Jean-Paul Sartre : Emotions and my groups up

Group 21 presented on Jean-Paul Sartre on The Emotions: A Phenomenological Sketch. This was actually my group so of course we did awesome. Actually, it was funny; I am terrible at presenting in front of people. I don’t mind talking, but I’m clumsy and lines will be messed up. Overall, I think we did a good a job. We should have prepared for it more, but it ended up just fine. During the skit I was supposed to say, “Do you have any raisins?” and she would respond with no. Then I would ask, “Then how about a date?” I screwed up the line and I’m not too sure if anyone got the reference that date is another fruit, but at the same time I was asking her out. Oh well. 

Jean-Paul Sartre’s two core concepts are freedom and responsibility. I feel like so many times we try to connect morals to the idea of responsibility, but that is not what Sartre is talking about. Sartre is a true believer in freedom, everything you do and everything you are is a choice. And you need to accept the responsibility of the actions that you take from the freedom that you exercise. With this absolute freedom that we have; your whole world could come crashing down on you, and you could still remain happy. You could be beaten up. Your family could have just murdered. You could have been fired from your dream job. The whole time, according to Sartre you have control over your emotions and could then in fact maintain happiness throughout the whole ordeal. 

Talking about the emotions, one thing I wanted to touch on is that according to Sartre these emotions are complete fabrications that we make up in order to avoid responsibility with the real world. We cannot change the world physically all the time to make it a more pleasing place, but we can alter our consciousness with the world. All of Sartre’s ideas sound like the basis for free will. We have so much potential to do anything, but you have responsibility that the actions that we make affect those around us. 

Jean-Paul Sartre Essence and Existence

Group 20 is up to present on Jean-Paul Sartre. Next week my group goes and this is making me nervous, because we also have to present on Jean-Paul Sartre but I feel like we can’t talk about the background of who he is anymore. Anyway the skit that group 20 did was terrible at the start but then God came in at the end and made it amazing.

Thad talked chimed in a couple times to say the main idea of this text was that people are responsible for their actions and our actions affect other people. Thad gave the example of how a train conductor in World War 2 was sending people to their deaths. When the train conductor was asked why did he do nothing to stop this, he said,”There was nothing that I could do”. Jean-Paul Sartre would say that you are removing your own responsibility that affect other people. People try to force you into believing that you have no choices, and that their is no other way. Sartre is a believer in absolute freedom; meaning that you always have a choice. 

Seth told the story of the scorpion and the toad analogy where a scorpion wants to cross a lake and needs the help of the toad to get across. The toad says no at first because the scorpion would sting him and the scorpion replies that he would die if that happens. So the toad agrees, but halfway across the lake the scorpion stings the toad. Before they drown, the toad asks,” Why did you sting me”. The scorpion answers, “It’s my nature”. The moral of the story being that some choice you have no control over because it’s your nature. Sartre would completely disagree with this fable. The major flaw that I see is that the scorpion made it half across the lake without stinging the toad. The scorpion or whatever the case is, can hold back it’s nature and choose their own freedom. 

Martin Heidegger's Ideas on Philosophy

Group 19 presented on Martin Heidegger’s ideas on the value of philosophy. Their skit was basically a fairy tale style book where the moral of the story was that philosophy doesn’t grant any knowledge, but it must work on the person to help them develop.

From the reading and presentation, it felt as if Heidegger was trying to say philosophy is meaningless in the real world. Saying things like “Philosophy cannot be applied directly.” Also, Heidegger states philosophy doesn't directly supply us with anything but it does shape our understanding. It shouldn’t be a foundation, yet it also shouldn't be rejected just because it is useless for certain principles. I almost felt like Heidegger was struggling to say that all the deep philosophical ideas that he has provided shouldn’t be looked at as fact. It’s like he is arguing with the audience to say, “Don’t just accept theses ideas I have written down; just think about them and let them work on you”. 

Thad’s main objective for his students is to have a sincere struggle with the course material. I believe the struggle with the ideas presented is what philosophy is about. I feel like when you read Heidegger’s or any philosopher’s material, you are not supposed to take a stance right away on whether you think their right or wrong. You are meant to struggle with ideas the same way that the author struggled with the idea when they were forming them. This brings me to a question I would like for whoever reads this to answer. When does a question become philosophical versus just a scientific question? Because I often feel like some questions that people feel are philosophical to one person might not be the same for another. What I mean by that is, people don’t struggle with the same questions as everyone else. One person may be very concerned with the afterlife which might lead to an existential crisis that will shape their philosophy, but another person might have no interest in life after death so it wouldn’t really be a philosophical question. 

Dealings with Death

First off, Thad really opened up today about his past and what has led to him being a teacher of Existentialism. Thad was asked at the beginning of the year if he experiences existential crisis everyday. Thad said he does; a really tragic experience happened when he was a kid and his mom and neighbors were murdered, and his father which Thad believes is innocent was blamed for their killings. He asked the class if they would be willing to help him april 13th in a mock classroom that might help him in his crisis. I will definitely be there.

