Life and relationships are full of choices and those I take seriously. But broad comprehensive decisions in which present I impose on future I, no, I’m not interested in that. I just think it is important to keep in mind not everything is at the level of choice or if it were, I’d have to decline it.
Right. In existentialism it is not about judgement of person or choices. From the existentialist perspective all the angst and weight of our choices is because there is no guidebook. The standards and rules of religion and society are just another choice we are faced with and if we let things like this make our decisions for us then we have cowered under the pressure and sold out.
Of course I don’t think this precludes Christianity because that can be our choice as much as anything else. But if so, then it is because we have well considered all the alternatives. When everything is our own choices then we can back up those choices with the reasons we have made them and we are never going to say "because parents, law, society, or scripture says so.
2 Likes
I believe the quote is a simple observation – character is revealed by actions. Or, as the cliche has it, actions speak louder than words. Jesus is simply giving advice on how to tell a sheep from a wolf.
Is a person’s essence the things they believe, which will usher them into heaven despite what they actually do, which should land them in hell? Nah. Life is more complicated than that.
2 Likes
The idea that the transition between earthly and heavenly existence for an unfallen human would resemble a peaceful death as we know it today goes back at least to Athanasius.
3 Likes
(elipsis mine, Kendel
Template
I have two rather different things in mind. One is something we conform ourselves to, and the other is the tool we use to evaluate potential choices we might make.
To begin with, I used this term to represent a number of possible larger packages of choices, with which one is confronted, and which are available. I didn’t have a specific single choice (assuming there is a single choice involved) about Christianity in mind, for example.
Many (most?) important choices that confront us are not a single binary, and not simple at all. They belong to a set of considerations, or a template. To choose one thing often implies or requires choosing the whole collection that goes with it. Having chosen one template over another, one will have to decide how to handle what goes along with the package, even if the package is not predetermined.
Joining a library board, for example, is a choice that comes with many considerations, including ethical requirements and oaths to follow those requirements – all componants a variety of possible templates – or ways one could imagine is the best way to carry out the role. However, the way one interprets the requirements and how one carries them out may involve a learning process, exploration, mistakes, corrections, rethinking, and the like. The way one decides to handle the many possible choices involved in fulfilling one’s role as a board member are not all separate choices, I think, but are part of the template that one sees as being a “Good Library Board Member.”
Choice
We are confronted by, but also formed within and by, various influences: intertwined and conflicting cultures, worldviews and ethics. Time, place, history, ethnicity, socio-economic status, etc, all form the way we think and decide what seems right. Christianity is only one among them, and is also affected by them, at least an individual’s understanding and practice of it.
Although we may continue to learn and change throughout our lives, the tools we have (or lack) and the way we use them result from our multifaceted formation.
I don’t want to hash over here the concepts of free will and free choice and what their limits are. For the sake of this discussion, though, I think it’s important, though, to include the contingency that as a result of our formation there are likely limits to or influences on the choices that people make, or are able to make. Our formation is instrumental in the development of our values and ideas, the things that influence each individual’s template for what is ethical, intelligent, reasonable, and the like.
While the existentialist might see herself as evaluating every possible choice and all the possible results of each, we all have some basis by which we make those evaluations.
Choice and Procrastination
The volume of work required to know about all the possible options (and their likely outcomes) one might choose between in the face of every choice one must make sounds like work suitable to the Almighty. Or to the ultimate procrastinator.
I can imagine that one could be so overwhelmed that no choice is ever made. Or one could be so stymied by the possibility that one is actually making a choice on the basis of one’s formation rather than having carefully selected every possible component of one’s developed ethic that no choice can be made authentically. And so on. You get the idea.
While I think we all would like to see ourselves as the hero, I don’t see how anyone could actually do what is required to be a card-carrying existentialist.
You have altered the words to shift the emphasis from what was intended. There is nothing in existentialism about any requirement to consider all possible options, it is only about making your own choices. Nor is it about any requirement to choose devoid of any influence from anything.
You sound like someone arguing qualifications of a whether a recognized hero should be called a hero based on some absurd standard of absolutes. But this is not how heroes are identified. It is a matter of inspiration and admiration – accordingly what you are basically saying is that you are incapable of inspiration or admiration in this case, because only absolute standards will suffice for you.
