering. He is very

pessimistic in his view of mankind, only able to believe in the evil side of men and not in thepower of an Almighty God who allows these things to happen. Despite Ivans interesting

reasoning, just like the Grand Inquisitor, he is taken aback by Alyoshas kiss, representingthe power of faith and love in the face of evil. Where Alyosha and similarly Christ are unable

to sufficiently answer to Ivan/the GIs accusations, they respond passionately with convictionin their belief in the good of mankind. They will continue to hope. This scene is central to the

themes of free will vs love, and the ethical debate over right and wrong and who is toaccurately and objectively judge which is which. In the grand scheme of the course, Ivans

nihilistic view tackles the heart of the argument of religion. Are we held responsible for ouractions if Jesus died for our sins? Do we need freedom over safety? Ivans answer is a

resounding no, as he is of the opinion that it may be better to let people live comfortably andnot worry about making decisions of the will which lead to suffering, but at the price of

eternal damnation for your association with Satan.

2.) [Ethics] are not solipsistic, since the individual is defined only by his relationship to theworld and to other individuals, he exists only by transcending himself, and his freedom can

be achieved only through the freedom of others

Author: Simone deBeauvoir

Work: The Ethics of Ambiguity

Date: 1947

In the conclusion of Ethics of Ambiguity, SDB argues that ethics in our world are ambiguous but

at the same time individualistic. Whereas Camus believes that the idea that there is no universallaw or ethics or meaning to the world makes it absurd, SDB instead says that just because it is

ambiguous does not mean that there can not be a fluid, constantly evolving meaning derivedfrom it. This meaning is individualistic in that it follows the Heideggerian line of thought that we

each make the dimensions of our own existence, and the ancient concepts of virtue and wisdom

(which characterize morality and ethics). It is also individualistic in its rejection of thegeneralized mankind which aims to supercede the individual and encompass everyone, leading

to totalitarian actions. Since ethics are derived from our ethics and our view of the world, that inturn makes ethics individualistic, but not to the solipsistic extent that only individuals are real.

This is because each individual can only define themselves through others, and therefore theirexpressions of freedom and creation of values for the world must necessarily include everyone.

One cannot claim freedom if it does not pertain to everyone, arising from the idea that personalresponsibility lies in the hands of others and that the worst possible evil is the denial of a


13/27

persons freedom. Politically this entails no oppression, and materially it requires a standard ofliving that is universal.

At the same time, it is wrong to operate and manage ones ethical values on the basis of auniversal idea because that allows for the sacrifice of the present for the future (and vice versa),

and because it leads to the acceptance of horrible methods to reach a justified goal. She citesexamples of sacrificing the present for the future including the Holocaust, gulags, and the

Spanish Inquisition. Yet sometimes it is necessary to use violence in the face of ambiguity totake down a tyrant for the greater good. In order to avoid contradicting herself, she stresses that

this can only be done on a case by case basis, and that this falls right back into the ambiguitybecause you cannot use the ends to justify the means, especially violent ones. SDB falls on the

more positive side of opinions among the thinkers that we have looked at. She feels stronglytowards the idea of individualism driving the state of ethics and morality, but makes sure to leave

room for the presence and to some degree innate involvement of violence in these decisions. Herwork aligns pretty strongly with Sartre, who was her life long mate although neither of them

believed in the social construct of marriage. Oftentimes she was referred to as Sartes sidekick,and she repeatedly commented that she was not a philosopher. Some believe this was to shield

herself from critics. In the general idea of her book, this quote stands as almost a thesis in thatshe talks about how people must decide for their own how to view their world but that they must

also keep in mind the rest of mankind (despite the idea of mankind not really existing becauseeveryone has a different view of the world).

3.) It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and onlyafterwards defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is

because at first he is nothing.

Basic Writings of Existentialism, page 345

This quote appears in Jean-Paul Sartres lecture Existentialism, or Existentialism is a

Humanism, in which he defends existentialism against the critiques of the Marxists, Christians,and, basically, all other determinists. The work was published in 1946.

Take what you will from the following. This is not intended to be an ideal answer to the prompt.

I have bolded some keywords.

