Existentialism

Historical development of Continental philosophy’s existentialism and phenomenology as a response to Hegelian idealism Absolute Idealism left distinct marks on many facets of Western culture. True, science was indifferent to it, and common sense was perhaps stupefied by it, but the greatest political movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries— Marxism—was to a significant degree an outgrowth of Absolute Idealism. (Bertrand Russell remarked someplace that Marx was nothing more than Hegel mixed with British economic theory. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century literature, theology, and even art felt an influence. The Romantic composers of the nineteenth century, for example, with their fondness for expanded form, vast orchestras, complex scores and soaring melodies, searched for the all-encompassing musical statement. In doing so, they mirrored the efforts of the metaphysicians; whose vast and imposing systems were sources of inspiration to many artists and composers. As we have said, much of what happened in philosophy after Hegel was in response to Hegel.

This response took different forms in English-speaking countries and on the European continent—so different that philosophy in the twentieth century was split into two traditions or, as we might say nowadays, two “conversations. ” So-called analytic philosophy and its offshoots became the predominant tradition of philosophy in England and eventually in the United States. The response to Hegelian idealism on the European continent was quite different however; and is known (at least in English-speaking countries) as Continental philosophy.

Mean while, the United States developed its own brand of philosophy—called pragmatism—but ultimately analytic philosophy became firmly entrenched in the United States as well. Within Continental philosophy may be found various identifiable schools of philosophical thought: existentialism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, deconstruction, and critical theory. Two influential schools were existentialism and phenomenology, and we will begin this chapter with them.

Both existentialism and phenomenology have their roots in the nineteenth century, and many of their themes can be traced back to Socrates and even to the pre- Socratics. Each school of thought has influenced the other to such an extent that two of the most famous and influential Continental philosophers of this century, Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 –1980), are important figures in both movements, although Heidegger is primarily a phenomenologist and Sartre primarily an existentialist.

Some of the main themes of existentialism are traditional and academic philosophy is sterile and remote from the concerns of real life. Philosophy must focus on the individual in her or his confrontation with the world. The world is irrational (or, in any event, beyond total comprehending or accurate conceptualizing through philosophy). The world is absurd, in the sense that no ultimate explanation can be given for why it is the way it is. Senselessness, emptiness, triviality, separation, and inability to communicate pervade human existence.

Giving birth to anxiety, dread, self-doubt, and despair as well as the individual confronts as the most important fact of human existence, the necessity to choose how he or she is to live within this absurd and irrational world. Now, many of these themes had already been introduced by those brooding thinkers of the nineteenth century, Arthur Schopenhauer (see previous chapter), Soren Kierkegaard, and Friedrich Nietzsche. All three had a strong distaste for the optimistic idealism of Hegel—and for metaphysical systems in general. Such philosophy, they thought, ignored the human predicament.

For all three the universe, including its human inhabitants, is seldom rational, and philosophical systems that seek to make everything seem rational are just futile attempts to overcome pessimism and despair. This impressive-sounding word denotes the philosophy that grew out of the work of Edmund Husserl (1859–1938). In brief, phenomenology interests itself in the essential structures found within the stream of conscious experience—the stream of phenomena—as these structures manifest themselves independently of the assumptions and presuppositions of science.

Phenomenology, much more than existentialism, has been a product of philosophers rather than of artists and writers. But like existentialism, phenomenology has had enormous impact outside philosophical circles. It has been especially influential in theology, the social and political sciences, and psychology and psychoanalysis. Phenomenology is a movement of thinkers who have a variety of interests and points of view; phenomenology itself finds its antecedents in Kant and Hegel (though the movement regarded itself as anything but Hegelian).

Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, argued that all objective knowledge is based on phenomena, the data received in sensory experience. In Hegel’s Phenomenology of Mind, beings are treated as phenomena or objects for a consciousness. The world beyond experience, the “real” world assumed by natural science, is a world concerning which much is unknown and doubtful. But the world-in-experience, the world of pure phenomena, can be explored without the same limitations or uncertainties.

