Beget (verb) - 2) to cause; to produce as effect
Definition (noun) - 3) the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined.
As many of my readers, friends, and family know; my time in the midwest is coming to a close as I will soon be relocating from Illionois to Georgia in pursuit of my master's degree in psychology. This is one of those "turning of the page" and "ending of an era" moments that scatter and mark the milestones of our lives. I thought it would be a convenient time to share some of the things, from a few frequently inspirational categories, that have "caused and produced the condition of my being." This is a chronicle of what has shaped my life and personality thus far and counting. These are bookmarks to my life. There are of course countless footnotes and chapters that should be mentioned here, but I'm afraid they can not all be fit in. For that list it would be easier to get to know me personally. So, I'll jot down the short list here and save the long list for a select few of you if you save a cold beer (or glass of bourbon) for me.
In short, if you're curious as to what has made me who I am today then you will find the outline below. I'll spare myself the monotony of setting up web links for everything but if your curiosity inclines you to do so, please Google the respective entries.
Movies:
1) V for Vendetta
2) Fight Club
3) The Breakfast Club
4) The Count of Monte Cristo
5) Gangs of New York
Television:
1) Rescue Me
2) Supernatural
3) Scrubs
Books:
1) Staring at the Sun by Irvin D. Yalom
2) A Happy Death by Albert Camus
3) The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis
Authors (repeat from above):
1) Albert Camus
2) Irvin D. Yalom
3) Kirk J. Schneider
4) C.S. Lewis
Music:
1) Brand New
2) Fuel
3) Seether
Famous Figures (deceased and not mentioned above):
1) William Shakespeare
2) James Dean
3) Immanuel Kant
Famous Figures (living and not mentioned above):
1) Banacheck (Steven Shaw)
2) Tim Ferriss
Personal Figures:
*These next few spaces I will leave blank for the privacy of those represented. Their names will not be mentioned, nevertheless, their memory and lasting impression deserves to be mentioned. If you feel your name belongs on the list; add it. I've met many "inspiring" people over the years; this post and these spaces are dedicated to you. The three specific spaces listed below represent three people in particular that have been the greatest influences upon my being... for better or worse. However, the list is not exclusive and it should be extended to hundreds of people whom I know, used to know, and have yet to meet. As the saying goes; "some people are in your life for a reason, some for a season, and others for a lifetime."
1)
2)
3)
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Existentialism and Faith: Kierkegaard and Camus
Hello all! I do apologize for my latency, but posts for this blog (due to its content) do not get churned out nearly as fast as others. Nevertheless, the topic I'd like to discuss today is my view on a few different "existential" thinkers. This post is not intended to spur a debate par say; rather it is my thoughts turned food for your thoughts. Hopefully its causes you to scratch your head and stop to think for a minute, or stare off in the distance contemplating what really matters and what doesn't, or maybe, just maybe all the philo-psychology this guy is talking about isn't just a bunch of (as my grandmother put it) "hooey".
*The Wikipedia and other links provided are not because they are the most scholarly or accurate, but because they are a quick rundown of some of the topics I do not have time or space to explain in a single post.
I'd like to think that existentialism owes a great deal to the era of the romanticism. The two certainly have contrasting points of view concerning realism and idealism; but from a historical standpoint they were both societal responses of retaliation against scientific/industrial movements. Romanticism was a humanistic reply to the age of enlightenment that preceded it. The popular focus of the day thus shifting from science to humanism. The cycle almost directly repeats itself in a historical timeline. The "age of enlightenment" spanned (generally speaking) from the early 1600s to the late 1700s. Its response (as I believe it to be), the Romantic Era, began gaining speed in the late 1700s. There is a bit of an overlap as the Industrial Revolution took place from the late 1700s to the late 1800s. I believe that the Romantic Era was not so much a revolution against the industry, but rather against scientific "enlightenment"; and that a similar transaction took place between the industrial reply to romanticism and then from the Industrial Revolution to "existential" thought t which began with such thinkers as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in the mid 1800s. A book I look forward to reading for a more in depth explanation of this is Walter Kauffmann's From Shakespeare to Existentialism. I'm a bit of a closet fan of Shakespeare and musical theater myself. I may have even secretly watched a few episodes of Glee, but don't tell anyone. =D
Where I think we start to see the real roots of existentialism is with Immanuel Kant in the mid to late 1700s. Essentially I have two reasons for this. First, Kant's most famous works are all critiques of reason; Kant's solution to this problem was faith (but that is a topic for another day). Secondly, and most viably, the sense of an earth-shattering, manic conflict we get from Kant's life and works is what makes me want to pigeon-hole him as an early existentialist. I feel as though it is painfully obvious that Kant is afflicted and torn between what his studies of society and science have led him to know of the world and what his puritist spiritual upbringing demanded he believe.
