Is anything real, and if not, does anything matter?
In existentialism, the individual’s starting point is characterised by what has been called “the existential attitude”, or ‘a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world’. (That’s a crib from one of the classic definitions)
One of my closest friends has a shorter version, which goes “It’s all bollocks and that’s official”.
His observation (and to this day I suspect he doesn’t realise this) inspired the brand ‘The Slog’….short for bollockslog. But the existentialist approach was what topped off the name for me: life is a bloody hard slog, but in the end it is meaningless and absurd. Hence, The Slog. Except that I don’t accept the basics of existentialism. Go figure.
There was much disagreement among the existentialists about, well, pretty much everything really – including how many principles of it there are – five? six? – whether to call themselves existentialists at all, and even about whether the e should be E. Most versions of it today list five principles. The first one – ‘Existence exists‘ – strikes many people as a thinking stage that could’ve been skipped, but it’s actually an antidote to the Buddhist assertion, ‘nothing is real’. So it is very important indeed. But I disagree with it, while liking much of what existentialism posits.
There was, for example, very little discord among the exi’s about what to do in the light of life’s existence, and its meaningless absurdity: potential is infinite, so all beings must try to realise their potential. There was lots of argey-bargey about whether we should do it on our own or look for collective help, but no deviation at all from the central rule: finding the world mad and doing nothing about it is not an option. Thus, the most celebrated exponent of this – Jean-Paul Sartre – believed that ‘In order to ground itself, the self needs projects, which can be viewed as aspects of an individual’s fundamental project and motivated by a desire for “being” lying within the individual’s consciousness. The source of this project is a spontaneous original choice that depends on the individual’s freedom.’
This may all sound like angels gyrating on a pinhead to you now, but remember that Sartre lived in a world where people were in three minds re what to do about fascism: support it, fight it, or do nothing.
Much of that (I’ve always thought) is about the individual exerting a free will upon a physical world. Change something in the world, and you prove you exist. Ergo, ‘Existentialism’. I have to say that reading Sartre, at Uni I often found the bugger seemed to contradict himself, move goalposts and shift sand at regular intervals; but ultimately, I suppose you could say that the bottom line here is “You exist, so don’t just stand there – do something”.
My problem is, I agree with the sentiment of that….up to but not including the ‘exist’ thing. My argument with Sartre is that the self is not real, there is no chance of feeling grounded, so wassa point, eh? I am that person eternally stuck between existentialism and Buddhism: I do think we should strive for a better world, but I don’t think the world is real – because if it was, then it wouldn’t be so f**king absurdly pointless. QED, or something.
Some eight years ago, I found a German philosopher (still very much alive as it happens) called Eckhart Tolle. He has written many books, but for me the definitive one is The Power of Now. I wouldn’t call myself a disciple – I dislike all cults – but there are truths in Tolle’s thinking that are both existential and Buddist at the same time. Above all, where Tolle cracks it is by saying that almost all human misery derives from guilt about the past and fear of the future…..so stay in The Now as much as you can. To my mind, putting his finger on Time as the Big Illusionist is what moves Tolle beyond being just another fortune cookie self-help-book clichéiste.
The concept of ‘Now’ is Buddhist, but it is also existentialist: that is, we exist in the Now, and the rest (ie Time) is bullsh*t. Follow that reasoning and you can plug directly into quantum physics, Einstein’s relativity theory – and much of the theory about sub-atomic physics….which in turn leads into a quite startling vindication of homaeopathy, revolving around the reversal of normal principles in the sub-atomic zone.
A sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world is what I feel most days on reading the spread of information available to all those of us who feel motivated to comment on it. What keeps me going are the absolute certainties that none of it is real, that we are all being tested to see what we make of it, that escape to what is real may well be the point of the entire exercise, and that all facile cynicism will do is ensure we never escape…because it only strengthens the bars that imprison us.
This is what makes me a hopelessly Buddhist Existentialist. I believe that Time is bunk, but Now is real – and all the true prophets were trying to tell us this in their own way. Allow yourself to be ruled by a right cortex ego obsessing about past and future, and you have no existence, no reality. But strive to make a difference in Now – in the true reality perceived by senses – and you become indestructibly immortal.
Take it or leave it: it is nevertheless my conclusion. Cue lots of smart-arsed threads about me being Out of my Depth etc etc. ; – )
Earlier at The Slog: Swivel-eyed loons reacting to thoughts on the nature of swivel-eyed loons
The Slog 