Malcolm Turnbull lost his grip as Prime Minister in just 48 hours

Click here to read How Malcolm Turnbull lost his grip as Prime Minister in just 48 hours.

I think part of the problem of everyday existence and politics today is their underlying “ideologies" whether conservative, liberal, or socialist, is they lack coherency. These dogmas ate argued on the basis ‘we are right, you are wrong' tag, about things that are indefinable.  In general I don’t think free-thinking individuals always fit into any system of thought. That could be the equivalent of putting on a straight-jacket.

 

Given today’s revelations we gain new insight into how the so called liberalism was at odds to conservative values and how quickly liberalism fractures on so many issues.

A more sensible approach might be tied to a social justice theme to argue policies identified with this thematic rather than being beholden to any particular ideology. In a sense an ongoing work in progress.

Another example is what sort of policy you have on power or energy must always revert back to some basic party style philosophy.

That determines who owns what and the underlying principles to regulation. Only once you have sorted that out you can then make sensible decisions on emission targets and draft an industry policy. What happened is we adopted a target bereft of an industry policy.           

 

Having such conflicting ideas in the liberal party it is a recipe for disaster. It can only work if you have a nimble leader who convinces both sides they are wrong and leads the troops to a third way, which is to be receptive to the mood of their electorate, not to be swayed by external powerful influencers. Such a tortuous position survived in the past but I’m not sure it can continue on indefinitely.

Hence I think the days of the liberal party surviving as a broad church (John Howard’s idea) to become more sympathetic to a conservative agenda is unlikely to survive unless they ditch the very idea of liberalism. Or they redefine what it means to be a liberal human being. Can anyone tell me what you think it means. Individualism seems to me to be a nonsensical idea that contradicts our history to identify with a culture that shapes and helps explain that shared existence.  

Whilst I don’t agree with conservatism as such at least they can define just a little better what they believe in as opposed to the liberals who can’t. Although we might not like it much.      

 

Is there such a thing as a true self

Reading an article from the conversation I was struck by the last line: Deep thinkers will question whether the idea of an authentic true self passes philosophical muster. But even if it is an illusion, it may be a useful one.

That reminded me of the determinism versus free will debate. At the end of the day it makes sense to live your life as you have free will as otherwise you can’t make sense of it. But mostly I believe in determinism, but even so that rarely comes into play in my thinking or living except for the rather obvious mortality issue.

So let us say that the authentic self is illusory but even so explore the possibility it is a kind of work in progress as a human construct.   

So it’s going to vary throughout your lifelong experience and also according to what’s in one’s mind at the time.  So no absolutes are possible as it properly must be regarded as transient according to the circumstances.  

But from a personal viewpoint I find the idea of having a set of values that I might loosely associate with I think is my authentic self ( regardless of whether that is illusory ) is very useful and none more so than one is under a lot of pressure. Without wanting to give the impression from an egotistical point of view  I am a paradigm of virtue, that principle has served me well when getting rid of fraud in corporate situations when it came down to showing a bit of courage and suffering at a personal level as a consequence. Not such a big deal some might say but in a large group none the less you may finish up being the lone one willing to stand up so to speak. It happened on a number of occasions and each time it involved introspection. As best as I can think of it that means you arrive at a conclusion about yourself and what staying true to yourself really means. In other words staying true to your authentic self at the time. I think the idea of relating to one’s authentic self is very helpful. Not just for me but others, in similar positions in life, have all said the same thing.

A help to self- examination throughout life, but I hasten to add It cannot be pretentious as in publically pretending to be authentic.         

In search of self and freedom

In this paper I want to talk more about the modern era of existentialism to expand on the work of Sartre, his long life partner Simone de Bouvier and Camus.

For Sartre, my reference is to what is considered his most important works, ‘Being and Nothingness’.   
Although influenced by Heidegger, Sartre was highly skeptical of his conclusions, but retained some elements evident in Being and Nothingness.
Being and Nothingness.  

Sartre, in his final ontology sums up what there really is; on the one hand ‘before itself’, is the conscious source of our meaning whilst on the other hand  ‘what it is’ so to speak, having no characteristics and which he calls ‘in itself”.

Therefore a world can only be meaningful as ‘before itself’ gives meaning to the ‘in itself’, similar to the Kierkegaardian idea.  

But the before itself represents pure nothingness to incorporate the Heidegger influence.  The way to describe this is just a nothingness or nullity if you will or that it has no essence. However what Sartre also posits is the ‘before itself’ by necessity, must have some kind of content and identity to live as in itself for itself. This contradiction of us constantly having to cope with the dizzy idea of nothingness, yet at the same time creating a meaning for ourselves out of this void is what Sartre illustrates starkly in the strange and dizzy images from Nausea.

But what is meant here is made much more clear.  In fact the only difference to the father of existentialism, namely Kierkegaard, is that  Sartre asserts you can’t get a defining commitment. His position is that whatever we are, is so free that we constantly redefining whatever we are. No commitment could ever be for eternity ( with GOD) or from that perspective it is necessary for us because of that nullity. But to reiterate Sartre realises we must have some kind of content and identity to live as ‘in itself’ ‘for itself’. 