Nietzsche is someone who is a hot topic for secularists and existentialists so I won't go into too much detail here. However, in the same vein as Kant, I believe that the primary driving force in Nietzsche's life was not liberation but rather, fear. It seems to me that Nietzsche did what some people often do when they are confronted by something that absolutely mortifies them or something they cannot possibly comprehend. That is, as a psychological defense mechanism, adopt a radical extremist view in opposition of that which discomforts them.
Where I really want to go with this post is with two of my favorite philosophers, Soren Kierkegaard and Albert Camus. It should be no secret that I am an avid fan of Camus and that he has been the guiding inspiration for much of my work, and one of four authors that I would identify and the monumental reasons for having chosen the path I am on now. (The others being Irvin D. Yalom, C.S. Lewis, and Kirk J. Schneider, there are of course some personal influences as well).
At any rate, what gave me the idea for this post was the statement from Kierkegaard's book Sickness Unto Death, in which he states "He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him (pg. 61)." Obviously the statement is not directly written to Camus as the book was published over sixty years before Camus was even born. Nevertheless it is a good jumping off point for a Camus "fan-boy" like myself. The statement could be directed towards a Nietzscian point of view and this can be emphasized in the brief paragraph above where I talked about Nietzsche. The question then becomes why is it a jab at Nietzsche and not Camus? I believe that Camus had a more holistic, positive, and less radical view of things than Nietzsche or Sartre (whom, in that sense, can be clumped into the Nietzsche-camp for the purpose of this post). When one reads Camus novels, you get a sense of love and pity, a sort of simpathy for the devil (as the Rolling Stones put it). Now is a good time to reference one of my favorite movies, The Count of Monte Cristo; in which Edmond Dantes states, "If you ever loved me, don't rob me of my hate. Its all I have left." So now we have the Dantes view vs. Kierkegaard; and left wondering where Camus falls and what we are left to think.
If you are the religious (particularly theistic or Christian type) then you will almost certainly back the Kierkegaardian view. I do not disagree with Kierkegaard here, rather I agree with him on the whole. But I believe there is an adequate response found in Camus' The Stranger. I do not have the exact citation (my apologies) but it is towards the end of the novel where the prison Chaplin asks Meursault; "Why do you despair?" Meursault answers; "I may be hopeless, but I am not desperate for anything." The exact wording may be off, but it is accurate enough to get the point across. Kierkegaard has a valid point against secular existentialists, that they turned their fear of the unknown into rage against the faithful. The appropriate reply I believe Camus would give is the following. It is true, I am mortified at the thought of a faith-based afterlife stealing away all of the misery and hatred that has been the driving force through so much of my life; if for no other reason than fear of uncertainty. But had it not been for the agony, I would never have dared find all that brings me joy in THIS world. You are praying that your faith will grant you happiness in another life; I thrive on the angst of this world to allow me to cherish its subliminal serenity that I would not trade for an eternity of anything else.
*The Wikipedia and other links provided are not because they are the most scholarly or accurate, but because they are a quick rundown of some of the topics I do not have time or space to explain in a single post.