Schools of Thought Comparison By: Amanda Szyszkowski There are three main types of schools of thought that are noted in the field of philosophy. The three schools are continental, pragmatic, and analytic philosophies. We are going to take a look at all three of theses and compare them, and see which one most appeals to me and why. The first school is continental philosophy. Continental philosophy is a general term that is associated with the philosophical views that originated on the continental England in the 20th century (dictionary. om staff, 2012). It contains many theories such as critical theory, deconstruction, existentialism, hermeneutics, phenomenology, and structuralism (dictionary. com staff, 2012). The two schools of thought linked to continental that are the most important are existentailism and phenomenology (Moore & Bruder, 2011). The most influencial philosophers related to continental philosophy are Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre (Moore & Bruder, 2011).

Some themes of existentailism are traditional and academic philosophies are sterile from the concerns of real life, the world is irrational, and the world is absurd in the sense that there are not explanations that can be given for the way that it is. The above are not all the themes for this school of thought but there are the most compelling (Moore & Bruder, 2011). The second type philosophy is known is pragmatic. Pragmatic philosophy is a type of philosophy that rejects the idea that there is a such a thing as absolute truth (Moore & Bruder, 2011).

Instead in this philosophy they think the truth is realtive to time, place, purpose, and is ever changing in the light of new data (Moore & Bruder, 2011). Pragmatism roots primarily are located in the United States. It is also know as American pragmatism. The main school of thought for pragmatism is that there is no absolute or fixed truth. The founding fathers of this type of philosophy are C. S. Pierce and William James. James however would not take the credit for the invention of pragmatism that starting in philosophy clubs that the two men set up. He gives all the credit to Pierce.

The final type of philosophy that I am going to cover is analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy is the learning through experience. The mind of a person catorgorizes experiences. The main school of though for analytic philosophy is that the only thing that we know for certain is that we learn through experience (Moore & Bruder, 2011). Analytic philosophy has ties to both England and America, but it is mostly is used in America. The main philosopher for this type of philosophy is Russell. Russell and his wife set up many schools in England and America that proposed a new way of learning philosophy (Moore & Bruder, 2011).

All three types of philosophy have strong and valid points and strong ideals. Which one do you think is the strongest one? References 1. Dictionary. com Staff. (2012) “Continental Philosophy” retrieved from http://dictionary. reference. com/browse/continental-philosophy on September 2, 2012. 2. Moore, B. N. , & Bruder, K. (2011) Philosophy: The Power Of Ideas. (8th ed. ). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. 3. Farlex. (2012) “Pragmaticism” retrieved from http://www. thefreedictionary. com/pragmatism on September 2, 2012. 4.

The First World War wreaked more havoc and destruction than the world had ever seen before. All around them, people could only see death and devastation. The existing moral structure and value systems were coming crumbling down as men killed fellow men without so much as a second thought. This led to people questioning faith, religion, and the existence of God. They began to feel that if there really was a God, then surely he would stop the pain and suffering that man was facing at that time? A movement slowly began to sweep over Europe, where people began to re-think and question the very meaning of life. This school of thought came to be known as Existentialism.

Very similar to Existentialism, was Modernism. The Modernists were people who revolted against the music, art and architecture of the times, and targeted mainly the classical and romantic strains of literature. They were people who were depressed and disillusioned by the militarism of the times, and challenged fundamental values such as progress and enlightenment. Like the Existentialists, they too did not believe in the existing set of rules and morals that governed society, and believed it was time for a change.

Both of these concepts influenced Hemingway greatly, and we can see the effect of this influence clearly in his writing. The novel. “A Farewell to Arms” is narrated entirely from Frederick Henry’s point of view. He has a very distinct way of describing things-short and crisp. Throughout the novel, though Henry is surrounded on all sides by death, destruction and the wreckage of war, never once do we see him dramatizing or romanticizing it. He has what one might call a “reporter’s eye”-everything is portrayed as if being reported by a journalist, concentrating only on the concrete facts and nothing else. Hemingway does not give the reader the opportunity to pass moral judgement on any of the characters or situations, infact, Henry gives us a perfect 360 degree view of things, and the way in which he speaks of death and casualties with such practiced normalcy almost unsettles the reader.

In this part of the novel, Hemingway also stresses on the differences that have grown between Rinaldi and Henry. Henry was injured and had to leave the front, which subsequently led to him spending time and falling deeply in love with Catherine. This episode in his life gave him the chance to change and grow as a person, he becomes more mature and very different from the Henry that we came to know at the beginning of the book. Rinaldi, on the other hand, remains the way he has always been, and seems to have grown embittered and hostile towards the war. “It is killing me,” he says. Of Henry he says, “you act like a married man,” almost accusing him of having changed. In this manner, Hemingway uses Rinaldi as a foil to bring out and emphasize the change and growth that has taken place in Henry.

