Are Conservatives Closet Existentialists?

23 January 2008 | vanity

[shrinkermd]

In an introduction to his standout lecture series on existentialism Professor Robert C. Solomon summarizes and defines existentialism as follows:

”The message of existentialism, unlike that of many more obscure and academic philosophical movements, is about as simple as can be. It is that every one of us, as an individual, is responsible—responsible for what we do, responsible for who we are, responsible for the way we face and deal with the world, responsible, ultimately, for the way the world is. It is, in a very short phrase, the philosophy of “no excuses!” Life may be difficult; circumstances may be impossible. There may be obstacles, not the least of which is our own personalities, characters, emotions and limited means or intelligence. But, nevertheless, we are responsible. We cannot shift the burden onto God, or nature, or the ways of the world. If there is a God we choose to believe [and choose not to believe]. If nature made us one way, it is up to us to decide what we are to do with what nature gave us—whether to go along or fight back, to modify or transcend nature.”

While this is a simple definition, the philosophers and others who have defined this movement are diverse and controversial. Kierkegaard (a devout Christian) and Nietzsche (a devout atheist) were similar in one respect—they were out and out individualists who would deny belonging to anything including existentialism. They were also similar in the stress they placed on individual choice and action. As a consequence of the differences between existential writers, the above main unifying message of individualism has been neglected. As a consequence we have seen existentialism as a vague, unimportant personal philosophy and relegated it to a closet in our mind. This closet is seemingly to be opened only rarely and incompletely.

At the same time many of us on FR have forwarded this or that definition of what is and what is not a conservative. I have chosen to adhere to Russell Kirk’s 10 characteristics of conservatism. Many other Freepers use a laundry list approach to defining conservativism. But underlying the varying definitions is an assumption of individual choice.

Of course modern liberalism deemphasizes individual judgment. Modern liberalism focuses on group identities and group persuasions. Even the thinking of modern liberals is antithetical to individual judgment as witnessed by a quote from a Sayet Speech:

”… What happens is, they are indoctrinated into what I call a "cult of indiscriminateness." The way the elite does this is by teaching our children, start¬ing with the very young, that rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry; that no matter how sin¬cerely you may seek to gather the facts, no matter how earnestly you may look at the evidence, no matter how disciplined you may try to be in your reasoning, your conclusion is going to be so tainted by your personal bigotries, by your upbringing, by your religion, by the color of your skin, by the nation of your great-great-great-great-great grandfa¬ther's birth; that no matter what your conclusion, it is useless. It is nothing other than the reflection of your bigotries, and the only way to eliminate bigot¬ry is to eliminate rational thought.

An individualist conservative, “no excuses” approach to thinking seems to be the underlying theme of conservativism. The different definitions of conservativism eventually come to terms with one another by recognizing when it comes to individual choice conservatives are much more alike than they are different. And, they are virtual polar opposite in their thinking approach to modern liberals.

[shrinkermd]

Professor Solomon has written two books worthy of reading--Continental Philosphy Since 1750: The Rise and Fall of the Self and Existentialism.

The lectures can be found: HERE.

[Ukiapah Heep]

Is he calling me French?

[Rudder]

Existentialism is a cop-out.

[Paul Heinzman]

It is, in a very short phrase, the philosophy of “no excuses!”

That's actually Stoicism.

Sartre defined Existentialism as the philosophy in which existence precedes essence. That's as short and accurate a phrase as has ever been used to define Existentialism.

Professor Solomon could learn a lot from an introduction to philosophy textbook.

[Chode]

”The message of existentialism, unlike that of many more obscure and academic philosophical movements, is about as simple as can be. It is that every one of us, as an individual, is responsible—responsible for what we do, responsible for who we are, responsible for the way we face and deal with the world, responsible, ultimately, for the way the world is. It is, in a very short phrase, the philosophy of “no excuses!” Life may be difficult; circumstances may be impossible. There may be obstacles, not the least of which is our own personalities, characters, emotions and limited means or intelligence. But, nevertheless, we are responsible. We cannot shift the burden onto God, or nature, or the ways of the world. If there is a God we choose to believe [and choose not to believe]. If nature made us one way, it is up to us to decide what we are to do with what nature gave us—whether to go along or fight back, to modify or transcend nature.”

and there it is...

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

re: "Are Conservatives Closet existentialists?"

Some moderates are. They spend a fair amount of time in Absurdistan.

There have been attempts in the past to draft Nietzsche and Heidegger. Mostly unsuccessful and bizarre. Back when National Review was still conservative, the Randroids, who sometimes frequent the same clubs and conventions as Nietzscheans, were banned largely because they were kooks. Although her mustache probably didn't help either.

