EXISTENTIALISM AS A HUMANISM

Sartre uses three words to describe the state of humans struggling to live in an absurd world where existence comes before essence, and all three are a result of the overwhelming responsibility of being totally responsible for ourselves, our thoughts, decisions, and actions. He discusses the fact that ‘freedom’ comes with the steep price of accepting abandonment, and living with anguish and despair.

Abandonment refers to our not having an superior being or force, such as a God, to dictate our morals, to be our steadfast compass in the world. Sartre says that human existence determines human essence, therefore free will and consciousness are the tools in which we depend upon to navigate the world and bring meaning to our existence. This non-optional freedom places a tremendous burden of responsibility on us as we are expected to make rational decisions in an irrational world. We are born into a world where we must give meaning, create value, and determine a hierarchy of expected or good behaviors right on down to those we deem despicable and punishable. A daunting, impossible task considering the fact that we are each free to decide upon our own values. In Sartre’s words, “People are condemned to be free.” This casts a heaviness on the otherwise carefree word ‘free.’ This is because we are relegated to the state of having no one but ourselves to blame for our actions, quite a frightening place to be. I try to imagine being blindly dropped into a game of polo with absolutely no idea of the rules. Charging horses carrying men with long sticks are coming from all directions and there’s little time to figure our what to do without being wiped out. In life we don’t get to pick and choose what we will be confronted with, yet we must somehow develop a set of values and behaviors which will guide us. And when they fail us, in the absence of a higher power to call upon, we can only look to ourselves. We are responsible for our lives, the good and the bad.

So it’s no surprise that frustration, even to the point of mental and physical anguish is a common trait of the existentialist and Sartre tells us that, “People can either confront or choose to ignore their anguish,” and that, “Anyone who fails to interrogate their decisions is therefore acting in ‘bad faith.’” This dispels the idea that existentialism is a selfish or easy path for there is a great responsibility in suggesting that a behavior that is good for the subject is also for the good of all. For there is no guarantee that any given decision will yield the desired outcome, no statistics that can account for the myriad of variables in any situation. Objects are impermanent and can’t always be depended on to react in exact patterns, and humans, with their varied emotions, levels of rationality, and imperfections make it near impossible to predict how one’s decisions will pan out. Think about how many decisions we make in just one day! It follows that anguish would be almost a constant state of mind, heavy burden. While teaching elementary school with needy students I felt anguish on a daily basis when I had to make decisions that weren’t written in stone. Trying to do what I felt was best for each student, which would also be approved of by administration and parents was a juggling act where rarely all three were happy. It wasn’t long before the impossible pressure led me to feel despair. I was just beating my head against a wall with no hope of changing the failing system. The odds seemed to be against the child and directed more toward the success and glorification of useless ‘programs’ that existed only on paper. I came to understand why classroom teachers took ‘mental health’ days, days in which we weren’t sick, but needed to decompress and prep for battle upon returning. It shouldn’t be that way. It was time to let go and retire.

I agree with Sartre that, “Existentialism is a humanism.” In certain situations it isn’t even a question of choice. When we have a strong belief based on experience or facts, we naturally feel it’s good for others. It goes beyond ego or emotions. It’s about being a productive part of a group, community, nation, or world. It’s a way of connecting with others in a belief that, “Existence comes before essence.” We are continually trying to define and become the best versions of human beings we can through our behaviors. In defining who we are and what we value, we hold up those standards for others. It’s certainly not the easiest path, but one where responsibility isn’t shrugged and crappy behavior can’t be erased with a few Hail Mary’s.

Simone de Beauvoir

Blog #5

It’s 2020 and we’re still trying to understand women, who in case you didn’t know, have been around just as long as men. So here are a few hints to truly understand what really makes us tick: 1) we get absolutely hysterical and can’t make rational decisions at certain times of the month, so we clearly cannot be good leaders, 2) once we have babies we just sit around and get fat because our sole purpose has been fulfilled and, heck, we’ve already landed a man, 3) we’re intellectually limited, very shy and weak and need a man to speak up for us, 4) we’re naturally born to please men, just like in “I Dream of Jeannie,” and we’re completely satisfied as long as they have an orgasm.

Simone de Beauvoir did extensive research before writing about women as the “second sex.” She found that nowhere in history books did it speak of a minority called “women” who were displaced and thrown into a world dominated by men. Yet, “Man is defined as a human being, and woman as a female. Whenever she behaves as a human being, she is said to imitate the male.” In science books you will not find a different species of ‘human beings’ called ”women’ or ‘female.’ We were not captured, as were the African slaves, and brought to another land where we were sold as property. Nor were we hunted, caged, and killed like the Jewish people, leaving those who were allowed to live eventually scattering around the globe looking for safe havens. No, we’ve always inhabited the same spaces, climates, and societies as men. Women have never naturally declared men as the enemy nor fought them for territories, power or gold. In fact, we have happily supported men in their endeavors and celebrated their successes. But, for the most part, they haven’t reciprocated. Instead, their power has allowed them to create a world with laws and social ‘norms’ that keep us in the background, the ‘supportive’ role as wives, mothers, housekeepers, and beautiful possessions to have on their arms as reminders of their power and property. For thousands of years we’ve graciously accepted what they offered us, bought into their myths about our minds and bodies, apparently believing they know what’s best for us and truly care about our well-being. But along came the sixties with its sex, drugs, and rock n roll and all bets were off. Women felt their power, their freedom, their true sexuality, all based on their subjectivity. They didn’t want to defeat men, just be their equals. It’s been a slow uphill battle since then and some gains have been made. Simone de Beauvoir put things into perfect perspective when in the late nineteen hundreds she said, “But the woman’s effort as never been more that a symbolic agitation. They have gained only what men have been willing to grant. They have never taken anything, they have only received.” It’s 2020 and women are beginning to take what is due them. But first we have to understand what we are and what we aren’t through our reality rather than through man’s ego.

