On-Line Quiz Segue to the V=IR of Sartre

All right, let me preface this with how much I despise Internet quizzes that tell you what dog you are like, or what type of female you will fall in love with, or what flower best represents your big toe. But, admit it, you've probably taken one or two. (At the very least, I know your girlfriend -- assuming you're male -- made you take one because chicks dig quizzes and believe that they can find incredible insight via them.) Okay, that's enough disclaimer.

So, The .NET Guy in his blog entry, incredibly entitled, What Kind of Thinker Are You?, linked to the What Kind of Thinker Are You Quiz. And, wouldn't you know it, an on-line quiz had nothing but good things to say about one of it's visitors after having completed the quiz. Shocking! But, that's not the point of this entry. The point of this entry is Existentialism, and why I hate it, and why I always dwell upon it (along with Linguisitics and Bentham's Utilitarianism).

So, here are my results, which ended up leading me on my Existentialism warpath:

You are a Logical-Mathematical Thinker
Logical-Mathematical thinkers: Like to understand patterns and relationships between objects or actions Try to understand the world in terms of causes and effects Are good at thinking critically, and solving problems creatively Careers which suit Logical-Mathematical thinkers include Physicist, Chemist, Biologist, Lawyer, Computer programmer, Engineer, Inventor

You are an Existential Thinker
Existential thinkers: Like to spend time thinking about philosophical issues such as "What is the meaning of life?" Try to see beyond the 'here and now', and understand deeper meanings consider moral and ethical implications of problems as well as practical solutions Careers which suit Logical-Mathematical thinkers include Philosopher, Religious leader, Head of state, Artist, Writer

You can categorize different philosophies in a variety of manners (and, this is mostly pertaining to philosophies dealing with ethics and truth, which end up being one in the same in many cases because knowing "truth" means that you can choose ethically -- whether or not you choose the ethical choice is an entirely different matter). One of the easiest ways is to delineate people like Kant from Hume -- the former believes that ethics is entirely based on the person making the choice i.e. you cannot factor in the probable consequences of your choice because that is outside of your control; the latter believes that you must think about the ramifications of the choice you make. Let's give the most often cited example. You are in 1939 Germany (here goes the Hitler comparison), and you are hiding Jews in your attic. The SS show up at your door one day and ask if you are hiding Jews. Kant would say that you would say, "yes," because it is unethical to lie. You cannot be held accountable for what the SS does with the Jews, you are only accountable for your choice, which should be not to lie. Hume, and the more modern pragmatists and Utilitarians, said that you need to weigh the consequences of your choices and that the most ethical thing to do would be to lie to the SS. Kant says the future is uncertain. The others come up with heurisitics so you can weigh and judge outcomes (Bentham's methodology was pick the option that distributed "the greatest good to the greatest number of people").

So, how does Existentialism fit into all this. Well, first, let me tell you the V=IR, the F=ma, the fundamental law or statement of Existentialism. dictionary.com defines Existentialism as:

A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

And, while that is not necessarily wrong, it is just a little befuddled and overly complex. Existentialism, at its roots, states the following:

Not even nothing exists unless a conscious observer observes it.

More confusing. Maybe. Let's break that down.

In a Universe where nothing exists; it is completely devoid of anything and everything, not even the concept of "nothing" is there because there is no one to observe it and remark that there is nothing. A little more clear? Maybe? Let's continue.

So, from that premise, off comes the notion that humans (and any other form of consciousness) have invented everything arbitrarily. Objects like planet, dogs, cars exist because of our observance of them. Concepts such as freedom, love, and anger only exist because we observe our own experience of them. But, at the fundamental base, nothing (or, not even "nothing") really exists. It only exists because conscious observers (that would be us) have given it existence.

How does ethics fit into this. Well, to Existentialists, ethics only exists because we arbirtarily made it up. We could have made up anything and associated an "ethical" concept to it (and, in many case, we have -- RE: Religion). So, there is no ethics... at all. (That's base Existentialism. There have been many off shoots since Sartre that have applied ethical concepts that fit into the framework.)

So, what's wrong with this.

It's worse than post-Modernism. There is absolutely no meaning in it. But, you can always trace anything back to it. Take the following made-up summary for a made-up book:

This story is about David, a hapless recluse, who is at odds with society. Mentally drained from his day job of editing technical manuals, he stares longingly out of his apartment window at the small bistro across the street always wanting to go but never mustering the gumption to do so. His Ahab-like desire leads him to form an intense hatred of a young waiter there; a person, in his mind, that takes for granted his ignorance and stupidity because, through those vices, he is able to experience the intangibles of life without ever thinking about them. It all comes to a head when David decides to go to the bistro. Cautiously making his way, he is nearly blindsided by a fast moving bus. The only thing that saves him is the good intention of his loathed young waiter who died in the process. The rest of the book deals with David's struggle to have an epiphany; to be somehow moved over what happened. A normal novel would go the opposite route and talk about how David is a new man over what he experienced. This is not the case. David knows that it should have been a life altering experience, but he feels the same. No epiphany came to sweep David away. The rest of the novel covers his turmoil over trying to resolve his conflicts with society and his suicidal desire to become enlightened over a hated stranger sacrificing his life to save David's. It all ends with a shocking discovery.

(Man, did I go overboard on that one...)

That sounds like an interesting little tale full of McNuggets of pop-Philosophy, and I would probably end up reading it (or, at least, appending it to the to-read stack). And, assuming I did end up getting to reading it, I would end up thinking about it. I would try and come up with the fundamental philosophy the author was trying to convey. In trying to deduce that, I would end up comparing it to the more mainstream classical philosophies. Further along my train of thought, I would inevitably come to one of my most lamented topics, Linquisitics, and I would begin to ponder how the language framework guided and affected the exposition of the philosophy. From there, I would begin down the "meta-Linguistics" path (damn you, Chomsky!) because you cannot think about Linguisitics using language. And, as I invent arbitrary systems, I end up coming to Existentialism and the fatalist concepts thereof. Thus, I hate Existentialism because of its omnipresent meaninglessness.

J$	#!/usr/bin/perl J=>money ;$_=ord$"<<s>>$J>,s-.- $&*$'+$&-e&&y[%_(8)]]J] &&print chop;print chr