Existentialism - Revision Notes

There is no point to anything. There is no right or wrong, no moral compass, it is all about choice. Choice is crucial to the existentialist point of view. It is the brave decision to do something even though it is utterly pointless. Existentialism is the agent for political change.

NIETZSCHE-
“God is dead and we have killed him” – this marks the end of certainty.
We are faced with a crisis and need something else to sustain us. Nietzsche thinks this crisis is a good thing because it means complete freedom!
It gives us the freedom to find value for ourselves as there is no hierarchy to tell us what is right or wrong. 

Our ships can at last be put out to sea in the face of every danger.
Human nature is not universal; people’s natures are different so they have different moralities. The Ubermensch overcomes what has so far defined us. The Ubermensch carves his own place in the world according to his will. The Ubermensch will define himself and ignore the rules.

HEIDEGGER-
Claims he isn’t an existentialist but is regarded as the father of existentialism.
Interested in what it means to exist and the problems of human life. What is being? He responds to this with “Dasein” (Being in the world).
Mainly attacks DESCARTES and his Cartesian dualism (mind and body). Heidegger thinks this is nonsense. How would these two things interact if my mind is one thing and my body another? How would I control my body and interact with the world?
Instead of consciousness, Heidegger simply talks about Dasein. This is our interaction with the world,  it denotes a certain amount of engagement. For Dasein to exist it must exist in the world, there is no Dasein without the world.
All we are is our interaction with the world, and we are defined by our choices. If you make and face your decisions then you are living an authentic life. If you follow social constructs then you are living an unauthentic life, you are a slave. You should not be defined by your facticity (your past).
We are thrown into the world, it is nothing but blind luck. There is no reason to it. You can re-create yourself, for existentialism your potential is just as important as where you are now.

SARTRE-
Existence precedes essence. We create our own purpose.
There is no guiding spirit, no teleological driving force, stuff just happens, good and bad, without reason. Heidegger’s existentialism is right wing and Sartre’s is much more left.
The life of a person is not determined in advance. The only thing I cannot escape  is my right to choose. This is frightening so people try to avoid this which is “bad faith”. We are not defined, we define ourselves.
A table is a table because it has an essence, human beings have no essence, there is no one way it has to be, as it is possible for us to change or reflect on our behaviour.

Existentialism is the reaction to the realisation there is no reason to anything.

Logic and Mathematics - Revision Notes

Natural Numbers=Words used to count things

3 Basic Approaches to Number:
1) They are natural and can be empirically observed (MILL)
2) They are institutions of a perfect and harmonic platonic world (PYTHAGORAS, DESCARTES)
3) They are abstract logical objects, constructed purely from syntax (FREGE)

1) Numerical Naturalism:
Stone age tribes appear to be able to judge simple empirical plurality. “one thing”, “more than one thing”, “lots of things” are all the numbers they need. If you walk into a room and see one person you don’t physically count that one person, you can just categorise it in terms of plurality. Most people can get up to six or even seven before they physically would have to count how many people there are.  A large number like 7,246 is just a predicate symbol of more basic symbols, organised according to known syntax.  Realistically you would just say “there are a lot of people” or “the room is full”.
MILL went beyond his predecessors claiming that not only all science, but also all mathematics is derived from experience. The definition of each number contains the assertion of a physical fact. Every number (2, 3, 4 etc.) denotes physical phenomena and connotes a physical property of that phenomena. E.g. “two” denotes a pair of things, and connotes what makes them pairs. Two apples are physically distinguishable from three apples. They are a different visible and tangible phenomenon.

Mill doesn’t make it clear exactly what the property is that is connoted by the name of a number, and Mill also admits that the mind has some difficulty distinguished between 103 apples and 104 apples.

2) Pythagoreanism/Platonism:
Prime numbers are pre-existing, eternal, supernatural forms.  They are necessary preconditions for consciousness. This goes against KANT’S theory “existence is not a predicate”, for Platonism existence is a predicate of numbers.  Prime numbers exist in a non-human dimension, just like the perfect form of an object exists in the realm of the forms. These things are eternally true.
There is a special religious significance to the number three. Three is the magic number.  Rule of thirds, three part drama, three chord triad etc.
PYTHAGORAS and all the Greeks only regarded plurals as natural numbers, so began counting with two. “One” and “not one” were different logical categories. FREGE later points out this can cause a problem in logic, “there is no one on the road” does not mean the road is empty.

PROBLEM OF NOTHING AND ZERO – Introduction of zero came from India after the fall of Rome.  This is difficult because zero=nothing=something. This falls under ARISTOTLE’S law of contradiction. LEIBNIZ solves this law of contradiction by stating that an object can contain its own negation. Modern philosophers of mathematics have now asserted that zero is in fact a natural number.