As Simone de Beauvoir said, “Women are not born feminine, but shaped by 1,000 extensive processes.” In short, “Woman is a male concept, always the ‘other.’ And male is the seer, the subject.” Men have always tried to make us feel special for the few pleasing feminine activities we pursue, or traits we display. We have always gladly taken the limited praise they gave us; being beautiful and sexy, being good mothers who train our daughters to follow our same path, and sometimes even good business people, as long as we look good doing our job, don’t make waves, and make sure our other womanly duties are done on the home front. If men are the dominant leaders and decision makers it leaves women objectively labeled as “the other.” Our value is determined by and for our relationship to men. We are wives of men, mothers to their children, keepers of their homes, beautiful possessions that enhance their sense of manliness. Even our place as co-producers of children was denied in the seventeenth century by Aristotle, who led people to believe that the male sperm alone created a new being and that only the woman’s menstrual blood was needed to nourish it. I find it interesting that while the men took full credit for the genetic offspring, they seemed to have little interest in their day to day upbringing. Why bother when your wife dutifully knows exactly how you want her to do it. The fact that the sperm seeks the egg, which stays in place, found a way to support the myth of the female staying home while the man traveled and encountered the world outside. Nothing was thought of fact that without the constant environment of the womb, the growing fetus would not survive, actually thrive. It was in the late seventeenth century that it was discovered that the woman did indeed contribute an egg, but even that didn’t change the status of women. According to Aristotle, “We should regard the female nature as afflicted with a natural defectiveness.” St. Thomas claimed women to be, “an imperfect man, an incidental being.”

Holding the power and fearing their loss of it, men benefit greatly from keeping the woman in her place. If they suspect that a woman may be a strong contender for a position, men don’t necessarily fear her femaleness, they feel that their masculinity is being threatened by ‘the other.’ This unspoken fear was very common growing up in the fifties and sixties. We grew up wanting to be as perfect as June Cleaver, and to feel that joy she exuded as prepared dinner in her dress and pearls, eagerly waiting for her husband to open the door as we handed him a martini. In junior high, we girls filled the typing and home economics classes striving to become a great wife for some man, and if our husbands allowed us, be a wonderful secretary for a swell male boss. Meanwhile, the junior bosses and husbands were busy learning science and math in order to obtain the management positions and gave little thought about whether or not they would be good husbands or fathers.

In The Eternal Feminine, de Beauvoir explains that marginalized groups such as Blacks, Jews, and Women are created by those who subjugate them. I see now that I was also indoctrinated into the eternal feminine game by a mother and father who almost found bliss in the cocktail era. All I wanted to do was catch polliwogs in the creek, pop tar bubbles in the street, and ride my horse. I have a vivid memory of a photo taken of my mom, my sister, and I at Disneyland wearing matching dresses and bows that came from the Speigel Catalog. My mom never looked prouder, posing with her two little girls who held promise to be just like her. I was around eight years old then and I guess I was already in training to be the eternal feminine and bring a smile to my father’s face. I wanted him to be proud of me, wanted him to think I was smart and pretty. So I worked hard in school and earned good grades. By the time I was in middle school my dad told me that my best bet was to learn to type so I could be a secretary. Somehow I didn’t equate that with being smart, and I thought that although it would be boring to sit and type all day, at least I should be pretty while doing it. Without going into detail, let’s just say that by the time I was sixteen I had learned that my sexuality was a valuable commodity that came in handy when I needed to feel loved. I felt a weird sense of power. So when my mom died at eighteen, I left home and soon married a man who treated me as a possession. As Simone de Beauvoir would have said, I was his “Goddess on a pedestal.” Being the good little girl that I was, I repeatedly promised to be better when he’d beat me for talking to another male and making him feel insecure. I felt it was my responsibility to change, to adapt to his needs and desires. I wanted to fulfill my role as the perfect wife, the other. So, to ease his violent jealousy of my male professors, I dropped out of college, I denied my own humanity and allowed him to cut my wings…..for two years! Some of us are slow learners. That seems like another lifetime, a different Nonie who no longer exists.

According to Wikipedia, The ‘Eternal Feminine’ is a belief that men and women have different core “essences” that cannot be altered by time or environment. Simone de Beauvoir’s studies have shown us how this false theory was created and perpetuated by men in order to deflect their threat of women and preserve their patriarchal society. I think Simone would agree that in 2020 more women are shaking up the world, speaking out, and demanding respect. But I also think she’d be disappointed by how many women still accept their inferiority, their limited value, without question and allow themselves to be used as sexual props to sell products. She would remind us that “Experience, not essence defines a woman. Her wings are cut and then she is blamed for not knowing how to fly.” We have a choice.

• Document

Some ramblings, no solutions or conclusions, on the subject of “The Sunken Place”

I’ve always been extremely uncomfortable being a white person, among a group of white people, talking as if we have the slightest understanding of what black people feel, think, or experience. We don’t know. I found an interview with Peter Rubin, a contributing editor from WIRED, where he described ‘The Sunken Place‘ as, “Feeling mired in intractable issues, perpetually trapped on the bottom rung of society’s ladder.” Not bad for a white guy’s point of view, I can’t do any better, so I’ll go with it and assume we’re all aware of the history supporting his statement. It follows that we must acknowledge that life for blacks in 2020 still easily qualifies as a ‘Sunken Place,’ as they still have unequal access to adequate healthcare, education, job opportunities, and housing, along with staggering disproportionate numbers of incarceration, all of which negatively effect their economic and social potential as well as political representation. I think many of us have an honest desire to think, feel, and act in ways that will change these realities. Laws are passed and politically correct words are spoken, but as long as we consider black people as ‘the other,’ in relation to ourselves, it seems to me that we (whites) remain incapable of intimately understanding what it’s like to be born into and fight to escape the “Sunken Place.” Worse yet, many either don’t allow themselves to see the Sunken Place, or else they see it and support it because they believe it is the ordained natural order and they’re willing to fight to preserve it.