Group 18 started off with their skit which was a sword fight that discussed death. The main topic is Martin Heidegger’s view on death. The group didn’t seem prepared for the presentation, and they looked very nervous. Group 18 felt that Group 17 talked about the same ideas and didn’t need to restate what was already said. While if that was true, they should have edited the presentation a little or went over the material anyway. The way they handled it was unprofessional.

The presentation was looking to be the worst one yet, but then we got to an interesting topic where the group stated everyday we have a brush with death. After that, the conversations went off and people were giving instances in their own life of death being a prominent factor in their lives. Martin Heidegger believes that death is a scary idea that we ignore, but we all eventually have to face it. I believe that death is such a scary thought that our consciousness almost refuses to think about it. Imagine the thought of losing any connection with the world could happen at anytime without warning. People use death as a way to avoid situations, sayings things like that is too dangerous or I can’t do that. People might also take the other route and use death as a reason to do things; for example, doing something really stupid with the excuse that well I will eventually die anyway. Death shouldn’t a reason to do things or not to do things.

Beings - It's Alive!

Group 17 Started off with a skit on Beings which I didn’t quite understand. It was a funny Frankenstein parody which I think was explaining what makes a person truly a person. Martin Heidegger is the existentialist covered this week, and his major influence was from being a part of the Nazi party. The course material was definitely tough to digest this week; one of the toughest readings which I could tell the class had hard time understanding the ideas. Group 17 did an good job at trying to make sense of the madness.

Martin Heidegger’s main idea is understanding what it means to be a being. A main concept that shaped his idea was the new idea of phenomenology. Phenomenology is the philosophical study of consciousness. Group 17 presented the idea that, “Being is to be understood phenomenologically through experience”.  Heidegger’s first step in defining being came with redefining what is human consciousness. Heidegger came up with the term Dasein which in German means “Being there”. Separating Dasein from consciousness was a great way for Heidegger to introduce the key concept of what consciousness is without all the baggage that is carries. I think this is something that Group 17 could have improved in their presentation. Right off the bat, Group 17 says that Dasein is basically consciousness which Heidegger deliberately went out of his way to avoid using the word. 

The other main idea was that of authenticity and individuality. The class had a good discussion, and the big debate was whether more interactions with people made a person more of an individual or less individual. One side argued that the more interactions the person had the more they copied ideas already in the world. The other side argued that that more interactions made a person more diverse and different. I was on the side that more interactions make a person more unique because the more interactions the more choices a person has to make that defines them. 

Logotherapy and Victor Frankl

Group 16 started off with their skit on group therapy that was used to introduce the idea of the way that people go through their lives. One person was just going through the motions, another was just following what others said but was happy with the way things were going, and the last had a major conflict in his life that he overcame by himself. The funny thing and I even asked this is class, “Why would the last person be in a therapy session?” The last person had the ideal life and yet he was in therapy? There must be something else wrong with him.

The author of this section Victor E. Frankl came up with Logotherapy which helps with the existential ideas by helping a person find their meaning in life. Frankl was a holocaust surviver which caused him to have a hard time developing a sense of freedom. By the way, it seems like most existentialist go through some serious traumatic experiences. Anyway, Logotherapy seemed like an interesting way to seek help for depression.

The main thing that I want to discuss is the idea of the existential vacuum that people experience. The existential vacuum is the lack of instinct for what to do, no traditional way tells that person what to do, and sometimes this causes them not do anything. From this, people enter existential boredom where they think life is meaningless. Many people are afraid of the idea of living forever because of this existential boredom. People like to give excuses like family and friends will eventual die, and I will eventually lose all will to live… Those things happen regardless of how long a person lives. Professional athletes can have their life dreams taken away from injuries and many family members and friends will die in our lifetimes, but that does mean that you can not find meaning in life. Even if the whole world appears to be falling apart and nothing seems to matter, that doesn’t mean you should just give up. Just get back on your feet and search for a new calling in life, and I’m sure you’ll find it.

Tragic Sense of Life

Group 15 up to bat, discussing Miguel de Unamuno’s idea on the Tragic Sense of Life. The main idea being that it is possible to live with contradictions; the biggest one being that we have this great sense of living even though knowing that you will eventually die. 

Unamuno believed that Passion and Commitment is more important than reason and rationality. Unamuno is all about action. Passion and commitment sounds more worthwhile, many people spend their entire lives looking for something to be passionate about, and probably many more people would use reason and use rationality to convince themselves that the things they are passionate about aren’t worth doing. My dad used to be one of the best bowlers in New Jersey and even has some tournament rings to prove it. He ended up getting a job instead of pursing the bowling career because his parents wanted him to get an actual job. Having said that, reason and rationality keeps us safe, but passion and commitment gives us happiness.Thad redirected the class several times saying that Unamuno believes the ethical person goes with his heart. The desires that you want are the right choices.

A quick remark on the lecture, the presentation was very nicely executed; a lot of polish on the little things. Most of Group 15 dressed in nice collared shirts with ties, and I believe is the first group to do a skit with no script. That alone showed that they put a lot time into preparing a good presentation. Thad had to redirect the class discussion a few times to the real meaning which I feel we never really hit on. The class got off topic towards the end as people were using confusing metaphors that weren’t connecting with the material. In closing, I feel like the group was very prepared to teach but it was on the wrong subject.