christianity and the existentialistic concept

[lutherangerman]

In existentialistic philosophy, and maybe in other philosophy too, there is often the idea of a concept, of a plan that man makes, and that this is really life.

I wanted to ask how christian beliefs fit in there. I mean I would say that for a christian, life is done with God, and making a concept is something you do with God too.

However, there is a certain pleasure associated with making your own concept. This doesn't mean it would be against God. It doesn't require me to abandon faith. But it's a bit like in youth - you try to prove yourself, you try to make your life your own. And people draw a lot of comfort from seeing things like that and following them through.

The thing is, I am currently 34 years old. I had been secluded from life for 12 years because I got sick with schizophrenia and, if you can believe me, I had trouble with the devil. I was generally pretty whacked out and had very odd beliefs and had lot's fear, many recurring nightmares, a general feeling of being battered and oppressed. I couldn't work anymore and I couldn't go studying at college as I had originally wanted.

But after many years of living alone and later on living with my parents again, I'm now in the position of making a new start. That is, I can't start a career or something, still can't reliably go to work and all that. But we're planning that in a year or so I will have my own appartment again.

But I'm not sure what I should aim for. I had this spiritual dream in spring that really soothed me, I saw myself in old and worn clothing that appeared really youthfully eccentric and beautiful to me, and it was like God said, pursue an alternative lifestyle, allow your eccentricities when they don't harm anyone, and allow yourself to see freedom in a life with Jesus. This really really really appealed to me and made me see life with God in a much better way than I had previously conceived.

And so I sit here making a concept. I think the dream that I had could be something like a dream for my life, and it wouldn't be a vain imagination that cannot work. I mean, my financial independence is pretty secure here in Germany as I am getting an Aid Grant because of my illness, and I also have some savings. And, I must add, when I had this dream I also had the impression from God that I should learn to live frugally when it comes to money and expensive things. I returned to my once-favourite hobby of writing poetry, and I began getting interested in pantomime and action art. I've also been reading books again about people who live on the road, and saw movies of old hippies. My concept is that I would be something like an old hippie, only without the drugs, without the other religions and without the fornication. Basically a christian life with God, but done in a more eccentric way than it is usually done with work and career and family and all that.

Can you give me any good input on this philosophy? And on living your dreams and all that? I've met some people who did this follow your dreams thing, and they appeared much happier and more fulfilled and peaceful to me. It's like everyone should have dreams like that, and that for christianity this is not a mindless rebellion against the good order of life, like people in earlier times maybe would have said, but that it is a really good and valid way of living that can make you really happy - and happiness is not excluded from living the faith.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have a few thoughts on existentialism. First if you dream than its your interpretation and responsibility. Take it a s a joke or as a revelation its in some sense up to you. I think that anthropologists of dream would show that people have approached them in different ways.

More on my own Christian existentialism. I would (not taking ot too seriously) see man made from clay as a symbol for the freedom of man to shape himself through action

ALso I would see the spirit "I am" as an affirmation of existenece that needs in theory to be matched by affirmitive positive lifestyle that can result in actually loving being ( I AM !!!) rather than flying from the fact of ones essence through suicide or hostility to life.

More personally I see the devastating nature of some of lifes evil as rationalising my inconsistency, hypocricy and irrationality. I have given up trying to be good from a philosophically stringent humanist rationalist perspective. Now I dont care too much about the dubeity of some of my beliefs so long as I dont do people harm. I am very much my own existential hero clinging to my own spirituality and life force by means fair of foul to some degree, but this is my personal authenticity in the face of an absurd and hostile system of things. My life is my film Ill do it my way.

I see life as art and the canvas is the day and week, not paper. So for me religious ritual can be like an avante garde expression alongside the more conventional interpretations and piety. This again is in flight from the anonymising everyday and boring routine, and instead a attempt to grasp lifes value through creative exploration and acquaintance with novelty and strangeness. I love to say a rosary, even if i am opposed to some of the historical nuances of politics in the church.

