Category: Meaning

Literature

Life needs direction and purpose, or at the very least, a code of morals or ideals to lead a satisfactory life. Faced with the human experiences of death, sickness and poverty some higher meaning needs to be in place in order to lead a fulfilling life. The defining experiences of being human are the search for external gratification, such as niceties and necessities, as well as the search for internal gratification. The human condition is characterized by the deep internal questions that deal with life. These quests are often at odds with each other. In today’s society, we are often told what to think, not how to think. Excessive consumerism leads to the excessive desire and the loss of soul, for you will never be truly satisfied while always wanting more.

It is helpful to think of an educational environment or even a debate stage as a “playground” of ideas, where competing ideologies can play out with one another. This doesn’t happen often. Every idea, no matter how seemingly crazy, should be mentally toyed with at least once. Of course, when discussing deep matters, it is important to separate the higher, logical parts of the brain from mere emotional responses. Decisions, arguments, lives, and morals based simply of reactionary emotions are pointless and rambling. Writing obviously has to reflect this. Civility is a must when discussing ideology. When conversations draw to controversial topics individuals and society fall into the chaos of banal ad hominem, particularly when shielded by a computer screen.

On the subject of plagiarism, it is obviously wrong; it is stealing, used only by the lazy. Of course, when does “borrowing” become plagiarism? As a composer of choral music, it is difficult to police plagiarism in the music world. Artistic plagiarism offers up the most discussion. You can’t copyright a chord progression, a voicing, a scale. If you write a melody, is it yours? What if someone happens across the same melody in their practice? If Beethoven was alive today, would it be right to use the famous theme of his fifth symphony in my own music? On one hand, no. He wrote it, that would be theft. But on the other hand, it’s just a mere outline of a descending minor scale. You can’t own a scale or rhythm.

Political correctness is a blight on learning and any valuable discourse. In its common modern applications in so-called “woke” culture and schools, it has created a ranking of people based on their identities and not their ideas- thus placing value on the ideas based on the identities of the speaker. Although some say it may protect people’s sensitivities and that’s a good thing a culture of safe spaces and trigger warnings and not conducive to a good educational environment or larger society. The sensitivity should be confronted, particularly in education. Whatever its original intent of it was it has become a tool to enforce an orthodoxy of opinion upon the masses.

Words have power. Clarification is important. The meaning of words is interesting- some words, like “bitch”, are offensive and rude in some contexts and perfectly applicable in others. How does a word become a slur? “Slut” didn’t originate as a slur, and neither did “faggot”. It is less the words themselves, and more the subjective meaning we as a society attached to them. For example, “diarrhea” is, when you think about it, a nice, pleasing word. But the meaning, of course, is not.

In my various other classes respect for the classroom and education is always at the forefront of my mind. Civil dialogue and writing quality are always goals to keep striving to master. Furthermore, while being respectful of various people and experiences, I do not bite my tongue in an ideological discussion simply because someone is offended, This has gotten me in trouble several times during political discussions at school. But the diversity of ideas is vital to any educational setting.

Good classroom conduct doesn’t -or shouldn’t- require a set of steps for implementation. It is a simple matter of academic integrity, personal integrity, and respect.

I do not think any explanation of the steps is necessary for classroom conduct. It needs to be a habit.

People need to learn how to think, not be taught what to think. We should organize our public education system around this idea- not forcing pre-determined analyses of books or historical events upon students, but rather opening their minds to a vast array of ideas, where the focus of the classroom is how to examine ideas and create them and challenge them. Secondly, our society as a whole needs to move away from being overly focused on political correctness to its own detriment. People shouldn’t be canceled for something offensive or a difference of opinion; all ideas should be entertained, and if they are found bad, let them be disproven through civil debate.

First, our national curriculums will need to be re-written to not be textbook-based. Subjects should be read, (if history, focusing on primary sources). Teachers should all learn how to effectively lead a discussion, not just lecture. Class times should be extended. All education spaces should issue official statements condemning political correctness and promoting free thought and civil debate.

We must restructure our education standards. Students will focus on learning to read at an advanced level early on. Teachers will all be trained to facilitate discussions, and classes will focus on the reading and discussion of texts, where every student can form their own opinions.

Audio

The first major points of this lecture on Plato’s Republic are Justice and morality- is it moral to do harm even it may be just or fair? Plato’s second point is of the duty of the state. The duty of the state is not to solely be an instrument of law and punishment but a nurturing entity dedicated to the improvement of society. The third point is the idea of “special excellence”, the internal qualities of “excellence” that define the goodness and unique individuality of each person. Plato’s fourth point is about the nature of power. The government must exercise complete power of the state, for the sake of the wellness of the state and not the personal gain of the one in power. Furthermore, the ruler must have a basis for power- a science of politics. The final major point in the lecture is Plato’s three steps to bring about this internal societal change- allowing women to be rulers, abolition of the family unit and molding of the society into one large communal family, and the establishment of an aristocracy of philosopher-kings.

