Journal: Philosophy

13 July 2018: At The Existentialist Cafe ISBN: 9781590518892

Trying to understand Heidegger makes me angry. Two possibilities: I'm arrogant while being simultaneously unable to understand him; I should stop and take my anger seriously. I'm beginning to understand that both phenomenology and existentialism it most at home in the everyday world. My anger may be implying something.

If I don't pay attention to my anger it might be that I allow myself to put Heidegger aside too easily. It may be that he is leading me in a direction that isn't represented in Being and Time, but that my world view is reacting to. My anger could lead to my having personal insights that I could easily miss.

16 July 2018: Existentialism and Human Emotions ISBN: 9780806509020

I agree with what I'm finding in Sartre's defense of Existentialism. I disagree with the radical departure point in terms of freedom. There is simply no way to argue whether God exists or not. I think it's obvious that a person can be free with all the consequences of that freedom: anguish, forlornness, and despair while God also exists. I believe that existence precedes essence, though true is not true in as a radical a sense as Sartre presents it. I do not believe that a person would choose to be a pedophile, or a thief without a preexisting tendency in those directions. A person is subject to both genetic predisposition as well as his/her social situation. Within those preexisting conditions a person can exercise freedom of will to a vast degree. A person can go from being raised in poverty and racism to achieve anything they are capable of, in a free country. However, opportunity must exist in some form. The home country must be free, or the person must be able to get to a new home country that is free.

17 July 2018: Being and Time ISBN: 9780060638504; Being and Nothingness ISBN: 0671867806

Reading Being and Time is like trying to cut glass with a kitchen knife. It is almost as if Heidegger is being willfully obscure. This is why I dislike reading this book as much as I do. I understand that Heidegger felt the need to invent vocabulary to make his point, it just feels profoundly arrogant to me. His point could be made with simple language. In fact, his idea demands simple language. If you are focusing on being in the world and trying to strip away artifice in discussing it; how does layering linguistic artifice on the process honor it?

Being and Nothingness is difficult and I cannot say that I understand it so far. However, unlike Being and Time, Sartre is using more consistent language. If an object is its phenomena, then why complicate observation with unique language. Common language should give insight into a simple observation. I don't believe that a philosophy can strip away unnecessary complexity when discussing any particular phenomena; by using unnecessarily complex language.