But for me such stuff can be an an attemprt at being rather than merely subsisting. I like the poerty of Appolinaire who used esoteric imagery IIRC. Life is a poem, rather than poetry and creativity being marginalised and pigeonholed into "works of art" to be admired in the gallery or booklet etc. This is part of being creative to me, and making the work of life interesting and worthy of being. Also I like to explore the plasticity of mind.

The only major qualm I have in being religious is the anti gay nature of the faith, but I have donated to a gay rights charity so my conscience is not too murky.

 

[variant]

I would reference any of the number of Christian existentialists if you want to go down this road.

Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky to name two prominent names.

Christian existentialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism

From my perspective though, no one can tell you your appropriate concept, meaning or aesthetic. It is something you have to choose for yourself.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

From my perspective though, no one can tell you your appropriate concept, meaning or aesthetic. It is something you have to choose for yourself

What about having others create menaing and purpose for us? Is there such a thing as an argument from authority in these cases? Certainly there is authoritative scientific interpratation of much of physical reality, but what about moral telos? Are certain ends not more desirable to human nature even if thay are not known to be so by the ignorant?

Every man for himself sounds like a philosophy of chaos, relativism and disintegration. Thats ok if there is no authority to be had, and all beginnings and ends are equally "absurd", but I am not sure that such is the case.

After all, when we choose a certain course of action, (or medication for than matter) things will start to feed back and add up in an objective, unavoidable fashion. If axiology is part of lived reality, and I think it is, and it is subject to physical law just as are apples to gravity, then I imagine there are (or should be) expert opinions in ethics as well as science. Authorities who know how things add up, know the equations that are more fitting to the human condition, and therefore the meanings - or moral objectives - we ought to pursue, and meanings - or moral interpretations - we ought to believe. That is, knowing them to be better for us and therefore pragmatically - just like logic, rationality, induction, realism, anti pyharroism etc - worthy of our faith if not something more...

Worthy because they work, and produce what we want. Not what we pretend we want in a fit of existentialist invention*, but what reflects and nourishes the axiological demands of human nature.


* e.g.

"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest." Neitzsche.

The point being that just as there are foods that feed our stomachs, there are goods that feed our hearts. The existentialist perhaps imagines the heart is an omnivore, but really its input is as limited and rule bound as the stomach. People believe in phsyical poison, so why not moral ones too? Or is morality not a physical phenomenon? I believe it is.

 

[Nooj]

And on living your dreams and all that? I've met some people who did this follow your dreams thing, and they appeared much happier and more fulfilled and peaceful to me.

I won't promise you that your dreams will work out to your satisfaction. But you won't know unless you try.

We're not totally free. We're all constrained by who we are and what the world imposes upon us, although everyone has their own things to deal with. Those conditions may be unfair and cruel. But you are a free man in the ways that count. I sincerely hope you fulfill your dream.

What about having others create menaing and purpose for us? Is there such a thing as an argument from authority in these cases?

Even if they create that purpose and tell us what they want us to be, isn't it our choice to accept and adopt their purpose, to make their purpose our own?

 

[variant]

What about having others create menaing and purpose for us?

It is the choice of every lucid individual how they get meaning and purpose, and it is inescapable choice regardless of if you come to it by virtue of guidance of others or any other way.

Is there such a thing as an argument from authority in these cases?

Authority only exist in matters of demonstrable truth, not in values.

Some might argue that there is a best set of values, but it would only be best from some specific measure and thus from some specific perspective and value system.

Certainly there is authoritative scientific interpratation of much of physical reality, but what about moral telos? Are certain ends not more desirable to human nature even if thay are not known to be so by the ignorant?

There are truths and there are values.

Truths are objective and values subjective. There may be a best subjective outcome but it is relative to the perspective. There are best values with respect to humanity as a whole to the degree that humanity is whole shares values identity and perspective.

Every man for himself sounds like a philosophy of chaos, relativism and disintegration. Thats ok if there is no authority to be had, and all beginnings and ends are equally "absurd", but I am not sure that such is the case.

You've gone round the bend here. A lack of objective moral authority doesn't mean that agreed authority of subjective morality is impossible.

