Something Rather Than Nothing

Why is there something rather than nothing? This is a question I have had experience with before, but always in a much more religious context. Normally it is proposed as a way to lead an individual to the conclusion that there must have been a creator to explain why there is anything at all. As such, I have grown quite bored of this question, however Heidegger proposes an alternate way of thinking of the question of why there is something rather than nothing. While I have typically regarded this question of being of little philosophical worth, Heidegger goes so far as to claim that it is, “the most fundamental of all questions”(Solomon 147). According to Heidegger, this is the most fundamental of all questions because it is the first question of true philosophy. Philosophy is not a field that you can do things with, Heidegger admits, but it is important rather because it is philosophy that can do things with us. While initially this seems rather counter intuitive, when it is considered again the deeper underlying truth of this statement seems to hold true. Heidegger is suggesting that it is philosophy that directly or indirectly precedes our actions. Before President John F. Kennedy could set the national goal to reach the moon, he had to have a philosophy that included the rationale that caused him to support space travel and national projects as morally good. This type of correlation can also be seen in young children who learn to obey the rules set by their parents. Their mental obedience of their parents’ ‘philosophy’ is what informs their physical actions in the adherence to those rules. While it has sometimes seemed that philosophy might have very few real world applications, the perspective that Heidegger introduced seems to be a way to bridge the gap between symbolic comprehension of philosophical thought and the real world application of said comprehension. Sadly, however, it seems that Heidegger’s profound revelation on the importance of philosophy has been lost on the general science community, as the philosophy field continues to be looked upon with subtle condescension, at least among undergraduate circles.

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

Philosophy Through Video Games

If there is one theme that appears to be present throughout many of the existentialist essays that I have read to this point in the semester, it is the silently accepted fact of the inevitability of death. Even the most outright religious philosophers that I have read, such as Kierkegaard and now Heidegger, have rarely touched upon questions of existence after death, the question of that follow life before death seem to be of much greater importance. With the impact that the inevitability of death appears to have on the deepest philosophical musings of the human race, it raises the interesting question of how mankind's overall philosophical trends would change if death was no longer relevant. Heidegger describes this connection in this excerpt from Being and Time,

“In dying, it becomes evident that death is ontologically constituted by mineness and existence”(Solomon 141).

I am reminded of an enemy faction in an old computer game, System Shock 2, The Many. The Many is a single organic consciousness that consists of a hive mind of many individual entities. In the game, The Many acts in opposition to the goals of the protagonist, however it does not act against the player in malice or hatred. The Many acts against the player purely out of philosophical differences that put it at odds with the goals of the player. The Many, as a single hive mind consisting of many individual parts, does not have any concept of individual death, as each individual consciousness is absorbed into one umbrella consciousness. Without the concept of death, how would the philosophy of a consciousness such as The Many differ from the philosophy of an individual being? Throughout System Shock 2, The Many tries to convince the player that joining the hive mind is in the protagonists best interest. Although the game portrays The Many as the enemy, this motivation casts The Many in a different light, perhaps it sees individuality as a disease that inevitably leads to death. As much as the plot of the game is structured in a way to cast individual consciousness as the ‘correct’ choice, it seems very possible that the logically superior choice is actually the hive mind consciousness.