The way Sartre gets around this idea of a nullity and self is in the employment of a feudal passion. So he acknowledges the self needs to have an identity, so he proposes it is this passion that fills the void (before itself) or nullity if you will, to engage in his so called life projects. So, for Sartre, we are in a constant state of commitment as per each life project, Sartre acknowledges, as does Kierkegaard, we need to get together this sense of self as otherwise we will be in state of despair.      

So that according to Sartre there is always a real risk of continually reverting to bad faith as we are covering up this frightening reality of a nullity by wanting to have some form of external influencer as in a ‘other’ to give comfort and clarity to our existence. He suggests this bad faith arises every time we place reliance on some other convention or form of authority. In other words to allow others to make choices for us based on how you ought to live. He doesn’t accept there is a narrative to our life or that to find meaning to our life we need to go back to our roots. All of that kind of thinking for Sartre is in effect bad faith.

This is a somewhat bleak assessment in keeping with his atheistic perspective. However I don’t think it is a very good argument for atheism inn existentialist philosophy. One could still adopt a theistic or agonistic perspective so long as you accepted that a cause (GOD) did not interfere or influence our freedom or to make decisions embodied in the concept of free will. Bearing that in mind his philosophy might be described as the secularised version of Kierkegaard.

However, this does not mean we escape any form or responsibility. On the contrary he posits we have that responsibility for the whole of humanity at the same time. But the question to ask is how would you determine this?

How can you acutely assess, how your decisions you are free to make impact on the rest of the world, so that their freedom is not compromised?

His solution to this ethical question was to use imagination, so that such a freedom to make choices involved a prior responsibility to imagine the effect on humanity that should not curtail the freedom of that ‘other’.

Albert Camus       

Albert Camus followed a similar idea to posit that not only does our life lack meaning, but it is absurd. Hence he introduced the philosophical question of suicide. But in answering such a question he affirmed a positive life response. Rather than contemplating suicide, his response was that the acceptance of the existential reality of absurdity one is then totally free to create our own meaning, free from any preconceived notions or idol worship. In other words to rebel passionately against that absurdity so we are free to create our own meaning and to passionately embrace each moment of life free from any preconceived notions.    

There can be no notion of values, only that of more quantity as may be gained from the more passionate experiences.  Camus does not present any substantive philosophical foundation to support his position other than to point out no firm conclusions have ever been presented on metaphysics previously.

In his book ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’ is the depiction of one condemned for all eternity to pushing a boulder up a mountain only to have it roll continually roll back to where it was before and so on. This was to emphasize the futility and pointlessness of his task. But Sisyphus is willingly to continue on in eternity happily engaged in what seems a pointless task. 

One might consider the purpose of Camus in his novel was to express the idea that confronted with the grim reality of identifying a life without meaning, we rebel against that, but can be happy in the continuing task of living, even though it must end in death.

Simmone de Beauvoir.

I will turn now to her work to talk about existentialist ethics in the context of individual freedoms and the tensions that involves with wider societal freedoms.  This tension must inevitably lead to a responsibility, which in turn leads to an ambiguity as one seeks to incorporate the notions of values to freedoms within existentialist philosophy.
Pyrrhus ET Cinemas
Although a lifelong partner to Sartre, she approached the philosophical question of ethical responsibility long before Sartre gave it more serious consideration. Her first work was Pyrrhus ET Cinemas in 1944.  
The story begins between Pyrrhus, who is an ancient king of Epirus, and his trusted advisor Cinemas. But on every occasion Pyrrhus makes known his intention to conquer many lands.   Cinemas asks him what he intends to do afterwards. Pyrrhus says that he will rest once he has achieved all of his plans. Cinemas retorts, "Why not rest right away"?

The philosophy was written in consultation with Sartre’s ‘Being and Nothingness’. It was in accord with his idea of freedom in an objective world in relation to the conflict between being-for-itself and being-in-itself. But notice in Beauvoir's analysis we have the implied ethical consideration of other free subjects in the world.

Hence, she poses the question the external world can be seen as a destructive reality, so it is up to individuals to establish an ethical link which manifests itself via ethical action. That human bond aims to mutually express the freedom of the individual, but at the same time to encourage the freedom of fellow human beings.

However, she also asserts it may not always be passive because to remain a pacifist in every respect, regardless of the impingement on the freedom of others, is in effect bad faith.
The Ethics of Ambiguity
The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947) is a continuum of the theme expressed in Pyrrhus.  Although Beauvoir adopts mostly Sartrean philosophical ideas, such as there is no predetermined human essence or value, she presents the idea our human freedom is in a parallel with the need for that freedom of others for it to be properly actualized.

In the end she suggests in order for us to live ethically we are to assume the ambiguity as a given, to accept the paradox, and that it involves the proposition as ‘bad faith’. In agonizing over different perspectives she gets around the contradiction by concluding all we can do to live authentically at the crossroads of freedom and facticity.

