Acting authentically in the face of survival

[Hovik]

You bring up a very interesting point, something I hadn't thought of. With that in mind, do you think people would be able to act more authentically if we didn't have to deal with those choices?

I disagree with the way this question is formulated: confronting these sorts of questions is what constitutes our authenticity. We aren't some spiritual being displaced into a material world; we have no 'inner soul' yearning for a pre-set destiny (I'm sure you're familiar with Sartre's "existence precedes essence"). By accepting this void and assuming our freedom/responsibility* in our involvement with the world, we can determine our essence (Beauvoir says: "man makes himself a lack of being so that there might be being."). Existentialism (from its internal perspective, anyway) consists of realizing that we have to face these choices (and we can't just 'cover up' this choice/abyss before us: that's bad faith).

*this is more or less just observing that we have to deal with the consequences of our actions... it's essentially the other side of our freedom, and realizing that our choices have consequences.

Thinking on it, I've come to realize that there is a flaw in the very premise of this question. I (and having discussed it with her, Annik as well) understand that authenticity is the affecting of one's own ideals in spite of pressures, external or otherwise.

I think perhaps a more apt understanding of the question posted in the OP is whether or not one can truly be free when one must live to survive.

[Shell B]

Well, perhaps not that kind of game, but some kind of game, I'm sure. I'm going to keep Tiberius forever and I want him to want to keep me, so I'll play by the safe rules.

[Violet]

I think perhaps a more apt understanding of the question posted in the OP is whether or not one can truly be free when one must live to survive.

Edited to clarify.

One need not have a beating heart and active brain to survive. Example: Charles Dickens 'lives' on in what he has written.

Survival, and indeed living, are also decisions. One has to decide to pull themselves out of bed when hungry, to go to the bathroom when they have to shit. Being free, we can choose death.

Life is a 'choice', and it's your decision on whether you struggle through it, or take an early departure from it.

---

Well, perhaps not that kind of game, but some kind of game, I'm sure. I'm going to keep Tiberius forever and I want him to want to keep me, so I'll play by the safe rules.

I'm sure you and Tibbers can both keep each other and invite the Violet over for fun and games

The safe rules are condoms and dental dams and having a good look over the person's nude form instead of blindly fucking them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xud2sPZE9nc

((This is all in jest, I mean to make known. How much I 'secretly' want that doesn't enter into it.))

[cratehorus]

I recently had a conversation that filled my head with fuck.
EDIT: This is an existential topic.

We have to have money to survive in this world.

[Hovik]

I recently had a conversation that filled my head with fuck.
EDIT: This is an existential topic.

We have to have money to survive in this world.

That was clearly part of the preface and was not meant to be taken as the point of the discussion.

[Violet]

That was clearly part of the preface and was not meant to be taken as the point of the discussion.

Y'know... I'm still a nihilistic existential determinist of a hedonist. And even I can't find a point in this 'discussion'

Perhaps it is because meaning might as well be whatever I think it is.

And I think snow cones are delicious. Omnom.

((Are we actually discussing something here, or are we just rambling on in amusing psudo-psychobabble? Is there something I haven't already answered to your satisfaction? After all... I am She-Who-Knows-All-The-Cats... the Purple Light of Guidence... The real life Akinator... the Blood Witch of the Cave of Kaer Banorg! (I do resent being called a purple and green two headed monster, but at least the heart attack was spot on, ahhhh, I remember it well. )))

---

Wow, this is like the first time I've said something philosophical in like 6 months. I'm kinda impressed with myself.

"People who live in glass houses should shut the fuck up", and all of that other good stuff, amiright?

[Annik]

We're talking about very specific existential themes, not "psudo-psychobabble". This was meant to be a discussion, not a Q&A.

As Hovik said, I feel my OP is no longer relevant. CS summed up what I was forgetting quite neatly. It's now a question as to if we are truly free in the face of survival.

[Categories+Sheaves]

((Are we actually discussing something here, or are we just rambling on in amusing psudo-psychobabble? Is there something I haven't already answered to your satisfaction? After all... I am She-Who-Knows-All-The-Cats... the Purple Light of Guidence... The real life Akinator... the Blood Witch of the Cave of Kaer Banorg! (I do resent being called a purple and green two headed monster, but at least the heart attack was spot on, ahhhh, I remember it well. )))

Amusing pseudo-psychobabble is srs business. Srsly.

As Hovik said, I feel my OP is no longer relevant. CS summed up what I was forgetting quite neatly. It's now a question as to if we are truly free in the face of survival.

imho, another side of the same question.

Click the spoiler for a wall of text...

---

But man also wills himself to be a disclosure of being, and if he coincides with this wish, he wins, for the fact is that the world becomes present by his presence in it. But the disclosure implies a perpetual tension to keep being at a certain distance, to tear one self from the world, and to assert oneself as a freedom. To wish for the disclosure of the world and to assert oneself as freedom are one and the same movement. Freedom is the source from which all significations and all values spring. It is the original condition of all justification of existence. The man who seeks to justify his life must want freedom itself absolutely and above everything else. At the same time that it requires the realization of concrete ends, of particular projects, it requires itself universally. It is not a ready-made value which offers itself from the outside to my abstract adherence, but it appears (not on the plane of facility, but on the moral plane) as a cause of itself. It is necessarily summoned up by the values which it sets up and through which it sets itself up. It can not establish a denial of itself, for in denying itself, it would deny the possibility of any foundation. To will oneself moral and to will oneself free are one and the same decision...