This quote captures the essence of the phrase existence precedes essence, which Sartredescribes as the fundamental starting point of atheistic existentialism. In order to elucidate theconcept of essence and relate it to mans plight here on earth, Sartre points to the example of a

chair. A chair is built by an artisan. It comes into the world with a defined purpose as conceivedby its maker. Man, on the other hand, is not created with any purpose. Without the existence of

God as a master artisan, man is thrown into a world devoid of meaning.With no set ofa priori values to turn to (a priori meaning based in theoretical

deduction), man is forlorn in the world. He begins, himself, as nothing. This Sartrean idea is tiedto Nietzsches quote, and Im paraphrasing here, that if you stare into the abyss then it will stare

back into you. Man, in realizing that his world is absurd, becomes aware of his own emptiness.Sartres existentialism is a movement forwardfrom this existential crisis, as, in it, man,


14/27

possessing an individual, sovereign will, has full agency to create what he wishes of his own life.Man is thus condemned to freedom. While we all would agree that freedom is certainly a

positive thing, Sartre states that man is condemned because he does not choose to exist. Hesimply arrives on the scene.

With freedom comes grave responsibility, or the responsibility to direct ones own life.T

his grave responsibility is accompanied by the feeling ofanguish. It should be noted that thisanguish is intimately related to Kierkegaards anxiety as described in The TeleologicalSuspension of the Ethical and Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Kierkegaard describes how

Abraham, the father of faith, began to follow through with his morbid mission in completeanguish and alienation, arguing that anxiety provides the only means of mediation in ones

relationship to ones subjective truth.Sartre states that the man who has realized that he is free to impose his own values in the

absence of an absolute, external value system comes to value only one thing freedom itself.Sartre, with full faith in the freedom of the will, rejects all types of determinism, calling those

who flee from their responsibility over their own existence, hiding behind deterministic excusesfor their shortcomings, cowards. In other words, if you say its not my fault that I drink so

much Im an alcoholic, Sartre would call you a coward who is fleeing from the graveresponsibility over his own life.

You might be inclined to respond by saying, but, hey, Sartre, if I have the freedom to dowhat I want with my life, why cant I just keep drinking? After all, it is what I want to do. This

is where Sartre gets a little hard to follow. Sartre argues that, in addition to being responsible foryourself, you are responsible for all men. Basically, as man shows up on the scene without being

able to rely on any a priori values, he carries the responsibility of creating his own ethics. Thispersonal system of ethics is reflected in the decisions of the will, which are, simply, the mans

actions. Man, existing in a world where intersubjectivity, orHeideggers being-with-others, isa fundamental aspect of his being-in-the-world, is forced to constantly face decisions in which

his choice affects those around him. In both affecting other men and acting as a model for them,man must choose not only for himself but also for all men. Put another way, a mans personal

ethic is reflective of his conception of the idealized man. In making choices within a network ofintersubjectivity, man imposes his view of the idealized ethic on others and is thus choosing for

all of them.What we have arrived at is a paradoxical idea of universality in subjectivity. What binds

all men together is this responsibility to choose for all, even though each is forced to craft hisown ethic in the absence of God and a universal ethic. This idea may hold one back from

descending into depravity, as the alcoholic, sensing a degree of vice and cowardice in his escapefrom responsibility, may not wish to impose his ethic of intoxication on all other men. Sartre also

hopes for this idea of extended responsibility to answer the critique that atheistic existentialismnecessarily leads to anarchy in its exultation of subjectivity and individual freedom. In order to

supplement this response, Sartre goes further, stating that if one is to fight for his own freedom,he necessarily must fight to better that of those around him. In following his idea that man can

only be free insofar as he is surrounded by others who are free, we can see that the expansion ofmans numerous potentialities of being-with-others is central to Sartres conception of freedom

not just the freedom to dominate in the Nietzschean will-to-power sense.The connections between Sartres idea of expanding the freedom of others and the central

theme of Simone de BeauvoiresEthics of Ambiguity stand as apparent. De Beauvoire iseffectively carrying Sartres idea further another step, arguing that, if existence indeed precedes


15/27

essence and man is condemned to the responsibility of choosing both for himself and for all men,then ethical decisions can only be made in a haze of ambiguity. As all is ambiguous, each ethical

decision must be made on a case-by-case basis. While the assumption existence precedesessence destroys any semblance of a universal ethic, the necessity of expanding freedom for all

prevents existentialist ethics from becoming solipsistic.

Interestingly, one can connect Sartres atheistic existentialism with Christian thought andreligious existentialism through the idea that one bears responsibility for all men. Jesus died onthe cross because, seeing God in all men, and therefore seeing them as brothers, he took

responsibility for the sins of all. Other thinkers, including Dostoevsky, see the responsibility forall as a wholly religious form of responsibility, the supreme model of Christian authenticity. I

personally feel that Sartre is taking a religious leap in ascribing meaning to the freedom of othersafter starting with the maxim existence precedes essence. Along these lines, Tillich argues that

all men with the courage to be in the face of nothingness are fundamentally religious, eventhough they might deny it or not even know it.