I’ve heard white people say something to the effect of, “I don’t see color.” To that I say, “Great sentiment, but that’s pure bullshit.” We not only see color, we hear it, we sense it, we observe the realities happening as a result of color. In the United States, being any color other that white means being the ‘other,’ varying by degrees according to the relative shade of your skin. ‘Other’ is never considered equal unless it is recognized as being the subject rather than the object. I can’t tell you how many hundreds of times, with the the most noble of intentions, that I told my second graders, of many colors, “Skin color doesn’t matter, we’re all the same.” But by the time they’ve reached seven years of age, life has already shown them that it’s not the truth. It doesn’t take long before they come to understand that what some of their teachers really mean by, “Look past skin color,” is that they should look for the white traits in students of color. Perhaps instead of pleading with them to become color blind, we should begin preparing them to look deeper, to become aware that differences in people do go beyond skin color. This would be a difficult, delicate, and probably impossible challenge for elementary schools, which is where it would need to begin. Most parents don’t want, wouldn’t allow their children to be taught social views views at school. They want to raise little mini versions of themselves. In addition, teachers are just people who are hung up one way or another by their own racial issues. Anyway, the teacher’s unions would have great fun with that…and they’d win. In short, not everyone wants equality and it cannot be forced upon people, especially those who benefit from inequalities. So, young, fresh-eyed teachers step up, we need you!

The Emancipation Proclamation, like a marriage certificate, is a legal document. Marriages entered into with two willing parties have about a 50% chance of failure. The EP was met with willingness, compassion, and cooperation from just one party. It didn’t change the belief system of the opposing party, who were the creators and masters of the ‘Sunken Place.’ Their anger and resentment still lives. Having a brilliant black president brought hope to many of us, but didn’t bring change to the ‘masters’ of the twenty-first century. I have to admit that I was naively under the illusion that things would change when people saw heard this well spoken educated man! Eventually it dawned on me that, slow learner that I am, that just as witnesses to a car accident, what we take in through our senses must be immediately and subconsciously altered by our values. I had to believe that what other people saw and heard had a totally different truth and that it was just as real as my truth. So when I watch our current racist president who instigates violence and outwardly spews hate for all people who aren’t white Republican males, I’m frightened. When I see people with their guns and racist signs, I have a healthy fear. There’s always more space left in that ‘Sunken Place.’

o

Perhaps

AND WHAT IF WE LISTEN?

WHAT IF WE LISTEN MORE?

MAYBE WE ASK QUESTIONS. AND THEN WE LISTEN MORE.

AND IF WE’RE ASKED A QUESTION, WE ACCEPT OUR SHAME AND EMBARRASSMENT AND ANSWER HONESTLY?

WHAT IF WE SHARE OUR FEARS?

Dr T. I know you don’t like blogs that throw out questions as a rule. But when it comes to this topic

This blog began when the pandemic was barely underway, but it’s now almost the middle of April and I’ve had a chance to absorb the immensity of it and observe some remarkable things.

I think the most important thing I/we can learn from this pandemic is to remember what we learn while we are in crisis. We are learning how crucially interdependent we are, as family, neighbors, strangers, communities, a nation, and as inhabitants of the Earth. We pass by each other as we walk to class, drive through our neighborhoods, or wait for our dentist appointment, totally unconcerned about one another, as if we have nothing in common. With so many positive things to share, it’s taken this nightmare to get us to pay attention to one another. I’ve found that after living in my home for sixteen years, in just two short weeks I’ve gotten to know several wonderful neighbors who I hadn’t taken the time to really talk to, other than a wave or a meaningless “hello” under my breath.. They were faces I didn’t give a second thought to because there was always something more important…like shopping, purchasing clothes made by children in sweat shops in third world countries or watching more CNN to reaffirm the multitude of reasons I hate our president. When it comes to health, our cultural response is interesting and not at all surprising. Some people wear masks, some throw them in the gutter, some people make a point to keep a safe distance, while others have nearly run me over in their cars when I walk. There is no typical response, only the sad truth that many people have acted as if this is just something happening to ‘those other people’ and simply another political issue that doesn’t involve them. I’m deeply saddened when people express anger at the possibility of illegals getting what they call “a handout.” Before I ask them if they would like to trade places with them, or attempt to explain to them that although social security is taken from their checks they will never receive any benefits, I stop myself, knowing it’s pointless. The economy may recover, but I fear the majority of people will never choose to see what they don’t want to see.

I hope we can use this experience to face the reality of climate change, to fear it enough to act. Scientists have been telling us for years that if we wait for the obvious impact of climate change it will already be too late. Unfortunately, scientists don’t make laws. No, too often they are made by the millionaires and billionaires that can buy political offices that further their own agendas and keep them in power. The media business is concerned with the almighty dollar, and the topic of climate change doesn’t lend itself will to being hyped up to compete with reality shows full of sex, vulgarity, and AK47’s. It’s a hard sell, and that’s reflected in the lack of documentaries warning us of what is to come. But here and now we have this true reality show happening all around us and people already talk of being bored with all the corona virus media! You can choose to watch the channels that tell you it’s all a political hoax, watch those that stick to scientific and medical facts, or even those that tell you it’s God’s plan. Take a seat, buy some popcorn, and tune in wherever you wish. But when the show is over, get your head out of the sand and take responsibility for the destruction we’ve caused and the crappy earth we’re leaving for our youth.

We speak of getting back to ‘normal’ as if normal was our best. It wasn’t! I don’t want to see us to go back to our arrogant and egocentric illusion that we are invincible and that our country is 100% better than others. We can appreciate to the progress we make here in the US, but we must look to what other countries do better and be humble enough to ask countries like Finland, “How do you structure your educational system such that your children read on level and learn to become thinkers?” Let’s look at countries with less violence and fewer weapons of mass destruction, like Canada, and ask their experts, “Exactly how do you do it?” We can refuse to buy products mass produced in foreign sweat shops, Like Ivanka Trump’s clothing line and Nike shoes.

We can learn to be more like Dr. Rieux who, when asked about being a hero said, “The only way to fight the plague is with decency.” I think decency comes with a spatter of humility and the understanding that being one among many, just doing our job to the best of our ability is of value. This isn’t to say we should be like cattle and quietly follow the herd. It means acknowledging that our individual value, if we choose it to be, is part of a greater function, and that each of us has a responsibility to do our part. It means being there for our neighbor, using common courtesy in our everyday interactions, and taking the time to find out if the quiet guy in class or in gathering is OK, and then actually doing something about it. Camus said that, “Life is a hospice, never a hospital.” Our job is to comfort and take care of each other as we travel our individual journeys that will all ultimately end with death. Hospitals function to temporarily prolong death, perhaps allowing us to continue our journeys a bit longer.