Further reading is recommended to anyone interested in her work but I think this is enough to get the general gist of where her work is going; that is there are no clear cut answers and that the existentialists, like all philosophy and philosophers, has inherent weaknesses. All we can do is to take responsibility for our decisions in the light of information known and in exercising our freedom in parallel to the freedom of others, which are not to be compromised.     

Congarinni and Patrick Byrnes

Congarinni is a small village at Nambucca, and one of its pioneers was my great, great, grandfather, Patrick Byrnes who farmed 295 acres in 1864, to later operate a general store and pub, to take advantage of stopovers to the Bellinger River.

Here is a short poem I composed about his life.

Patrick Byrnes

Before the dock, his life ending?   

The Judge his rule, was pending

In clemency to the colonies I’m sending.    

The Captain Cook sailing to a far off land,

Let go the dark and filthy holds, just dream,   

Of a new land to make your home.

 

Upon the shore, a pardon came,

To the crooked river set sail,  

To build an Inn, to farm the land, to raise a family,

Along the crooked river there was no better man.

 

For Bullock trains, a favourite spot,  

Witty tales, tasty ales, not your only lot,   
Gentlemen seeking tweeds, a quality none better,     
Along the crooked river there was no better man.

 

To the cedar kings of high country where rivers just a speck,   

To the river’s mouth a graveyard for all the dreaded wrecks,  
He was the grand innkeeper, the one where all would stay.

The story of an Irish lad, who just stole for bread and butter.  
A pioneer whose fortune was told along the crooked river.

 

Another look at Artificial Intelligence

Of course defining artificial intelligence is important and my references in this article assume we are talking about the performance of tasks  previously only associated with human beings. Such things as visual perception, speech recognition, and complex decision-making which involves inter machine communication dependent on the adoption of a universal language.  

The more sinister view, until fairly recently confined to the realm of science fiction, is that futuristic idea artificial intelligence may exceed human intelligence. This was Hawking’s fear, which no doubt for most would be dismissed as fanciful. After all a machine can’t know itself can it?  

I’m not that pessimistic about AI yet,  nor do I necessarily subscribe to the more dire predictions. But I do think it makes for some interesting discussions.

Principally the existential dangers it poses might be summarised as follows: That is, the outcome of smarter and smarter machines to ultimately reach superhuman level of intelligence. So that, for most, except for a tiny elite few, we risk becoming entrenched in our existential mud pool due to the limited mentation of the masses. They (the superhuman machines) become the rulers and the slaves represent the masses unable to fathom their depths or compete with these super machines. Hence we surrender our existential control. What could in effect be the surrender of our freedom?  

In the 21st century in my opinion it not so much just the weapons of mass destruction (of which we are reminded) we need to fear, but more so that of likes of knowledge-enabling destructions in cyberspace. The wars that will be fought in the internet as in virtual reality. I think we underestimate the potential attacks on our democracy and the freedoms that could be held hostage under this onslaught. So the  philosophical question is, is this the existential crisis point in human existence as Hawking suggested?  Heidegger talks about being in the world and what being is as in self- reflection. But this kind of inner awareness as suggested by Heidegger could be a programmable search within a specialised language based digitised version of say trillions of downloaded thoughts. A form of computational machine consciousness might ensue. How would that work. ? So, we might direct a question in the form of a requirement or desired end result which then searches the vast data storages to come up with automated results which impact our lives. The way we operate becomes subservient to the computations of the machine whose outcomes are automatically applied throughout society. 
But based on what ethics?

Is this then the cusp of a new era of the perfection of yet another more assiduous form of evil?

Still in its infancy the early signs (confined more to do with machine learning) are not that encouraging, with some of the largest tech firms involved in stealing new technologies and unauthorised selling of private data on a large scale. This inhibits start-ups and is anti-competitive to reduce equitable outcomes. There is a litany of deceptive and unfair business practices enhanced by their flat business structures. Of course we need to separate fact from fiction and ensure accountability of tech giants. That is, in my view, already an existential problem of some magnitude or at least has the capacity to be one in the future. 

People of course, don’t want to think about it. I daresay raising such questions would be met by most seeking to dismiss it as yet another lecture from the elites. But I can’t help but think people also didn’t want to talk about existentialists warnings to society so long ago and which were largely ignored to our detriment.   

But as philosophers we also need to talk about the joys involved. The other side of the argument with some wonderful outcomes for humanity. Such is the nature of our continued existence

A Philosophers Guide to The Crying Game

Synopsis

IRA member Fergus bonds with Jody, who is a British soldier in their   custody, despite the warnings of cohorts Jude and Maguire. Jody makes Fergus promise, should he be executed, he'll visit his girlfriend, Dil in London. When Fergus flees to the city, he seeks her out. Hounded by threats of retribution by former IRA colleagues, he finds himself now in love with her, only to be shattered by the truth. The violent ending is reminiscent of the fabled ending to the frog and the scorpion; a lack of regard to the nature of things and in revealing that truth.   