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

On Religion and Philosophy

One of the things I have enjoyed most while reading existentialist literature has been the lack of religious discussion that seems to describe many of these existentialist essays. Even the christian theologian of the 1700’s, Søren Kierkegaard only used his religious beliefs as a simple jumping off point for the more profound ideas he had concerning philosophy. It seems that Martin Heidegger may also fall into the same camp as Kierkegaard, although Heidegger seems to use a more general sense of religion rather than a strictly christian view. While I typically do not enjoy discussions of religion, I believe it is something that should be strictly personal, I find that having knowledge of a philosophers religious views can really add an enlightening perspective to their ideas. While Heidegger’s personal religious are never significantly revealed during these readings, his later works concerning being became increasingly theological in nature, having a prior knowledge of Heidegger’s strong Catholic identity make his views on death and Da-Sein all the more interesting. Particularly interesting to me is his hypothesis that one Da-Sein can experience the death of others. According to Heidegger, by one Da-Sein dying and transitioning into a state of no-longer-being-there, the Da-Sein enters a sort of being-with with others. Seemingly, as one dies, one also enters a new state of unity with other Da-Sein. As warm and fuzzy as this conclusion may seem at first, it is quite watered down due to the fact that, according to Heidegger, as a Da-Sein moves to a state of no-longer-being-there, it also loses the ability to experience this transition. Without an ability to experience this period, it makes little difference to the state of Da-Sein that we are currently in. I like the way this view seemingly contrasts with traditional Catholic belief of heaven and the afterlife. Rather than an eternity of heavenly bliss, Heidegger seems to propose that the afterlife is an endlessly un-experienceable state of being-with others.

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

Finding Meaning

I have not had much experience with holocaust readings up to this point in my education, which makes the description of how it affected the victims by Viktor Frankl all the more haunting, “The first spark of joy came when we saw a rooster with a tail of multicolored feathers. but it remained only a spark; we did not yet belong to this world.” (Solomon 354). This description of the state of mind that many of the victims of the holocaust had in their first few experiences of freedom puts Frankl’s philosophy  in a very interesting perspective. While my initial impressions of the consequences of extreme suffering include a sort of apathy for life and overall depression, Frankl’s experiences caused him to be even more ambitious about finding meaning in life in an enlighteningly optimistic way. I find that I am at odds with myself again after reading Frankl, with my rational, naturalistic side butting heads with the more romantic, philosophical side. I am enthralled by the philosophy Frankl proposes about how finding meaning is the grand motivation in a person’s life. Yet, Frankl also presents the opposing viewpoint quite succinctly, describing the foil to his philosophy as those who believe that man’s purpose is just a, “secondary rationalization”, of naturalistic, animal behavior. As a man of science, I often consider many issues of ethics and morality as boiling down to the so called “instinctual drives” that Frankl considers opposed to his viewpoint, yet I also agree with Frankl’s assessment that finding meaning is the primary motivation in one’s life. This also seems to come back to the issue of free will and choice. If Frankl is correct, then it means that we are free to choose that path that will give our lives meaning, and consequently we cannot simply be the product of biological reactions because biological reactions don’t make choices. It seems that either way, this view of finding meaning in one’s life and being the naturalistic view of being the result of biological and chemical reactions seem to be mutually exclusive, or at least that’s the way it seems at first glance.

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

Living the Contradiction

While I have at times found myself sharing the views and beliefs of many of the existentialist philosophers that I have read up to this point, the same cannot be said for Miguel de Unamuno, and the philosopher he most takes after, Kierkegaard. Within the first page of my reading from Unamuno’s The Tragic Sense of Life, I find my own personal viewpoint represented as a foil to the view that Unamuno presents. Specifically, I find myself in the camp of those who hypothetically tell Unamuno that his position is untenable, and that “unity and clarity are essential conditions for life and thought” (Solomon 157). Despite the fact that I, at this time, hold to a different perspective that Unamuno, I still find his belief extremely interesting as well as slightly disturbing. Unamuno, in direct acknowledgment of the contradiction it entails, claims that it is the disjunction between his beliefs and his actions that unifies him under one purpose. While someone such as myself would claim that in order for a person’s life to have unity, that person must also hold to the tenets of logic and reason that govern the universe, Unamuno seems to call upon Kierkegaard’s ideas concerning passion and claim that it is the conflict in his life that brings him passion and therefor purpose. His philosophy becomes rather disturbing when he comes to the justification for his passion in living in this perpetual contradiction. He gives the metaphor of a man who believes that he is on an unstable boat, if the boat starts to sink, he will be unphased because he already knew that this was a possibility. If the man is the philosopher living in the real world, and the boat is the belief system that a person has, than Unamuno is effectively suggesting to abandon absolute faith in anything. A type of ultimate skepticism where nothing can be believed in too intently lest it give way like the unstable boat as the foolish philosopher, “himself trembles in the earthquake” (Solomon 158).

