Existentialism and Terrorism

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

These days I have been reading a lot on Sartre. His plays, some scraps of his philosophical thoughts. Personally I do agree with Sartre on many points. I am more inclined to believe that "existence precedes essence". I do believe every individual is free and we do have right to choose to do the things that we think that is right. And I do believe that we should take responsibility for our choice and action for taking responsibility per se is a major aspect of freedom.

But I have some scruples.
Will existentialism be used to justify terrorism? Look, to a terrorist, the cause they are fighting, they are killing innocent people for is "good", and they use their freedom to choose to kill. And they take responsibility.

The raising of this question might be simply derived from my ignorance on the subject, both existentialism and terrorism. But still I think that will even justify my action to raise the question, since I will know more in this process. Being confined in this tiny study and thinking merely on my own might just be in vain. I am yearning for talk and guidance.

JB

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,148 • Replies: 28

No top replies

I suspect that the suicide bomber is acting less out of free-choice than he is (as he imagines) called by God to do so.

What do you understand by the existentialist principle: Existence precedes essence?

0 Replies

The terrorists may even don't know existentialism.I think their minds are not free but are controled by their religion.
If they are really free,their thoughts and actions would be directed or guided by their own interests instead of by religions or other people.

Humans as a kind of intellectual organisms,whose actions and behaviors are governed by its own biological propensities.so in reality we are not absolutely free as the existentialism claims.

But in some countries,religions are so deeply implanted in people's minds that they are no longer dirrected by normal biological propensities,or in other words, their minds are no longer their own.

0 Replies

That just shows how ignorant and fresh I am in this field, since I am much troubled when your question comes to me.

Okay, I try my best to describe my understanding, maybe in the plainest words you have ever encountered.

I will use "I" to denote "existence". "existence precedes essence", which means There might be some "essence" around me, but without me, these essence does not have meaning. Yes, I know we have natural laws, we have mathematic axioms, but without the existence of "me", of myself, these things will be pointless, or as existentialsts put it, "aburd". Fundamentally and ultimately, it is "I" who matters. Issues of essence, of surroundings, the scientific study of the world, can only be considered in the context of the existence of "me".

That's just as far as I can get. (But surprisingly my interest right now is the highest I have ever had Twisted Evil

)

JB

0 Replies

pangheping wrote:

The terrorists may even don't know existentialism.I think their minds are not free but are controled by their religion.
If they are really free,their thoughts and actions would be directed or guided by their own interests instead of by religions or other people.

Humans as a kind of intellectual organisms,whose actions and behaviors are governed by its own biological propensities.so in reality we are not absolutely free as the existentialism claims.

But in some countries,religions are so deeply implanted in people's minds that they are no longer dirrected by normal biological propensities,or in other words, their minds are no longer their own.

To me, the issue of freedom is usually meaningless. I hold the belief that, "No one is aboslutely free, just as no one is not free". We will always have limits. To name the least, you have to eat, you have to abide by laws, you shouldn't kill others etc. To many thinkers, freedom is the freedom to choose, they think many people's thoughts and actions are governed by others. But it is also true that whether or not "governed" by others, they are still their thoughts. And by the same logic these freedom lovers will not be regarded as "free", since nobody's thoughts are actually produced by themselves, but rather "taught" by numerous people, books, etc.
I think we need a new system evaluate "freedom".
And I think even existentialist, like Sartre doesn't actually ecourage absolute freedom. I haven't read his philosophical works, but in one of his plays, The Flies, the main character was absolutely free at the begnining, but he was soon fed up with this kind of life. He said his freedom was like too light, light as cobweb. He wanted to be a citizen of his motherland instead of being a vagrant. To achieve this, he killed the King and his own mother, and took all the people's blame, all the responsibility on himself. And at last he was satisfied, and left.

Any ideas on "freedom" (wow, big issue)?

Thanks, JB

0 Replies

Meaning is a synergy.
That is why each aspect of it, when isolated, seems inadequate to explain the situation.

0 Replies

As I see it, "freedom" is the situation wherein we must make choices. The future is, in a sense, open-ended which implies options between which we MUST choose. We must make our future in other words. Moreover, we must make our very selves, our identities, our values, etc.

As far as I see it, existence precedes essense in the sense that we are "thrown" into a world that is fundamentally meaningless. It's essences or meanings must be created by us lest we live meaningless existences. I should stress, however, that the world we are "thrown" into does have ready-made meanings, the products of our ancestors' culture making. Through the process of socialization or enculturation we are taught portions of this culture (what we learn is our inheritance of our society's heritage or culture). The notion that we are "thrown" into in which we must create its meanings/essences applies, then, to our species and cultural community. At the same time, individuals do not accept or learn everything they are taught: enculturation is always imperfect. Hence individuals within the same culture are always different to some extent. They all share the same heritage, but have different inheritances from it.
We individuals must choose among the values, beliefs, and other constructs of our culture; this is an existential fact, an expression of our freedom such as it is.