 

The Crying Game story and its themes.

The Crying Game is a meditation on issues facing society and has layered levels of existential themes ripe for discussions. An action packed beginning portrays the betrayal of a local soldier Jordan, seduced by the IRA member Jude, who is then scurried away, to be held captive to be exchanged for the release of one of their members held in custody. Fergus is the far less militant member, and has the task of standing guard over the hooded prisoner Jordan in their hideout. He is totally different to cohorts Jude and Maguire. There are limits to how far he will go to achieve the revolutionary aims which are played out in the film.

Fable of the Frog and the Scorpion.

Jordan introduces the story of the frog and the scorpion to Fergus. The scorpion hitches a ride on the back of the frog to cross the flooded stream on the basis the scorpion tells him he will not sting the frog as both will then drown and perish.

But the scorpion cannot help himself, so he stings the frog halfway across and the frog asks the scorpion why he has stung him as both will now perish. The scorpion replies it is in his nature.  He cannot help it.

One might say the frog is to blame because it was known it is in the nature of a scorpion to always sting those in close quarters. But what of the Scorpion ?, The answer to the fable is the Scorpion says it is in its nature to sting, so that one might think it is not his fault. But as the scorpion said it is in his nature to sting and he cannot help himself, surely he also was at fault because he was untruthful in saying he would not sting the Frog. Even so the disaster was not because he did not tell the truth, but rather the frog relying on the scorpion when he knew it was in his nature to sting. This is one of the underlying themes to the film.

An unlikely Bond.

Jordan convinces Fergus to take off his hood, complaining he cannot breathe, to which Fergus agrees, after conferring with the other terrorists.  Already we see the essential essence of Fergus, who feels for his prisoner’s discomfort, to ignore the consequences of possibly being identified later.

A deep relationship is then established between the two who talk about common interests in life, cricket and the like, whose images then recur throughout the film. Fergus agrees (taking Jordon’s photo) to tell his sweetheart Dil, he is thinking about her in this dark moment in time, if he was to subsequently loose his life.

The is in stark contrast to the other members of the group who become worried Fergus may lose his commitment to the IRA cause, for in the morning he will probably have to execute Jordan. They shield themselves from the emotional impact of what they are doing with the hooded face and by treating the personage of Jordan as a disposable object subservient to their unlimited commitment to the IRA clause.

However Jude is well aware of the nature of Fergus. But where Jude goes off course is in thinking she will be able to sway Fergus into adopting her way of thinking where there are no limits to her commitment to the cause.  

In the morning Fergus takes Jordan out to be executed, but he runs ahead knowing that it is not in Fergus’s nature to shoot him in the back. The ensuing result is Jordan is killed as he runs in front of an oncoming army vehicle and the two central IRA members escape as their hideout is discovered and bombed. 

 

Relationship with Dil

Fergus flees the scene and in due course makes contact with Dil  to whom he finds himself both romantically inclined and at another level her protector. So, just as Jordan was, so now he feels that responsibility and his feelings are reinforced by the prior shared images that flash before his eyes. But the love he feels is subject to a dramatic end in an explosion of shock and horror when he realises Jill is in fact a man. This raises all sorts of questions about love and how we relate to that from an existential basis. At the very least it provides ample room for discussion on both the physical and mental aspects of both and how it plays out in societal attitudes. 

Fergus finds an uneasy way through the relationship just as his two cohorts from the IRA  again make contact and force him to agree to execute a judge as otherwise they will seek retribution.

Fergus has told Dil about his past association and she becomes aware of the plan and ties him to his bed. In the closing scenes Maguire guns down the judge, but is killed in the cross fire with police. Jude, on returning to the flat is killed by Dil but Fergus takes the wrap and is sentenced to prison. The film closes with Dil visiting Fergus in prison.

Conclusion

This evocative film shows the Satrean idea that our lives (essence) are the product of our life choices, and, during this time there are endless transformational possibilities.

The different layers to this complex film take one into a brief foray of racial issues to the political (IRA versus English) to pose many existential questions. There is ample opportunity to discuss these existential themes outside of the usual black and white categories, the physical and mental aspects to love and the fable of the frog and the scorpion.  

A phlosophers guide to 'It’s a Wonderful life'

Frank Capra’s film has become a warm favourite firmly ensconced in western pop culture. But on further analysis one finds any number of implicit philosophical existential themes.