3) Numbers as Logical Objects:
The problem of nothing and zero remained unsolved for 1000 years until FREGE.
He links logic and arithmetic in an overall system of philosophy of language. He attempted to demonstrate the logical basis for numbers therefore refuting Platonism. He also rejected MILL’S numerical empiricism, you cannot find zero in nature.
FREGE’S method:
Axiom= all things that are identical are equal to themselves (definitional, a priori, deductive truth).
- All things which are pairs are identical to other pairs.
- We assign a nominal symbol to this class of pairs (e.g. two)
- “One” is the class of all things not associated with other things.
- “Zero” is the class of all possible objects that are not equal to themselves.  “Null class”
- Therefore “zero” is defined into existence as a logical object.

Phenomenology and Existentialism - Seminar Paper

Kant first marks the departure from Descartes’ metaphysical philosophy by stating that “existence is not a predicate of consciousness”, it is a pre-condition of consciousness. Consciousness is not a proof of existence, consciousness just “is”, it doesn’t cause anything and isn’t caused by anything. To ask “how does consciousness arise?” is a stupid question, how could there not be consciousness? You cannot stand outside of consciousness. Consciousness is not individual, there is no “I” as in “I think therefore I am”, Descartes’ transcendent ego no longer works as a theory.

Like Freud, Husserl was Jewish, and he also attended lectures in Vienna. He too fell subject to Nazi anti-Semitism having his books burnt by German troops in 1939.
Husserl was greatly influenced by Franz Brentano who tried to relate Aristotelian philosophy of mind to modern experiment. Brentano’s publication: “psychology from an empirical standpoint” stated that the data of consciousness comes in two kinds: physical (colours and smells) and mental phenomena (thoughts which have content or are about an imminent object).

Husserl focused his philosophical approach on mathematics and his first publication was the “philosophy of arithmetic”. Here he tried to explain that our numerical concepts were originated in mental acts. However, because of his desire to connect mathematics and psychology, he ended up drawing some undesirable conclusions, such as denying that one and zero were numbers. Frege criticised this publication stating that the mental events that are private to the individual could not be the foundation of mathematics as that is public and is the same for everyone. After much criticism, Husserl abandoned this idea.

The beginning of the twentieth century marked the start of continental traditions and saw many philosophers making the distinction between logic and psychology. Husserl was no different. In his publication “logical investigations” he argued that logic cannot be derived from psychology, and that psychology is philosophy’s rightful home. Sciences and logic require factual enquiry. However Husserl took his theories further by stating that what is characteristic of mental phenomena is that they are directed to objects. “I think OF you” “I worry ABOUT my degree” the words “of” and “about” indicate intentionality. There are two things that are essential for thought: that it has content and a possessor. For example “I think of a cat”. The cat is the content and I am the possessor. So when talking about mental phenomena the three big things are the content, the possessor, and its intentionality. Many other people may also think of a cat which Husserl explained by saying that these other mental acts belong to the same species. The concept (a cat) is just the species to which all of these acts belong.

After drawing a distinction between psychology and logic, Husserl proceeded to go further and draw a distinction between psychology and epistemology, doing so through the new discipline of “phenomenology”. Phenomenology was developed in the beginning of the twentieth century by Husserl and a group of philosophers at Munich, who coined the phrase “phenomenological movement”. The aim of phenomenology is the study of immediate items of consciousness, without referring to what that consciousness might tell us about the extra-mental world. So basically its aim is to study consciousness as a thing in itself, in a purely logical way, and to avoid any metaphysical ideas. For Husserl it makes no difference whether the concept you have is of a real thing or a hallucination because the intentionality of you thought (e.g. the OF or the ABOUT) is exactly the same regardless of whether it’s about a cat or a unicorn. Husserl gave the example that “I think of Jupiter as I think of Bismarck”, Husserl may never have seen Jupiter but that doesn’t mean he can’t have the concept of it, as his intentionality is the same.

 In his publication Husserl left open the possibility that there may be realities of non-phenomenal objects, but such objects are to be no concern of the philosopher.  He states that this is because we can only speculate about the external world. Husserl makes the distinction between imminent perception and transcendent perception. Imminent perception is my immediate acquaintance with my own mental thoughts and is the basis of phenomenology. Transcendent perception is my perception of my own past actions and mental states, and of the contents of other people’s minds. Imminent perception is self-evident whereas transcendent perception is fallible as it leaves room for interpretation and error. Husserl stated that only consciousness has “absolute being”, all other forms of being depend on consciousness for their existence. He uses the same concept to describe phenomenology in that phenomenology is the most basic of all disciplines because its subject matter provides the basis for all other philosophy and science.

Heidegger was one of Husserl’s pupils and he claimed that up to this point phenomenology had been too half hearted. Phenomenology was supposed to examine the data of consciousness, but the terms used to describe it, such as “act” and “content”, had not been discovered in consciousness, but instead were just taken from earlier philosophy.

