Pessimism vs. Existentialism

A great essay! I did not write this but thought it would be a good post. Enjoy!

Pessimism vs. Existentialism By ROBERT C. SOLOMON

Pessimism is back. That will not surprise anyone who has been keeping track of the nation's pulse over the past several months - or perhaps the last several years. Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech, which may have cost him a second term, would not be at all inappropriate today. Our famous American optimism faces a mortal threat in the combination of an unwinnable war, a collapsing dollar, a sagging economy for most people, trouble on the job front for graduating students, and lowered expectations generally. And that's aside from the recent scandals among our religious, corporate, and political leaders, and the pervasive suspicion that results.So opined Adam Cohen recently in the International Herald Tribune, and so, too, according to a recent book by Joshua Foa Dienstag, a political scientist at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit (Princeton University Press, 2006). In his defense of pessimism as an appropriate and realistic philosophy, Dienstag points to the usual suspects: Arthur Schopenhauer, of course, the great 19th-century pessimist; but also Friedrich Nietzsche, and Albert Camus and the modern movement called existentialism.I do not disagree with the diagnosis, but I am disturbed by the continued reference to existentialism as a pessimistic, negative philosophy. It is often considered such. Only a few weeks ago I heard a radio commentator declare that the "nothing really matters" lyric from Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" was truly "existential." And I still hear pundits and some of my university colleagues decry existentialism as the source of our nihilistic gloom, the reason why our students don't vote and why they experiment with dangerous drugs. I listen to such comments with a mix of amusement and horror because I like existentialism and I think that existentialism, not pessimism, is what America needs right now.Existentialism is said to be all about "the death of God," the meaninglessness of human life, and the anxiety those provoke. It is in the face of such anxiety that one needs the courage to make meanings, to be oneself. The theme gets dutifully traced back to Søren Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, and forward through Martin Heidegger, Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Paul Tillich, and Viktor Frankl, always with a touch of heroism but surrounded by the darkness of despair and ultimate meaninglessness.In the early years of existentialism in postwar Europe, the emphasis was indeed on gloom and hopelessness. The books and articles that made the biggest splash - William Barrett's Irrational Man, for instance - were those that bemoaned the death of God and the despair and meaninglessness that are implied by that cosmic absence. That was challenged in the 60s by the celebrations of hipness in the United States at the hands of Norman Mailer, in Advertisements for Myself, and some of the Beats. The heady optimism that ruled America in those years leavened the Old World gloom and turned meaninglessness into a challenge, recasting the death of God into a sense of liberation. Even in Europe, existentialism came to present itself as a positive philosophy, a philosophy of hope, in works like Camus's essay "The Rebel" and Sartre's lecture "Existentialism Is a Humanism."It is my contention that the whole movement has been misinterpreted, turned upside down by three generations of critics and commentators. Needless to say, the perception of existentialism as an atheistic philosophy has had a lot to do with that, since there have been a lot of people with a vested interest in the idea that a world without God could not possibly have meaning. But apart from that dubious contention, such interpretations display real ignorance of the fact that one of the leading existentialists, Kierkegaard, was a devout Christian, and many existentialists since - Karl Barth and Martin Buber, to pick just two - weren't atheists at all.Why does existentialism have so much trouble shaking its nihilistic and gloomy image? To be sure, its leading promoters are rarely pictured with happy faces, but then how many philosophers in history have ever been depicted as smiling?Yet few philosophers have displayed such unmitigated joy in their writing as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. The latter wrote: "At long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again. Perhaps there has never