 

Synopsis     

We are introduced to the likable protagonist, George Bailey, who as young boy rescues a younger brother from drowning. George outlines his future dreams which are thwarted by a series of obstacles which see him opting to make choices always in the best interest of the citizens of Bedford Falls. His choices prevent the ruthless slum landlord and hard nosed banker, Potter, from gaining control of the local Building and Loan firm. George has to give up his grand plans to see the world to run the firm, after his father has a stroke, to wrestle control away from the acquisitive desires of Potter. So that the condition of the board to back George is contingent on George staying on to run the firm.  Subsequently he faces a series of hurdles that culminate in the climax to the film as George experiences deep feelings of despair. Contemplating jumping from a bridge to end his life, Clarence, an angelic figure, yet to earn his wings, appears on the scene. He knows if he jumps into the water George’s good nature will prompt him to follow and attempt to save him. So the two end up in the water and Clarence later listens to George as he despairingly says he wishes he never would have been born. Clarence grants him his wish and shows him all that would happen in what has become of his renamed town now called Portersville in his absence. George realises the shocking results in his absence. That contrasts with all of the positive effects his choices have made and finally shouts in jubilation. I am alive. I want to live! I want to live! as the film ends on this high note     

Analysis of existential themes

George’s future aspirations

 I know what I’m going to do tomorrow and the next day and the next year and the year after that. I’m shaking the dust of this crummy little town off my feet and I’m going to see the world. Italy, Greece, the Parthenon, the Coliseum. Then I’m coming back here and go to college and see what they know . . . and then I’m going to build things. I’m going to build air fields. I’m going to build skyscrapers a hundred stories high. I’m going to build bridges a mile long . . .

 

But Georg’s plans are thwarted as he rushes in to prevent a proposal by Potter to take over the firm following his father’s stroke which will end the more generous policies to the folk at Bedford falls.

Although George wins out it is conditional on George staying on and to run the firm. With a heavy heart George reluctantly agrees and gives the money he has saved for college, to his brother Harry.

Here we have an example of what Jean Paul Satre meant when he talked about experiencing anguish. George feels compelled to be true to himself and the citizens of Bedford Falls, so he must accept that responsibility. We can also draw a parallel to the story of Abraham referenced by Satre and Soren Kierkegaard. Both conclude Abraham must choose on the basis Abraham is the law maker for both himself but also for all of his people, to whom he feels a deep responsibility.

 

Subsequently, in the film there is a run on the firm just as George is about to set off on a honeymoon with childhood sweetheart Mary. Potter offers 50 cents in the dollar to shareholders of the firm to take it over.  George uses the $2000 saved for his honeymoon to partly satisfy some clients and quell the fears of the angry mob.  

You’re thinking about this place all wrong, as if I have the money back in the safe. The money’s not here. Well, your money’s in Joe’s house, that’s right next to yours. And the Kennedy house, and Mrs. Maitlin’s house, and a hundred others. You’re lending them the money to build, and then they’re going to pay it back to you as best they can…. Now, listen to me, I beg of you not to do this thing. If Potter gets a hold of this Building and Loan Company , there will never be another decent house built in this town…. Joe, you had one of those Potter houses, didn’t you? Well, have you forgotten, what he charged you for that broken-down shack? Here, Ed, remember last year, when things weren’t going so well, you couldn’t make your payments? Well, you didn’t lose your house, did you? Do you think Potter would’ve let you keep it? Can’t you understand what’s happening here? Potter isn’t selling, he’s buying! And why? Because we’re panicking and he’s not…. Now, we can get through this thing all right; we’ve got to stick together, though. We’ve got to have faith in each other.

Whilst George is again successful in turning the tide against Potter he nevertheless laments the decision. He realises Mary has left and their honeymoon money is gone. He also would have liked to have given all of the money owed to the people of Bedford Falls but that is outside of his control. This illustrates Sartre’s point about our freedom and the angst that comes with it in the decisions we are free to make. For this is not something human beings relish as we prefer stability, and only seek out that freedom when we feel it is comfortable to do so. So Satre talks about how people search for strategies that avoid the inevitable anguish of freedom experienced by George deciding to remain true to his authentic self and to continue to have a deep responsibility to the citizens of Bedford Falls.

A further scene occurs on Christmas Eve which gives rise to a feeling of despair. This is the films climax as citizens welcome home George’s brother. Harry was a heroic fighter pilot who saved a troop transport by gunning down a Bomber. But meanwhile a crisis is looming since Uncle Billy absentmindedly mislays $8000 to be banked.

George, in desperation, asks Potter for a loan, but he refuses.

But Potter discovers George has a life insurance policy.

“Why, George, you’re worth more dead than alive!”

The chilling moment of despair is depicted in the scene on the bridge as George thinks about jumping into the raging water below.

At that very moment, guardian angel Clarence Odd body appears and jumps into the river knowing George’s good nature means he will try to rescue him.

George carries out the rescue and learns Clarence is really a second class wingless angel sent to help him and in the process also earns his wings.

Then George tells Clarence he is wasting his time since he wishes he’d never been born.

This inspires Clarence to grant George his wish. George then gets a guided tour of Pottersville (what Bedford Falls has become) in his absence and sees all of the shocking outcomes first hand.     

George then begs Clarence to give him back his life and in the emotive scenes that follow he jubilantly returns prepared to embrace life, good or bad, with a new sense of gusto. On returning home he is astonished to find the townsfolk have raised the money he needed. The film depicts George as finally believing he has indeed a wonderful life.

 

In these later scenes we can see how George struggles for life affirmation as in Nietzsche’s questioning of the state of the spirit.

