Ari (creature of dust, child of God) (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wisdomeagle) wrote2004-01-12 05:50 pm
wisdomeagle) wrote2004-01-12 05:50 pm
existentialism
The only reason today didn't make me loose all respect for my existentialism professor is because I didn't have any to begin with. Let me state clearly that this is not a personal attack. I like Dr. E very much and think she is a lovely person, a genuinely nice person. I might even say I love her, the way I love my church people back home. Not because they're the smartest or the best-educated, or because I have anything in common with them, but because they are wonderful, sweet people. As is Dr. E. This does not mean, however, that I think she is a good professor or that she understands what she is talking about.
Today, Dr. E attempted to convince us that existentialism is not a new idea, and as examples, she gave us, er... Jesus, Paul, the psalmist, Socrates, and Plato. Now, listen to me carefully on this: Plato. Is. An. Essentialist. This is the entire point of the cave allegory, of the doctrine of Forms, of the idea of the One. The fire and shadows in the depths of the cave represent human existence; the Sun is the essence of light. Plato thought the forms had reality regardless of whether they were encapsulated materially or not. The Forms, the Ideas, the Ideals (all different translations of a Greek word which escapes me at the moment, sorry) are the essence of existent objects.
Guess which of these (Ideas vs existent objects) Plato gave priority to? That's right. Forms. This was. The. Entire point. You cannot deny this; it is at the core of Plato's philosophy. You cannot say that Plato is an existentialist when the core of his philosophy consists of concepts which are inherently at odds with existentialism.
Dr. E does this all the time. She's define a concept using some fairly standard words; for existentialism, she's given us these: meaning, subjectivity, responsibility, primacy of existence over essence, freedom, choice, meaning. Which are all fine, but then she interprets them in whatever way seems best for the particular philosopher she's trying to show is an existentialist. Thus, Plato is an existentialist because he said life had meaning (!!!) and Jesus is one because he stressed personal responsibility.
I think she is confusing the way a particular person might have lived hir life (e.g., Socrates civil disobedience) with that person's philosophical stance. And honestly, they are not the same thing.
This is partially why I object so heavily to teaching things topically instead of chronologically. Kierkegaard is the father of existentialism because he wrote the first cohesive work outlining existentialist ideas. Existentialism did not exist prior to Kierkegaard, and simply because Socrates, or Plato, or Jesus, or Paul, had some ideas that sort of (if you stretch them) coincide with the ideas of Kierkegaard or Sartre or Camus, that does not mean they are existentialist, and by calling them so you are missing out on the historical context of the existentialist movement, the philosophies from which the early existentialists actually did draw, and the new-ness of these ideas actually expressed and vocalized as opposed to just lived. Can't we please study philosophy from a historical context? Please?
And I really dislike this whole "I like existentialism. I like Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is an existentialist" thing. ::facepalm::
Now, I know I'm always blabbing on about how context is meaningless, readership is everything, authorial intent doesn't exist, and Frodo and Sam are So In Love even though Tolkien didn't mean them to be. So perhaps this is a slightly hypocritical rant, but I think there is a difference between interpreting things from a literary perspective and from a philosophical one, and from a religious and an academic perspective.
When you are interpreting a text from a philosophical or historical perspective, intent does enter into the equation. The methodology of the philosophical enterprise is largely interested in the clear and accurate presentation of an argument. It is supposed to be taken at face value.
And there is a huge difference between saying "I read the allegory of the Cave as an existentialist textbecause I don't really understand the allegory or existentialism" and saying "Plato was an existentialist."
This is why I would never say in earnest "David and Jonathan were gay/lovers/homosexual/in love with each other," but I would say, "I read the relationship between David and Jonathan as homoerotic" or "It is useful for some purposes to interpret these texts as describing a male/male relationship."
Does that distinction make sense to anyone but me?
Frankly, I think it's more libelous and false to say that Plato is an existentialist than to say that King David wasn't entirely straight, but my point is that both statements are untrue, or, at best, useless for any enterprise. If you want to interpret Plato using an existentialist rubric, be my guest. But don't tell me that Plato was an existentialist. He was not. Existentialism began with Kierkegaard.