been such an 'open sea.'"Even Sartre, not only in his plays and novels but even in his heaviest philosophy, seems to be thoroughly enjoying himself. But when it comes to understanding the content of what they are doing, interpretations of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche seem utterly wedded to the thinkers' supposedly intimate concern with despair and nihilism. A perennial question (students love it for both term papers and doctoral theses) is whether Nietzsche was a nihilist or not.The answer is a straightforward no. Nietzsche warned Europe of the encroachment of nihilism, which he associated with the Christian denial of life. Nevertheless, the association of Nietzsche and nihilism lingers, despite the fact that his whole philosophical effort is to provide an alternative to nihilistic thinking.Kierkegaard - dutifully cited as author of The Concept of Dread - is often considered the modern inventor of the Absurd - a century before Camus. However, the ultimate indeterminacy of human existence and the need to make genuine choices (including the decision to believe in God, Kierkegaard's famous "leap of faith") lay at the heart of his whole philosophy, and those concepts were anything but negative. "Christianity is certainly not melancholy; it is, on the contrary, glad tidings - for the melancholy," he wrote. Furthermore, Kierkegaard never lets us forget that it is only through such acts of choice that we make ourselves into authentic "existing individuals." He even talks of "bliss."So, too, in celebrating "the open sea" of possibilities that greets us after the death of God, Nietzsche aspires to a mood of unmitigated cheerfulness. Even Heidegger and Sartre, the grand old Mr. Cranky and Mr. Grumpy of German and French existentialism, respectively, aim not at despair but at a kind of rejuvenation. Sartre, in particular, claims, in response to a question about despair, that he has never experienced it in his whole life. (That may throw into question his credibility, but it's nonetheless instructive as to his broad philosophical outlook.)Perhaps the wartime experiences of Mr. Cranky put him beyond the reach of any celebration of life, but Mr. Grumpy insists that existentialism provides an experience of incredible freedom, a feeling of responsibility that is not so much a "burden" as a matter of finding one's true self-identity. If nihilism and despair play any role in this picture, it is only as background against which existentialism is the ecstatic resistance. Responsibility and choice, picking oneself up by the bootstraps, are what this positive version of existentialism is all about.We hear so much about "the burden of responsibility" that we forget the basic lesson of existentialism: that responsibilities enhance rather than encumber our existence. Call me naïve, but most people take on responsibilities because responsibility puts them in charge of their lives and defines just who they are. Most people who enter public service, for example, do not do so because of a selfish lust for power and wealth. They usually want to change things for the better, make a contribution, and even the most corrupt and vile politicians will confess a lingering hope that that is how they might be remembered. As Sartre constantly reminds us, we are what we do.In short, existentialism is not a philosophy that allows us to feel sorry for ourselves in the midst of our malaise. It is a philosophy with which we can come to grips with these terrible times and actually change them. The recent midterm election was encouraging. What it suggests is that America is collectively recouping its existentialist roots, not because of national pessimism but because of what I hope is the beginning of a cooperative optimism and the sense that things as they are cannot stand.Why does existentialism matter? Who cares about the viability of a European philosophy that may have once been the fetish of sophisticated poseurs and profligates but has little relevance to anything today? My answer is that philosophy is always relevant, that, as the proto-existentialist Johann Fichte once said: "What system of philosophy you hold depends wholly upon what manner of man you are." And if I am right that existentialism defines an important stream of American life and thought, especially its individualism and insistence on self-reliance, that means that we should become both aware of and critical regarding what that philosophy is and what it portends.Robert C. Solomon was a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. He died on January 2 while traveling in Europe