Rather obviously George in his statement that he wishes he was never having been born is lacking in spirit. But the intervention by Clarence, convinces George he should return from whence he wished to exit. So that George wants to return to life and accept the good with the bad. This is in accord with Nietzsche’s idea of ‘eternal recurrence’ so that we return to the same state that preceded all of our life experiences. In a life to be lived to the fullest, in life affirmation that gives us that zest for life. ‘Whatever cannot kill me can only make me stronger.’     

  

So this the film is not just very popular western pop culture but rather one that gives graphic support to the ideas of those existential philosophers we seek to understand.

An introduction to the existentialists

What is Existentialism?
Existentialism is a philosophical movement of like-minded philosophers, principally of the modern era. It arose from early fundamental roots in the 19^th century and its s popularity peaked after World War 2 to a worn torn audience searching for existential meaning.  The philosophical underpinnings are based on the idea we must face the brutal reality we are all trapped to some degree in a meaningless world of which we can only create our own personal meaning from the decisions we take and the subsequent actions undertaken

Although it influenced contemporary philosophy its impact was more pronounced in culture and in the arts. Its exponent, Jean Paul Sartre, for instance, summed the position in his novel entitled ‘Nausea’; to face that bleak existential position but relish the freedom to undertake the choices before us. 

Early Roots 

Soren Kierkegaard (1813- 18550 was a theologian and philosopher who rallied against rationality in religion and philosophy. He categorized the types of life decisions we face as religious, aesthetical and ethical. He posited each required different responses. and suggested a form of desired enlightenment, when knowledge was lacking. He held the view the single individual is higher than the universal.

This was a radical departure from the accepted orthodoxy and state based church dogma at the time. 

He talks about the paradox of Abraham, as Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son. Kierkegaard contends this was not a command that he could obey, but nor can one lay down the law to others as to how to act in complex matters that involve difficult choices where there is a lack of knowledge. Rather one can only individually have a desire to make an enlightened choice in faith. This involves a leap in faith that is necessary in an irrational world to figure out what to do and to face the consequences of such decisions.

Frederick Nietzsche (1844-1900), followed on from Kierkegaard ideas to warn against the dangers of entrapment to revert to abstract values which risked descent into nihilism. 

Nietzsche rejected much of the orthodoxy at the time and is best known for coining the term ‘God is dead’. Nietzsche did not mean this in a literal sense, but rather pointed to a world he regarded as over reliant on religion as a moral compass and as a source of meaning. Nietzsche sought to find a way to live life to the fullest and in the process saw fit to take away the idea of divine sanction which he believed was life denying and could, in effect, lead ultimately to nihilism.

Nietzsche’s view, at that time, was that state power and money underlined a state of stupidity, so that he saw himself as a man in the mold of Goethe, having the courage to suffer for the sake of the truth as he perceived it. He did not suggest a political point of view but rather believed his philosophy underpinned noble leadership, so that became sufficient in itself to ensure a happier and superior moral system of governance.

He was not against organized Religion, maintaining it could be of comfort for the masses. His concern was for its application as bad faith, predicated on false notions that bad health arose from sin. He also thought religion tied its followers to a slave mentality, to enslave the followers to mediocrity and meekness, which ultimately could lead to nihilism. In other words the abstract values of a perceived GOD, born of jealously or envy, confirmed in meekness and in mediocrity, were in essence simply the shadows of a poet’s imagery which could lead (if taken literally) to unintended bad consequences. 

Culture to Nietzsche was the means of aspiring to the higher self, which is a spiritual dimension quite separate to the instinctive forces, but arises from self-enlightenment in the service of the will, to give rise to the new metaphors of life. This is not, however, as most people view "spirituality”, Nietzsche relates spirituality more as a self-realization, as in a ‘’love of fate‘’ to live for the moment, to grasping life with gusto as in life affirmation, regardless of one’s physical condition. However I think Nietzsche’s idea of a love of fate may go against the later existentialist’s views on freedom.

Neither Kierkegaard nor Nietzsche summarized these ideas or insights in a systematic way, but nevertheless remain firmly ensconced in most philosophical papers as the principal precursors to the 20th century existentialists

The 20th century existentialists

The philosophers of the likes of Heidegger Satre and Camus were humanistic and who wanted to engage meaningfully with the contemporary issues that confronted society.

It has to be noted however Heidegger‘s works are not readily associated with existentialism, but rather some of his thinking might be loosely associated with the movement.

Its principal exponent Paul Satre had served in the French Resistance and after the war he was immensely popular and formed a key contributor to the movement. He was the first use of the term and posited that we come into this world, without any consent and it is up to the individual to create one’s meaningful life. Sartre also championed the idea, ‘existence precedes essence’.  He explained this idea by confirming it is only objects where essence precedes existence. An example is by way of a chair.  Now we know one decides to build a chair to a certain specification so that the idea of the chair is in effect the prior essence before it is built. Rather obviously it comes into existence once it is constructed whereas our essence (humanity if you will) is the product of our existence dependent on the choices we make.   

