‭Week 8 Lecture‬

‭Existentialism and Ethics‬

‭●‬ ‭Term ‘existential’ retrospectively applied back to Søren Kierkegaard who is considered the ‘father of‬
‭Existentialism’ (Christian) (can also be atheistic, e.g. Nietzsche, Sartre,)‬
‭●‬ ‭Style of philosophising rather than a distinct philosophical viewpoint: rejects ‘-isms’, so inherently‬
‭paradoxical, often deliberately ‘anti-philosophical’ (showing the inadequacy of detached reason or‬
‭its hypocrisy)‬
‭●‬ ‭Reaction against philosophical speculation becoming quasi-scientific (e.g., utilitarianism): scientific‬
‭method, by definition, is inadequate to the task of understanding our subjective experience and the‬
‭totality of our being (inf. of Romanticism)‬
‭●‬ ‭To be human is to already be embedded in an ethical situation; we are not detached observers who‬
‭stand outside the world and weigh up our utilitarian calculation‬
‭●‬ ‭Philosophy – and ethics – have to be brought back to life as it is lived ‘from within’ in the first‬
‭person rather from a detached objective viewpoint (similar to Kant’s critique of Utilitarianism as‬
‭calculative and as potentially being about nothing more than conventions and consensus – which‬
‭may immoral or simply factually wrong)‬

‭The case for Existentialism‬

‭a)‬ ‭The best thing about utilitarianism? It leaves our inner life untouched.‬
‭○‬ ‭Politically important at a public level for guaranteeing individual freedom of opinion, liberal‬
‭values‬
‭b)‬ ‭The worst thing about utilitarianism? It leaves our inner life untouched.‬
‭○‬ ‭It is impersonal and provides no answer to our individual needs for personal direction,‬
‭meaning, recognition or guidance in our lives as a whole, nor to be a ‘better’ or more‬
‭fulfilled person‬
‭●‬ ‭Existential values have tended to become a source for thinking filling this gap that utilitarianism‬
‭leaves (ii.‬‭our individual need for personal direction,‬‭meaning, recognition or guidance in our lives‬
‭as a whole, nor to be a ‘better’ or more fulfilled person) …‬
‭●‬ ‭… in a post-religious setting (and sometimes within a religious framework too) in which values and‬
‭the good are no longer seen as inherent to the objective nature of the world ‘out there’ but are‬
‭rather projected onto the world by the human subject‬
‭●‬ ‭If an ethical system, or philosophy in general, leave our inner life untouched, then they are‬
‭inadequate to the task of what really matters, hence we have to think beyond the categories of just‬
‭good and evil or right and wrong, which have lost their true significance, since they have merely‬
‭become matters of public consensus‬
‭●‬ ‭Hence, there is a need to restore the personal (subjective) urgency of premodern ethics, and the‬
‭significance of the inner life, but in a modern setting in which there is no longer a place for the‬
‭metaphysical dimension‬

‭Existentialism and Authenticity‬

‭●‬ ‭‘Good vs evil /bad’ (ethics) or ‘right vs wrong’ (morality) à ‘Authenticity vs inauthenticity/‬
‭self-deception (often hypocrisy): being true to ourselves, freedom and responsibility: authenticity‬
‭above ‘good and evil’ (ethics)‬
 ‭●‬ T‭ he Good (as the end/ goal of action) reconceived as authenticity (especially when being ‘good’ is‬
‭seen as somehow being fake or about mindlessly conforming‬
‭●‬ ‭If truth is reduced to objective scientific facts, then where does this leave our subjective inner life?‬
‭●‬ ‭Authenticity = truth as (a commitment to) internal coherence or consistency rather than‬
‭correspondence to external / objective facts (similar to how we can have true or false statements‬
‭about non-existent characters in fiction)‬
‭●‬ ‭We are like characters inside a novel writing our own lives: there is no ‘outside’: our responsibility is‬
‭toward internal self-consistency = authenticity becomes the highest Good rather than attaining to a‬
‭universal objective truth (which is no longer available to us, and which can only ever be an evasion‬
‭that distracts us from or alienates us from our own being)‬
‭●‬ ‭Self-deception (Kierkegaard) or bad faith (Sartre) = a failure to commit to inner coherence and‬
‭consistency (esp. hypocrisy)‬
‭●‬ ‭Many of us tend to hold existentialist style values (authenticity etc) in regard to our own lives, and‬
‭first person subjective being, while being utilitarians in regard to third person objective states of‬
‭affairs ‘out there’ in the world‬
‭●‬ ‭Authenticity as also consisting in action: self-expression, building on Romanticism and the primacy‬
‭of the artistic creativity as model for how to live life in the aesthetic mode, but going further:‬
‭authentic self-expression goes some way to bridging the gap between the subjective and objective‬
‭realms since self-expression takes us out into the world‬
‭●‬ ‭Re-emphasis on authenticity as about being true to a lived meaning/purpose, but no longer in a‬
‭world in which meaning can be found or uncovered as it was for Plato, Aristotle or the Christian‬
‭tradition, but rather we must make or construct meaning for ourselves:‬
‭○‬ ‭Living ironically (or as the ultimate leap of/ leap into faith – Kierkegaard): finding meaning in‬
‭spite of and in honesty facing up to the meaninglessness (or absurdity) of the indifferent‬
‭universe rather than pretending there is some objective or ethical meaning to be found or‬
‭evading it‬