...In the face of an obstacle which it is impossible to overcome, stubbornness is stupid. If I persist in beating my fist against a stone wall, my freedom exhausts itself in this useless gesture without succeeding in giving itself a content. It debases itself in a vain contingency. Yet, there is hardly a sadder virtue than resignation. It transforms into phantoms and contingent reveries projects which had at the beginning been set up as will and freedom. A young man has hoped for a happy or useful or glorious life. If the man he has become looks upon these miscarried attempts of his adolescence with disillusioned indifference, there they are, forever frozen in the dead past. When an effort fails, one declares bitterly that he has lost time and wasted his powers. The failure condemns that whole part of ourselves which we had engaged in the effort. It was to escape this dilemma that the Stoics preached indifference. We could indeed assert our freedom against all constraint if we agreed to renounce the particularity of our projects. If a door refuses to open, let us accept not opening it and there we are free. But by doing that, one manages only to save an abstract notion of freedom. It is emptied of all content and all truth. The power of man ceases to be limited because it is annulled. It is the particularity of the project which determines the limitation of the power, but it is also what gives the project its content and permits it to be set up. There are people who are filled with such horror at the idea of a defeat that they keep themselves from ever doing anything. But no one would dream of considering this gloomy passivity as the triumph of freedom.

The truth is that in order for my freedom. not to risk coming to grief against the obstacle which its very engagement has raised, in order that it might still pursue its movement in the face of the failure, it must, by giving itself a particular content, aim by means of it at an end which is nothing else but precisely the free movement of existence. Popular opinion is quite right in admiring a man who, having been ruined or having suffered an accident, knows how to gain the upper hand, that is, renew his engagement in the world, thereby strongly asserting the independence of freedom in relation to thing. Thus, when the sick Van Gogh calmly accepted the prospect of a future in which he would be unable to paint any more, there was no sterile resignation. For him painting was a personal way of life and of communication with others which in another form could be continued even in an asylum. The past will be integrated and freedom will be confirmed in a renunciation of this kind. It will be lived in both heartbreak and joy. In heartbreak, because the project is then robbed of its particularity - it sacrifices its flesh and blood. But in joy, since at the moment one releases his hold, he again finds his hands free and ready to stretch out toward a new future. But this act of passing beyond is conceivable only if what the content has in view is not to bar up the future, but, on the contrary, to plan new possibilities. This brings us back by another route to what we had already indicated. My freedom must not seek to trap being but to disclose it. The disclosure is the transition from being to existence. The goal which my freedom aims at is conquering existence across the always inadequate density of being.

However, such salvation is only possible if, despite obstacles and failures, a man preserves the disposal of his future, if the situation opens up more possibilities to him. In case his transcendence is cut off from his goal or there is no longer any hold on objects which might give it a valid content, his spontaneity is dissipated without founding anything. Then he may not justify his existence positively and he feels its contingency with wretched disgust. There is no more obnoxious way to punish a man than to force him to perform acts which make no sense to him, as when one empties and fills the same ditch indefinitely, when one makes soldiers who are being punished march up and down, or when one forces a schoolboy to copy lines. Revolts broke out in Italy in September 1946 because the unemployed were set to breaking pebbles which served no purpose whatever. As is well known, this was also the weakness which ruined the national workshops in 1848. This mystification of useless effort is more intolerable than fatigue. Life imprisonment is the most horrible of punishments because it preserves existence in its pure facticity but forbids it all legitimation. A freedom can not will itself without willing itself as an indefinite movement. It must absolutely reject the constraints which arrest its drive toward itself. This rejection takes on a positive aspect when the constraint is natural. One rejects the illness by curing it. But it again assumes the negative aspect of revolt when the oppressor is a human freedom. One can not deny being: the in-itself is, and negation has no hold over this being, this pure positivity; one does not escape this fullness: a destroyed house is a ruin; a broken chain is scrap iron: one attains only signification and, through it, the for-itself which is projected there; the for-itself carries nothingness in its heart and can be annihilated, whether in the very upsurge of its existence or through the world in which it exists. The prison is repudiated as such when the prisoner escapes. But revolt, insofar as it is pure negative movement, remains abstract. It is fulfilled as freedom only by returning to the positive, that is, by giving itself a content through action, escape, political struggle, revolution. Human transcendence then seeks, with the destruction of the given situation, the whole future which will flow from its victory. It resumes its indefinite rapport with itself. There are limited situations where this return to the positive is impossible, where the future is radically blocked off. Revolt can then be achieved only in the definitive rejection of the imposed situation, in suicide.

---

[Violet]

We're talking about very specific existential themes, not "psudo-psychobabble". This was meant to be a discussion, not a Q&A.

As Hovik said, I feel my OP is no longer relevant. CS summed up what I was forgetting quite neatly. It's now a question as to if we are truly free in the face of survival.

You misunderstand me... all of the various topics have evaporated into clouds. It's like discussing dogs vs cats after all of the points have been made and the answer is clearly dogs.

This is now a pseudo-psychobabbly brook. Of steam! IN THE SKY!

Since you seem to be merrily ignoring my responses regarding your Rivulet of Jabberation, what then is freedom?

It's not a Q&A, and yet Annik says, "It's now a question". Will wonders never cease

---

Amusing pseudo-psychobabble is srs business. Srsly.

Naw doug, it's a troupe of cantaloupe devourin jackalopes wearing their dandy soap-on-a-roaps.