Others such as Simone de Beauvoir and Albert Camus followed on to present a humanistic and socialistic approach to a world thirsty for answers. They jettisoned the prior ideas of specialization inclusive of even philosophical categorization itself.  Those war ravaged audiences relished the opportunity to consider radical alternative, to a way of thinking that had them despairing of a vile past bathed in the recent blood of war. It is hardly surprising such fresh new ideas of freedom, would be taken up with gusto to the extent they attracted a cult following amongst a substantial section the European youth and intelligencer.     

But the far greater appeal however was to come from their Novels and plays which give insights to the existential way of thinking.

Although Sartre was an avid atheist the idea of Existentialism does not mean the movement was confined to humanism. For instance Gabriel Marcel, posited from the Christian perspective matters of doctrine were to be derived from human experience and not from an abstract eternal essence. 
As the existentialists work became known its ideas were adopted in art by painters such as Jackson Pollock and filmmakers Ingmar Bergman who linked their work to existential themes. By the 1970s such existential themes were also adopted in the numerous books and films by Woody Allen

 

Fifties nostalgia

After reading Bill Bryson’s book entitled “Thunderbolt Kid” about his boyhood experiences growing up in the USA, I was reminded of my own childhood experiences. I grew up in the picturesque small dairy farming town of Kyogle situated on the NSW side of the border with Queensland.
The back fence was all that separated our house from fields of grazing cattle and the river; an endless source of entertainment and excitement for me. I was scarcely ever indoors, coming in only to listen with bated breath to the daily radio broadcast of “The Search for the Golden Boomerang” and other popular radio serials broadcast then. Radio, books, comics, making sling shots, bows and arrows, climbing trees or exploring the river banks kept us actively interested. I can never recall feeling bored. In later life when I watched the same radio script on TV, I was sorely disappointed, actors and sets seemed surprisingly insipid and imprisoned on the tiny screen.

I loved the weekly visit to the movies. Afterwards we feasted on chips, smothered in salt and dripping with fat, wrapped up unceremoniously in old newspapers; pure mana from heaven.  When I returned home it was time to reenact the scenes, embellishing the story line to make it more exciting as I playing in the bush outside.

Supermarket shopping didn’t exist, so there was a constant stream of merchants and visitors to our house, the milkman at first light, filling your jug with fresh milk and cream, a baker carrying his basket under his arm of freshly baked bread exuding its enticing aroma, the postman’s shrill whistle, ice from an ice cart for your ice chest, an insurance man collecting the premiums and a salesperson selling encyclopedias.
Each week the faithful ‘Dunny man” had to carefully exchange your full dunny for an empty one which was an operation that required a combination of brute strength (as they were rather heavy when full) and skill to ensure you didn’t spill any of the contents out while lifting on to the truck. The contents were respectively referred to as “Night Soil”. The sign ‘Night Soil’ was emblazoned on the side of the old truck that excuded copious amounts of blue smoke as its engine groaned under the strain of its heavy load.   

My best pal conveniently lived next door; he was several years older and the wrestling champion of the local neighborhood. I soon leant that I was not going to be strangled and die when he engaged me in wrestling contests on our front lawn. There seemed no point in complaining since my parents seemed totally disinterested in my dire predicament. The wrestling experience turned out to be invaluable when I went off to school, when dealing with an older school bully. As he launched his attack on me on the way home; as he had promised, I thought I was a goner. To my surprise and that of the small crowd gathered around to watch (fights were usually premeditated to give everyone the chance to come along and watch) I managed to get a decent head lock on him and wrestled him to the ground with all my strength. To my astonishment and relief it was soon over; as he heeded the chant of the crowd. He’s got you!! , He’s got you!! Give-up, Give Up!!

Christmas time was always an exciting time. Receiving a bike for a Christmas present eclipsed all known joyous experiences in my life. My parents, sensing my excitement had laid a string throughout all of the rooms of the house and back down the stairs to be attached to the bike situated on the front lawn. Christmas morning at first light they invited me to follow the string and see what was on the end of it. Needing no encouragement I tore through the house and in a state of heightened excitement finally surveyed the wondrous sight, I immediately hopped on and cycled away. It didn’t matter a fig to me that it was a very old bike, where rust had been carelessly painted over with bubbly paint and made to look new with a false “Malvern Star” sticker on it. To me it was simply the best thing that could have ever happened and I was far too excited and happy to pay any close attention to such things.  It was only in later life when I recalled those images more carefully that I realized those bubbly painted surfaces were the result of paint failing to bond on rusted old surfaces. A few splashes of paint and a brand new shining bell was all that was needed to transform that rusty old bike into the gleaming new machine I had long dreamed about. Freedom is an elusive state but I never felt as carefree as riding that bicycle around in the country. Taking my lunch with me and cycling off to a destination of my choice, stopping for a drink for at a little shop I was totally ensconced in my own world of adventure.   