‭Authenticity as a response to Freedom‬

‭●‬ ‭Following Kant, what we can know most directly is our own freedom (i.e., what makes as moral‬
‭beings)‬
‭●‬ ‭Kierkegaard: the person is defined by freedom‬
‭●‬ ‭Sartre: we are “‬‭condemned to be free‬‭”: we must choose,‬‭and take responsibility for our choices, in‬
‭order to live authentically, in order to make our lives our own‬
‭●‬ ‭Human being = transcendence (freedom)/ consciousness of freedom responding to immanence‬
‭(necessity):‬
‭●‬ ‭How can we remain true to our nature as freedom/ transcendence (possibility) whilst being within‬
‭immanence (necessity)?‬
‭●‬ ‭How can we remain true to ourselves whilst needing to pay the bills?‬
‭The Covenant with Abraham: Kierkegaard:‬‭Fear and Trembling‬
‭●‬ ‭Søren Kierkegaard = a Christian, but disgusted by the smug, complacent state Christianity he saw‬
‭around him in C19 Denmark‬
‭●‬ ‭Fear and Trembling : Kierkegaard uses the story of God’s testing of Abraham to re-understand faith:‬
‭faith should be hard not an ‘easy way out’‬
‭●‬ ‭God’s promise to Abraham:‬‭“in thy‬‭[Abraham’s]‬‭seed‬‭shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;‬
‭because thou hast obeyed my voice.‬‭” (Gen 22:18),‬
‭●‬ ‭… but then God commands him to sacrifice his son, Isaac, only to spare him at the last minute. How‬
‭should we understand this paradox?‬
‭●‬ ‭Are Abraham’s actions rational? Are they comprehensible? No, they are absurd.‬
‭●‬ ‭Are Abraham’s actions ethical? No, they are monstrous.‬
‭○‬ ‭If an ordinary person “‬‭goes home… [and] wants to do‬‭just as Abraham did… If the‬
‭preacher found out about it, he would perhaps go to the man, he would muster all his‬
‭ecclesiastical authority and shout, ‘You despicable man, you scum of society, what devil has‬
‭so possessed you that you want to murder your son?’… I am sure he would have lost it if‬
‭the sinner had calmly and with dignity answered: ‘But, after all, that was what you yourself‬
‭preached about on Sunday.’‬‭”‬
‭●‬ ‭Do we reject the story altogether? Not possible, since this would mean rejecting Christianity‬
‭altogether: Abraham is a patriarch and cannot be expelled‬
‭●‬ ‭Kierkegaard is not trying to come to a conclusion about whether Abraham is right or wrong, and his‬
‭point is that this is not what the story is about‬
‭●‬ ‭“‭T‬ hinking about Abraham is another matter, however;‬‭then I am shattered… I am constantly‬
‭repelled… my thought cannot penetrate… I cannot think myself into Abraham: when I reach that‬
‭eminence, I sink down, for what is offered me is a paradox.‬‭”‬
‭●‬ ‭Rather it is to show us that faith (the religious mode) cannot simply be reduced to conventional‬
‭ethics (e.g., of the society around us) or be grounded in reason: Abraham “‬‭had faith by virtue of the‬
‭absurd‬‭”‬
 ‭●‬ t‭ he story itself tests our faith and whether our faith is prepared to go against conventional ideas‬
‭around us, or whether we are Christians (for example) because everyone around us is a Christian‬