In Book Three of the novel, Henry and Catherine’s romantic interlude has ended, and the focus shifts once more from love to war. It is once again Autumn, and “the trees were all bare and the roads were muddy;” Hemingway continues with his use of rain and water as a bad omen. Mud here also represents the unclarity and uncertainty of the times. Later, in chapter 28, mud acts as an antagonist of sorts, when the ambulances get stuck in it, and this leads to Henry shooting a fellow Italian officer.

The contrast between the plains and the mountains, which Hemingway had established in earlier chapters, is laid out more explicitly here when Henry, while speaking to a driver named Gino, tells him that he does not believe that a war can be fought and won in the mountains. This establishes the mountains not only as a place of peace and tranquility, but also of refuge.

Rain also seems to be ever-present during Book Three. In Chapter 27, it begins to pour, and this marks the beginning of the Italian retreat. By the evening, the rain turns to snow for a while, giving the men a glimmer of hope, only to start raining again. The reader is so tuned into the rain- death symbolism by now that when, over dinner, a driver known as Amyno says, “To-morrow maybe we drink rainwater,” we are left with a deep sense of foreboding and doom.

Perhaps the most important bit of symbolism in the whole novel comes in Chapter 28 of Book Three. It is the climax of the novel, and the action is all downhill from then onwards. Here, Henry deserts the war at long last, it is something that has been in the pipeline for many a chapter. Chaos seems to be at large, as Henry witnesses Amyno being shot by a fellow Italian. As he says, “We are in more danger from Italians than from Germans.” Henry had never felt any duty or obligation to the Italian army, he always seemed to be isolated from the war, and so it seems as if all this time Hemingway was preparing us for this very moment. When Henry plunges headlong into the river, effectively abandoning the war, the reader is not shocked, and does not feel the urge to pass judgement of any sort, because he understands Henry’s motives for desertion. His dive into the river is Hemingway’s way of signaling a Re-Birth or Baptism of sorts, as when Henry comes out of the water, he is a changed man, who has made his own peace with the war. This is further exemplified when Henry says, “Anger was washed away in the river along with any obligation,”

Also, while Henry is clutching on to the piece of timber and floating down the river, we notice that though the entire novel up until that point has been entirely in the first person (“I”), the narration now shifts for a brief moment, and Henry begins to use the words “you” and “we”. The result of this is that the reader feels much closer to Henry, and gets a chance to put himself in Henry’s shoes. Its as if Hemingway wants us all to be Fredrick Henry, if only for a moment.

At the end of Book Three, we see Henry traveling in a train car used to transport guns, and thinking quietly about what he has just done, and about his love for Catherine. Again, Hemingway uses the second-person narrative, as Henry justifies his desertion to himself by thinking, “You were out of it now, you had no more obligation.”

Thus, Hemingway effectively utilizes these various descriptive techniques and employs them to peel away the layers of glory and honour that surround the war, instead showing us the honest, brutal face of war. The novel reaches its climax in Book Three, and we see descending action from here onwards.

Donnie Darko Assessment Dashiell Lieberman I would like to answer this question not as the Dashiell we all know and love but as an existential Dashiell. As an existentialist I would want the truth and the facts; that is a lot different than wanting an explanation. An existentialist doesn’t believe that everything needs an explanation and a reason. They believe in the cold hard truth and facts like the great existential characters Donnie Darko and Mersault of The Stranger, who died for representing the ultimate truth like Christ.

So the truth I seek for my one day outside of reality is the creation of the world, the universe and who or what is the creator. Everything else in this world has been altered and corrupted by man and society but not the beginning; that is true and untouched. I want to know the overall truth of the world, the great mystery that the whole world has wondered. The origin of everything is my biggest wonder as a man just looking for the truth with no explanations or interpretations.

I would travel through time and space searching and observing the creation of everything that has come to be. I would love to talk to the creator, if so, and just ask him some casual questions or learn of our scientific origins and it’s amazement. If I had this one day I wouldn’t waste it by doing insignificant things to make me happy for an hour; I would go big of course, I mean really big. I want these hours of freedom to change my life forever giving me the ultimate truth of the world so as an existentialist I can be satisfied knowing that there is no meaning or maybe there is.

