With all this talk of existentialism after The Asphalt Jungle I started thinking about how I could apply existentialism to every single aspect of my life and if it really is possible to live like that - with, shall we say, loose or no morals, because after all, the existentialist affirms they are nonsense.
Well I could rationalize not doing my homeowork, neglecting my chores and whatnot, and coming to terms with embarrassing situations (for example, I always mispronounce words...some may not have noticed because I try to be very careful and not even dare use a word I'm unsure of how to pronounce but lately I've just said to hell with it all) but I can't rationalize one thing (aside from, ya know, murder, rape, and minor things like that): eco-unfriendliness.
Please, just for a moment, accept the idea that humans can do something to help our environment (for I know many, even myself, are still not fully convinced). And furthermore, let's make it really specific - let us accept the fact that driving your car less would help save the earth - whatever that means for you. So, in this twilight zone I've placed us in, what would the existentialist do? It is clearly extremely entertaining to drive your car to the store at 60 mph, with the hood down (oh yea, you also own a sexy red convertable) with the breeze blowing through your hair, but you know that your action is definitely, 100%, for sure hurting others around you and generations to come. So what do you choose to do (as an existentialist, of course)?
I think we can bring it closer to reality with smoking - if you have kids (as an adult) or younger siblings (as an adolescent). You want to enjoy yourself, but you know you have a good chance of hurting others in the process. What do you choose?
I suppose there is some "happy medium" the responsible existentialist must find to accomodate the "foolish masses" who are not also racing down the block in their sexy convertable or puffing away on Marlboros. But I'd like to hear from the class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I suppose if you took existentialism to an extreme you could say that everything is both worthless and meaningless. However to do so would be a lonely and depressing experience. Therefore we assign relative values to things we deem important. Each item/idea's value is as legitimate and arbitrary as the next.
ReplyDeleteAs far as smoking goes I will pass on the cigarettes and cigars because they make no sense for anyone who is not addicted. They are expensive and harmful so I abstain from these vices.
As far as sense goes I believe that humans are a mixture of rational and emotional behavior. I reject the idea that humans are completely rational or completely emotional. Sometimes people act intelligently and sometimes people act impulsively.
Driving is another thought entirely. Yes driving less helps but I do not think that people are ready to go back to living in the paleolithic or even neolithic stone age just yet. Mr. Bennett people actually pay attention to you in Global. Another problem is that America is the most excessive nation that has ever existed. You name it and we take it to an extreme (besides exhibiting intelligent behavior). Here is even more proof that people pay attention to Mr. Bennett. The shah of iran (in Man of the House) noted that we buy more oil in barrels and barrels per capita than most of the industrial world combined. American are also excessively apathetic and stupid so I would not plan on seeing any change of heart here anytime soon.
However I will still do my part to save the planet instead of wasting simply for the sake of wasting.
Danny White, I am honored to have a comment from you on my blog. Seriously, thank you.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the idea that humans are a combination of rationality and emotions. If it were only one extreme we would either be like those aliens in Dark City or savage animals.
However, I'm still perplexed on this eco-unfriendliness issue. In my multiple crusades to increase environmental friendliness around me, the single most popular protest against changing a few habits in small ways for "the cause" was, "it won't affect me." No matter how much I try to extract some empathy for future generations from these people, usually nothign works. I attribute most of this failure to my lack in persuassion skills on a one-on-one level, but even some great campaigners I'm seen try can't do it.
I'm not suggesting we revert back to a Flintstone society, but small habits like turning the light off when we leave a room, not running the water when we brush our teeth,or throwing out our paper into blue bins and all other trash into the black don't seem like huge adjustments.
But to bring it back to your comment - it gives me hope that maybe the existentialist argument of "it won't affect me" can be beaten.
well i dont feel like reading the entire posting, but after reading your last comment, Existentialism is just very individualized. It doesn't say that you either have to care or not about anything, it just states that morality doesn't have to exist, that's at least what I think of it. If you care about the environment the existentialist would enact on those feelings, but he wouldn't do it because of any particular reason or because he feels an obligation to do so. But if a person doesn't care about the environment than he doesn't have to do anything about it. Just because you are a communist at heart, Irina, doesn't mean that people actually will a sense of community and will start sacrificing for the environment. I don't think existentialists in general are less moral than anyone else, they just have come to terms with the fact that mankind is a flawed species and they don't live under the illusion that we are a moral animal. That's precisely why I think that religious people and existentialists are nice and charitable at nearly the same rate, the altruism and wrath are natural, but they just have different approaches, the religious person feels obligated to be kind, when they usually do it because they enjoy by kind anyway and the existentialist feels no obligation but simply likes to do it. Both believers and non-believers seem to commit the most atricious crimes at similar rates, but its a different mentality.
ReplyDeleteWTF i always do this, i made a whole comment and i wasn't signed it so it's just gone. Okay, i was basically saying that I'm not sure i understand why you think an existentialist would have "loose morals" and that the "it won't affect me" attitude has to be the view of an existential...this is crazy but most people are selfish and apathetic..also, loose morals and no morals are two different things...i think that if there is no such thing as morality, there is nothing that can be declared immoral. i mean an existentialist would not believe in absolute morality, but like danny was saying, i think that because morality is so relative like especially to society, etc. that with existentialism it's all about the individual. so people set their own standards and it's all relative to like experience and an individual. so they would basically i think have like morals but not things that are expected to be applied universally or universally true for every situation ever. i dunno i basically agree with what sanbeg was saying
ReplyDelete