‭Kierkegaard: Irony and the Three Modes of Living‬

‭●‬ ‭Today may not be the most important day of our lives (in actuality, hindsight, being),‬
‭●‬ ‭but we must act as if it is (in potentiality, living, becoming) = irony, acting as if‬
‭●‬ ‭NOT Cynical ‘immature’ irony: lack of seriousness, non-engagement or commitment‬
‭●‬ ‭BUT ‘Mature’ mastered irony: authentic engagement and commitment (to x) even if (x) cannot be‬
‭ultimately validated or vindicated as true‬

‭Kierkegaard: The Concept of Dread and The Sickness unto Death‬

‭ ‬ S‭ in characterised by dread= our response to freedom:‬‭“dread is the dizziness of freedom”‬
●
‭●‬ ‭The Self is not a solid stable thing, but an irresolvable, irreducible tension = Freedom‬
‭●‬ ‭“Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and eternal… A synthesis is a‬
‭relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self. In the relation between the two,‬
‭the relation is the third term as negative entity, and the two relate themselves to the relation… If‬
‭on the contrary the relation relates itself to its own self, the relation is then a positive third term,‬
‭and this is the self.” (‬‭The Sickness unto Death‬‭)‬
‭●‬ ‭Sin as the consciousness of two types of despair that characterise the irreducibility of personhood‬
‭Nietzsche:‬‭Thus Spake Zarathustra‬‭on Christian hypocrisy‬
‭●‬ ‭Christianity and any attempt to systematise ethics are really just dishonest and hypocritical engines‬
‭of resentment and vengeance against life and becoming:‬
‭●‬ ‭“Here are priests, and though they are my enemies, go quietly past them and with sleeping swords!‬
‭Among them too there are heroes; many of them suffered too much, so they want to make others‬
‭suffer. They are evil enemies: nothing is more vengeful than their humility. And whoever attacks‬
‭them is easily besmirched…‬
‭●‬ ‭Once they believed they landed on an island as the sea tossed them around; but see, it was a‬
‭sleeping monster!‬
‭●‬ ‭False values and words of delusion: these are the worst monsters for mortals – long does doom‬
‭sleep and wait in them. But at last it comes and wakes and devours and gulps whatever built itself‬
‭huts upon it. Oh look at these huts that the priests built themselves! Churches they call their sweet‬
‭smelling caves. Oh how repulsive is this falsified light, this stale air! Here, where the soul to its‬
‭height – is denied flight! Instead their faith commands: ‘Up the stairs on your knees, you sinners!’‬
‭Indeed, I would rather see the shameless than the rolled back eyes of their shame and devotion!”‬
‭(‘On the Priests’ from Thus Spake Zarathustra)‬

‭Nietzsche on the Hypocrisy of the Virtuous‬

‭●‬ ‭“At you, virtuous ones, my beauty laughed today. And thus its voice came to me: “They still want –‬
‭to be paid!” You still want to be paid, you virtuous! Want to have reward for virtue, and heaven for‬
‭earth, and eternity for your today? And now you’re angry with me for teaching that there is no‬
‭reward and paymaster? And truly, I do not even teach that virtue is its own reward. Oh, this is my‬
‭sorrow; reward and punishment have been lied into the ground of things – and now even into the‬
‭ground of your souls, you virtuous!...‬
‭●‬ ‭And others are proud of their handful of justice, and for its sake they commit outrage against all‬
‭things, such that the world is drowned in their injustice. Oh, how foul the word “virtue” sounds‬
‭coming from their mouths! And when they say: “I am just,” then it sounds always like: “I am just‬
‭avenged!” With their virtue they want to scratch out the eyes of their enemies; and they elevate‬
‭themselves only to degrade others…‬
‭●‬ ‭And then again there are those who consider it virtue to say: “Virtue is necessity”; but at bottom‬
‭they believe only that the police are a necessity…‬
‭●‬ ‭And in this manner almost all believe they have a share of virtue; and at the very least each person‬
‭wants to be an expert on “good” and “evil.” (‘On the Virtuous’ from Thus Spake Zarathustra)‬

‭Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil and the Genealogy of Morality‬