Even when this pandemic becomes temporarily controlled, the doctors are warning us that it will surely revisit us. As Camus said, “A pestilence isn’t a thing made to a man’s measure.” We believe we and control everything, until we can’t. We’ve been warned about climate change for years but is is blatantly ignored by politicians like Trump, and conveniently ignored by millions of consumers who eat their steaks and burgers, drawn in by ads showing bikini clad models sitting on hot sports cars eating juicy hot dripping burgers as if they are fondling their lovers. We can’t, as did the villagers in the Plague, “forget to be modest… they went on doing business, arranged for journeys, and formed views.” We must change our behavior, but I fear we won’t. We tend to climb back into our comfortable isolation and forget. It’s kind of like going to a funeral and telling ourselves on the way home to remember to live each day as if it were our last. Before we’ve pulled into the garage, we’re already making judgements about why so and so didn’t go to the funeral, or why that lady had the nerve to wear a bright colored dress. There is always something or someone else to blame.

There are a couple of quotes from Camus’ story about a plague that spoke to me: He said, “Suffering is randomly distributed, it makes no sense, it is simple absurd.” But what we are finding is that it is not randomly distributed. Blacks are disproportionately dying due to health disparities including lack of adequate health care, living in more densely populated areas, and doing jobs such as janitors and bus drivers which put them in close contact with people. And we won’t know until much later about all the deaths occurring in migrant camps and trashy little cramped slums. They won’t all have joyful outcomes that we see publicized like that of Tom Hanks and his wife. So, perhaps its randomness is not necessarily a kind thing. I also loved his quote, “Being alive always was and will always remain an emergency.” At any given time a natural event can wipe us out, that threat never ends. I have three close friends in different stages of breast cancer that has metastasized who are a constant reminder that it’s ridiculous to expect life to be fair. It just is what it is.

I read an article that talked of Camus addressing the connections between physical and psychological infection which made a reference to Nazi Germany and it brought a real fear to light. It spoke of the he same irreparable damage caused by a plague or pandemic also being caused by the ideology of an unleashed leader such as ours, who spews hate and lies while encouraging war among races and economic levels. THIS IS OUR PLAGUE.

Preview(opens in a new tab)

I think Mr. Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence exercise and how he presented it is clever, cold, and somewhat cruel. s quite arrogant to demand that one’s willingness to prove having lived a valuable life can only be established by one’s choice of whether or not to relive it for eternity. Nietzsche seems to assume an equal playing field and his proposed eternal recurrence insinuates that our free will gives us control of what happens around us and to us. To dispute this, all one has to do is compare a female in Afghanistan, or how about a transgender person in Pakistan, to a white male in the United States born into a family of middle or upper class. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that the male will come to the conclusion that his life has been valuable, while the female in Pakistan will most likely be at a loss to consider anything other than how they made it from one day to the next. According to Nietzsche’s ER, the woman hasn’t led a life of value, and I can bet she wouldn’t want to live it for eternity! His ER exercise just points out the insane inequalities in the world and how much of our lives is determined by things outside of ourselves. It also indicates to me that he must somehow embrace the belief that all people deserve what is handed to them in life and that if they don’t like it, then it is within their power to change it. He said, “the strength of a human comes from their ability to face and accept the truth.” Really? I would ask him to live for one day as a transgender person in Pakistan or Afghanistan, begging for food, living among garbage, and being violently attacked on a daily basis. Let him apply his theory about the value of appreciating the present when any given present moment is nothing more than agony, torture, and fear! If he can do this and still believe this person should want to relive his or her life for eternity, then I might see some validity in his proposal.

I wouldn’t choose to be a participant in Eternal Recurrence for several reasons: First of all, although I have a good life now, my past held a great deal of emotional and physical pain. Sure, I made it through it and even feel somewhat proud of how I dealt with it, but there’s no way in hell that I’d choose to relive it! I also don’t believe that my decision has anything al all to do with whether or not my life was valuable! Being an atheist and having never lived in hopes of a second in ‘heaven’ or eternal life that the Catholic church tries to sell, I am doing my best to make this one life on Earth an experience that’s lived in harmony with others while giving fair attention to my needs and desires. I pay attention to how I live my life and fully accept my shortcomings, but that’s been a long and often painful process. So I don’t take the easy way out by placing my sins in a religious fairy tale and expecting to be absolved of them each Sunday. I’ve always been quite content with life being a one time shot with an end. Just cremate me and use my remains to fertilize your garden, fine with me! Second, I’d never take on a challenge such as eternal occurrence life. What a waste of my time! I’m better off putting my energies into living my life today and taking each experience as it comes. When my time is up I need to evacuate this earth to make room for others. Like the fall leaves, I’m happy help fertilize the ground and help nourish those who come after me.

It’s awfully tempting to want to erase the memory someone who’s caused me great suffering and I’m glad I’ll never be given that opportunity. I can say that there have been many times in my past when I would have said, “Yes,” to the eliminating of my memories of a certain person. As much as I still despise this person and know he still inflicts pain on others, after reading Christopher Grau’s article, I wouldn’t do it today. It isn’t out of respect for that person, but out of respect for myself and my right to have memories of all my experiences, whether they be good or bad. If I could ask Nietzsche what to do, he’d probably give me different answers on different days. One one of his good days, maybe after a few vodkas, he’ probably say. “Sure, erase your memory of that person, there’s no universal morality that says you shouldn’t. Go ahead and do what makes you happy.” He would remind me that, “Forgetting is vital to humans, memory, and thereby the memories it accumulates, weighs about man and paralyzes his action.” But the day after, maybe when he’s got a nasty hangover, he might consider me weak and tell me to, “Face it like a man, or woman, saying, ‘Why bother to change your course in life? Even if you erase his memory you’ll still be the same person and do the exact thing again.” And he’d be right! In certain cases of traumatic injuries I think the option of memory removal, even if left up to qualified doctors, should not be acceptable. We’ve already become too dependent on unnecessary procedures, and my view is that we need to learn how to live, rather than try to control our minds and mess around with what makes us human.