As an additional connection, Sartre describes the mood ofdespair that characterizesmans responsibility to choose. While man is free to choose, we would all agree that man begins

to face limits to his freedom the moment arrives on the scene.H

eidegger terms this as thecontingent facticity of mans life. Man, without the help of an aircraft, is not free to fly

because he lacks wings. He, who, lacking capital, courageously accepts his responsibility toprovide for his family, is not free to reject daily labor. Sartre defines despair as the feeling that

accompanies the realization that we can only exert our freedom within certain bounds.

In conclusion, Sartre argues that, while man faces forlornness, anguish, and despair as a result of

his facticity and the nothingness from which he starts, existentialism is an optimistic philosophy

that, through its focus on the agency of the will to construct meaning in the face of absurdity,represents a movement forward from the abyss.

4.) The important thing as Abb Galiani said to Mme dEpinay, is not to be cured, but tolive with ones ailments. Kierkegaard wants to be cured.Basic Writings of Existentialism, page 468

This quote appears in arguably the most compelling philosophical tract of the class Albert

Camuss The Myth of Sisyphus, a work published in 1942.

All existential thought begins with the experience of absurdity. If existentialism is amovement forward, or the creation of meaning after experiencing the abyss, then Camuss

absurdism is a staunch refusal to move forward from ones experience with the absurd.Camus defines the absurd technically as the gap between the hopes of man and the

offering of the world. To put it in Sartrean terms, the absurd springs from the idea of existenceprecedes essence, as man arrives on the scene forlorn in a world without values. Camus, as

opposed to Sartre, remains agnostic, rejecting any thought as decisive as I know, for a fact, thatGod does not exist. This reflects Camuss great skepticism, which he refers to as thought on a

human scale. He rejects anything that transcends him as man as something that simply has notto do with man. This skepticism is elucidated in another quote from The Myth of Sisyphus: [man

is] armed solely with a thought that negates itself as soon as it asserts. This is related to a quoteof Simone de Beauviores fromAmbiguity of Ethics she said something along the lines of


16/27

every positive act is doomed to failure or every movement forward. Camus is just too honestwith himself to see authenticity in this failure in moving forward from the absurd in thought.

Authenticity, Id argue the courses most central theme, means different things fordifferent philosophers. For Nietzsche, authenticity is taking responsibility for following ones

will and casting off illusion. For Sartre, authenticity is recognizing ones initial emptiness and

taking responsibility for ones existence. ForH

eidegger, authenticity is taking responsibility forones death and living with it ever present, in deep anxiety, as ones own most nonrelationalpossibility. For the Christian existentialists, authenticity lies in holding oneself responsible for

the sufferings of others and in holding oneself responsible in obedience to God. As we can see,what links the concept of authenticity in each and every case is that of responsibility. For Camus,

authenticity lies in holding oneself responsible to be honest with oneself to the highest degree.Once one opens ones thought to reality, perceiving the three characters ever present in the

drama of human life irrationality, human nostalgia, and the absurd that binds them together one would be turning to cowardly dishonesty in denying the weight of the absurd.

Living with the absurd ever present is a difficult feat, lending itself to either suicide orphilosophical suicide, as Camus calls it. With regards to the quote in question, physical suicide

is obviously not the cure that Camus is referring to.T

he cure to the ailment of living withthe absurd would lie either in God or in some rational system of ethics. In order to submit to

religion or purely rational thought in an irrational universe, one must take a leap of faith, and it isthis leap that Camus terms philosophical suicide. Camus states that Kierkegaard wants to be

cured. Remembering back to the first weeks of class, we learned that Kierkegaard struggled, ingreat anxiety, with the absurd. It was absurd that Abraham, whose God, ortelos, told him to kill

his son, would be perceived by the world as insane, no better than a common murderer. WhatKierkegaard effectively does is, by virtue of the absurd, to negate the absurd. In his conception

of faith, that which is real must be based in objective uncertainty. It is only by virtue of theabsurd that we can reach God, who resides in ones subjective relationship to an objective

uncertainty. In response, Camus argues that, in transcending the human scale and basicallymaking shit up to deny the weight of the absurd, Kierkegaard is making an inauthentic leap.