Nor is being heroic part of being a card carrying anything (or visa versa). A philosophy is about what ideals you think are worth aiming for. Do you think it is better for people to simply let others make their decisions for them or do you think it better for people to decide things for themselves. Perhaps you are among the numerous Christians who think the highest ideal is to brainwash children into simply accepting a Christian mindset whatever it takes – to ask no questions and simply recite all the correct answers. I am not.
Perhaps you think my story does not inspire admiration enough for the word “heroic” to apply. That is ok. I frankly have never used or thought the word to apply to me aside from that one post above – and it was about explaining existentialism. The point is that in existentialism we see heroism in such defiance. Consider again “The Myth of Sisyphus” by Albert Camus, where it suggest that we can be content in the defiance of injustice even when it is hopeless. And on the other side it, I suppose it means we are not so inspired by obedience, and maybe in this existentialism is not completely right or at least one-sided. To be sure we can see some horrific examples of obedience gone wrong, but I think it would be foolish not to see where obedience is appropriate and good.
1 Like
Thank you for clarifying.
It isn’t my intent to change anything. I’m trying to think through what has already been said in contrast to my experience of and observation of others’ living. I see this as a conversation, which includes negotiation of meaning and understanding, not as some ultimate judgement on the matter.
The emphasis on individual freedom of choice makes sense to me, but in the conversation and video it seemed as if the individual had to figure everything out herself. Based on your response, I understand that that is not the case.
No. Again, I am trying to work through what has already been said.
I’m not sure why you draw this conclusion.
I don’t think reality is so cut and dry as this either/or. I am constantly confronted by situations where I have to judge the claims or (without question) directions of various people, some of whom hold institutional authority over me. The accumulation of life experience and development of my own sense of right/wrong, what works/what doesn’t, what is true/false, where the gray areas are, all make it impossible for me to allow someone else to make decisions for me.
At the same time, I like you have been formed within a certain context which affects what we value and how we judge. We did not choose those influences or their effect on us. We can evaluate some of them, but may never be aware of them all.
I think it’s important to recognize and acknowledge those things. And it seems from other parts of your post that you do.
I don’t believe that including these points in the discussion in any way promotes blind allegiance. However, I also recognize that there are people all around me that have very different views of things, many of which I find abhorrent. The person who decides for herself and decides based on evil criteria hardly strikes me as a hero, although they did the thinking for themselves. I think Jay313 pointed out that Sartre aligned himself with awful things eventually. So, it’s possible to come through the process that might fit state criteria of an existentialist hero and have failed entirely to do something good. The process alone of thinking for oneself is no guarantee that one has chosen a life worth living or a cause worth pursuing.
On the contrary, I find much of your story inspiring and admirable. I am often impressed by your descriptions of your faith, your understanding of it, and the process by which you arrived at it.
I find the term, hero, problematic, but not because you used it in regard to yourself.
The description of the generic existential hero that has arisen from this discussion seems an impossibly high goal to achieve. Likewise, I used the term “card-carrying existentialist” to refer to the generic existentialist who identifies as such and has achieved what I understood to be such an impossible standard. I’m sorry that my mode of expression as well as so many of the thoughts I attempted to work through were offensive.
1 Like
I’ll take the first to begin. I have a third thing in mind that doesn’t begin with conscious choice. We are born to parents who form the first “template” we learn. This is the baseline for “normal” behavior. Humans learn by imitation, otherwise known as enculturation or social learning. As we grow older and begin to learn the rules of language, morality and social relations, the circle grows wider to include grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, peers, community elders, teachers, etc., all of whom are products of their place and culture. We absorb what we observe without question until about age 7-8. That’s the first template. It forms the basis of the conscience.