Sartre, of course, was a Communist. But he denied being an Existentialist. Sometimes. It is hard to keep the story straight. When there is no truth and nothing has a nature things tend to get a little confusing.

[Arthur McGowan]

Conservatives are essentialists. They are not existentialists or nominalists.

Nominalism is the root of the Western Schism, the French Revolution and all modern totalitarianism, and modern liberalism.

Actually, sex addiction is the root of REALLY modern liberalism—i.e., it is sex addiction that leads to the “need” for abortion.

[IronJack]

Russel Kirk’s definition of conservatism works fine for me: “Conservatives prize liberty over equality.”

[ex 98C MI Dude]

Isn’t that the truth!

Liberty triumphs over Hillary’s Marxist ideals.

Many FReepers seem to not get that idea.

In the name of ‘security’.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

As Descartes said, "I drink, therefore I am."

That would be Leon "Shovelhead" Descartes at the local biker bar.

He is considered the father of modern biker-bar philosophy.

[IronJack]

Liberty triumphs over Hillary’s Marxist ideals.

Hillary wasn't even clever enough to invent them; they came straight from the tattered playbook of the tired Left. It's the procrustean solution: one size fits all, and if we're not equal by birth, then by Lenin, we'll MAKE you be equal!

Worked out well in the French Revolution, eh? And we all saw the shining success of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic, Cuba, and the banana republics in South America.

Liberalism is a lie written in human blood.

[IronJack]

As Descartes said, "I drink, therefore I am."

Ahem. I think the line was "I think, therefore I drink." And it was coined by BOB Descartes, who runs a bait shoppe and neurosurgery practice in Queens.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

Yeah, well, there are a s!@tload of folks that can’t quite grasp that concept. They think that the .gov can order something and make it so.

They have absolutely NO concept of history, though they might think so. Their idea of history doesn’t extend past the last 15 years.

Liberalism (modern concept) is nothing but socialism writ large. It will lead to the destruction of this Nation.

In the name of ‘fairness’.

[KC Burke]

Essence proceeds existance and not the other way around.

Beauty lives,
though lilies die.
...Kirk was fond of that bit...and stressed the first principle as a belief in an enduring moral order, for God and Man, and for the state.

Existentialism is not about conservatism, it is one bowl of the metaphysical stew that Burke constantly warned about.

There was a cadre of Christian Existentialists and you can dig up writings in that genre, but it will get you no where you want to go.

God is the initiator -- and man the responder, and if you don't get that right, you are going to waste a lot of time in life.

[Dumb_Ox]

It is that every one of us, as an individual, is responsible—responsible for what we do, responsible for who we are, responsible for the way we face and deal with the world, responsible, ultimately, for the way the world is.

This requires every individual to be Superman. "Responsible for the way the world is"? That's a very broad responsibility. A thing must be limited to be achievable, hence limited government among other things. Surely a smaller scope is necessary.

This evokes the self-creating individual of Romanticism. This individual is incapable of gratitude and lacks sympathy for the weak who cannot fulfill these alleged responsibilities.

But underlying the varying definitions is an assumption of individual choice.

I don't think that's right. The quality of individual choices can often be rationally judged, though it's not necessarily the govt.'s place to do that judging. "Individual choice" is a mantra for many who simply can't respond to criticism of their choices, because their choices are rationally unjustifiable.

Further, I'm not sure why choice is such a great thing. Take the choice between seeing clearly, and sticking a fork in one's eye. Not very noble, eh?

Choice is tragic, because it is a sign we do not know, or refuse to know, our true good in a given situation or even in the whole course of our life.

[Lauren BaRecall]

Due to the pioneering work of Russian translator Ksenia Sedyakina, it has been recently discovered that Rene Descartes has been mistranslated, and misquoted for centuries. The Old French equivalent for "malodoreuse" is confused with the modern French "penser," i.e., "to think."

The accurate translation is: "I stink, therefore, I am."

A cursory study of sanitation in Europe is further proof of the legitimacy of this fresh understanding of Descartes thought and works.

[kinsman redeemer]

From Wikipedia article on Existentialism defining it this way: individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to deities or authorities creating it for them

And then goes on to say:
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
WikiProject Philosophy or the Philosophy Portal may be able to help recruit one.
If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.

I just think this is hiliarous.

[uglybiker]

BTTT

[RightWhale]

the philosophers and others who have defined this movement are diverse and controversial.

The movement cannot be defined. That is basic logic. Nothing empirical can be defined. It can be described, but a one sentence description would probably not meet everyone's needs.

[shrinkermd]

Yes, I agree with you. I should have used "described." But medicine is an organized discipline which is big on definitions.

By the way there is a new book review out that you can find HERE. Nasty things to say about the Sartre-Beauvoir compact.