‭●‬ ‭Rejection of Christianity and fixed systems of ethics and morality‬
‭●‬ ‭Instead, morality is not fixed but has a ‘family history’ (genealogy) or descent: stages in this descent‬
‭marked by deliberate inversions and reversals:‬
‭○‬ ‭the “transvaluation of values”:‬
‭■‬ ‭good for me vs bad for me (perspective-based = life = J ) → good vs evil‬
‭(appearance of not being perspective based = abstract = L)‬
‭○‬ ‭Animal/ Human as Animal= merely strength and weakness‬
‭■‬ ‭= repulsed by external forces = the will to power and life-affirming values: becoming‬
↓‭ ‬
‭○‬ ‭Reversal: ‘slave morality’: abstraction by which the weak (esp. intellectuals and‬
‭priesthoods) seek to suppress the strong against Life (e.g., Plato: Being; Christianity:‬
‭“blessed are the meek”):‬
 ‭■‬ “‭ ‭P ‬ erhaps nothing in Christianity and Buddhism is so worthy of respect as their skill‬
‭in teaching even the lowest that they can be included in a higher illusionary order‬
‭of things through piety‬‭” (Beyond Good and Evil 61)‬
‭■‬ ‭Victory of the ‘resentful’ weak over the strong → dominant ideology of‬
‭ressentiment‬
↓‭ ‬
‭ ‬ ‭Human as ‘Human’: Notions of Good and Evil = repulsed by inner force (= repression =‬
○
‭life-denying values:‬
‭■‬ ‭Civilisation: Invention of abstract conceptions of ‘Freedom’ and ‘Unfreedom’, good‬
‭and evil are overlaid on top of the ‘weaker’ and ‘stronger’, that is, the becoming of‬
‭life itself‬
‭■‬ ‭“what the people believe to be good and evil reveals to me an ancient will to‬
‭power.” (Thus Spake Zarathustra)‬

‭Nietzsche on Authenticity: The Gay (Joyous) Science‬

‭●‬ ‭Who we are is not static (as being) but rather dynamic (as becoming)‬
‭●‬ ‭“‭W‬ hat does your conscience say? - ‘You shall become‬‭the person you are’‬‭.” Deliberately paradoxical‬
‭from the perspective of a fixed philosophical position‬
‭●‬ ‭What is the test of authenticity? The Challenge of Eternal Recurrence:‬
‭○‬ ‭“‭W ‬ hat if some day or night a demon were to steal into‬‭your loneliest loneliness and say to‬
‭you: ‘This life as you now live and have lived it you will have to live once again and‬
‭innumerable times again; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy‬
‭and every thought and sigh and everything unspeakably small or great in your life must‬
‭return to you, all in the same succession and sequence – even this spider and this‬
‭moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself…’ The question in each‬
‭and every thing, ‘Do you want this again and innumerable times again?’ would lie on your‬
‭actions as the heaviest weight! Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself‬
‭and to life to long for nothing more fervently than for this ultimate eternal confirmation and‬
‭seal?‬‭”‬
‭○‬ ‭Authenticity is beyond reward or punishment, merit or desert‬

‭Nietzsche on Authenticity: Thus Spake Zarathustra‬

‭●‬ A ‭ uthenticity as the opposite of consensus or the morality of the “herd” or “rabble” (such as‬
‭equality)‬
‭●‬ ‭“ Thus the light of your virtue is still underway, even when the work is done. And even if now‬
‭forgotten and dead, its ray of light still lives and wanders. Your virtue should be your self and not a‬
‭foreign thing, a skin, a cloaking: that is the truth from the ground of your soul, you virtuous!” (‘On‬
‭the Virtuous’)‬
‭●‬ ‭To be true to life is to be true to‬‭becoming‬‭over‬‭being‬‭; life is a process of self-overcoming:‬
‭●‬ ‭“Good and evil, and rich and poor, and high and trifling, and all the names of values: they shall be‬
‭weapons and clanging signs that life must overcome itself again and again! Life itself wants to build‬
‭itself into the heights with pillars and steps; it wants to gaze into vast distances and out upon‬
‭halcyon beauties – therefore it needs height!” (‘On the Virtuous’)‬
‭●‬ ‭We are most true to who we are when we are becoming more than we are:‬
‭○‬ ‭The ‘Over-man’, the ‘Superman’‬‭(übermensch)‬‭: the person‬‭who identifies with, who‬‭lives‬‭,‬
‭their own constant self-overcoming:‬
 ‭■‬ “‭ And this secret life itself spoke to me: “Behold,” it said, “I am that which must‬
‭always overcome itself. To be sure, you call it will to beget or drive to a purpose, to‬
‭something higher, more distant, more manifold: but all this is one, and one secret. I‬
‭would rather perish than renounce this one thing; and truly, wherever there is‬
‭decline and the falling of leaves, behold, there life sacrifices itself – for power…‬
‭Truly, I say to you: good and evil that would be everlasting – there is no such thing!‬
‭They must overcome themselves out of themselves again and again.” (‘On‬
‭Self-overcoming’)‬