The steady development of “Big Brother” as the all-controlling entity in George Orwell’s 1984 is the premise for the role truth plays throughout the novel. Truth is functioned against society for the benefit of the government. Similarly, Tennessee Williams creates a uniquely different environment for his characters in The Glass Menagerie while maintaining the same function of truth as a source of distortion and control. Collectively, the themes of dehumanization in 1984 and distortion of memory in The Glass Menagerie relate to one another regarding the function of truth in each work to substantiate a sense of authority and deception.

Oppression in 1984 as a direct instrument of dehumanization is made quite evident within the text. The inner-party uses several brainwashing and torture tactics to rid society of past memories and experiences. The effects these tactics have upon truth are substantial in their regard. The intent of “Big Brother” is to reduce human beings understanding to a more basic, easily manipulated and empty slate where the agendas of the inner-party can be executed with ease.

We see the extent to which understanding of the past affects one’s attitude about the present when Winston states, “And when memory failed and written records were falsified—when that happened, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested” (Orwell 93). This quote is said following Winston’s frustrating conversation with the old man about life prior to the Revolution.

Winston is coming to terms that the party has deliberately set out to weaken people’s memories in order to render them unable to challenge what the Party claims about the present. If no one remembers life before the Revolution, then no one can say that the Party has failed humanity by forcing people to live in conditions of scarcity, filth, ignorance, and famine. Rather, the party uses rewritten history books and falsified records to prove its good deeds. This proves the theory that truth is dependent of memory and without memory truth is subject to manipulation and in this case dehumanization.

Orwell not only suggests this theory through the events observed in Winston but also through Winston’s own surrender to “Big Brother” and its definition of truth at the end of the novel. After the inner-party’s relentless attempt to purge Winston of any prohibited thoughts, they achieve their goal of dehumanizing him. The narrator brings closure to the novel as he describes Winston’s “new” character. “He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding!

O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother”, said the narrator (Orwell 297). Winston’s curiosity towards “Big Brother” was prevailing during the earlier parts of the novel. This curiosity soon transforms into animosity urging him to join a rebel group to overthrow “Big Brother”. Despite these negative feelings, the power of dehumanization works against what years of curiosity have said to Winston to be true.

His memory of “Big Brother” as being counterproductive to society is no longer existent because his present situation says that “Big Brother” should be loved unconditionally. The fact that Winston’s conversion was successful should focus the reader on truth and memory and how they are comparable. The dehumanization of memory stands as a principle theme in 1984 and it is through this theme that Orwell functions truth to reveal the desire of deception. Tennessee Williams takes a corresponding approach to truth and its function in his play, The Glass Menagerie.

The characters, Amanda, Tom, and Laura all face the similar dilemma of a falsified perception of reality. The mother, Amanda, is the most blatant character in denial. Her situation as a single mother raising two children has subliminally deceived what she sees as factual. In a conversation with Laura Amanda is quoted “Why you’re not crippled, you just have a little defect — hardly noticeable, even! When people have some slight disadvantage like that, they cultivate other things to make up for it — develop charm — and vivacity — and — charm” (Orwell 18)!

Seemingly everyone is quite aware that Laura is crippled however, Amanda will not come to terms with this occurrence. She deals with this unfortunate fact by lying to herself that her daughter is not crippled thus proving there to be little veracity to any memories she has. Throughout the play Amanda is full of deceptions. Amanda changes her style of speech to a southern accent when Laura’s gentleman caller arrives. Amanda states ““light food an’ light clothes are what warm weather calls fo”” (Orwell 63). The reader is told that Amanda was born in the south. In spite of that, this is the first time she speaks with a southern accent.

Amanda explains her newly discovered accent as her “rejuvenated” personality but the reader can assume this is her attempt to mislead the people around her to believe she is something that she is not further revealing her deceitful memory. Consequently, Tom and Laura are trapped by this illusion Amanda creates. Laura is highly dependent upon her mother therefore she is influenced by Amanda’s views. Tom carries the burden of providing for his family and cannot leave from this world of lies and untruths. Amanda’s present state has distorted her memory and essentially distorted her sense of self and reality.