It’s awfully tempting to want to erase the memory of someone, (my older brother) who caused me great suffering throughout my life. I’m glad I’ll never be given that opportunity. But I can say that there have been many times in my past when I would have said, “Yes,” to the elimination of his memory or even of him! As much as I still despise him, I’ve learned to let go of the anger that for too long took up spa e in my head. After reading Christopher Grau’s article, I found additional reasons why I wouldn’t have his memory erased. My memories of this person, as shitty as they are, are mine, and I have a choice of how to deal with them. I must assume that they have had a positive effect on how I’ve developed my sense of empathy and formed my ethical behavior. It certainly has shown me how NOT to be, and that’s definitely one way of learning. The greatest gift of occasionally revisiting the memory of this horrible person, my brother, which I keep locked away in a hidden compartment, has been the unbridled joy I get when I observe my son being a loving and protective big brother to his sister. He compliments her, he supports her, he’s proud of her accomplishments. Their relationship is the antithesis of what I experienced with my brother.

In The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the main characters, Joel and Clem, each know about the other’s edited memory yet opt to give love another try. They believe truth will be the key to their chance for happiness. But they only have the truth that the memory deletions have occurred. They will never have the truth of what happened in their previous relationship. They will relive it with the same outcome and the result will be the same unhappiness because they won’t have had the benefit of the original experience. I would think they would feel confusion and a perhaps a sense of failure. The memories were erased but the events were not deleted. They are still the same two people, but now they’re repeating the same path without being armed with memories that could help guide them. I don ‘t thing happiness can endure if truth is taken out of the equation. Sooner or later happiness is eroded and replaced with mistrust when it becomes evident that a truth has been hidden. In the case of a deleted memory, lack of the whole truth detracts from ones complete understanding of how that person responds to different stimuli. Consequently, the memory of how you felt or responded in an erased event has been take. We learn from our mistakes. We grow from our mistakes. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that we have a duty to remember, but I would say it is to our benefit to remember and to the benefit of others to remember us, the good and the bad.

Nietzsche, who made his Eternal Recurrence theory, “a test of greatness or action and nobility to the man who can answer yes,” had no intentions illuminating us. He simply promoted himself while suggesting that others assess their lives under faulty presumptions. There is absolutely no connection between living a valuable life and desiring to repeat it for eternity. Although Joel and Clem made the decision to affirm their lives by accepting the fate of repetition, it was unnecessary. Because in reality we already do this. Our character traits don’t change simply by eliminating a memory. We can all attest to making the same mistakes over and over again, so living eternal occurrence or erasing a memory isn’t necessary. We are just creatures of habit who spend a lifetime trying to change our actions or reactions in hopes of finding happiness or meaning.

In ESSM, the affected characters, Mary, Clem, and Joel, at first don’t seem outwardly harmed. Their personalities are the same, with the same flaws as well as positive traits. Their days go on as usual. As they move forward, we see Joel struggle to hang on to his memories of Clem, even though he wasn’t aware of what was going on. We also must remember Mary, reliving her crush on the doctor and finding her advances being rejected. They will likely live through the same pain again, and there is no way the doctor and his procedure can be held accountable for this. As you watch Joel and Clem restarting their relationship, still attracted to each other, it’s hard not to feel sorry for what will surely come, more pain, confusion, and another break up. They have lost the experiences with each other that may have led them on better paths with more opportunities to learn from their past. They have been changed, a part of them is gone, deleted from their brain, which causes them to be cut off from part of their world. Imagine having an arm removed and having no memory of ever having it. You are still missing that arm and it will affect your life even if you don’t remember having it. In a sense, you are in deprivation of something you should by nature have, and as so, you will miss out on experiences you would have otherwise had. Christopher Grau refers to a’ “voluntary lie by omission, the narrative of your life has been, in part, fictionalized.” He refers to the point of view of utilitarians such as Bentham, Mill, or Sidgwek, who would claim that as long as the decision is, “the right action, one that brings about the most happiness overall, where happiness is understood in terms of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.” But in the case of memory removal, it is unknown if this would be the case in the long run. Look at Mary, who was destroyed when she found out about her procedure. She was deprived (even though it was with her consent) of a correct reflection of the world, slandered and misrepresented not only to herself, but to others.

Deciding between truth or happiness depends on who you are, what you believe, and what philosophy you ascribe to. The problem with the memory issue is that although the procedure happens to you, if affects other people. I hate to assign a moral value to holding on to all of our memories and I can’t agree that it’s our duty to remember. But I do think we should have every opportunity to remember the events, feelings, and consequences of our experiences, all of them.

Edit Post

Christopher Grau

Nietzsche, the Nihilist: Nietzsche had more faith in the natural world than he did in humans. He saw us as having minimal understanding of the earth which we falsely interpreted as having no irregularities and functioning in accordance with what we deemed as true and important. Of course this was based on our egocentric fears and desires along with a ‘language’ we developed based on concepts in our ignorance of the truth. He was considered a nihilist because he claimed that God was dead, but only in the sense that we should not use religion as a moral guide or decide upon our behaviors according to what was promised by a ‘God’ after life on earth. He also felt that religion blocked the truth and gave us excuses to avoid suffering, destruction, chaos, and ecstasy. Instead we should be our own moral compass because there really weren’t any true universal morals. He said, “The secret of realizing the largest productivity and the greatest enjoyment of existence is to live in danger.” We’re all going to die anyway. So let’s drop the false pretenses and quit trying to fool our neighbors, just indulge in the “…visceral, the place where doubts and rebellion grow.” Sounds chaotic and even violent, but definitely a catalyst for change!

Nietzsche, the Anti-nihilist: Nietzsche did believe in faith in oneself, stating that, “…few have it, geniuses (meaning philosophers) can convince skeptics because they are always dissatisfied.” Even reason, he felt, was necessary, so long as it wasn’t based on hiding, misrepresenting, ourselves and others, twisting the truth, and blatant deceit. Our so-called ‘history of the world’, based on the idea that man is over nature, he said was false and needed to be discarded. We had to admit that we were wrong. But it’s very difficult to let go of unfounded ‘truths’ upon which we’ve built nations, boundaries, social, and legal systems. I doubt that Nietzsche had confidence that we could make those changes. Parts of Nietzsche’s writings suggest an anti-nihilistic adherence the concept of permanence. He said, “..humans should be true to the earth.”

