Aura Ciobotaru lauraacum@yahoo

1. Existentialist views- consequences analysis and the problem of a sense of existence Aura Ciobotaru lauraacum@yahoo.com

2. Existentialist views -consequences analysis and the problem of a sense of existence

3. Introduction • In this paper I want to present shortly some different existentialistic views, in their main ideas. I want to identify the common assumptions, and to analyse the consequences of one or other view. In the end, I want to compare them, and make some conclusions. • I also want to sustain one of those points of views, because of its consequences on human life and need of sense. • First I will present Sartre’s view on freedom and being- for- itself, as opposed to being- in- itself, and his portrait of the person which chooses violence and destruction as an attitude towards the facticity and inexistence of necessary truths in the external world. But in the end, he admits a possible different solution. • Then, I will analyse Nietzsche’s idea of suverainity of the powerfull will, with its reasons and consequences; I will present also his theme of eternal return, as passing Schopenhauer’s pesimistic view on life, as a solution. I will make many interrogations on his assumptions on his life perspective. • The answers to these interrogations, I will search in Dostoievski’s novels, “Crime and Punsishment” and “Karamazov Brothers”, where the supremacy principle is largely argued, with reference to concrete situations and characters. In the end, it is rejected.

4. Existentialism • Existentialism starts with some common assumptions, as: we did not choose to live, but we live, we are lonely and free with not excuses, with lack of other people in our most significant life situations, we will day, unexpectedly, and we do not find in this world a superior significance or an undoubtable truth. • On these problems, authors and philosophers found some perspectives that they addopted: the conflict, the will to power, as construction or destruction of an world, bad faith, or moral responsibility, faith, as free choices, even without necessary moral truths. • Any of those view has the same degree of sustainability, even any of them has different consequences and significance in our lives.

5. 1. Jean Paul Sartre’s main existentialist ideas One of the founders of the existentialism is Jean Paul Sartre a. Theory The existence is placed between "the nothing“, “being in-itself" and “being for-itself“. This is the freedom. -Being in itself refers to things and to others, which we can give a determination -Being for itself brings at light the incompleteness and at the same time freedom of human existence. • Presence for itself, is followed of absurd and contingence, as existence is opposite to necessity.

6. b. The problem • Individuals feel abandoned, with a sense of anger at the universe. • -Anger and despair lead to a tendency to embrace "Bad Faith." • -Bad Faith represents a self-deception in which the person views self as an object, not as a person with free will. • Violent type is a form of bad faith, which bases on the possesion of the world, which offers him continuous new things needed to be destroyed. • Violent person believes in an evil world with an evil will. • -Generosity itself is nothing else than a craze to possess. • In this view, people had lost the sense. It misses them.

7. c. The solution of Sartre • Sartre’s solution is a moral existentialist approach, opposed to the one of enjoying the possession of this world or things, in any possible sense. • We are free to avoid bad faith and to create our own nature and values. • The despair and rebellion we feel for the missing of external sources of value, are the way to find the value within. That value is invulnerable.

8. 2. The existentialism of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer • a. Problem: • Schopenhauer founds they are only two alternatives to existence: boring or suffering. • Nietzsche passes Schopenhauer, with his concept of will to live and eternal return. • Schopenhauer’s two alternatives represents an aesthetic stage, how Kierkegaard would say. • In this stage, either individuals are concerned with only experiences, searching to accomplish their wishes and pleasures, which leads to suffering, or with collecting abstract data, as the pure intellectual-type which observes world in a detached objective manner. • The Schopenhauer solution: ‘willing must become not-willing’. (ibid.) • This solution is much closer to death and non-existence. • Nietzsche’s solution: the‘will backwards’- the full assumption of the creative powers of the will.

9. b. The solution of Nietzsche • Nietzsche’s “love fate” means to be able to choose in the completeness of present moment, above past and future, and be able to conclude that our life is worth living over and over again. • This is an more optimistic solution to the problem of existence. • On the ‘gateway’ described in Zarathustra, is the Moment from which we can consider: ‘my life is worth living again and again and such is my will’.