Introducing Frank Tipler and Omega Theory

Frank Tipler is a cosmologist whose theories differ from most other cosmologists. He argues that in the turn of the next century, human beings will have developed advanced robots that spread themselves out amongst the universe. Each generation after this will reproduce a better version of themselves which will ultimately cover the galaxy over a period of millions of years and outlive the human race. The robots will then develop and transform into an advanced complex form of life whose intelligence exceeds far beyond any one's imagination.
At this particular time, the universe will fold inward in what Tipler calls "the big crunch". Our universe is proposed by theory to be open. Tipler simply refutes this theory and suggests that the universe is closed. He asserts that when the universe does collapse, the advanced life forms that exist at that time must make sure the collapse of the universe is controlled in order to insure future existence. So how exactly can the collapse of the universe be controlled? Tipler believes that this answer is hidden in the equations of relativity. He asserts that general relativity is chaotic. Since the Butterfly effect is similar to this, he maintains that this theory will control the collapse of the universe.
When the universe is carefully destroyed then the higher life forms that controlled the collapse will reach a state which is called "the Omega Point". The Omega Point is closely attributed to God. Thus these beings will be the ultimate form the knowledge, power and love. At this stage in Omega point, the Resurrection of all human beings who have ever lived will occur. This will be done with a higher form of computer simulation which Tipler calls emulation.
The Omega point is defined by our DNA and this will "emulate all possible humans that have ever lived". The Omega choices who has what kind of life. So a once poor human, is now rich, an evil mass murderer is now a priest and so on..Those who are not so deserving will be placed in a series of purgatories.
So one might ask is Omega Point possible? No one will ever know and who's to say what will happen millions of years from now. The idea of using computers and robots to continue human survival has been imagined and heavily debated.
Tiper believes that each human is defined by our DNA and the Omega Point simply emulates all possible humans that could ever live. Our memories have long dissolved into entropy but Omega Point has us relive our lives in an instant, along with all the other possible lives we could have lived. Those that the Omega-God deems deserving will get to live even better lives, including lots of sex with the most desirable partners we can imagine! Tipler some how places this on a mathematical basis, computing the relative"psychological impact" of meeting the most beautiful women whose existence is logically possible compared to simply the most beautiful woman in the world. He finds this to be [log1010^1,000,000]/[log1010^9] =100,000.
Scientists and Cosmologists have imagined and debated over the possibility of computers and robots as a mean for extending human survival. What Tipler asserts in theory however is full of holes and left open for a whole lot of criticism. One example would be Tiplers big crunch theory which today's cosmologists say is highly unlikely. Here are three other weak points in Tiplers theories:
1. He assumes space and time are continuous and not discrete. Many physicists believe that space and time are discrete.
2. He also assumes that intelligent life will somehow be able to survive a universe with an average temperature of trillions of degrees. How can something survive a condition like this?? Tipler is not very clear.
3. He mentions that as the universe collapses right before the Omega Point and unlimited energy will become available; but Tipler ignores the unlimited amount of heat and density. So how does he explain the existence of structures in a universe hundreds of millions of times smaller than an atom?

The Metamorphosis

Kafka is important to us because his
predicament is the predicament of modern man.
—British poet W. H. Auden

Kafka certainly does not provide an
interpretation of the world. . . . What he
provides is an image of how experience looks
when all interpretations are called in doubt
—British critic Anthony Thorlby

I recently advised one of my friends to read Franz Kafka's "The Metamorphosis". After her long journey into an abyss of alienation and disoriented anxiety she confronted me with many questions such as whether or not one should interpret this in a literal or symbolic sense and whether the story itself has any actual meaning. The answer to these questions do not come easy considering the work is filled with endless interpretations. The most salient feature of this work is that it has the ability to diverge its meanings. Since the book is full of possible meanings, the reader must find meaning subjectively. In a symbolic sense, one might hold that Gregor's transformation symbolizes his emptiness, his despair and his insignificant life as a traveling salesman. Others assert that the story is written through the eyes of Kafka's father who views his son as a degrading form of existence. This story can also be interpreted as an allegory. The literal transformation might exemplify the very definition of failure. However, I believe the ambiguity of its meaning is found when the reader comes to the realization that the transformation occurs in order to illustrate the fact that Gregor died the exact way in which he had lived; in isolation and in pain.