One must remember growing up in the fifties was a time when the country was fiercely loyal to the Queen under the guiding hand of Prime Minister Robert Menzies. During Queen Elizabeth’s Coronation we all made up scrap books as school projects. When she visited Australia no one really knew why we should all be excited, it was as if we were all swept along with this national bout of infectious enthusiasm and delight for the Queen. The cheers of the schoolchildren echoed everywhere as she was greeted with unanimous delight.
But tragedy was to strike us and the close knit Kyogle community in 1954. Our family house had been purchased on the basis it was flood free. As an added precaution it was built on high stilts. Even so, despite the cyclonic rain on that fateful day, it was thought our house would not be flooded. As the floodwaters entered our backyard I imagined myself as fisherman and unconcerned dangled my fishing line in the brown waters. However soon the rising waters were inching their way up our back steps so we evacuated to a neighbor’s on much higher ground. My father told us he was staying on to protect our furniture and effects.
That night I peered out over the murky waters to see my Father swimming around in the flooded house, placing objects onto higher vantage points in a futile attempt to avoid the ever rising floodwaters. The waters were rising at an alarming rate and it was with some relief, we watched in silence as my father finally wearily swam out through the bedroom window and with measured strokes struck out for the bank and safety at last. Fully clothed, cold, exhausted but determined he slowly hauled himself up onto the bank to join us on the veranda, in time to see our house disappear under the cruel raging waters of the Richmond River.
I can still recall that dreaded smell from the flood with its endless mud. There were pieces of corrugated iron from rooves around and it was soon turned to good use in makeshift canoes, folded over and sealed both ends with tar, to deliver milk and supplies. I remember search parties each morning looking for bodies and everyone helping one another. There was the drone of the old DC3 aircraft parachuting supplies to a stricken community cut off by floodwaters the likes of which had never been seen nor  have since.      

My parent’s sold their house at a tremendous financial loss and decided to leave Kyogle not long after.

The flood left my parents bankrupted so we moved to Ballina and stayed with my maternal grandparents to give my parents a chance to recover financially. We then moved to Wollongong for a short period until finally settling in Coffs Harbour.

My memories of Coffs in the fifties was of a town where you could leave the door of your home unlocked as there was virtually no crime helped no doubt by an alert police force that new everyone’s business. One of my fondest memories was of our pet dog called Rexie , a very intelligent foxie who was given the keys to the town. His daily routine, after breakfast, was to visit the Red Cross Snack Bar and then morning tea at my father’s work followed by lunch at home and then a final goodbye to the Red Cross workers in the afternoon. If there was any event on in town he was always around to check things out as an accepted observer.  He was always very careful crossing the street and would wait patiently for a lull in the traffic, or wait for the traffic lights once they were installed in the town. He even visited the golfers during the North Coast Open observing the professionals and crowds of people. I recall walking along the fairway when I overheard a conversation: ‘what’s that dog doing on the course’ only to hear the usual chorus of answers, ‘that’s Rexie, he turns up everywhere, always welcome and always well behaved!!  

Umm I thought – yes that’s exactly right!!

We were spoilt for choice at Coffs with beaches to the north and south of the town. I recall eating oysters of the rocks and on the odd occasions catching good sized bream with my mother cheering me on.          

An Existentialist question on the future of technology

It would be interesting to imagine how the various philosophers of that era proposed how one should dealt with some of the contemporary problems of today. One question that comes to mind is: 

Does the progression of artificial intelligence and robotics endanger our freedom and ultimately the ability to make wise choices to sustain our existence as highlighted by the late Stephen Hawking?

To reiterate, as  per my previous post, Kierkegaard’s call was to reject doctrinal imposition at that time. He talked about different types of choices we can make such as ethical, religious or aesthetic. He suggests we need to confront our anxieties head on. This in turn will enhance our self-awareness and personal responsibility. Kierkegaard was the forerunner to usher in a more human response to existence and freedom from the yoke of predetermined doctrines based on abstract values.

In a similar manner he may have asked us to confront our fears and ensure the technology only advanced as far as it allowed for various choices and the even possibly the option to opt out.
Nietzsche contended society was on the verge of nihilism; existential nihilism argues the case that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. The subsequent horror of war and mass extermination proved his prophecy (assuming you allow for the flexibility to call it that) correct. His ideas were never fully realized as his work was unfairly discredited by a sister incorrectly ascribed his ideas as supporting the Nazi regime.  I think Nietzsche would have scoffed at the idea of artificial intelligence taking over as he championed the idea of being of sufficient strength to create one’s own values.

Could Nietzsche’s philosophy be applied to overcome the current fears about artificial intelligence? How can we reverse the idea of becoming slaves to technology and instead become its master?   

Like Kierkegaard Jean-Paul Sartre contended individuals become more aware of their potential as human beings as they experience anxiety; that involves a realization of one's true identity and freedoms.

Sartre's ideal of an authentic existence incorporated both historical and political underpinnings; as for instance he entertained an uneasy tension even with the idea of Marxism.

Conclusion
There is no escaping the conclusion the imposition of values is what is missing from the architects of two days technology. This is essential if we are to survive and prosper rather than fall slaves of technology.