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

Freedom and Determinism

As I am one who has faith in the theory of determinism, the philosophical and scientific idea that chemical and physical reactions govern the choices we make and create the illusion of free will, I have normally given little deep thought to questions of agency and choice that seem to be a mainstay of popular philosophy, noticing that few other theories concerning free will lack the amount of evidence that determinism has in its favor. Considering the confidence I have in determinism, typically questions and monologues concerning free will tend to leave me relatively uninterested. However, Feodor Dostoevsky, in a select reading from Notes From Underground, seemingly uses determinism as a jumping off point to analyze the deeper meanings of freedom itself. Dostoevsky claims that determinism and freedom are incompatible, that in order to have freedom, one cannot have their choices dictated by natural laws. Natural laws, according to Dostoevsky, always lead a person to choose what is in their best interest through logic and reason. However, if we follow what our instincts and rationality tell us to do to meet our best interest, we lose our freedom. We become robots executing the programs coded in our DNA. However, Dostoevsky claims that through our knowledge of these natural laws, we can choose to disobey them and gain true freedom. Although many of the different ‘flavors’ of determinism, so to speak, claim that it is impossible to do anything contrary to natural laws, these theories tend to fall apart when attempting to explain the illusion of choice that we experience through consciousness. It is the theories of determinism of this variety that seem to most closely match some of the new evidence humanity has gathered in the last 200 hundred years or so, yet if one were to converted by Dostoevsky’s very convincing argument, these two different ideas would cause one to either reject the idea of free will, or refuse to act in self interest in defiance.

Master and Slave Morality in The Fountainhead

I've noticed a lot of similarities between Nietzsche’s views on morality and Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, particularly in Nietzsche’s theory on master and slave morality. Nietzsche theorizes that the world is divided into masters and slaves, where masters are the ones who will after power and gain independence and freedom from the herd. Slaves, on the other hand, both envy and despise those masters who have gained true freedom. In Ayn Rand’s Objectivist novel, The Fountainhead, Howard Roark is a young architect who seeks after greatness. Roark epitomizes the Objectivist theory, he is an intelligent, driven, yet self centered individual who shows little concern for how he is perceived by others. Roark bears striking similarities to Nietzsche's masters, a strong will, a desire for power or success, and a lack of concern for the perception of others. This similarity is significant to me as I was reading Nietzsche because I was pondering if a world where this master and slave morality is recognized and followed would continue to function effectively. In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand demonstrates a hypothetical world where the masters, characters such as Howard Roark and others, are more abundant and more powerful. The final result is a utopian society of equality, economic efficiency, zero crime, and a focus on personal achievement. Although the master and slave morality seems counter intuitive to the success of a society as a whole at first glance, it seems that the fictional world in The Fountainhead provides a potential template for how a world such as this could exist and actually benefit society. A desire for power and a strong will are, today at least, very often demonized in our culture. Individuals who possess these traits are often portrayed as cold, mechanical, and oftentimes downright evil. I am convinced, however, that Nietzsche and Ayn Rand are on the right path with their views on morality. Personal self interest above all else can manifest itself in a variety of ways that seems contradictory to the selfish behaviors they stem from. For instance, although it may seem that I am acting selflessly when I return a call from my grandmother, I am actually acting in self interest because it is in my best interest to maintain a positive relationship with my family. The same type of situation occurs when I pay taxes, the taxes may seem detrimental to my self interest, due to the fact that they take money that I could otherwise use towards my other needs, but in fact it is im my best personal interest to continue to have a government that maintains the infrastructure I use. In this way I believe that it is possible to have a functional, successful society based off of Nietzsche’s system of morality.