philosophy

Existentialism: Part 2

by C. P. Lawrence

Part II: Existentialism and Functional Order

In this section, we dig a little deeper into existentialism. Remember, I am proposing that existentialism is our new foundation for moral order, which is not really a moral order as much as it is a functional order. Let me explain. 

Let’s start with existentialism’s obsession with individual choice. Choice … the choices we make … how we live our lives through choices … all of these are extremely important to existentialism. When we choose, we do so through our own actions, which are matters of power according to Foucault. To choose involves deliberating and, in most instances, our deliberations will only involve those things that we control. One never deliberates over time or gravity. Why? Simple, over those things we have no control. We will only deliberate over individual choices that we can control, which, by their nature, directly affect us, which I am labelling as functional.  

Inside this functional order (my phrase) the choices we make, which we view as moral (even though they are functional), we can and will control. These choices range from the concrete, i.e., where to work, to the abstract, i.e., what to believe. While these choices seemingly look and feel different, they are not. They are all rooted in who we are, and they are all choices that we can control. Therefore, by being in our control, these choices cannot be moral; they can only functional. 

These choices range from political beliefs to scientific beliefs to teleological beliefs; the choices themselves are not good or bad but they do impact us in ways that create and develop us. Let’s not be too hasty as this can also apply to moral order as well. We can turn authentic moral order into functional order in the same manner. The big issue here is operant conditioning. We can, in essence, turn ourselves into one of Pavlov’s dogs, but we will only do this if we worship our individuality and our individual choices, which is what existentialism preaches and pushes us to do.

This is the new moral order is really a functional order. Why? It is really quite simple. We will tend to choose our choices over people. The choice sits at the heart of existentialism, and it is worshiped as if it was a god. When we do this, we are actually conditioning ourselves to worship ourselves and our choices. We think thoughts like … my choices are right. My beliefs are right. My party is right. It’s the other guy who is wrong. There is just one small problem … being right every time is statistically impossible and yet, there will be some who will still insist that their choices are always right, but do not be too hard on these people. Why? Because we are these people! We all do this, especially now, because this is the world in which we live and it is the world in which we have been living in for many years. We are all Pavlov’s dogs! So, how do we deal with this? Well, that is for another time and another post. Remember, thinking matters! 

Existentialism: Part 1

by C. P. Lawrence

Existentialism: The Current Moral Order, Part 1

Are you anxious about the world in which you live? You are not alone. It seems to be all the rage these days. The media bombards us with negative ideas like global warming, melting glaciers, terrorism and global conflicts. They tell us that these things are happening for the first time in our history … that we are the reason for them. Some defy logic while others defy science and yet all are to be accepted without question. Whether they are right or wrong, is for another time, but the facts are that there is little positive in our news these days and even less in our world, at least according to those who are supposed to know these things. Why? 

This begins a series of post that will attempt to make sense of the world in which we live because it is a different world than the one in which I was raised as a child. It seems to me that the change that has taken place over the last ten years is radically different than other cultural change over a similar time frame. I, and I am sure all of you, just don’t know who to believe these days. Who do we trust? The media … the government … medicine … science … the church … all have given us reasons to doubt them, but is it the institutions themselves or is it something else? I think it is something else. I think something has changed in who we are and in the world in which we live. 

My theory begins with our current state, which is this, we live in a world currently dominated by existentialism, which has replaced Christian morality as the foundation for all thought and feeling. It is a stark contrast to the Christian morality or the Christian faith of the past, but in a sense, it is also similar in that it is every bit faith itself in that it is most difficult to explain in tangible terms. In this series, I will try to explain it in ways that we all have experienced to come to a better understanding.  

Most existentialists believe it (existentialism) cannot be explained; it can only be lived. As far as philosophies go, it is one that bases conduct on a belief that must be chosen as an act of faith, due to the belief that no objective moral order exists, independently of or external to human beings. There is no school of thought, no statement of belief nor is there a set of core values to follow. We, human beings, are morality. Our souls, feelings and ideas are to serve us as our own morality. Everyone must live in a way that affirms their beliefs in an authentic way that is rooted in who they are as their own human being. Authenticity is the objective, but it is different for each person. It is a bit like throwing mud at the wall if you will. What sticks today may not stick tomorrow or even be there and every wall is different. 

Existentialism is obsessed with individuality and how we choose to live as individuals. It seeks to reinforce our individuality, which seems positive, but in that individuality, we give up commonality and true community. If you are wondering what’s missing … wonder no more, it is community. It is missing in government, medicine, science, academia … and the list goes on and on. Republicans cannot mix with Democrats or risk losing the next election. Liberals cannot mix with conservatives; Christians cannot mix with atheists … the divide is wide and there are seemingly no planks to bridge the gap. Existentialism has come along and pronounced the gaps as good and given everyone their own island.  