Teilhard and Noogenesis

Noogenesis is the act of the creation of something psychic. Noosphere is a word which represents the physic layer born of Noogenesis which developing and surrounds our planet above the Biosphere. The Biosphere is the mass of living beings which covers the globe. Teilhard asserts that during the first years of evolution, the brain had a capacity to reflect. The first beings on the earth did not form any sort of communal communication. However, during the Neolithic age, human beings started to come together forming a convergent line on the earth. Thus, grouping had become a necessity. This caused man to go beyond the early evolutionary stages and cross to the "Threshold of Reason". Teilhard believes that at this point a new planetary sphere above the Biosphere called Noosphere was born. Telihard inferred that Noogenesis is the name given to the process of planetary unity formed by human thought. Thus the result of Noogenesis is the birth of the Noosphere; "a definitive layer of collective thought of human beings". Teilhard believes the earth is entering a new stage called the "Socialization of Compression" which states that evolution is moving towards the brain. He then asserts that since evolution is conscious of itself it then creates a new stage of Noogenesis. This stage is progressing rapidly towards the future. Teilhard defines this as a sort of progressing evolution which will eventually undergo a primarily psychic transformation. Teilhard believe that this transformation must be met by conforming to what we calls the "Complexity Consciousness". Our outcome will then determine whether we succeed in the transformation process. He called one possible outcome the "Omega Point". Here, Teilhard states the we must learn how to conduct ourselves spiritually and find an understanding on how to conduct oneself in times of turmoil. According the Teilhard, our steps toward a unified thinking state depends on us and whether "we accept or refuse Omega Point". Teilhard be lives that this motor (God) which generates the Alpha and Omega, gives man conscious thought, a mind, soul as well as love to use this and build a better future for mankind.

Teilhard is brilliant in the way he combines religion, futuristic fiction, evolution and optimism and asserts it to theory. However, that's all it is to be taken for; nothing more. The idea that man could reach a state where human beings could reach unification through human thought or emerge into a evolutionary development by consciousness, the mind or interpersonal relationships is implausible to me when evaluating evolution and the human phyche

Q's and A's in The Philosophy of Art:

What is a work of art?

x is an artwork only if x is an imitation.
1. This reflects the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, and shows the core idea of the first systematic definition of art . Charles Batteux said that "in order to be fine art, it is necessary that something be an imitation of something else" , that "something else" is beautiful nature". However, modern abstract paintings seem to refute this definition.
x is an artwork only if x is a representation
2. This means that where something is a representation if it is intended to stand for something besides itself and others can recognize that it does so.
3. The neo-representational model: x is an artwork only if x has a subject about which it makes some comment.
This seems to be a favored model among philosophers in search of a definition of art. However, it does not claim that satisfying this condition is sufficient for being an artwork. Many sentences on this page satisfy this condition, but these sentences are not works of art. The core idea of neo-representationalism is that art always has some semantic content (including expressive content). A work of art may denote something and express an emotion toward it but expressive music remains a problem. A piece of music might express sadness, but what does it express sadness about?

What makes something a representation?
There are four basic proposals
Resemblance Theory: x represents y if only if x significantly resembles the look of y.This theory is widely rejected. An example of Resemblance theory is if two manufactured products are visually very similar, but neither represents the other. A counter argument example might be a visual design x pictorially represents y (which is not a visual design) if only if x significantly resembles the look of y.But this does not work either because a photo in an art history book is a visual design that both resembles and represents the painting that it pictures. "
Illusion Theory: x represents y if only if x causes the illusion that y is present. This is also rejected by most philosophers because who would really think that x is y? And if this was believed, why would we appreciate x if I thought I was looking at the real thing?. What would I be appreciating?Conventionalist or Semiotic Account Visual design x pictorially represents y if only if x denotes y in accordance with some established system of conventions. In other words, representation requires a conventional visual "language." Resemblance is a matter of being familiar with the governing conventions. This does not work either because if it were just a matter of convention, then new visual techniques would seem less realistic.
Neo-Naturalist Account:
This theory emphasizes recognition but not the deception of illusion Visual design x pictorially represents y if only if (1) x is intended to be recognized as featuring y in x by looking and (2) it is successfully recognized in this way and (3) x is intended to denote y, and (4) relevant viewers recognize that x denotes y. This theory also captures the fact that some people recognize what a picture denotes the very first time they see the picture, even if they've seen no other style.