I'd like to think that existentialism owes a great deal to the era of the romanticism. The two certainly have contrasting points of view concerning realism and idealism; but from a historical standpoint they were both societal responses of retaliation against scientific/industrial movements. Romanticism was a humanistic reply to the age of enlightenment that preceded it. The popular focus of the day thus shifting from science to humanism. The cycle almost directly repeats itself in a historical timeline. The "age of enlightenment" spanned (generally speaking) from the early 1600s to the late 1700s. Its response (as I believe it to be), the Romantic Era, began gaining speed in the late 1700s. There is a bit of an overlap as the Industrial Revolution took place from the late 1700s to the late 1800s. I believe that the Romantic Era was not so much a revolution against the industry, but rather against scientific "enlightenment"; and that a similar transaction took place between the industrial reply to romanticism and then from the Industrial Revolution to "existential" thought t which began with such thinkers as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in the mid 1800s. A book I look forward to reading for a more in depth explanation of this is Walter Kauffmann's From Shakespeare to Existentialism. I'm a bit of a closet fan of Shakespeare and musical theater myself. I may have even secretly watched a few episodes of Glee, but don't tell anyone. =D
Where I think we start to see the real roots of existentialism is with Immanuel Kant in the mid to late 1700s. Essentially I have two reasons for this. First, Kant's most famous works are all critiques of reason; Kant's solution to this problem was faith (but that is a topic for another day). Secondly, and most viably, the sense of an earth-shattering, manic conflict we get from Kant's life and works is what makes me want to pigeon-hole him as an early existentialist. I feel as though it is painfully obvious that Kant is afflicted and torn between what his studies of society and science have led him to know of the world and what his puritist spiritual upbringing demanded he believe.
Nietzsche is someone who is a hot topic for secularists and existentialists so I won't go into too much detail here. However, in the same vein as Kant, I believe that the primary driving force in Nietzsche's life was not liberation but rather, fear. It seems to me that Nietzsche did what some people often do when they are confronted by something that absolutely mortifies them or something they cannot possibly comprehend. That is, as a psychological defense mechanism, adopt a radical extremist view in opposition of that which discomforts them.
Where I really want to go with this post is with two of my favorite philosophers, Soren Kierkegaard and Albert Camus. It should be no secret that I am an avid fan of Camus and that he has been the guiding inspiration for much of my work, and one of four authors that I would identify and the monumental reasons for having chosen the path I am on now. (The others being Irvin D. Yalom, C.S. Lewis, and Kirk J. Schneider, there are of course some personal influences as well).
At any rate, what gave me the idea for this post was the statement from Kierkegaard's book Sickness Unto Death, in which he states "He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him (pg. 61)." Obviously the statement is not directly written to Camus as the book was published over sixty years before Camus was even born. Nevertheless it is a good jumping off point for a Camus "fan-boy" like myself. The statement could be directed towards a Nietzscian point of view and this can be emphasized in the brief paragraph above where I talked about Nietzsche. The question then becomes why is it a jab at Nietzsche and not Camus? I believe that Camus had a more holistic, positive, and less radical view of things than Nietzsche or Sartre (whom, in that sense, can be clumped into the Nietzsche-camp for the purpose of this post). When one reads Camus novels, you get a sense of love and pity, a sort of simpathy for the devil (as the Rolling Stones put it). Now is a good time to reference one of my favorite movies, The Count of Monte Cristo; in which Edmond Dantes states, "If you ever loved me, don't rob me of my hate. Its all I have left." So now we have the Dantes view vs. Kierkegaard; and left wondering where Camus falls and what we are left to think.
If you are the religious (particularly theistic or Christian type) then you will almost certainly back the Kierkegaardian view. I do not disagree with Kierkegaard here, rather I agree with him on the whole. But I believe there is an adequate response found in Camus' The Stranger. I do not have the exact citation (my apologies) but it is towards the end of the novel where the prison Chaplin asks Meursault; "Why do you despair?" Meursault answers; "I may be hopeless, but I am not desperate for anything." The exact wording may be off, but it is accurate enough to get the point across. Kierkegaard has a valid point against secular existentialists, that they turned their fear of the unknown into rage against the faithful. The appropriate reply I believe Camus would give is the following. It is true, I am mortified at the thought of a faith-based afterlife stealing away all of the misery and hatred that has been the driving force through so much of my life; if for no other reason than fear of uncertainty. But had it not been for the agony, I would never have dared find all that brings me joy in THIS world. You are praying that your faith will grant you happiness in another life; I thrive on the angst of this world to allow me to cherish its subliminal serenity that I would not trade for an eternity of anything else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)