Between the age of 8 until the onset of adolescence, children begin to question the “rightness” of the rules and the motives of the rulemakers. In other words, they independently question whether the template/culture they’ve inherited is correct and make moral choices. Everyone chooses selfishly and violates their conscience at one point or another, but let’s focus on templates. Around adolescence, kids choose whether to stick with their inherited tribe or choose a subculture that better fits their personal convictions. For example, some evangelical kids stick with that template and some rebel against it, but for the most part the “rebels” are just choosing to follow a different template/subculture – mainline, progressive, “none” or atheist – and adopting that culture’s values as their own. (Even teen Goth culture has an identifiable aesthetic and behavioral norms.) That choice, as you say, “implies or requires choosing the whole collection that goes with it. Having chosen one template over another, one will have to decide how to handle what goes along with the package, even if the package is not predetermined.”
That process continues throughout life.
What Jesus asked was for his disciples to “follow me.” What did that entail? Jesus was a 1st century wandering rabbi, or teacher. A rabbi’s disciples sat at his feet to learn how he interpreted scripture and followed him along the road to learn his way of life. They intentionally tried to imitate him, and passed that along to the earliest followers of “the way.”
Totally agree. I could’ve just skipped to here, but oh well. Lol
I don’t think existentialism entails evaluating every possible choice. It’s merely the idea that we’re the sum of our choices. Most of the time, we make moral choices by “gut instinct” and only afterwards apply moral reasoning to rationalize our choices.
Aren’t we all the heroes of our own personal narratives?
A card-carrying existentialist simply recognizes they’re the sum of their actions (choices). That’s what Jesus had in mind when he said to judge the tree by its fruit.
Addendum: To tie the ending to my earlier comment, it’s not about essence, but character. We may envision ourselves as the hero of our story, but actions reveal the true trajectory of our lives.
2 Likes
After all we learn and grow as much from our failures as from our successes, though the latter are rightfully preferred. In either case, once we see what follows from what we’ll probably adjust accordingly. Sometimes this results in our becoming aware of possible choices and discovering what our real values and preferences are.
2 Likes
If I thought that I would have said so. I did not. I was simply struggling to understand. At most, for the first time, it sounded like you were hostile to the existentialist viewpoint and this surprised me.
What was far more disappointing was that you didn’t respond to the rest of paragraph, where I made another attempt to understand… seeking a balance.
Interesting. You had recently talked about this progression in the thread Stages of Spiritual Development., which I thought of as I was writing.
Yeah, this makes sense.
Thank you, all three, This makes sense.
Thank you for clarifying, @mitchellmckain. I will keep this in mind. You used markers that I read as clear signs of offense.
I felt I needed to prioritize dealing with the non-existent offense. I appreciate your attempt to understand and seek balance.
I agree with this, although it’s not exactly what I was getting at. I was thinking of something broader than obedience, although it can certainly be part of what I have in mind.
I think obedience can be either a considered or a blind adherence to what I have called a template. Perhaps one finds a particular form of Christianity that they feel “nails it.” It answers the questions they have in ways that make sense; it makes demands that seem consistent and correct with the answers it gives. Although those demands are hard, the person decides that this is the Way, and focuses her life on following it.
Or perhaps one is raised in a particular form of Christianity and focuses their life on obedience without questioning, if this is the right way.
Both lives might look very similar from the outside. But the process on the inside is quite different.
What I had in mind was what I think is more common and likely more consistent with existentialism, but I might be wrong there.
At this point, Jay and I have said much the same thing. Many of us become aware of the “templates” we have been formed by in our lives - largely as we recognize their limitations or error. While we might not see each template in its entirty, we may evaluate one part or another as we become aware of them, and seek to conform to the parts we find acceptable and good. @MarkD refered to this process as “discovering what our real values and preferences are.” I believe this process is something quite different from simple obedience, although it may include obedience. But that will be an obedience that is considered and that recognizes short comings, that may even have some hard borders (thus far and no further).
In the cases of obedience and defiance, the reason for both need to be carefully considered. There is nothing admirable about ODD (oppositional defiance disorder) or blind obedience.
1 Like
This might be an issue where one might think Christianity has nailed it to some degree. I am referring to the parable of the prodigal son. This is because of course there are two sons and its look at the obedient son is far from flattering. Disobedience certainly gets the other son in considerable trouble and because of it he learns the error of his ways – and we know how much Jesus raises up the examples of realization of error and the desire to change. The obedient son has avoided the misery which teaches the other son his lesson, but he has his own lesson to learn doesn’t he? And a great deal of Jesus’ ministry seems focused on the errors of the apparently obedient, like with his criticism of the Pharisees.