We deny God as God: I agree with Nietzsche’s argument denying the existence a ‘God’ or ‘Gods.’ There simple isn’t sufficient proof to substantiate such claims. Whatever proof is written has been based on the words of mere men, and we know how Nietzsche feels about our misuse of language and its false descriptions according to our crazy confidence in stringing words together to constitute ‘reality.’ Some may say they believe in a God, but our history demonstrates that humans really consider themselves to be, individually or collectively, ‘Gods.’ We all have subjective truths and consequent morals that we try to impose on others? Our civilizations been built on what is profitable for the upper caste yet upon the backs of those subjugated masses, not very God-like. Nietzsche made clear his feelings about Christianity when he referred to it as, “the religion of pity,” and I thought his line of reasoning was dead-on. He refers back to the death of Jesus on the cross as he tells us of the suffering created by pity being, “..a loss out of proportion to the magnitude of the cause.” We don’t know the truth about who as actually benefited or been graced by a so-called God, yet millions of Christians who have either been raised in or bought into a belief of the words of the bible, which was written by men! He goes on to explain that Christianity directly denies the law of natural selection, which is the only way we could have evolved, and that this practice could lead to our demise. in Nietzsche’s words, “It (Christian pity) preserves whatever is ripe for destruction.”

Language Falsifies our World: Regarding language created by humans, Nietzsche felt man, “…thought he embodied the highest wisdom concerning things in (mere) words; and, in truth,language is the first movement in all strivings for wisdom.” Man simply made up labels to names things according to ideas and egocentric perspective without understanding their form or true essence. He made the assumption that everything could be described by only that which men saw through their narrow views. Once an object or idea is named, its concept becomes a fixed convention and seeking more truth about it becomes unimportant, curtailing any growth of new knowledge. Nietzsche goes so far as to say that, “Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions.” Each false truth forms a weak base for new concepts which are layered upon it, leading farther and farther away from the truth. This is common in politics whereby people hear lies enough times that they come to accept them as truth. Add fear and false promises to the equation and people will believe things they would never have believed. Hitler knew this well, and Trump uses the same tactic. We’ve come to rely upon metaphors where two unrelated ideas or things are connected by a single characteristic and are in no way based on the true entities they refer to.. They can conjure up pictures or how one idea connects to another idea, but again, if the words used are misleading, a metaphor can also lead one farther away from the truth. If it’s not enough that our words hold minimal truth, we then use them to dissimulate ourselves so that nobody can see who we really are. We mask ourselves with words that represent only what we would like be seen as in order to gain respect or feel valued by others. The worst effect of all is that we have built our sense of reason upon these words that defy the truth and/or hold the wrong essence of a concept or object disregarding changes that may have occurred over time. Nietzsche says, “It dawns upon men that they have propagated a monstrous error in their belief in language,” and he quickly reminds us that it’s too late now. A house built upon a faulty foundation can be torn down and rebuilt, but language is a different animal because it is directly connected to man’s pride.

My oldest brother, Richard, who was a student of Nietzsche, oddly enough used his amazing command of language to falsify his world and justify his miserable existence. Fancying himself a philosopher, he was very sure that he had the intelligence to find truth in life, and that became his sole quest in life. With never-ending cigarettes and jugs of cheap wine, he spent day after day reading and thinking, reading and thinking. I feared conversations with him because he had nothing good to say about anyone. Apparently he knew the intentions of others and he believed that ‘they’ were the source of his problems. Every employer who let him go (because he showed up drunk for work at 9:00am) was an asshole. Friends and family who took him into their homes and finally had to ask him to leave were selfish assholes. He couldn’t understand why they didn’t value intellectual ‘gifts’ which came with his presence; overflowing ashtrays, empty bottles, body odor, and, yuck, the boogers that found homes on the upholstery. That was my introduction to what I thought Nietzsche was all about! However, if Nietzsche were to meet my brother I thin k he’d be embarrassed to call him a loyal follower. I think he would look sat him pathetically and remind him to check out his behavior as ask him if he had any balls. He’d remind him that a life without danger, where you choose not to face your demons is one where you simply accept the “Spirit of gravity,” and fail to ascend and that, “Courage is the best slayer–for in every attack there is sound of triumph.” Courage means taking action, not just sitting with your jug of wine and pointing fingers. He would address him as he did the Dwarf in Zarathustra and dare him to prove he was as strong by biting the head off the of the serpent that inhabited his soul. Nietzsche would remind my brother of the God, Dionysus, and that “..under the charm of the Dionysian not only is the union between man and man reaffirmed, but Nature which become estranged, hostile, or subjugated celebrates one more her reconciliation with her prodigal son, man.”

Nietzsche on Truth: In order to be at peace with other men, one must know what has been established as ‘truth’ by those in power. It follows that truth actually becomes more important than knowledge because it is a tool by which man can maintain a pleasant life where he is likely to survive. Certain concepts are considered valid, truthful, and correct, much like a like a ‘peace treaty’ and “… a uniformly valid and binding designation, is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth.” Nietzsche warns of liars who wrongly use the accepted truth to make something false appear real. He uses the example of a man who states that he is ‘rich’ when according to common standards he would be considered ‘poor.’ Our egos can’t help but try to conceal our flaws and we are driven to use words to falsely present ourselves as more important, be it wealthier, happier, smarter, or more patriotic. Addressing this, Nietzsche believes that man will easily settle for illusions over truth, “If he will not be content with empty husks, he will always exchange truth for illusions.” I sense he was an angry man with few friends due to his lack of respect for our priorities and behavior. I wonder if he, or my brother, ever thought of using their energy and brilliance to enlighten rather than criticize? Seems like a waste to me.