For Camus, all the existentialists fall into this category. For those who wish to moveforward, creating meaning in an absurd world where one cannot ever hope for meaning is the

greatest cowardice. The rationalists, in creating systems that transcend humanity, are similarlyacting as cowards, attempting to hide from the undeniable, impenetrable dark of the abyss by

building around themselves fortresses of formulae, which, as mere illusion, are doomed tocrumble.

So, what is one to do in the face of the absurd? Camus, attempting to keep it real,ventures the most direct response to this problem: revolt. In order to maintain any self-respect,

one must accept the responsibility to be honest with himself and keep the absurd ever present.He must never fall into hope that meaning can be constructed in an absurd world. He must

know that all is absurd, and simply live. Sisyphus is stuck in an absurd life, thrown into asituation of eternal punishment by the decree of some PMS-y, arbitrary god. However, one must

imagine Sisyphus happy, as, at that moment when the boulder rolls back down the hill, he canpause and take pleasure in the little things, like his strength, and in the big things, like his ability

to suffer fate with dignity and his continued life.Camus declares at the end ofThe Myth of Sisyphus that the preceding merely defines a

way of thinking. But the point is to live. He believes that happiness can be found in the absenceof meaning. However, isnt he assigning meaning to holding oneself responsible to be honest


17/27

with oneself? This seems to be to be a leap. Maybe a shorter one than that taken by Kierkegaard,but still a leap. If you actually dont take any leaps, then there is nothing to believe in. In the face

of an absurd world, youd be a nihilist totally bent on destruction.

5.) Faith is this paradox, and the single individual simply cannot make himunderstandable to anyone

Intro:

This quote is found in Soren Kierkegaards Fear and Trembling (BW p. 29). The work waswritten early in Kierkegaards literary career in 1843.

Discuss its relevance to the authors overall argument:

I will briefly recap the work and then demonstrate the quotes place within the overall argument

In this work, Kierkegaard wanted to understand the anxiety that must have been present inAbraham when "God tempted [him] and said to him, take Isaac, your only son, whom you love,

and go to the land of Moriah and offer him as a burnt offering on the mountain that I shall showyou."

Abraham had a choice to complete the task or to forget it. He resigned himself to the three and a

half day journey and to the loss of his son. "He said nothing to Sarah, nothing to Eliezer-who,after all, could understand him, for did not the nature of temptation extract from him a pledge of

silence? He split the firewood, he bound Isaac, he lit the fire, he drew the knife. Because he kepteverything to himself in hiddenness he "isolated himself as higher than the universal."

Kierkegaard claims that Christians, Muslims, and Jews have hailed Abraham as the father offaith and yet very few can understand him. Thus is the purpose of the workto explore theethical, universal, absolute and faith-based factors that played into Abrahams decision.

Problema 1: Here Kierkegaard discusses the teleological suspension of the ethical. Here he

presents Hagels position that the ethical is the universal (a set of universally bound moral ideas;i.e. it is forbidden to kill). Kierkegaard writes that the ethical as such is the universal and as the

universal it applies to everyone, which from another angle means that it applies at all times. (8).He continues that As soon as the single individual asserts himself in his singularity before the

universal [acting on his own volition and not in line with principles of the universal], he sins andonly by acknowledging this can he be reconciled again with the universal. (8). However, if the

ethical is the universal as Hagel contends, Abrahams act (attempting to murder his child) wouldthen contradict the principles of the universal and would make Abraham a murderer.

Kierkegaard then goes on to define faith in writing Faith is namely this paradox that the singleindividual is higher than the universal, (9). He additionally defines a category of tragic

heroes: those that made sacrifices for the greater good (the universal), such as KingAgamemnon, who sacrificed his daughter for the success of the nation as a whole. Kierkegaard

argues that Abrahams decision to sacrifice his son was entirely unrelated to the universal, thus


18/27

making him either a murderer (failing to uphold the ethical standard) or a man of faith.Kierkegaard describes this as the paradox above all mediationseither Abraham is a murderer

or there was a teleological suspension of the ethical (the ends justified the means as Isaac wasnot killed) and Abraham as a single individual became higher than the universal. Additionally, he

writes that for the tragic hero, there are many people to advise him. For the man who is above the

universal, he walks a lonely road.

Problema 2: Here Kierkegaard explores whether there is an absolute duty to god. He presents

Hagels point that the ethical = the universal and within these is located to the divine. Thus, allduty is duty to god but is mitigated through our ethical duty.We then fulfill our duty to god by

following social norms and expectations.

