Tomorrow morning I'll be dropping a "Historiography" post about Linebaugh and Rediker's Many-Headed Hydra book about pirates, which fits in well with the Graeber.
I follow the existentialist path. To pull from Wikipedia because I am lazy:
'The actual life of the individual is what constitutes what could be called their "true essence" instead of an arbitrarily attributed essence others use to define them. Human beings, through their own consciousness, create their own values and determine a meaning to their life.'
'Some interpret the imperative to define oneself as meaning that anyone can wish to be anything. However, an existentialist philosopher would say such a wish constitutes an inauthentic existence – what Sartre would call "bad faith". Instead, the phrase should be taken to say that people are defined only insofar as they act and that they are responsible for their actions. Someone who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel person. Such persons are themselves responsible for their new identity (cruel persons). This is opposed to their genes, or human nature, bearing the blame.
As Sartre said in his lecture Existentialism is a Humanism: "Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world—and defines himself afterwards." The more positive, therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: a person can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person.'
The response to this is often, then, "But how do we know how to act if we are defining ourselves?" And I think Jesus really said it best: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." O and also: "No man is an island." Humans are inherently social and our moralism and direction and values are always, in some way, derived by the way we interact with the world and other humans.
I suppose in the end, I follow the idea that I do as I would wish everyone did. If I was in everyone's shoes - the poor, the disabled, the persecuted, the powerful, the rich - would my mind and my maxims result in the results I would like to see from those people? Its very hard to imagine, and of course we'll never know if we're getting it right. (Also why reading fiction is so important, because how else can you imagine being in others shoes?). But anywho.
Sounds good. One hears so much about Stoicism as a philosophy being popularly applied. It's nice to know existentialism is still having a day. Sounds like you have some cultural Christianity, Kant, and Rawls mixed in there, too! Love the mash-up. Lifelong learning at its finest.
O and I suppose Existentialism is a Humanism is part of my personal canon. It can live alongside Dune (a fun commentary on messiahs), The Last Hour of Gann (an extremely sexually graphic sci fi novel that incidentally is an excellent commentary on religion and faith), Foucault's History of Sexuality (on the role of power in relation to human biology and government), Das Capital by Marx (for obvious reasons), We by Zamyatin and We the Living by Ayn Rand (on individualism and groupthink). What else? O idk...we shall see
This is brilliant. And well-timed. Thanks, Tracy.
I'm jazzed that like minds are working on the necessity for lifelong learning! The educational landscape is changing, as it must.
Tomorrow morning I'll be dropping a "Historiography" post about Linebaugh and Rediker's Many-Headed Hydra book about pirates, which fits in well with the Graeber.
I follow the existentialist path. To pull from Wikipedia because I am lazy:
'The actual life of the individual is what constitutes what could be called their "true essence" instead of an arbitrarily attributed essence others use to define them. Human beings, through their own consciousness, create their own values and determine a meaning to their life.'
'Some interpret the imperative to define oneself as meaning that anyone can wish to be anything. However, an existentialist philosopher would say such a wish constitutes an inauthentic existence – what Sartre would call "bad faith". Instead, the phrase should be taken to say that people are defined only insofar as they act and that they are responsible for their actions. Someone who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel person. Such persons are themselves responsible for their new identity (cruel persons). This is opposed to their genes, or human nature, bearing the blame.
As Sartre said in his lecture Existentialism is a Humanism: "Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world—and defines himself afterwards." The more positive, therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: a person can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person.'
The response to this is often, then, "But how do we know how to act if we are defining ourselves?" And I think Jesus really said it best: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." O and also: "No man is an island." Humans are inherently social and our moralism and direction and values are always, in some way, derived by the way we interact with the world and other humans.
I suppose in the end, I follow the idea that I do as I would wish everyone did. If I was in everyone's shoes - the poor, the disabled, the persecuted, the powerful, the rich - would my mind and my maxims result in the results I would like to see from those people? Its very hard to imagine, and of course we'll never know if we're getting it right. (Also why reading fiction is so important, because how else can you imagine being in others shoes?). But anywho.
Sounds good. One hears so much about Stoicism as a philosophy being popularly applied. It's nice to know existentialism is still having a day. Sounds like you have some cultural Christianity, Kant, and Rawls mixed in there, too! Love the mash-up. Lifelong learning at its finest.
O and I suppose Existentialism is a Humanism is part of my personal canon. It can live alongside Dune (a fun commentary on messiahs), The Last Hour of Gann (an extremely sexually graphic sci fi novel that incidentally is an excellent commentary on religion and faith), Foucault's History of Sexuality (on the role of power in relation to human biology and government), Das Capital by Marx (for obvious reasons), We by Zamyatin and We the Living by Ayn Rand (on individualism and groupthink). What else? O idk...we shall see