There are many issues but the larger more egregious one, for me, is the thought existentialism produces. It is not higher categorical thought, nor does it have anything to do with dialectic thought, for which so many philosophers advocate or at least used to advocate. Existentialism just wants you to exist in the moment; it believes it is the moment that is the best means of living authentically. To live in the moment is to live for yourself, your choices and your desires. Thinking of others is not condemned but it is not advocated either. If it is authentic for you, great, but if it is not authentic for you, then that too is fine. There is no shame or guilt in this world. There is no personal responsibility nor is there fault. This is the world in which we live and it affects all of us. 

In a very non-existential way, I would love to hear all of your thoughts, especially those that are different. I still believe in a dialectic way of thinking which is why I am putting my thesis out there for all to see. The only way to confirm it as valid is to measure it against an antithesis or two, which are comments and ideas that are different. This is higher categorical thought and why it matters!    

Do We Still Have Common Sense?

by C. P. Lawrence
Common Sense sign card

The other day, in the middle of a conversation, the idea of common sense was presented as something all but gone in our culture. The subject came and went too quickly. It was only after, upon reflection of the conversation, that it came to my mind, and I couldn’t dismiss it. It stayed with me, prompting me to do a little digging as to its origins and to its current reality.

Let’s establish, first, that common sense is not a liberal or a conservative mindset. It is not a particular worldview or political position. I think many of us look at the absence of common sense as positional; to have it one must hold a certain position, usually a position that aligns with our position. That is not common sense.  

The origin of the phrase is found with a school of philosophy, which is said to hold the notion that we should begin our thinking with the fixed beliefs of mankind and move on from there. This phrase or notion, whatever you want to call it, was first penned by Aristotle who believed that all living beings have nourishing souls, but it was only human beings who possessed a rational soul. He believed it was only this rational soul that perceived. Aristotle proposed that every act of perception involved a modification of one of the five senses that then interacted with one’s entire being, when engaged with one of the fixed beliefs associated with all human beings.

Aristotle saw one’s perception as provinces of sensation and believed that human beings perceive by means of difference between the polar extremes contained within each sense. For example, he saw these provinces of sensation as a “kind of mean” between two extremes as in the difference between soft and loud in sound or bitter and sweet in taste. His inference was that human beings perceive by means of difference, but he believed that one sense cannot perceive itself. According to a host of theorists, Aristotle speculated that there must be an additional sense or a “common sense” that coordinated the other senses. He suggested that this “common sense” instituted a perception that is common to all the other senses yet one condensable to none of them. 

Most theorists agree that this common sense, referenced by Aristotle, was not a sixth sense or an additional sense; instead, it was more a sense of difference or a unity of the senses that manifests together when considering something of significance, a fixed belief, if you will, engaging all five senses, which in turn act collectively on one’s being. 

Mention common sense today and most default to the ideas of practical judgement and social awareness as both relate to an individual being living in a world with all beings, but there is a deeper implication … the one with which we started. Do most still have common sense? Or is there still a need for common sense? Both questions have implications socially and culturally. 

First, are there any commonly accepted fixed beliefs to which almost everyone, even in their differences, agree or acknowledge? It is thought that agreement or acknowledgement of these fixed beliefs manifest common sense but if there are a dwindling number of fixed beliefs … what happens to common sense? I am proposing that culturally there is indeed a diminishing number of commonly accepted fixed beliefs but that is due to all individual beliefs being given positions of acceptability. The question not yet answered is this one: does the acceptance of all individual beliefs still produce common sense in the same way a communal acceptance of a fixed belief did in the past?  

When was the last time you heard common sense referenced? I can’t say that I have heard the phrase in quite some time. As I look out at our world, I see an absence of common sense but does anyone else? Common sense seems, to me, to be an individual trait produced by communal membership. Does the absence of common sense signal an absence of community or an absence of something else? I am thinking of submission or empathy, two areas I see less of these days. 

The idea of common sense was the sense that kept you “in the middle of the road,” if you will, kept you connected with all others with your differences intact. It was this “common” amid all your differences that you shared with your fellow men and women in ways of connect-ability. It connected you with others and allowed you to keep your differences while connecting with others who were themselves different. It was “common sense” that tolerated individual differences for the sake of the collective whole. Over time, some individual differences became acceptable to our collective common sense, but what happens when all differences are given equal status of acceptability? Well, first, we lose the need for common sense, and second, I am not entirely sure, but my sense is that we lose something important … something communal … something distinctly human.    

I would love to hear your thoughts? Hit the comment section with them because thinking matters!