Kierkegaards critique of this is that if you only understand god as a gauranteer of the ethicalsystem, then he is limited to just the ethical system (you restrict god)here he agrees with

Nietchze. The result of this is that there is no duty to god, only the universal.

In contradicting this viewpoint, Kierkegaard challenges the dominant ethical thought in sayingthat the individual has a singular and absolute duty to god that stands outside the ethical. Rather,

the single individual (outside the universal) determines his relationship to the universal only viahis relationship to the absolute). It is how we relate to the absolute that determines how we return

to the universal (not the other way around).

In his words:The paradox of faith, then is this: that the single individual is higher than the universal, that the

single individualdetermines his relation to the universal by his relation to the absolute, not hisrelation to the absolute by his relation to the universal. The paradox may also be expressed in this

way: that there is an absolute duty to God, for in this relationship of duty the individual relateshimself as the single individual absolutely to the absolute. (27).

The relevance of this debate to Abrahams story is that the only way we can celebrate Abraham

as the father of faith is by understanding that his duty is not through the universal but through theabsolute. Otherwise, judged only by the standard ofHagels universal/ ethical, Abraham would

be a murderer.

The quoteThus, the quote, Faith is this paradox, and the single individual simply cannot make him

understandable to anyone refers to the paradox of the single individual being higher than theuniversal and determining his relation to the universal by his relation to the absolute. In serving

his duty to the absolute, the individual is not bound to be judged by the social and moral normsof the ethical/ universalrather, he is above the ethical/ universal.

Additionally, the quote demonstrates the agency that individuals have in making decisions, thus

underscoring the basic tenets of the existentialist movement. Just as Abrahams decision is verymisunderstood, often the single individual acts in a way that cannot be understood by society at

large, because of its adherence in duty to the absolute.


19/27

Relation to Christianity and The Grand InquisitorFrom his philosophy, Kierkegaards attack on Christianity is presented with his question: what

does it mean to be a Christian without Christendom?He wants people to be aware of religiositywithout the influence of the Church institution so that people are allowed to decide for

themselves. He states that Christendom is the single major obstacle to becoming Christian and

fulfilling ones duty directly to the absolute.

Similarly, in The Grand Inquisitor, Ivan states, If there is no God, then all is permitted. Given

Kierkegaards argument that ones duty to the absolute comes above the universal, the absenceof God can justify Ivans statement. Does the universal/ ethical system of moral obligation

dissolve in the absence of the absolute? In exploring these questions, one strikes at the relevanceof the quote in Kierkegaard and the class.

6.) Removed from exam by Professor Jones


20/27

PART C: Essay Questions (60 minutes)

7.) How relevant is existentialism today? Should one study it as a historical ortranshistorical phenomenon? Is it culturally specific or universal? Construct your

argument using three thinkers from the course.

Existentialism as a transhistorical, culturally universal phenomenon:

-Heidegger: Endeavors to describe Being-in-the-world as a universal condition of Dasein.-Camus: Existence is absurd insofar as our impulses to order and rationalize the world are

thwarted by it formless and chaotic nature.-Frankl: One must find and construct their own meaning.

Existentialism as culturally specific:

-Ellison: African-Americans, and similar minority groups, are not recognized as individuals.Given the invisibility of minority groups, do they still owe responsibility to society?

Irresponsibility is part of my invisibility.

-Sartre: Existentialism must be atheistic in order to embrace radical freedom and authenticity. To

make any decision on the basis of religious affiliation is to flee from responsibility and act in badfaith.

8.)

9.)

10.)Existentialism and Community

General Thoughts:

The central theme of this essay is the interplay between the ideas of thrownness / facticity andauthenticity / individuality. One of the central points to the entire idea of existentialism is the

freedom of will, but there is still the question that there exist certain inescapable factors that setthe context for an individuals existence. Socialization certainly is present in the world, and

every person that is raised in the company of someone other than themselves is subject to thatforce. In writing this, you would definitely want to focus on the questions of (a) whether or not

actions can be truly original in a setting that is (at least somewhat) out of our control andpredetermined, and (b) to what degree does individual context of birth (thrownness) impact our

actions and decisions for our entire lives. And though not asked for as one of the examples,HeideggersDas Man might be interesting to think about here.

Examples:


21/27

Kierkegaard: He does not think that social practices and norms can take precedence over theuniversal, and he does contend that there is an individual, absolute duty to the universal though

it is the individual that determines that relationship. Also sees true faith as a completelyindividual task (ex: Abrahams actions regarding his son were understandable and acceptable

only to him, and not to society).