Give people reasons and appeal to them and they will often share your opinions of right and wrong. It's how "rights" are created. It's how society builds and organizes itself out of chaos.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Truths are objective and values subjective. There may be a best subjective outcome but it is relative to the perspective. There are best values with respect to humanity as a whole to the degree that humanity is whole shares values identity and perspective.

I dont get this. Aren't "subjects" part of an objective universe, and just as rule bound as the next objective entity? The fact that you say value is subjective (why argue over terms unless there is an important logical difference) does not seem to make it any less rule bound than any other physical phenomenon. Is that agreed? Or does "subjective" entail freedom from objective, inescapable physical laws? "The starry heavens above me and the moral creativity within me" (to paraphrase Kant in an existential fashion)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Authority only exist in matters of demonstrable truth, not in values.

You've gone round the bend here. A lack of objective moral authority doesn't mean that agreed authority of subjective morality is impossible.

Give people reasons and appeal to them and they will often share your opinions of right and wrong. It's how "rights" are created. It's how society builds and organizes itself out of chaos.

A and not-A?

 

[variant]

I dont get this. Aren't "subjects" part of an objective universe, and just as rule bound as the next objective entity?

No, subjectivity exists because of abstractions and concepts which are no more bound to be objective than they are to be internally consistent.

The goal of the subjective is often to discover and describe the objective but they are not bound to be the same thing at all.

If subjectivity were bound to the objective universe then it would be impossible to be wrong for instance, or to hold conflicting ideas.

The fact that you say value is subjective (why argue over terms unless there is an important logical difference) does not seem to make it any less rule bound than any other physical phenomenon. Is that agreed?

No, subjective things are dependent on the observer. I might like pizza more or less than you do, but there is nothing objective about it.

Morality is often described by conflicting values. I may value freedom more than I value solidarity for instance, leading me to take a different view of morality than someone else.

Or does "subjective" entail freedom from objective, inescapable physical laws? "The starry heavens above me and the moral creativity within me" (to paraphrase Kant in an existential fashion)

I may value things that you do not without either of us being objectively "correct". That is what I mean by subjectivity.

To conflate the two terms is horrendously wrong.

 

[variant]

A and not-A?

No.

Objective moral authority doesn't need to exist for people to agree on morality.

If you think this is contradictory just because it doesn't meet your preconceptions please don't bother me with it.

If you want to demonstrate a contradiction demonstrate it.

 

[Mediaeval]

I think God wants us to live in the real world and discover His hand at work in it.
For practical wisdom and balance, meditate on the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
You may also find G. K. Chesterton's works helpful.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No, subjectivity exists because of abstractions and concepts which are no more bound to be objective than they are to be internally consistent.

The goal of the subjective is often to discover and describe the objective but they are not bound to be the same thing at all.

If subjectivity were bound to the objective universe then it would be impossible to be wrong for instance, or to hold conflicting ideas.

Brain states exist objectively, all "subjectivity" is brain states, therefore subjectivity exists objectively, and is subject to the same laws as the brain is subject to. I do not get this idea of divorce from the rest of reality because consciousness is there. Counscious subjectivity is a physical state or process and is bound by physical laws. Surely thats right, and ethically significant?

No, subjective things are dependent on the observer. I might like pizza more or less than you do, but there is nothing objective about it.

What about the pizza? Is that not part of the equation? Your argument is analogous to "we are at one end of the scales, but your fulcrum is in a different position, therefore because same object reads differently on each scale, its all subjetive!"

Morality is often described by conflicting values. I may value freedom more than I value solidarity for instance, leading me to take a different view of morality than someone else.

And people believed all sorts of things about the universe, most of them wrong. Then again there may just be different ways of realising value in life, just as there are many good meals.


Cultural reality is normative yet plastic. So we can respond positively to many different cultures (even ones with false beliefs) if we have time and skill to adapt.

But skepticism about knowing the best culture for everyone in every last detail doees not mean there are no good rules of thumb.

I may value things that you do not without either of us being objectively "correct". That is what I mean by subjectivity.