10. Nietzsche discusses separately or connected to the love of fate, on “the will to power”. Will to power is connected and leads to the idea of the supremacy of the powerful will. Assumptions: Nietzsche starts with the idea that there are not necessary moral truths, as, generally there can not exist an absolute truth. The world itself is a will to power. We can not really care about our fellows, we may love better the one which is further. Everyone has their world and their will. Our worlds are separated one with another. The love for our fellows is just a lye, a general concept, which hides our incapacity to really love any certain particular individual. So, the result on which we may arrive, is that life for every individual is will to his own power. This is the expression of an attitude towards a world as Nietzsche describes it. Problem: We arrive at one problem here. In this context, the will to power becomes the will for the supremacy. 3.1. Nietzsche’s will to powerand assumptions

11. 3.2. Dostoievsky and the consequences of the will to power a. The problem of will to power • The idea of the will to power on Nietzsche, Dostoievski also analyses in his writings. He explores in his writings the same problems, to one point, with ones of Nietzsche. Common problems : the impossibility to love our fellows, or to found a moral in the absence of necessary and a priori moral truths. So, if nothing is truth, then everything is allowed. But where does this leads? In Crime and Punishment, it is the idea of Raskolnikov, and in The Brothers Karamazov, is that of Ivan- that the powerful one, has the right to be above the others, and to have the supremacy on them. • Starting from the same problems, still, Dostoievski and Nietzsche arrive to different solutions.

12. b. The idea of will to power analysis • Dostoievski analyses the principle of supremacy, and its consequences, that are negative. They are negative for the person who tries to apply them. • In his novel, Crime and punishment, he starts from a case that illustrates the injustice of a social norm. • The denial of this norm by the hero of the novel, and the wish to change an unfair world order leads him to the idea to apply the supremacy principle. • But how can be the supremacy principle applied? • Is it possible to change a world, with an idea? • Or, the new world, like the old one, are both parts of the same world- the real one? And then, the powerful one isn’t just part of the same world with the others? • “Real” isn’t just our interpretation, which stays upon our own expectations, wishes and needs, isn’t this what Nietzsche himself says? • Nietzsche himself can be interpreted by his own conception and perspective of world.

13. c. The consequences of will to power • Raskolnikov kills in the name of an idea, and as an exponent of Good. • He wants to make a better world order. • But his act, the crime, makes him an exponent of Evil. • This bounds him on the old world, in which he is now just an usual killer. • Much more, being in the situations to make non-deliberated acts, he fails to apply his idea, he looses his basic connections with the world. • He did not succeed, after all, to make a new world.

14. Conclusions After all, isn’t there the idea of the supremacy only the wish to deny an world that never was the one we wished, more then the will to make a new world? • Isn’t it this idea and trying just the expression of a failure to ever have that world that we would have wished, but never was real? • Maybe this is the reason for which people wish the power. Because that world they would have wished, never was and will never be. • Maybe wish to change the world or change something in it, is not the right way. • Which is, than, the right way to act and to be in such an world, which every existentialist philosopher seems to conceived in a similar way?

15. Solutions • Maybe it is from inside that we can value the world and other people. • The right way is to live our live with the faith that the source of our value can only be internal. • And this gives value to the world. • In consequences, we must act moral, by expressing our free will and capacity to create and project sense in the world, according to Sartre, by avoiding bad faith and honoring the responsibility we have to create our own nature and values.  The despair and rebellion we feel at the loss of our external sources of value are the necessary price of a greater value and happiness that comes from within, or the punishment for having wanted that the value and sense having been in the world, in the outside.

16. The choice • One might imagine that if one could face one's death, face the impossibility of getting any value from any external accomplishments, and still find value within oneself, that value would be invulnerable.  It could never be taken away.  • So, authenticity is only right solution, and then will come the value that we projected to the world, which now changes, the same world which wasn’t have a given meaning, and no meaning, before. • First, in choosing our own human nature, according to Sartre, we choose human nature for all humans.  Hence, we must choose courses of action that we would wish all humans to take. In choosing for ourselves, we choose for all men.   • This is what finally concludes Sartre, and Dostoievski- by Dmitri’s choice in the end, by the solution of general assumed moral responsibillity, with the price that it is. • Freedom means we are free to create: value, sense, for us, into the world and for all others people.