Living as an Artistically Creating Subject: I’ll begin by using a quote of Nietzsche which speaks of the need to break out of the, “.. world which is constructed from it’s own ephemeral products, the concepts,” citing myth and art as two aesthetic activities that may bring this about. I checked several definitions of ‘aestheticism’ related to either art or philosophy and found that it involved a relationship between a subject and an object, usually in the mind, that deviated from the standard reactions, feelings, or emotions. It immediately made me understand why I have certain ‘art’ objects in my home, sometimes choose how to decorate myself, what I read or listen to, and many who I choose to associate with. Each choice is a response to a visual, emotional, or unusual ‘relationship ‘ that I did not seek to find or sought with a specific end in mind. Each captured my attention for reasons I wasn’t quite sure of, there was just, as Nietzsche said, “…an aesthetic relation: I mean a suggestive transference, a stammering translation into a completely foreign tongue- for which…a freely inventive intermediate sphere…is required.” I had no exact words, concepts or history to connect to it, but in the case or art objects, it engaged me as if it were telling me something that nobody else needed to understand. It was outside of my realistic sphere where most feelings or things has specific purposes or filled specific needs. As if the need for the cognitive relationship with it was instantaneously created! It added new ‘vocabulary’ to my life without the need for words or the approval of anyone else. Best of all, I didn’t need to be concerned with if or when the relationship might change, it was free and open-ended.

I have to laugh when I think about the many art classes I took here at City College, always hoping I would find that free spirit in myself that would allow me to create wildly aesthetic pieces. Let’s just say that I found my lack of skill, refusal to practice in earnest, (I just want it done, and perfectly!) and over-trained brain which has the all too ingrained and ancient bad habit of spitting out work to earn grades weren’t anywhere close to engaging with the tools at hand to create anything pleasing. It was such a relief to admit my limitations, all I had to do was look at the messes I made on the canvas, and simply enjoy what others could do. As to the question of whether it a useful way to understand my life, I think it sure beats the option of being an uptight realist without a chance of enjoying life as a limited human. It’s also a better choice than taking existentialism too far and experiencing repetitive failure because you can’t control the world around you. It may retard the degree of humiliating dissimulation one finds necessary in this world if we can learn to accept our unique aesthetic feelings and choices and let others do the same. Rather than taking our own intellect so seriously, our lives might be richer, “..if we could communicate with the gnat, we would learn that he likewise flies through the air with the same solemnity, that he feels the flying center of the universe himself.”

In reading several articles about this film ahd how it realate

Why aren’t Phyllis and Walter satisfied with their lives?

In Double Indemnity, Walter and Phyllis are two lonely people living hum-drum lives with no sense of fulfillment and little to look forward to. Phyllis is nothing more than a trophy wife playing second fiddle to her husband’s daughter from his first wife. After killing his first wife, Phyllis thought that by marrying a man of means she would be the benefactor of his life insurance policy. As it turns out, he names his daughter as his benefactor and she is relegated to being ‘eye candy’ and used as a sex toy. My guess is that any sex in the marriage is robotic and for the sole pleasure of her husband. She feels powerless over her fate. Walter is an insurance salesman whose future is somewhat bleak. He doesn’t have much money, has no relationship, and receives little praise for his work. the characters take themselves very seriously, and it is characterized by shadows, low lights, silhouettes, and moral ambiguity.

What do they want?

Knowing what Walter and Phyllis lack in their lives, leads us to what they want, what they think will bring meaning and happiness into their disillusioned worlds. Phyllis wants to be seen as more than a sex object with an alluring ankle bracelet. She wants her voice to be heard and for it to carry some weight in decisions. She wants the power to determine her own fate and thinks that will come with the acquisition of money. She desires a man to love, satisfy, and respect her, taking her out of her sad darkness and out into the brightness and beauty that has eluded her. Walter is also looking for love, respect, and, of course, great sex, and he believes these can be bought with sufficient money. In addition, he wants, to gain approval from his boss, that stamp of success. As said by the gentleman who walked into the office looking for something, they both want to have access to everything on the ‘upper shelf.’

Is this what a Nihilist world would look like?

No, life in a totally Nihilist world would be much worse than that in Double Indemnity. In fact, I didn’t really consider this to be hard core nihilistic because they did try to find some kind of shallow meaning in their lives and acted as if they felt they were free to determine their own fate. I think a totally nihilistic world at best would be total chaos with destruction to the point of he non-existence of any civility. I imagine tribes fighting tribes to obtain power and goods followed by infighting within the tribes for the same. I remember teaching my second-graders about the dinosaur extinction which occurred when blockage of the sun killed all vegetation, causing the plant eaters to die out, followed by the meat eaters. With humans, it would be more like a sequence of classes of people dying out from the most powerless to those with the greatest power, whether it be physical or financial. Productive relationships would disappear because there would be no moral sense or appreciation of working as teams or being fair to all. Come to think of it, the world would deteriorate to an even worse point given that those people who previously had a GOD to give them a form of faith that held them together would lose their meaning in life and any hope for being with their creator.. Institutions of learning or justice, would cease to exist because there would be no quest for meaning or desire to find balance and equality in society. Life would revert back to a level lower to that of animals, because animals are at least driven by instincts to protect their own. Animals do not have the egos that push humans to gluttonous behavior, unbridled pride, greed of unnecessary things, a lust for sex that isn’t for breeding, or anger that becomes rage for the sake of revenge. We know by watching the daily news that we humans too often either cannot, or choose not to, exercise the will power necessary to engage in enough temperance, patience, charity, humility, or diligence to avoid violence and destruction. I guess intelligence, without “that little man inside us,” becomes a moot point in a nihilistic world.

How do you see nihilism in your life?

I have some nihilist tendencies, the first being that I’m an atheist.