How do we have representation in non-pictorial cases? For example, music and literature?
Unconditional - This requires no prior agreements or conventions. What we've already understood with pictorial representation: It allows us to recognize x in y. Lexical -requires a pre-established conventional code. What the conventionalist or semiotic approach claimed was generally the case. An example of this would be movements in ballet, or the halos above the heads of angels. Conditional would only succeed if the audience already knows what is being communicated. So, you can "see" x in y after you're told to look for x in y. Conditional generic only succeeds if the audience is looking for a denotation via representation. For example, in a game of charades, you're looking for x in y without knowing what x is.

How is it possible for art to be expressive?
Some art is not expressive, but a lot of art is. However, there are questions concerning this. People as well as animals are expressive in the literal sense of "expressive," having emotional and other mental properties that they reveal to others. But works of art are physical objects, repeatable structures, and other artifacts. This means that if something has no emotions, it cannot be expressive. But how can that be with art?
This rests on two philosophical claims: If artworks or their parts posses expressive properties, they must be capable of possessing mental properties, but these are not the kind of things that can bear mental properties.
Two ways to respond to the challenge:
1.Deny that artworks literally express anything: they only metaphorically do so.
2. Fight the challenge directly by attacking the two claims.

What is formalism?
x is a work of art if and only if x is designed primarily in order to possess and to exhibit significant form.
"Modern art arose when photography reduced the value of using traditional media to represent things." So representation theory no longer captured what artists were doing. This created a problem and the solution was formalism. This idea derives from Clive Bell. He asserted that "art is of interest for its significant form ( visual art is an organized visual arrangement/structure)" Even when it does represent something, the fact that it represents something is irrelevant to its status as art". So as a solution this theory shows that abstract art has no problem in counting as art.

Is it possible that art cannot have a definition?
Identifying something as art is important and is possible without being able to define art. The Neo-Wittgensteinian approach argues that art cannot be defined, yet it is easy to identify. This theory illustrates that very few things can be defined. However, they can still be identified . So art cannot because it is an open concept and it involves a concept that evolves as practices change. So because the practice of art is always open to change, we cannot expect to find sufficient conditions for being an artwork or having a specific definition.

What was Tolstoy's definition of art?
Tolstoy said that art cannot be defined as an activity which produces beauty. He asserted that beauty cannot be defined objectively and therefore cannot be used as to define what art is or what are is not. Tolstoy defines art as "an expression of a feeling or experience in such a way that the audience to whom the art is directed can share that feeling or experience". Tolstoy felt that art dis not belong to any particular class of society an that good art is intelligible and comprehensible. Bad art is unintelligible and incomprehensible. Tolstoy also claims that there can be a lack of sincerity in the artist. He argues that if an artist must earn a living by producing art, then the art which is produced is more likely to be false and insincere. Tolstoy claimed that this interpretation or criticism of art is irrelevant and unnecessary, because any good work of art is able to express thoughts and feelings which can be clearly understood by most people. Tolstoy does not believe that art can be taught, or that instruction in the practice of art can help people to communicate their thoughts and feelings more sincerely. He felt that if you teach art, you destroy the individuality of the artist. So any attempt to teach art to someone leads to someone who is just imitating other works of art. Tolstoy’s also uses another concept called "universal. This states that art is relevant to everyone. Art is relevant to every aspect of the human condition. Therefore, art must be made to be universal. Tolstoy asserts that art is universal if it expresses thoughts and feelings which can be experienced by every human being.
Tolstoy's exact definition:
"Art is that human activity which consists in one human consciously conveying to others, by certain external signs, the feelings he has experienced, and in others being
affected by those feelings and also experiencing them". What is Art?. 1898.
What is aesthetic experience?.
"Aesthetic experience is experience of a work’s aesthetic properties and formal relations". (Van Gerwin) However, this definition has problems when concerning the attribution of aesthetic properties and whether we detect them or if they are merely projected. Some philosophers suggest that the fact that we disagree about the attribution of aesthetic properties gives us reason to presume that aesthetic properties are objective.