Old Existential Web Jockey

This page is about one of the web master’s core psychologies: Being Existential.

What is it to be existential?  In my humble opinion (slang: IMHO), it is something that comes about in a person’s experience of and with the word, which can’t be helped.  Mentioned on the main “About” page, is that part of the impetus for this website was a mentor saying he is a “closet philosopher.”  I could very easily peg myself that way, as I think and act on my thoughts in a very philosophical fashion.

That doesn’t answer the question.  The question on what it is to be “existential” is a bit hard to answer.  You can read a definition on Wikipedia (click here for the link), but this doesn’t quite describe it.  As noted, to be existential, or even philosophical in nature, is at a person’s core.  I think it is either built-in at birth, or through experience and personal development.  It does not mean that I know about every philosopher’s teachings in history, or the history of philosophy.  What it means is that I contemplate the nature of exactly this … the ambiguity of attempting to explain something complex.

A quote from Wikipedia’s Intro:

Walter Kaufmann described existentialism as “The refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever, and especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy as superficial, academic, and remote from life”.

Kaufmann, Walter – Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, 1975, 12.

For a very basic example, and very shallow at that:  “What is the meaning of life?” Some people have an answer.  I have mine.  Mine is very simple:  “Life is what you make it.” Others’ can’t fathom this question in the least, or stumble about attempting to explain how they feel, or attempt to find the words for their expression in answering the question.  It is a deep-rooted, complex question, full of ambiguity, as well as social considerations.  My answer wouldn’t cut it for some, and for those that would peg it as determinism (i.e. dislike my answer as not believing in fate via making my life the way I want it to be, whereas they see from a different perspective), could be wholly wrong, and that I do believe in fate, but that life is what you make of that which isn’t pre-determined.

Even in attempting to explain this, I’ve probably confused some who will read this.  Don’t let it confuse you too much, the rabbit hole gets deeper & deeper …

For example:

You ask the “life” question above, but you also question the nature of that question, “Why am I asking myself this?”  Better yet, you attempt to fathom the sheer number of individualistic responses, along with the reason(s) for your own response to the question: “Why am I answering such & such question this way?”  “What does that mean or say about me (in relation to … open ended comparison), to ask this question of me, or others?”

For me, existentialism is a wide-ranging, contemplative exercise, similar to meditation, which I find to be at the core of my person.  It’s not something I’ve just simply adopted.  It is most definitely something I believe is built-in at my core personality level and inherent psychology.  I feel like it’s always been there, and all it took were the right stimuli throughout my developmental life (going and looking forward, not just in the past) for it to come to the surface.  Somehow, I also feel and believe that it is in everyone, and that everyone might see it during their lifetime (and most definitely, not everyone does, nor is capable).

As a tertiary note to the above, I believe that existentialism is one of a few gateways to a form of enlightenment, which can help lead to the pinnacle of Maslow’s pyramid: “Self Actualization.”  (Not everyone makes it to this peak in their developmental life.)

I don’t find being existential to be purely the “Wikipedia” definition of being a throw-back from “normal” philosophy.  I don’t like being pegged into a hole, in terms of thought. I’m not a “rationalist,” “realist,” or “empiricist” in terms of philosophical underpinnings.  Who likes being pegged into one hole and being told to stay there?  Or find out later that they jumped-ship and went with another method of thought?  As in economics and declaring a recession, not doing so until after it’s over because you don’t know what the future holds, you don’t know until near the end of your life that you were on some thought-bandwagon, or another (as the future defines what happened in the past).  (Who writes history?)  In contemplating this, you’ll find it in just about any history class in thinking about the from outside of the raw material you’re supposed to absorb for the class.  In any case or way you look at determinism, or deterministic behavior and actions, categorically attempting to peg something in that fashion, attempting to find a core principle with which to grasp and move forward, you can always move further down the rabbit hole questioning the core meaning of the initial question, no?

Just to be perfectly clear in terms of trying to peg something in a hole, let me draw a close parallel:  racism, bigotry, hatred and bias, and any degree of subsequent discrimination.

Obviously I’ll have some opinionated soul come and knock down my contact-form door saying I’m wrong … rather than use rhetoric to tell you you’re going to be wrong for doing so … please do so and lets have a discussion on one versus another, as below …

In a conversation I had with a purported friend, I drew a parallel between 1+1=2, and 1+1=1.  Obviously the latter is “technically” incorrect.  If you look at programming a modern computer system, you can tell a computer that 1+1=1, and be a “valid” rule.  However, it would be in that programmer’s best interest to map this known difference to the reality of the world in which most people live:  If you ask just about anyone (aside from the truly existential existentialists who will question the question), ‘What is 1+1?’, your answer is almost immediately going to be ‘2!’  Within in this conceptual framework of developing a new rule, it is the responsibility of the (good) programmer to note this within the program.  In-so-far is the programmed program goes, 1+1=1, is “valid.”  In-so-far as standard social logic goes, it is “invalid,” violating basic rules of logic as we know them.  If the programmer wrote 1|1=1 (1 or 1 = 1), this would technically be valid in both for both considerations (where + equates to “and”).  But why couldn’t one and one be one?  Both are one, and one is only one, therefore one.  (There is an intentionally built-in fallacy to this argument, just to note for the logician’s reference.)  In contemplating this, someone who goes strictly by a set of rules, such as a logician, could be thrown through a loop.

In simpler terms, you can define a set of rules for a system, which then answers those questions based on “the rules.”  But are those rules correct?  They would only be “correct” if there was also another rule to define degree of accuracy pertaining to relationships between “rules.”

Existentialism extends into the military as well.  Those hard-nosed, do-as-your-told bureaucrats live a very existential life, at least in boot camp.  For example, a drill sergeant asks a new recruit what 1+1 equals.  The recruit answers “2.”  Wrong answer, drop and give me 100.  The next time around, the recruit answers with “1.”  Wrong answer, drop and give me 100.  The next time around, the recruit answers with whatever previous answer the drill sergeant gave the recruit.  WRONG, drop and give me 100.  The next time the sergeant asks his special project recruit, the answer is: “SIR, whatever you need it to be, SIR!”  WRONG, drop and give me 100.  The sergeant gives him the correct answer: “2.”  The whole point in this inane exchange being to break-down what the recruit knew coming in, and re-programming him to be a dumb, do-as-your-told, don’t-question-me-or-anything, jar-head for the military.

That about sums it up.  I may optionally shorten or lengthen this, my, explanation of existentialism as I feel, see and live it, since of course this is my website …

Existentialism is questioning the question, or the nature of the question, not neglecting to recursion into the second tier/degree, and further, seeking the same as any old standard philosophy seeks: meaning & truth.

Oh, and on a side note, one of my first words was: “Why?” How’s that for (existential) meaning.

And out of many years in this questioning mode, I needed something to reign-in the madness that can come from incessantly questioning something that doesn’t need to be incessantly questioned for fear of madness:

Accept Nothing,
But Your Own Inferences
Question Everything,
Except Your Own Faith.
Does Not Mean,
Deny All.
Find,
Your Own,
Truth.

Disclaimer: This quote is not directly attributed to any one source, but is an amalgamation of several of similar nature.