• Albert Camus believed that happiness could be achieved by not only accepting the absurdity of the meaningless cycle of a dull and repetitive lackluster life, but by facing and embracing it with every bit of one’s potential. He was effected by the plight of the factory workers who, like drones, lived lives where their pain and dedication brought no happiness and left them feeling hopeless. In response to this, Camus wrote The Myth of Sisyphus, a scenario with a main character whom I imagine had many of his own characteristics: stubbornness, wisdom, scorn for the Gods, and a passion for life. Sisyphus defied the Gods and refused to accept a life void of meaning, eternally pushing a bolder up a hill only to let gravity pull it back down. A life designed to be, “…exerted toward accomplishing nothing.” But Sisyphus, full of rebellion, refused to give up fighting, declaring that, “There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn,” and his fueled him to become the master of his own fate in several ways. He acknowledged and gladly accepted the fact that it was his own actions that led him to his determine his fate. As such, he had taken that power away from the Gods, placing it in his own hands. He looked at the rock as ‘his rock,’ familiarizing himself with its qualities, and then evaluated his task. Each time he reached the heights, before his descent, Sisyphus enjoyed a feeling of triumph and saw his power as being greater than that of the rock, and in glorious defiance of the Gods.. The rock was NOT his enemy, but an instrument through which he found purpose and kept his passion alive. He then focused on those lucid moments of consciousness when he was aware of both his dominance over and partnership with the rock. It was just part of a cycle in which he had a purpose. He saw that he was accomplishing a limited task within his ability, satisfied that he was working to his full potential, and squarely facing his situation rather than trying to escape it. He felt this was more than the factory workers were able to accomplish, and I think his creator, Camus, wanted to show them a way to find internal happiness where they couldn’t be completely controlled by ‘the man.’ He stated that, “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” He was his own master and had found meaning in his existence without having to use suicide to escape.
• Nowhere in The Myth of Sisyphus did Camus address the option of suicide. In fact, he talked of Sisyphus’ desire to avoid death. But Camus, in his Suicide as a Response to Absurdity seemed very concerned with removing suicide as even a remote consideration. I think he felt an obligation to help lift the constant burden of a fruitless life. To those who didn’t have the religious dogma promising that their misery on earth was to be tolerated as long as they thought they would meet their maker and enjoy a life after this, Camus gave an alternate path to hope and purpose. To those who held onto the hope of being with God, he said,”..it is absurd to hope for some form of continued existence after death given the the latter results in our extinction.” In other words, it’s absurd to live a miserable life in hopes of something happening after death, so get what you can out of life now. So, he purposely avoided having Sisyphus consider either suicide or God as a solution. When asked, “Under what conditions is suicide warranted?” Camus says there is NO condition that warrants it, and reminds us that the act of suicide removes any chance of life, period! There is no soft and fuzzy fairy tale ending, no second chance! He wants us to quit expecting the outside world to provide us with nostalgic props that make us feel touched or even acknowledged by what is outside of us. He warns us not to look for something in an empty vessel that has no capability of offering of love, hope, or happiness. We must create our own happiness and it can only be found when we learn to live with, “the certainty of a crushing fate,” Life guarantees nothing.

I can’t help but agree with Camus’ philosophy and conclusion that Sisyphus is happy. It follows a perfectly rational train of thought and offers hope while deterring the unsatisfactory option of suicide. But, I have a problem with the reality of it being grasped today by all but a few unique or extremely desperate people. Sisyphus was in a confined situation where he had no outside sources. We, on the other hand, live in a world where magic pills, potions, and programs are constantly thrown in our faces as quick solutions to whatever ails us. I think we’ve been taught to look for quick fixes that promise us what we think we lack. Apparently these solutions aren’t working too well because the suicide rate among our youth is staggering. Perhaps it’s because we are not taught to relentlessly pursue happiness or even those skills that may lead to it.

We learn to define happiness by what we see on screens and are taught to cut corners to get our piece of the pie before it’s gone. It begins in preschool when well-meaning teachers find they can only feed the answers to students because they haven’t been trained adequately and end up having to learn on the job. They struggle, go to extra classes, meet with mentors, and finally must admit to themselves they they have no clue about teaching the art of learning. Students who struggle and don’t meet expected timelines, many of them very bright and capable, are either labeled or left behind due to the unreasonable demands put on teachers to produce scores. Those who find the curriculum too easy or boring aren’t challenged because managing the struggling students takes immediate priority. Both students and teachers become victims of a system that doesn’t work. So we produce frustrated people who are understandably disillusioned, rebellious, and unhappy. Again, we look to our screens to find solutions to our crappy lives and are bombarded with all sorts of remedies. We can become more beautiful, thinner, or sexier, make more money and buy better ‘things.’ Of course, there is no shortage of products that offer a way to happiness: pills, drugs, booze, credit cards, vacations with unlimited food and beverages, the perfect girlfriend or husband, health foods, exercise, you name it. We blame and scorn those around us, pick our poison, and continue our miserable lives, not knowing what happiness really looks like or how to get it.

At best, we attempt to follow Sisyphus’ example and find a purpose within our limited lives, one that affords us a bit of satisfaction and keeps us from resorting to suicide. If we’re lucky, we find our rock, make it an ally, and use it to embrace that which haunts us.

My rock is alcoholism. Although it’s not a fate I would chose, like Sisyphus, I have come to know everything I can about it, have developed a healthy respect for it, and fully embrace it rather than looking at it as the enemy. Alcoholism, like Sisyphus’ rock, will always be a part of me and I choose not to escape it or waste my energy fighting it. But unlike Sisyphus, whose strength and relentlessness surpass mine, I am not isolated and can take advantage of outside help. And I do.. After regaining clarity and health and losing the obsession to drink, I was able to determine a place to begin, a plan of what I needed to do. Just as Sisyphus, I examined myself and my surroundings, finding what I needed to give me some sense of satisfaction or bring some meaning to my life. And like him, I found that it was an inside job. Our ‘rocks’ weren’t our problem, it was how we viewed them and allowed them to take away our power.

Sisyphus and I both had to find a level of increased awareness that wasn’t controlled by our ego or dependent on outside sources. We couldn’t assign blame or expect others to approve of us or provide us with what we needed. We accepted the absurdity of our condition, knowing that we had created our own darkness and that, “There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night.” We had been, and still could be, the “Master of his, (our) days.” Exactly how we interact with our ‘rock’ would determine our fate. We could either fight it and inevitably allow it to crush us, or embrace it, find a purposeful relationship with it, and move forward with every ounce of our passion for life reaching, ...”the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks.”