Her ability to do this has given her control of what she can feel and therefore how she can live her life despite not being able to escape from the poverty stricken life. Despite having contrasting influences behind their respected themes, 1984 and The Glass Menagerie share a common purpose to gain control over reality through the manipulation of truth. In observed and experienced the tactics that “Big Brother” used to give the public a misleading view of truth. Through dehumanization, “Big Brother” achieved full authority over its citizens by erasing all memories of life before the revolution.

With no memories to go by society was at the mercy of “Big Brother” and what the inner-party considered acceptable. People could not judge right from wrong because “Big Brother” was all they ever knew. The Glass Menagerie is comparable is the sense that Amanda needed to gain control over her life which seemed to be spinning into the ground. She was helpless and this feeling led her to shape her own reality in order to regain this sense of control. People are typically fearful of things they cannot conquer. Amanda could not achieve freedom from her environment therefore she created her own path through a deceptive memory.

Her children were trapped in this life of lies just as Winston was in 1984. In both works we see a desire of power to control their respected situations. 1984 sought for the control of society whereas The Glass Menagerie sought for the control of the Wingfield future. The power of memory is existential to the human ability of perceiving the present. George Orwell’s 1984 and Tennessee Williams’ The Glass Menagerie manipulate memory in such a similar fashion that their functions of truth are nearly identical concerning their purpose.

In 1984 truth is functioned against society for the sake of “Big Brother” and the inner-parties agenda through dehumanization. Similarly, Orwell uses Amanda’s character in The Glass Menagerie to demonstrate the importance of memory and how one’s own deception of truth can distort their reality dramatically. Both pieces of work complement one another and solidify the case that memory or a deceitful memory for that matter is vulnerable to exploitation and the effects can be substantial in regard to one’s sense of actuality.

In modern world, social dimensions are manifested in the ability of media to control the circulation of ideas about economic and political events, social problems and ethical issue.

Documentary films play a special role in filmmaking unveiling vital problems of modern mankind or informing the audience about historical or social events, outstanding personalities and their historical significance.

It is known fact that people copy or borrow their identities from the media, and very often social images are misrepresented and just exploited by the media. In this case, the aim of documentary genre is to inform the audience about current problems and social troubles. The genre of documentary appeared at the beginning of XX century.

The documentary film movement had a great impact on filmmaking during the 1930s and 1940s, and was a response to social and economic conditions faced by many nations around the world.

Taking into account British filmmaking, critics suggest that: “the movement and its leader played a pivotal role in stifling the growth of a critical British film culture, and in establishing a realist paradigm which critically marginalised the avant-garde” (Aitken, 1998, p. 1).

 Getting the message across, not just through ascetic lectures but getting the right images as well documentaries can speak volumes to a greater number of people across the globe. Where documentaries are largely responsible for promoting the culture, one can still trust their power to reverse it to bring a certain outlook of current events avoiding unnecessary blames and aggression.

There are no strict guidelines for producers to follow. Alan Rosenthal (2002) admits that: “In the last twenty years, tremendous changes have taken place in documentary and nonfiction filmmaking, including changes in subject matter, form, and the very way in which documentaries and industrial films are made” (p.1).

In general, the main idea of the documentary is to portray the real social and historical images and social problems. According to Michelson (1984): “In fact, the film is only the sum of the facts recorded on film, or, if you like, not merely the sum, but the product, a ‘higher mathematics’ of facts” (Michelson 1984:84 cited Bruzzi, 2000, P. 11).

The documentary genre is based on the idea to create “the authentic representation of the real” (Bruzzi, 2000, p. 9). This is achieved through specific techniques and methods which help to recreate authentic atmosphere in order to appeal to emotions of viewers and their feelings through emotional tension and deep experience.

The remarkable feature of modern documentary films is that producers select techniques and cinematographic tools according to plot development and meaning of the film. Usually, the plot structure of documentaries is clearly set out, with few diversions of sub-plot and with fairly obvious contrasts of characters.

It can consist of several frames which force the viewer to rethink the events and interpret them in a different manner according to behavior and thoughts of the narrator (Bruzzi, 2000).

Similar to fiction genre, the main thematic elements of documentaries include: theme and focus which frame events and facts depicted in the film. The themes of documentaries can be interpreted as responses towards problems and issues under discussion.

Evaluating the themes, producers try to unveil important problems which marked the film. For instance, in the documentary “Bowling for Columbine”, Michael Moore portrays extreme violence and hostility of modern youth toward other people based on wrong media images and social indifference.