So much homework... soooo much homework... I really should have been doing some of it instead of bitching about Dr. E.... but I didn't... and now look where it's gotten me.
Nevertheless, I will see "Grace" tonight. I will accomplish what I need to. And then I will go to bed at a reasonable hour.
*cue laugh track*
Today, Dr. E attempted to convince us that existentialism is not a new idea, and as examples, she gave us, er... Jesus, Paul, the psalmist, Socrates, and Plato. Now, listen to me carefully on this: Plato. Is. An. Essentialist. This is the entire point of the cave allegory, of the doctrine of Forms, of the idea of the One. The fire and shadows in the depths of the cave represent human existence; the Sun is the essence of light. Plato thought the forms had reality regardless of whether they were encapsulated materially or not. The Forms, the Ideas, the Ideals (all different translations of a Greek word which escapes me at the moment, sorry) are the essence of existent objects.
Guess which of these (Ideas vs existent objects) Plato gave priority to? That's right. Forms. This was. The. Entire point. You cannot deny this; it is at the core of Plato's philosophy. You cannot say that Plato is an existentialist when the core of his philosophy consists of concepts which are inherently at odds with existentialism.
Dr. E does this all the time. She's define a concept using some fairly standard words; for existentialism, she's given us these: meaning, subjectivity, responsibility, primacy of existence over essence, freedom, choice, meaning. Which are all fine, but then she interprets them in whatever way seems best for the particular philosopher she's trying to show is an existentialist. Thus, Plato is an existentialist because he said life had meaning (!!!) and Jesus is one because he stressed personal responsibility.
I think she is confusing the way a particular person might have lived hir life (e.g., Socrates civil disobedience) with that person's philosophical stance. And honestly, they are not the same thing.
This is partially why I object so heavily to teaching things topically instead of chronologically. Kierkegaard is the father of existentialism because he wrote the first cohesive work outlining existentialist ideas. Existentialism did not exist prior to Kierkegaard, and simply because Socrates, or Plato, or Jesus, or Paul, had some ideas that sort of (if you stretch them) coincide with the ideas of Kierkegaard or Sartre or Camus, that does not mean they are existentialist, and by calling them so you are missing out on the historical context of the existentialist movement, the philosophies from which the early existentialists actually did draw, and the new-ness of these ideas actually expressed and vocalized as opposed to just lived. Can't we please study philosophy from a historical context? Please?
And I really dislike this whole "I like existentialism. I like Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is an existentialist" thing. ::facepalm::
Now, I know I'm always blabbing on about how context is meaningless, readership is everything, authorial intent doesn't exist, and Frodo and Sam are So In Love even though Tolkien didn't mean them to be. So perhaps this is a slightly hypocritical rant, but I think there is a difference between interpreting things from a literary perspective and from a philosophical one, and from a religious and an academic perspective.
When you are interpreting a text from a philosophical or historical perspective, intent does enter into the equation. The methodology of the philosophical enterprise is largely interested in the clear and accurate presentation of an argument. It is supposed to be taken at face value.
And there is a huge difference between saying "I read the allegory of the Cave as an existentialist text
This is why I would never say in earnest "David and Jonathan were gay/lovers/homosexual/in love with each other," but I would say, "I read the relationship between David and Jonathan as homoerotic" or "It is useful for some purposes to interpret these texts as describing a male/male relationship."
Does that distinction make sense to anyone but me?
Frankly, I think it's more libelous and false to say that Plato is an existentialist than to say that King David wasn't entirely straight, but my point is that both statements are untrue, or, at best, useless for any enterprise. If you want to interpret Plato using an existentialist rubric, be my guest. But don't tell me that Plato was an existentialist. He was not. Existentialism began with Kierkegaard.
So much homework... soooo much homework... I really should have been doing some of it instead of bitching about Dr. E.... but I didn't... and now look where it's gotten me.
Nevertheless, I will see "Grace" tonight. I will accomplish what I need to. And then I will go to bed at a reasonable hour.
*cue laugh track*