0 Replies

Quote:

As I see it, "freedom" is the situation wherein we must make choices.

I agree.

Curious how we call choices being forced on us 'freedom', while we see the absence of choice as the oposite...

0 Replies

Yes, Cyracuz, that is interesting. What was the title of Eric Fromm's well-known book, Escape From Freedom? We want to be secure, he argued, and this means having decisions made for us (I hope I recall this correctly).
Jaspers, writing about Nietzsche, said that we are the prisoners of our convictions (maybe that's why we call prisoners "convicts?). Here we have the perspective that the freedom to form our own beliefs (convictions) is good but that the desire to maintain them is bad, a form of rigidity that compels us to not see the reality before us, to give up the plasticity needed for adaptation in an ever-changing world/reality.

0 Replies

When you put it like that it is easier to see how this conviction is the start of a lot of misconception and anguish.

0 Replies

And from the zen point of view (as I understand it) convictions are attachments reflecting a desire for things to be certain ways--philosophically speaking.
It seems to me that we think of Truth as something in the universe that we must uncover for our benefit. Truth, we assume, is always "good". Why should we assume that? From the perspective of our interests many truths (and perhaps even a General, Ultimate, Truth--or Reality) may be horrible from our point of view. I think not, but that's just my most precious conviction/attachment. From the zen perspective that must be thrown out like trash. Our most healthy mental stance is the beautiful ignorance of just experiencing each changing moment as it is, without qualification, without understanding. Only then, by not trying to objectify and manipulate the "objects" of experience, do we live as one with it. No more objects and no more subject.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

When you put it like that it is easier to see how this conviction is the start of a lot of misconception and anguish.

And the only conviction we should have is: We should have the freedom to think of ourselves, of our surroundings, and the freedom to Choose.

("Convict" is related with "convince" but rather in a verbial sense: To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court)

But I have a question. How to Choose? How to make the "RIGHT" choice? I think existentialists only try to teach us that, we SHOULD make choices. But they don't give a shred of idea what kind of choice we should make. They are neutral in this matter. And that may pay the responsibility for the historical fact that Heidegger turned into a fascist during a period of time, as well as many others.

0 Replies

God is life not death.

0 Replies

J_B, I wouldn't find must value in a philosophy that tells me precisely what choices to make. Its value lies in its contribution to my understanding of the general nature of the reality in which choices are made.

0 Replies

For..example?

0 Replies

Well, I guess I refer to the portion of my worldview resulting from my readings in philosophy. That reading has contributed to an ontology, epistemology and value system (all opened-ended and problematical to be sure) which form much the basis for the choices I make and my perceptions of options to choose between. Without this philosophical foundation, for whatever it's worth, I'd be making the kinds of choices made by--pardon the expression--the great unwashed.

BTW, in my last post I meant "much" rather than "must."

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Well, I guess I refer to the portion of my worldview resulting from my readings in philosophy. That reading has contributed to an ontology, epistemology and value system (all opened-ended and problematical to be sure) which form much the basis for the choices I make and my perceptions of options to choose between. Without this philosophical foundation, for whatever it's worth, I'd be making the kinds of choices made by--pardon the expression--the great unwashed.

BTW, in my last post I meant "much" rather than "must."

God knows the future, we do not.

This could make his choice a bit more informed than our own.

The process of spiritual guidance is such that we clear our minds of our own secret intents and special interests and then ask God the path to proceed.

If we come to God with our minds made up and then ask, we are not really seeking divine revelation but our own guidance.

0 Replies

JLN wrote:

It seems to me that we think of Truth as something in the universe that we must uncover for our benefit. Truth, we assume, is always "good". Why should we assume that? From the perspective of our interests many truths (and perhaps even a General, Ultimate, Truth--or Reality) may be horrible from our point of view. I think not, but that's just my most precious conviction/attachment.

Truth is an idea. Maybe even the highest ideal. What does true mean? In a sense it means "that wich appeals to us", and the quest for truth is always motivated by "untruths", or "that wich repels us".

One part of the path to unconditional happiness is to uncover the truth. Another part is to adapt to it.

To know what appeals to you is no easy task. Know this, or to borrow an ancient word of wisdom; know yourself, and you will be one happy individual.

0 Replies

Facts change, statistics change,
Yet, one of truth's attributes is that truth never changes...

When we adapt to the truth we become part of the eternal.

It is in the process of adapting that many people stumble.

receive retain release

We receive the word of truth with, meekness

We retain the word of truth with, conviction

And we release the word of truth with, boldness.

0 Replies

Interesting thoughts RedRex. But there is one thing in it I must object to, and it is your phrasing. You write "word of wisdom". I honelstly believe that words are of such a nature that it is impossible to convey truth with them.

0 Replies

Existentialism and Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know