Nietzsche: Argues that humans body of knowledge is made up of an accumulation of errors that knowledge is a functional thing constructed by humans because they seek to create world inwhich to place their own lives. Not in favor of the universal, but rather that a collection of

experiences establishes individual truth.

Tillich: Sees individuality and community as two things that must coexist in a persons life. Byonly living as an individual, one risks losing touch with the world, and by living only in

community, one risks losing oneself. All humans must oscillate between the two and affirmthemselves in both places.

Buber: Man becomes an I through a You sees Heidegger as too solipsistic, and wants tofocus more on individuals being with each other. He thinks that the I/You confrontation must be

reciprocal, though the You does not necessarily to be a human.

Ellison: Responsibility rests on recognition sees interaction with others as an integral part ofindividuality. If a person is not seen and is invisible to society, it gives the person an alien

identity.Beauvoir: situated freedom capacity for agency and meaning-making is constrained, though

never determined, by the conditions of our situation.

11.)Being-towards-death

General Thoughts:Being-towards-death is exactly what it sounds like it is Heideggers idea that every being is

on a path that inevitably ends in death.

Examples:Heidegger: He says that death is daseins final possibility, and that it is unavoidable and

individualized. Death is a certainty, though its timing is uncertain, and no one can die for you orwith you. Through this realization, we are aware of our nothingness and the borders that death

inherently puts on our existence. Angst is an ever-present feeling that comes from thisunderstanding of the nothingness of existence when we are not experiencing death, we are

fleeing in the face of it.It is only in dying that I can say absolutely that I am.

Ikiru: Death forWatanabe was, at first, a crushing blow that led him to indulge his most basic

desires, and he drank and partied (aka raged his face off) etc. He eventually accepted it and sawit as a final deadline for completing a task (the park) that would define and give meaning to his

life. He felt that accomplishing this would give him the assurance that a good result had comefrom his life and it had not been lived in vain.


22/27

Frankl: The prospect of death forces a man to look at himself and question the ultimate meaning

of his existence. Through his experience in a concentration camp, he saw that the men who gaveup on what they believed in and ceased to have meaning in their lives died, while the ones who

still held on to meaning were able to have the personal strength to persevere and survive.

Meaning can be work, love, and suffering.

Tolstoy: Ivan Ilychs mind as he headed toward death was filled with grief and anxiety over the

questioning of whether or not his life had meant anything. He had always lived according tosocial norms and customs he had always strived to do what he viewed as the socially

acceptable things to do. But when confronted with death, he cannot reconcile his belief that hedid everything right with the fact that his life was being taken away with seemingly no reason.

He is ultimately troubled by the question of what defines a good life.

12.) What resources does existentialism bring to the issues of suffering? Discuss in relation

to three thinkers from the course (either philosophers or novelists). - Siva

Many, many thinkers work for this question, so Ive outlined information for several below.

Ivan in Dosteovskys The Brothers Karamazov: Rebellion

For Ivan, the suffering of children is the factor which causes him to reject Gods ticket. Even ifhe is wrongmeaning that God exists, forgiveness is possible, all truth will be revealed in the

end, etc.Ivan refuses to accept that an innocent child must suffer in the here and now. There isno redemption in the suffering of children because the children have not yet learned the meaning

of good and evil; they have not yet sinned. To assert that the child must pay for the sins of thefather or original sin is not at all satisfactory for Ivan, who demands a reason for suffering that

his Euclidean mind can understand.

Elie Wiesel inNightWiesel himself fixates on the suffering of children; it is, in fact, the reason why he begins to

reject God in the concentration camp. He writes: Why, but why would I bless Him? Every fiberin me rebelled. Because He caused thousand of children to burn in his mass graves? Like Ivan,

he does not necessarily deny Gods existence, but he does doubt His absolute justice. Themeaningless suffering of millions kills God, or rather the belief in God. (This differs fromNietzsches account of the death of God, in which God as a necessary moral postulate, as for

Kant, or as rationality incarnated in the world, as forHegel, becomes a superfluous abstraction.)

Yet his own suffering has an ambivalent effect onWiesel. In one sense, it leads him to feel alonein a world without God and thusstrongerthan God. We were masters of nature, Wiesel writes,

masters of the world.We had forgotten everythingdeath, fatigue, our natural needs. Strongerthan cold or hunger, stronger than the shots and the desire to die, condemned and wandering,

mere numbers, we were the only men on Earth.


23/27

On the other hand, death and suffering dehumanize Wiesel and the people around him. RabbiEliahus son deliberately abandons him, while Wiesel briefly wishes for his fathers death, then

later eats his rations as his father dies of dysentery.

