Existentialism and Achilles

In the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre’s essay, Existentialism Is a Humanism (EH), Sartre continues his theme from Being and Nothingness, that humans are condemned to be free as this makes them wholly responsible for their existence. In the essay, Sartre talks about the notion of choice. The theorist John Rawls speaks about a ‘veil of ignorance’ in a book published long after Sartre wrote EH but it helps to illustrate Sartre’s point. In the theory, Rawls speaks of a hypothetical veil of ignorance that one must employ when thinking about how to fix society’s problems- essentially, Rawls is saying, imagine, before you are born, how would the perfect society be? This, in theory, removes one from the subjective notion of ‘I think, therefore I am right’, to look for an objective reality. This, of course, is incredibly hard to achieve. Sartre, in turn, focuses on the subjective. Sartre’s notion is that no one is born as they become. There are no naturally born heroes or cowards, rather to be a hero or a coward is a choice. This becomes a source of personal anxiety, for if we are responsible to be a hero or a coward, then we do not have the alibi of ‘I was born like this, I had no choice’, to quote Leonard Cohen.

Whilst reading Sartre’s essay, based upon a lecture he gave, I suddenly started thinking of the character of Achilles from the Ancient Greek epic poem The Iliad, written by (maybe, or maybe not, who cares, it makes no difference), the 5^th Century BC poet, Homer. Existentialism is one of those phrases which Sartre notes is meaningless simply because too many people have given it meaning. Someone plays a piece of music different to the norm and suddenly she is an existentialist musician. People constantly talk about experiencing ‘existential crisis’ the same way Hamlet’s ‘to be or not to be,’ the embodiment of the existential crisis, gets thrown around willy-nilly devoid of all meaning. Indeed, if one looks at the existential philosophers, one will see that their work and thought varies greatly and, it seems, existentialism is as meaningless as the medical diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome  (IBS), used to say that it is something to do with the stomach, but no one knows what.

Although existentialism is associated mostly with the 20^th Century French thinkers, their thought begins, as Sartre admits in the essay, with the notion in the 19^th Century Russian author Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov that if there is no God, no higher law, then everything would be permitted, i.e. we are condemned to be free. At the same time of Dostoyevsky, the Danish philosopher Kierkegaard wrote that ‘anxiety is the dizziness of freedom’, i.e. we are condemned to be free. Kafka, in the 20^th Century, a historical contemporary of Sartre whom Sartre read, said that he was lost because he was free, i.e. he was condemned to be free. And so, from this, we can see that existentialism does not come from the 20^th Century France, rather, it is global with a deeper reach through history.                      

But what has all of this got to do with a fictional character in the 5^th Century, BC, almost 2,500 years before Sartre? In The Iliad, Achilles is given a choice by this mother, a Nereid, a goddess of the sea, who has the gift of foresight. She tells him that either he can go to war, die, and his name will ‘echo through eternity’ or he can stay at home, get fat and old and die in the arms of his loving family. If we consider Sartre’s notion that a hero and a coward are not born, it is a choice, then we can see, given the contextual notion of what it meant to be ‘a man’ in Ancient Greece (and now), that Achilles is given the choice: he can be a hero or he can be a coward. You, dear reader, as with his mother, knows there is no cowardice in not fighting pointless wars, The Iliad being about how a woman running away with the man whom she loves to escape an arranged marriage to his country was used as a flimsy premise for empire building, yet, for Achilles the choice is- be a hero and become famous or die in anonymity considered by many a coward. This choice, we see, is not as simple as it seems for, despite external expectations, Achilles is condemned to be free, to make the choice. He chooses glory yet later in the book he decides not to fight. A maiden who worked in a temple in Troy was kidnapped. Achilles claimed her for his own, the high king, Agamemnon wanted her too and took her and so Achilles, pouting, refuses to fight. It is only for the desire of vengeance for the death of his friend (maybe lover) Patroclus, who puts on Achilles’ armour to inspire the Greeks and is slain, that Achilles returns to the war.  

And so, we see, that Achilles was condemned to be free, wholly responsible for his choices, and that he was, in many ways, one of the first existentialist characters in the history of fiction, 2,500 years before the term was coined.

‘till next time

(note: we did not have time to go into the interesting dichotomy of free will and fate in Greek Mythology, maybe we’ll return to it at some point)    

How and Why: Part 2: Why

Previously we looked at the question of how and why in relation to the debate between theology and science. In it we showed that the question is often seen as the answer to the other, for example science tells us how and theology tells us why. This, we concluded, is erroneous, rather the question must be asked of both, how did this happen? And from this we can see that theology and science pose possible answers to the questions posed by the other.

The reason why the questions how and why should be considered separately is that they deal with different things. The question how pertains to the physical world- how was the universe created as a physical entity, how did a God create the universe as a physical entity? The question why pertains to metaphysics, or, more precisely, why did the universe come into being? This can be seen as a divergence from science for does science answer the question why? To which the answer is, yes, it does. Although it is tempting to look at science as a mechanical thing, illustrated by a formula, it is, as with all great things, more complicated than that. I used the word complicated loosely because it is not really complicated but if one is tempted to look at the world as an absolute (E=MC2- Why? Because it does), then the notion that there may be a philosophical aspect to science will seem more complicated than 2+2=4.

It might seem odd to speak of the philosophy of science, especially in terms of creation (pun intended) but philosophy pertains to all aspects of life and in science it is no different. If we suppose, for the moment, that the Theory of Evolution is actual fact, then we can see the philosophy of science in it, more importantly, answering the question why. The Theory of Evolution, posited by Charles Darwin, speaks of the notion of the survival of the fittest (one of those phrases you see everywhere in everyday usage, such as Nietzsche’s “What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger”, without any reference to the meaning intended). Evolution is a philosophy of nature simply because it states that the meaning of life is to survive. In order to survive for you and your children, one must adapt and change to new circumstances. And so, we can see that when single cells split and became dinosaurs and humans they did so in order to survive. Evolution is the science of survival. Indeed, there are fish who can work out the physics of flight so that they can catch bird flying overhead and who uses rocks as tools to open clams and the like. Whilst this isn’t as impressive as building a bomb to kill everyone, it certainly is impressive.