So my point is, at least in the teachings of Jesus, Christianity is far from a singular call to obedience above all things. But Christianity in its historical examples afterwards is a different matter – for then we have reason to think it has frequently gone back down that same road as the Pharisees – even to the point where many have concluded Christianity to be no more than a tool of power and manipulation. As a Christian coming from the existentialist POV, I am certainly sensitive to this particular set of errors and very much wanting people to see this is not what Christianity is about.
My cutting this out from Christianity begins with separating the idea of sin from disobedience. If this is not what Christianity is about then that cannot be what sin is about either, because sin is just too central to all of its teachings. It is likely my even deeper (than existentialism) roots in psychology (the thinking in which I was raised), which causes me to link sin with self-destructive habits. I think in this way I can make Christianity responsive to the criticism of existentialism – which like all criticisms or reform philosophies tends to be a bit one-sided.
I certainly see more similarity in this to making your own choices than to obedience. I would think the whole point is that asking questions is a good thing. That is frankly where I have also seen people breaking away from Christianity (whether to atheism or other religions), when their impulse as children to ask questions has been discouraged or even punished.
One of the ways this linking of sin to self-destructive habits helps make a break from such templates (or the idea of imposed essence), is to suggest a way to check out if there is any logic or evidence why something is actually self-destructive… or not. And even as a teen I found such reasons and evidence in psychology (and/or sociology) for most of the things identified as sinful. This is not to say that all things identified in Christianity as sinful are so easily dealt with. But I think in those cases it likely meant these issues are a bit more complicated and need to be examined more carefully.
2 Likes
When I was reading through the thread, I was struck by a connection of this to the concept of reductionism. Thus I can add the further explanation I am refuting any reductionist aspect to spiritual things, when I say they exist by their own nature – they are not what they are by the coincidence of some arrangement of a composing material as is the case with physical things.
Have you got an example of a spiritual thing? That’s not composed of any thing?
To butt in here uninvited, I’ve got an initial reaction to this.
It would be exceedingly strange if it were so, and probably not biblical! According to Paul, the physical comes first, then the spiritual. Apparently spiritual things need houses to live in. Creation is here for a reason.
1 Like
I’m not a fan of the notion that Spiritual beings “need houses to live in”. My focus, when reading 1 Corinthians 15 is on the “perishable” and the “imperishable”. IMO, both are physical. Paul’s notion of the perishable being clothed in the imperishable is the best way that he could describe what he thought happens. But is it?
It’s the only way it can be defined surely? Transcendent, Spirit suffused, willed, nature. I can’t visualize it at all beyond that. My constantly rejuvenated, unbreakable, tireless, sexless, body? Running on super-{physics, chemistry, biology}. I always liked Philp Jose Farmer’s To Your Scattered Bodies Go. Fantasy isn’t it. All of it.
God.
If you are looking for objective evidence. I only believe objective evidence is possible because all things physical exist by measurable space-time relationships to the whole universe. So… objective evidence for spiritual things? No. That is an example of expectation of impossible things. And in my case, defeating the whole purpose of believing in spiritual things.
Uh no. The resurrected spiritual body comes second, and the physical body comes first, yes. But there is no way Paul is saying the physical comes before all things spiritual. God is spirit. God is first.
But I would say that in this (1 Cor 15) we see an existentialist side to Paul - existence before essence (human physical existence before human spiritual essence). Of course Sartre might agree with your proposal – existence before essence as an absolute. But I doubt Kierkegaard would agree and I certainly don’t.
So you think God needs a house to live in?
Well, yes, of course. But I don’t agree with the reason you give. Sounds like pantheism.
Instead, I would say it is needed for physical life which provides conception for the kind of spirit God wanted in the creation of children. Spirit which exists for its own sake having an origin in self-organizing physical processes.
Riverworld is what happens when you try to visualize Paul’s ‘imperishable’ the way a novelist would. But Paul wasn’t writing sci-fi — only you are.
Yeah, Paul had the get-out-of-jail-free card. As in ‘by the Spirit’.