Heidegger maintained that the concept of “being” was the first task of phenomenology. We must understand “being” before we can consider the relationship between consciousness and reality. Heidegger argued that we must go back to the theories of the pre-Socratic philosophers to talk about “being” as they pre-date the formal philosophical vocabulary and all of the presuppositions which they carry with them. Heidegger set himself the task to re-invent the philosophical vocabulary, so we could discuss “being” without the complications of what the words used mean in other philosophical examples.

The main term in Heidegger’s vocabulary that you need to remember is “Dasein” which is essentially “being in the world”. Thinking is only one way of engaging with the world, acting upon it is just as important. For example a carpenter relates to the world through the use of his hammer and this is his true engagement with reality.  The concept of Dasein goes against the work of other philosophers, such as Descartes, who try to prove the existence of an external world. For Heidegger we are not separate beings detached from the world, trying to understand it through experiences, we are ourselves elements of the world. We are beings amongst other beings.

Dasein is not about thinking, it is about caring and it is purely instinctive. Only if you care about the world will you then be able to ask questions and give knowledgeable answers. Dasein is relative to the person and can be entirely ungrounded, or can even be affected by things such as mood or emotion. Dasein is the unfolding of a life, you are not stuck to one thing, you can be something you have never been before, and your potential is just as important as your achievements. What you are aiming for in life has the ability to determine the significance of where you are now. Reflection on the past can produce guilt and reflection on the future can produce dread, it is only when you are caring about the task in hand that you have Dasein. Freedom and authenticity lies in the complete absorption within a task. To live the “authentic life” would be somewhere along the lines of living a self-sustained, simple life in the woods. Whatever your achievements or potentialities were they all terminate in death, death does not complete them.

Through his interpretation of Dasein, Heidegger became the father of “existentialism”. This is the philosophy that we are not just members of a species bound by universal laws, we are what we take ourselves to be. The idea of such freedom can be alarming and result in unthinking conformity, but to do so is a betrayal of your Dasein. To make your own life you must acknowledge that there is no greater meaning for the choices you make and that no choice you make will bring a transcendent meaning to your life.

Sartre was a pupil of Heidegger for a brief period of time and he too developed a form of existentialism. Like Heidegger, Sartre also argued that Husserl had not taken phenomenology far enough. Husserl had accepted the Cartesian ego of the thinking subject, but in fact there is no such thing. When I am absorbed in what I am thinking or doing I have not thought of myself, it’s only upon reflection that we make ourselves the object. So to be thorough phenomenologists we must say that the “self” belongs to the transcendent world.
Sartre attacked the theories of Hume that the only difference between perception and imagination are that in perception the images are more vivid than they are in imagination. Sartre maintained that imagination relates us to extra mental objects not to internal images. For example when we imagine a real person who is not actually there we are creating an object in the world. For Sartre our emotions are not passive, they are not an impartial awareness of our environment. For example when we are depressed we change our perception of the world to make all interactions with it appear pointless.

After the war Sartre moved onto more existentialist philosophy in his publication “Being and Nothingness”. For Sartre, being underlies all the different things we encounter in consciousness. We sort things in accordance with what interests us and what will be of use to us. Sartre argues that we are the only beings for whom our existence comes before our essence. For example an oak tree has to follow a particular life pattern, it has no choice, however man does not belong to a structure in the same kind of way. It is up to you to decide what kind of thing you want to be. The life of a human individual is not determined in advance by a creator or moral laws. Human freedom is absolute but it is also alarming having the responsibility of ultimate choice. We try to hide this freedom from ourselves by trying to adopt some predetermined role given to us by society or religion, but we ultimately fail at doing so and are left in a condition that Sartre calls “bad faith”. The alternative is to embrace and accept our freedom and all of the responsibilities which come with it. Other than the obvious physical constraints to what you can achieve, it is you that must make your decisions entirely on your own.

I am thinking, of this I am sure

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries western philosophy was divided between British Empiricists and Continental Rationalists. Both of these theories concern epistemology, which the theory of where knowledge derives from. Empiricists, such as Locke, argue that all of your knowledge is derived from sensory experience. However Rationalists, such as Descartes, argue that pure reason and the mind alone, is the source of knowledge.

Cogito Ergo Sum - I think therefore I am; a pretty standard thought. This however is one of the fundamental principles of Rene Descartes’ philosophical theories. Descartes was around during the seventeenth century and was a contemporary of Galileo. He shared similar views to those held by Galileo and Bacon, and was opposed to Aristotelians and the traditional education that was available in universities at the time. Descartes embarked on a life in action, in the hope that this would give him insight as he then went on to search for ‘true knowledge’. One of his main theories is the concept of ‘Cartesian Doubt’, which is that you can only be certain of what is in your own mind; everything else could have been put there by a demonic imp. According to Descartes you should doubt everything, except God and your own existence. Unlike Plato, who argued that there was a realm of the forms, Cartesian philosophy contains three realms: mind/soul, matter and God. Mind and matter are both created substances whereas God is an uncreated substance. Descartes argued that God is the supremely perfect being, which you gain the idea of through a conglomeration of your sensory experiences.