There is an old adage, If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear, does it make a sound?, to which the answer is, yes, of course it does as it obeys the laws of nature and so we don’t need to go into evolution to discuss the philosophy of science, we can say that things happen, why? Because they follow predetermined laws.

When it comes to theology, the question of why is more complex. The merry old soul, the Austrian philosopher, Wittgenstein, notes in his usual cheerful manner that‘I don’t know why we are here, but I’m pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves.’, and if you’ve read his books, you’ll see he put into practice his philosophy on the meaning of life. The French philosopher Sartre said that everything had been worked out except how to live, yet it is the philosopher, Nietzsche who, despite his reputation of being nihilistic, seems to have understood this question better:

 ‘He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how’.      

In this Nietzsche is saying, something which the philosophical movement of Existentialism (note: it wasn’t really a movement, it is just a generic term and predates the French 20^th Century philosophers who are most associated with it, for example, read the Russian author, Dostoyevsky) took as a central premise. They are saying paradoxically that life has no inherent meaning and subsequently the meaning of life is to give life meaning. For the existentialist, life is inherently meaningless and so the duty of our lives is to find and give meaning to our lives.  

Whilst I have shown that we cannot answer the questions of how and why in relation to existence, I have shown that these questions are not opposites and instead of asking why-how one should ask why-why and how-how. Likewise, to dismiss science or theology will mean that one cannot attempt to answer these questions for both are so intrinsically linked that to approach one without the other is like trying to find a black marble in a room with no lights.

‘till next time    

How and Why: Part 1: How

For centuries, if not longer, there has been a war going on. Like most wars it is an utterly pointless war, however, it rages on nonetheless. This war is between two philosophical schools of thought, two religions- those who believe in a God and those who believe in a Science. As we have noted before, since the Reformation, according to the pioneering psychologist Carl Jung, the only reality is that which can be measured (meaning, I guess, that emotions aren’t real). These two warring factions often fall upon two notions to support their argument- ‘How’ and ‘Why’. These are positioned as opposites so that any truth can be made or refuted from these points. For example, one will say that there is no God and that life just came into being. One would then refute this by asking, why do we exist? Another would say that we exist because a God made us. This would then be refuted by the question, how did God do it? Yet, if you look at these arguments, then the refutations are not linked to the original statement. ‘How’ and ‘Why’ do not answer each other as they are completely different. In two parts we will look at each question in turn in relation to existence. How we exist? and why we exist?

How we exist. Creationism is the belief that what is written in the book of Genesis (for example) in the Christian Bible is literal. In the book, God creates the heavens and the earth. Then he creates day and night, then he creates land and sea, then he creates animals (the types that we know- sorry extinct species such as dinosaurs and dodos) then he creates man, i.e. the male. He looks at man and sees that man is an idiot and, in the words of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, makes his second mistake and creates women. (Note: many Have accused Nietzsche of misogyny for saying this ignoring that Nietzsche is saying that man is the first mistake and women just compound the folly). Having created the universe and all the beautiful animals, God realises that with humans the law of diminishing returns has kicked in and retires.

Creationism is a nice story and one can see how it is tempting to believe it, yet, one thing does not add up. We have evidence of how evolution took place. Charles Darwin, to name but one, collated compelling evidence that humans as we are today evolved from single cell amoebas, through rodents, through monkeys, to us the latest stage of evolution. Yet, how can this fit with the notion that we were created by a God? Quite simply the Theory of Evolution offers the answer to the question, how did God create us? We can happily say that God stuck us all in a garden after creating the universe and we can also say that the way that he did this was through trial and error. Evolution can be seen as God having created something which wasn’t quite right and through adaption it started to take the shape that he wanted it to. And so we have an answer to the question and answer chain: God created us: how?: through evolution. Yes, there will be people who hear/read this and run screaming for the hills as they think their faith has been attacked, but remember what we, dear reader, noted the other day- faith is the evidence upon which people build belief.

The Big Bang Theory is the latest in a series of theories to explain how we exist. The theory states that at some point a few billion years ago, some stuff, for reasons no one knows, went BANG and this matter (what matter? Atoms make us all matter) was hurled into something? Nothing? And then after a few billion years monkeys decided that iPads are cool. Yes, I probably played up the uncertainty in this theory for comedic purposes, however, beneath the tortured humour, there is a serious question. If The Big Bang Theory happened as scientists theorize then this begs a question. Often people fill this void with the question, why did it happen?, however, as we have said before, this question is irrelevant in response to this theory. The question which should be asked, is how did it happen? Where did all of this stuff which created the computer I’m sat in front of come from? How did it all go bang? How did evolution take place? Suddenly, theology can be seen as God having created something out of nothing which started a process for what was created wasn’t quite right and through adaption it started to take the shape that needed to, to survive. And so we have an answer to the question and answer chain: The universe was created: how?: through the Will of God. Yes, there will be people who hear/read this and run screaming for the hills as they think their faith has been attacked, but remember what we, dear reader, noted the other day- faith is the evidence upon which people build belief.   

You will note that I have not answered the question, how do we exist? And, to be blunt, I don’t think this question can be answered, especially not by one as limited as me. Yet we have shown that the question: refutation of How/Why is not the correct question/answer chain, and, if we are to consider these questions seriously, we have to counter the question of How? with How? and Why? with Why?

‘till next time