‭Sartre’s Existentialism‬
‭●‬ ‭We all begin with certain ‘givens’ of our existence that we do not choose:‬
‭○‬ ‭where, when we are born, to whom‬
‭○‬ ‭= our ‘being-in itself’ (cf Hegel) like a thing = immanence‬
‭●‬ ‭But, we are never just this:‬
‭○‬ ‭We are also ‘being-for-itself’ = awareness of ourselves and the world‬
‭●‬ ‭Open-ended: the future, possibility, freedom:‬
‭●‬ ‭the projection of our conscious choices and intentionality‬
‭●‬ ‭= Transcendence: our ability to be more than who we are, to be more than just the givens we are‬
‭born with, our being not able to be merely reduced back to them; we are never just what we are‬
‭●‬ ‭Thus, human being is paradoxical: it alone is both x and non-x: I am both ‘what I am’ and ‘what I am‬
‭not’‬
‭●‬ ‭Self-consciousness seeks to be itself (appropriate itself) but in the process only ‘pushes’ itself away‬
‭(it alienates itself)‬
‭○‬ ‭The self that is conscious (x) is never, and can never, be the same as the self it is aware of: it‬
‭turns it into non-x in the process of trying to grasp itself‬
‭○‬ ‭Consciousness "is what it is not and is not what it is."‬
‭●‬ ‭Life/ Being = the tension between immanence and transcendence and how we respond to it‬

‭Sartre: Being and Nothingness (1943)‬

‭Sartre: ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’ (1946)‬
‭●‬ ‭Existentialism:‬‭“existence comes before essence”‬
‭●‬ ‭We have no inherent or fixed essence (=purpose/ meaning)‬
‭●‬ ‭We must confront our lack of essence and intrinsic purpose‬
‭●‬ ‭We make our own meaning/ telos (purpose) out of our existence rather than searching for an‬
‭essence:‬‭“Man makes himself; he is not found ready-made;‬‭he makes himself by the choice of his‬
‭morality, and he cannot but choose a morality, such is the pressure of circumstances upon him.”‬
‭○‬ ‭Thus, we are‬‭“condemned to be free”‬‭: freedom as a‬‭burden: are we ‘up to it’? Can we‬
‭confront our lack of essence and pure freedom?‬
‭■‬ ‭We are who we are through our free choices and our responsibility for the‬
‭consequences = authenticity‬
‭●‬ ‭Inauthenticity = bad faith = evasion:‬
‭a.‬ ‭The bad faith of facticity = our thinking we are only what we are; our thinking that we are‬
‭only the role we play in the world and nothing more (like the waiter in the café): our denial‬
‭of possibility and loss of ourselves in actuality: we are doing x because we have to, we have‬
‭no choice: we want to be nothing more than what we are, but this denies the ‘becoming’‬
‭part of our being‬
‭b.‬ ‭The bad faith of transcendence = our thinking we are not what we are, or that we are only‬
‭what we might be: our evading our actuality (where we are now) by distracting ourselves‬
‭with fantasies in abstract possibility (rather than working in the actuality of the present to‬
‭bring them about in the future)‬

‭Bad Faith and Sartre’s waiter: The Inauthenticity of our working life?‬
‭●‬ ‭The waiter chooses to be nothing more than a waiter, as though he is nothing more; he is ‘just‬
‭doing his job’ – there is no further ‘why’ to it; he is not taking responsibility for his choice; he is‬
‭‘going through the motions’‬
‭●‬ ‭The waiter loses himself in his imagined idea of how others see him and attempts to be that, and‬
‭that alone‬