12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A short subjective Summary, April 20, 2004
In the short imaginary interviews conducted by Solomon in Introducing The Existentialists, I quickly discovered that Existentialism is a far more profound and in-depth philosophy then I had first interpreted it to be. To me, Existentialism has been the baseless ness of the universe, the idea to destroy the traditional patterns of beliefs and methods and to replace them with a more universal set of categorical imperatives (as Immanuel Kant would say). However, after briefly reading the earlier mentioned book, I soon discovered I was incredibly mistaken. Not only did the three philosophers (Sartre, Heidegger, and Camus) seem incompatible in many aspects of their existential perspectives, two of them even broke away from each other due to their differences in their own philosophy (Sartre & Camus). This furthered my doubt and reliability of my earlier definition of existentialism even more so, almost to the point that it felt like I have been lied to all my life about this philosophy from textbooks and history teachers in my High School. Nevertheless I discouraged the simple concept of quitting and continued to plunge into Solomon's imaginary world.
Amongst all of the philosophers, it seemed one topic held the same power and influence on the human mind. That was the topic of death wherein after one is dead one no longer exists except in the written articles left behind in the material world (Sartre). Camus seems to adopt Heidegger's philosophy concerning death, which is that death is undeniably going to occur, but it is not until one's mortality is actually at risk that one becomes more aware and petrified of the outcome of death. I found this idea the simplest to comprehend and agreed to it automatically. Another topic the philosophers seem to hit similar cords on seemed to dissipate due to terminology and mere personality complexities. This is the topic concerning the human being's ability of just `being' and the actual actions the human being takes.
In accordance to Sartre, the human being's actions are always ruled by natural causes and the actually `free will' we believe in is just a mere idea of subjectivity. For instance, if one is going to be a coward, he will always be a coward and it does not matter if he breaks those bonds of cowardice or not. Heidegger seems to go for a more pessimistic ideal of consciousness (almost everything seems pointless or wasted to him), which consists of the fact one is never really conscious of anything and is just simply in the world. He supports this argument with the entity of Daesin and being, which seemed to cause electric shocks of incomprehension to rack my mind. In fact, I was so confused with Heidegger's beliefs that I soon began to realize it means nothing at all even if I did understand him (his indifference and impersonal way of thinking portrayed a concept below the human being way of feeling). Finally I came to Camus, who relieved my past mental tensions with his good humor and simple way of explaining things.
Like Sartre, Camus seems to focus on the idea that actual free will is just a matter of subjectivity. However, instead of being indifferent to his ideals like Sartre seemed to be, he personalized his arguments with the character Meursault in his novel, The Stranger. Meursault is a simple man who falls from innocence to self-destruction due to his death. The idea seems simple enough, but I, for one, seem to have lost my innocence when I entered Elementary school. Thus, the novel itself seemed like a romance written by Hemingway. However, I quickly denounced this previous thought when Camus and Solomon speak of how Meursault does not love his girlfriend (not that he is an evil man, but what would be the purpose of love; better yet, why would he love anything when that would be absurd because it would be meaningless). Although Camus portrays Meursault as a character who understands that most, if not all, of his actions are meaningless because they will inevitably lead to nothing particular that has a point, Meursault himself seems like a much better projection of the existentialist theory than the depressing and monotone voice of Heidegger. In conclusion, I found Camus much more compatible to my adolescent methods of thinking as opposed to Sartre and Heidegger.
All of these philosophers seem to have placed my mind in a paradox unknown to me before. I now remember during my pre-teen years I used to think like Meursault (or perhaps I should say Camus) in the sense what is the point of doing anything? Not that I had evil intentions for my fellow student, teacher, relatives, whatever, but it just seemed ridiculously pointless since I was inevitably going to pass away from this physical realm (hopefully into a better afterlife than Sartre's). I also understood the possibility that there was no Hell or Heaven, which would make my afterlife a real after-life, hence nothing is happening afterwards. If it's just game over when you're playing the game of life, then why do anything at all. What's the necessity of action? It is interesting to relive these ideas, but hopefully, considering my current relationships and situation, I will not completely embrace this philosophy again.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting But Not Compelling, June 7, 2004
This review is from: Introducing the Existentialists (Paperback)
'Introducing the Existentialists' is an interesting book, but my all-time favourite group is STILL the Beach Boys.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
