If we are talking of existential angst, then I can only say that at present I chose to go with the more literal definition:
existential:
\Ex`is*ten"tial\, a. Having existence. [Archaic] --Bp. Barlow
Which is to say, lately my work existence has been hell, I am looking for a new job, and I am generally surly about the whole experience. I wish I could say this has not lessened my recent efforts toward becoming more involved in events beyond the tip of my nose, or that it has not reduced my ability to strive for more esoteric self improvement.
It has, though. My capacity for dealing with crap has not expanded to meet demand. I am sure that I will work things out. In the meantime, this post is mostly an excuse to transplant a comment from a previous thread...
The aforementioned transplant [edited]:
Comment by: Michael on February 25, 2003 03:42 AM
But I was thinking that since [the recent anti-war protests] presented a more unified, much larger and much more global statement against the war, and that they seem to have had an impact on policymakers (e.g. Berlusconi's support is a bit more qualified), that your worries about conflicting platforms and effective action might have been reduced somewhat.
But those might not have been the points you were making, leaving me back wondering what point you were making, apart from your need to resolve an existential angst about what you believe and why, which is fine, even if readers of you blog are a bit puzzled.
Michael
Tokyo
I never had any worries about conflicting platforms or effective action regarding the anti-war effort. Those are, as you say, not the points I was making.
The points I was and, my current petty distractions aside, am still making are, also as you say, based on my need to resolve an existential angst about what I believe and why.
I see as an obstacle to this the tendency we have to stack rationalizations on assumptions and call them principles. I see as a way to correct this the objective and critical discussion of these assumptions with people around you. I intended no direct comment on the war protest activity, I pointed at the comic (which happens to have as its subject this activity) because I think that it illustrates this tendency to identify one's self with a thing or set of things and call the job done.
As for the protests themselves, then and now, they are encouraging, and perhaps even reassuring, but not in any way relative to any of the things I am on about here.
I'd like to hear more about the tendency to stack rationalisation on assumption and call it principle.
Your comments have been pretty abstract so far, hence my mistaking an example for the actual topic of what you're talking about. To better understand the struggle for clarity that you're engaged in, some more examples, with assumptions and rationalisations identified, would really help me.
Pointing out assumptions is a great way to foster an illuminating dialogue and encourage people to examine their views. Maybe you don't want to do this on the web, but what assumptions are you looking at?
Michael
Tokyo
Pointing out assumptions is a great way to foster an illuminating dialogue and encourage people to examine their views.
I would not dream of attempting to identify, much less point out, the assumptions of others. I seek only to come to terms with my own. If examining my views through dialogue with others helps them to examine theirs, this is a good thing. However, I will not presume to analyze your philosophy until I feel comfortable with mine.
Maybe you don't want to do this on the web, but what assumptions are you looking at?
Do you suggest that it may not be my wish to do this on the web, or that doing so is ill advised?
In any case, I have neither the emotional nor temporal resources at the moment to give you a detailed personal example, though I will be happy to write more personally later. Instead let me try to give you a more general idea of the kind of thing I am talking about...
Assumption: Capitalist democracy as it exists in the USA is the best of all possible systems. It allows anyone to reach the very highest levels of acheivement.
From this you can rationalize a lot of things... It is the best govt./society so it should exist everywhere, therefore we should make it exist everywhere. I want to reach the very highest levels of acheivement, so I should condone all capitalistic behavior even if it does not directly benefit me and seems to harm many others.
Now, this is admittedly a leading and trite example, but if I continue with it, the sort of thing I want to be doing is noting where I have made these logic-leaping rationalizations that are shaping the way I view things. I want to identify the underlying assumption and spend some time looking at it. In this case, how do I know this? Have I seen sufficient examples of other options and formed an opinion, or have I been told this so many times for so long that it has simply become an article of faith? Can I reaffirm this idea now?
Faith is perhaps a key concept. I don't want any. I would like to know that I have explored options and reasoned for myself everything that I feel I "know". What I find though, is that beneath almost everything you reach a point where your views and feelings are shaped more by your environment and particular education than reasoned logic. If I can not eliminate those things then I would like to at least be more consciously aware of the biases I have as a result of them.