We might see suffering as stripping people down to the core: does it reveal them for who they

are, or does it take away who they are?T

his is a profoundly existential question. From oneperspective, suffering erodes away all of the conventionality that restricts our lives, thus allowingus to choose (or revealing to us?) our innermost selves. On the other hand, one might argue that

the kind of suffering Wiesel and the other camp residents are forced to endure is so repressivethat whatever kind of a self emerges from it is a stunted one, unable either to constitute itself or

recognize what it has become. Most of the existentialists would maintain that those who sufferhave the freedom to choose their attitude toward suffering, but it doesnt appear to be that clear

forWiesel. He emerges from his suffering alive and somehow strongerbut at what cost?

Hannah Arendt in The Origins of TotalitarianismArendts perspective fits in with Wiesels views about the dehumanizing effects of suffering

most neatly out of the other thinkers (you could finish with Frankl for a concentration camptrifecta!). She argues that totalitarianism enacts the total destruction of man. Not only does it

destroy the juridical person by disenfranchising the citizen and removing certain people from thescope of the law, it also destroys the moral person: the concentration camps, for example, force

people to choose which of their loved ones should do. Most relevantly, it destroys individualityby terminating the capacity for spontaneity. This spontaneity is precisely the quality of humanity

which most existentialists proclaim as absolute. Sartre et al maintain that it can never bedestroyed, even if it is limited, but Arendt seems to argue that the total domination of the

totalitarian state can, in fact take it away.

Arendt does not admit any potential redemptive quality to suffering under totalitarianism. Forher, suffering to this degree unequivocally destroys ones humanity.

Victor Frankl in Mans Search forMeaning

Suffering is one of the three main sources of meaning that Frankl discusses, the others beingwork and love. He insists that suffering is not an end in itself; it is not something to be sought

out. But if we are subjected to suffering that we cannot remove, it gives us the chance totransform a personal tragedy into a triumph, thereby fulfilling our uniquely human potential.

We cannot change the situation, but we can change ourselves. We can, for example, view oursuffering as a sacrifice for another.

Frankl declares that while he was in the concentration camp, he decided that if the sufferingaround him could not have a meaning, then there was no point or meaning to a life that avoided

suffering by happenstance.This might be the closest that we can get to the world giving us meaning; it gives us a situation

we absolutely cannot change, and we find meaning by living bravely through that situation.Frankls view of suffering is thus far more optimistic than those ofWiesel and Arendt. He

believes firmly that the suffering individual retains the ability to constitute himself, the core thatdefines him.

Martin Heidegger in Being and Time


24/27


25/27

So Weil sees suffering (or affliction) as an experience that accomplishes an ultimately positivetask in helping to destroy the ego. It makes us encounter our lack of agency; our only choice is

either to desire obedience to Gods will or to deny it and end up obeying all the same. The properattitude in suffering is important as well; if one does not retain the desire to love God, affliction

can break ones soul.

Thesis?Rather than write down an explicit thesis and risk limiting you guys into too-similar essays, Ill

highlight a few points of commonality and distinction between these sources that you could thinkabout in choosing your topic.Wiesel, Arendt, and Weil see intense suffering as stripping away

parts of ourselves, either exposing something more authentic or destroying what is valuable inus. Heidegger, Tolstoy, and Weil portray suffering as leading to a heightened awareness of what

is really real, though the definition of what is real varies for them. All of the thinkers address therelationship between unavoidable suffering and human agency: does that kind of suffering

destroy our capacity to choose or give us an opportunity to exercise our most fundamentalchoice?

13.) Using two thinkers from the course, articulate one existentialist critique of traditionaltheistic claims of a divine being (as a transcendent, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving

Creator, andhence, an absolute value) and articulate one existentialist position that responds

to this critique from a religious perspective. Which position is more convincing and why?

Nietzsche in On the Genealogy ofMorality

In this text, Nietzsche describes God as the creditor to which society feels it owes a debt.Primitive men, he argues, recognized a debt to their ancestors for the existence of the society

which they received; over time, these ancestors became more and more remote until theymorphed into the concept of a God and the sense of debt built up until it was no longer payable.

Because God is the creditor and Jesus is God, when Jesus sacrifices himself for humanitys sins,the creditor sacrifices himself to himself on behalf of the debtor. Now only Gods grace is

capable of redeeming the debt, and the sense of guilt is burned into human society.