Well I do not see morality as true of mind independent phenomenon either. But with mind (brain) engaging with the world (eg pizza) objective axiological (real true inescapable) results emerge.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No.

Objective moral authority doesn't need to exist for people to agree on morality.

Saying "all value is subjective" distinguishes by conversational implication from an objective, law bound realm, and that is where I am in disagreement.


And I dont get the "mere opinion" attitude, although you have nt stated that. We are thrown into a world of value, and must live with values that are thrust upon us by the forces of nature. Calling this mere opinion is like saying torture is mere perception.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think God wants us to live in the real world and discover His hand at work in it.

Live? Merely subsist or what?

 

[variant]

Brain states exist objectively, all "subjectivity" is brain states, therefore subjectivity exists objectively, and is subject to the same laws as the brain is subject to. I do not get this idea of divorce from the rest of reality because consciousness is there. Counscious subjectivity is a physical state or process and is bound by physical laws. Surely thats right, and ethically significant?

Sometimes I wonder about you GS.

Try to walk through a wall tomorrow or jump off of a tall building and intend to fly.

Your thoughts are not bound to objective laws, they are free to be very wrong. Your experience IS divorced from objective reality and has it's own interrelationships based upon how you see the world and your perspectives, definitions and decisions.

Brains being physical/chemical in nature or objectively part of the universe doesn't change this fact.

What about the pizza? Is that not part of the equation? Your argument is analogous to "we are at one end of the scales, but your fulcrum is in a different position, therefore because same object reads differently on each scale, its all subjetive!"

I am not a pizza deliciousness scale.

If it is not shared consistently it is not objective.

Pizza isn't delicious to everyone objectively because I say it is delicious to me.

Yes there are objective things going on that may make people like pizza. What I am saying is that my liking pizza is not in and of itself objective.

The words mean different things.

And people believed all sorts of things about the universe, most of them wrong. Then again there may just be different ways of realising value in life, just as there are many good meals.

Indeed, and if morality depends on what you value it is subjective.

Cultural reality is normative yet plastic. So we can respond positively to many different cultures (even ones with false beliefs) if we have time and skill to adapt.

But skepticism about knowing the best culture for everyone in every last detail doees not mean there are no good rules of thumb.

Having rules of thumb and cultural agreements are entirely feasible in a subjective morality.

However we share morality when we share values and rank values similarly.

Having a good rule of thumb is essentially trying to look for an outcome that will be most morally pleasant and agreeable for everyone.

The task in society is to share morality with one another in such a way as to build the best society for everyone involved.

Well I do not see morality as true of mind independent phenomenon either. But with mind (brain) engaging with the world (eg pizza) objective axiological (real true inescapable) results emerge.

Not really, I am free to change my mind about liking pizza.

I used to like twinkies, but later on in life I changed my value preferences from seeking gratification as young person to the health consciousness of a young man.

When your values change or are reevaluated so is your moral decision making.

I may make my decisions based upon real experiences and real world situations but the values involved are subjective, I must act toward what I value for it to be of value to me.

Values are found in the valuing, and morality is found in living.

 

[variant]

Saying "all value is subjective" distinguishes by conversational implication from an objective, law bound realm, and that is where I am in disagreement.

And I dont get the "mere opinion" attitude, although you have nt stated that. We are thrown into a world of value, and must live with values that are thrust upon us by the forces of nature. Calling this mere opinion is like saying torture is mere perception.

This is why you are confused.

You live in a law bound realm, and you can predict outcomes based upon knowledge. When we work with this sort of thing we are talking about how we process information and make predictions. What works best to achieve what goal.

None of these conversations are MORAL conversations, they don't have to do with what we value aside from those of us who value our ability to affect what we see as positive changes in the world around us.

What outcomes you want to have, and what you choose when free to is based upon what you value.

People having certian values has objective consequences too, and can be evaluated with non-moral processes. But, you always come back to that point where people have to decide what they value, what they want and that is based upon them.

People even tend to value things for objective REASONS, but the values always come back to fundamental parts of themselves.

When I say something arises from you, the subject, I mean you make decisions to value certain things based upon who and what you are.