This sense of guilt, what Nietzsche calls bad conscience, serves to perpetuate the slave morality.The slave morality consists of the good vs. evil dynamic, as opposed to the earlier good vs. bad

distinction which judged values, not morals. Strength, power, domination were good becausethe strong, powerful, dominant people created values, while weakness and slavery were bad.Out of a feeling ofressentiment, the priestly caste incited a revolt of the slaves against the

masters, reversing the terms of value. Power and domination were cast as evil, and the slavesconstructed a new definition of good as a reaction, which now included pity and humilitythe

values of weakness. Consequently, humanity has become a herd led by the priests, opposing thefree expression of power and life in favor of self-denial and self-hatred anchored by guilt.

Not only is God nothing more than an abstract representation of societal debt, his image has been

used to destroy that which is noble and powerful in humanity, reducing all people to sheep. Inshort, religious ethics blow.

Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling


26/27

For Kierkegaard, the entire value of God is that he transcends the ethical, not that he guaranteesit. He points out the obvious conclusion that Hegels definition of God as the ethical makes God

no more valuable than the ethical, in effect making him superfluous. The ethical is the absoluteforHegel, meaning that ones ultimate duty is to reject ones individuality and abide by the

universal ethical code, which is more or less a socially-defined morality. But Kierkegaard uses

the example of Abraham to show that in faith, there is in fact something beyond the ethical; inhis words, there is a teleological suspension of the ethical, meaning that there is a telos, orend, beyond immersing oneself in the ethical.

True faith, as expressed by Abraham, requires one to transcend the universal/ethical, to obey

God, not society. What God asks Abraham to doto sacrifice his only son Isaacis in no wayethical. It violates Abrahams ethical duty to love his son and his ethical duty to continue his line

via procreation. In submitting to Gods command, Abraham is incomprehensible to everyoneelse in society and is thus outside of the ethical/universal. He is in an absolute, unmediated

relation to God and to God alone.

T

he criticism of God on ethical grounds misses the point, for God transcends the ethical and infact may stand in opposition to it.

Nietzsche in The Gay Science

Nietzsche argues that what we have come to think of as airtight knowledge is actually anaccumulation of errors; we assume things as basic as the fact that there are things and that a thing

is what it appears to me when, in actuality, these are probably all just consequences of thelimited way in which we perceive reality. Of course, these errors were necessary for our survival

because they enabled us to manipulate the world in a way that worked; assuming the validity ofcause and effect worked well enough, for example, to keep us alive. Only recently have we come

up with the idea of truth or untruth, and thus only recently are we beginning to question thisknowledge, though most of the time we merely assert as true the erroneous ways of thinking that

we are used to.

In this light, faith in God is similar to faith in knowledge; both are elements of a world that wehave arranged so that we can live in it. Now what happens when Kant and Hegel get their hands

on God? Kant reduces God to a necessary postulate to support morality, while Hegel describesGod as Geist, or the rational Idea unfolding itself through existence. In both cases, God ceases to

be anything but an object of rational thoughtand thus subject to the accumulation of errors ofwhich we are now becoming aware. Once we thought we could rationalize God, we killed him.

God was never real, but we never realized that he was a human construct until Kant and Hegelthought of him as a human construct.

Kierkegaard in Concluding Unscientific Postscript

Hegels attempt to locate God within the rational, logical System was foolish and misguided. Hesought to encompass existence itself in his logical thought and forgot that he existed as an

individual. The key, then, is not to forget that the knower is a concrete individual. In this light,the true knowledge of God is experience of God, not reflection on God as an object. In this

sense, truth lies in the individuals relationship of knowing to God (truth is subjectivity), and


27/27

the more intense, passionate, and inward this relationship is, the closer the individual is toexperiencing God.

In this endeavor, rationality is a stumbling block, not the primary value. Objective certainty of

Gods existence makes the relationship of knowing less intense and less passionate, keeping the

individual farther away from God. Everything that confounds reason and inspires doubt, on theother hand, strengthens that passion, bringing the individual closer to God.

The fact that rationality is faulty doesnt actually matter because reason was only a hindrance onthe way to experiencing God.

Other possibilities to consider:

Sartre: God would make essence precede existence, but we constitute ourselvesvs.

Buber: there is no I without an It or aT

hou, and God is the ultimateT

hou behind all encounters

Beauvoir: the female mystic makes herself the inessential Other to God, the ultimate malevs.

Weil: obedience to Gods will and destruction of the ego is the way to find experience ofHim

religion 56 study guide 2

Documents