Justice, fairness, and right conduct or morality are not the same. Being just means being fair, but this is a problem when concerning enemies. Because the idea of everyone getting their due is subjective, you get a mess. I agree that justice should be re-defined in society as right conduct, to do good unto everyone, or to “do no harm”. In Plato’s view, the government should take the role of a nurturing teacher unto society, in order to create the best society possible. The problem is the idea of the state having that expansive duty in the first place. If good comes from within, shouldn’t each individual be responsible for the good of himself, and the job of government be to make sure harm does not come to others? Plato’s model would work if his rulers were perfect paragons of morality. I do not think that the state should assume responsibilities for any individual’s personal growth (although you could argue that they do, in child services), lest the state mold the individual to the state’s idea of excellence, and not the individual’s idea of personal excellence. However, taking a more realistic approach, a popular libertarian government is a much better option. On the nature of power and political science, intelligence qualifications for public office would ultimately be beneficial. Requiring the study of political science to hold public office would keep inexperienced people who have nothing but opinions out of politics. Zealots and ideologues are dangerous.

I can live life with the idea of “right conduct” vs fairness and justice in mind. When I am treated wrongly, the first thought should not be of revenge but how to rightly treat the person. Exercising the right conduct is to follow the simple principle of doing no harm. In addition, I can look and try to identify the inherent goodness and qualities that define me as an individual, and live according to maximizing these traits. I can look for these qualities in others and help them to realize their fullest potential.

As noted in the lecture, it is easy to practice good conduct to your friend, but not to your enemies. First, I can stop and empathize with someone. When a confrontation happens, I can diffuse the situation and never harm others. To maximize the “special excellence”, I will make a list of the unique qualities and interests that define me as a person, and work towards refining these traits in myself.

Empathy with others, especially those you don’t get along with, comes first. This goes along with diffusing tense situations. Just treatment of all, right treatment of all can be personally accomplished through empathy and putting that into action to base your treatment of others off of. Steps relating to “special excellence” are first making a list of my own special qualities. Taking steps to maximize these will be primarily how I focus my time and what projects I focus on throughout life.

Our justice system can be reformed to focus not on punishment but on bringing out the “special excellence” within criminals to better integrate them as productive members of society. Secondly, All rulers, and leaders of any sort, have a responsibility to examine their duties. Not the written duties of their office and position, but there a moral philosophical duty to society or the group which they lead. Secondly, leaders must do their duty to use force only when absolutely necessary, focus on individuals, and making each individual the best they can be.

In punishment for crimes, instead of focusing on the severity of the punishment itself, our society should focus on what went wrong in the person’s life. Prison should be less restrictive, less brutal, and have more programs focused on rehabilitation.

The governing bodies and legislatures of society need to pass bills to reform the criminal justice system. More money should be spent focusing on education and the betterment of the prison populace, rather than their punishment of them.

Video

The first point that Alain De Botton makes is that we have enough good ideas in the world. The problems we as humans face cannot be attributed to a lack of good ideas. Instead, he argues, the problem lies in that these ideas are not being communicated to the masses, the ideas don’t have power. Alain’s second point is a simple truth that is difficult; life is suffering. He goes on to explain how religion was the only institution that directly dealt with these difficulties of living, but in the modern era, religion needs a replacement. Alain recommends culture as a replacement for religion. The next point in his talk is how the idea of art as pure aesthetic is a dead idea. Art is propaganda for ideas. To solve the problem of good ideas without any power, Alain suggests an integration of mass media, education, psychotherapy, and philosophy.

I agree with De Botton’s argument that the media is the main source of “ideas”, and that the major problem is good ideas aren’t reaching the masses that need to hear them for them to be implemented. But what would constitute a good idea? There have been a wealth of bad ideas that were many thought were great ideas- eugenics, for one extreme example. Furthermore, great ideas in some circumstances may fail horribly in a different set of circumstances. When bringing the “great ideas” of these lone geniuses to permeate mass media, how can you, and who will weed out ideas and select the good from the bad? I would take an extreme position and say that no filtration or prior review of ideas is necessary- the public can form their own opinions. De Botton mentions that life is difficult and full of suffering and that religion is the only institution to have addressed that. “Life is suffering” is one of the four noble truths of Buddhism and the foundation for that religion. However, I would argue, as many Buddhist scholars would, that Buddhism is not a religion. There is no god, no worship, no conventional tropes of “religion” as we think of it in the west. Buddhism instead is a philosophy- just a set of rules and practices to live a good life. Other Asian “religions” such as Daoism and Confucianism are not religions at all, but really philosophies. De Botton’s ideas for changing the world only need to be adopted in modern westernized culture. Traditional Asian culture already lives by these principles. Culture and “religion” (or rather philosophy) are already intertwined. For much of human history, religion has been culture. What if we adopted this model? What if we thought of philosophy as a practice to follow, instead of some ideas to ponder? With masses of devotees practicing philosophy, we could have the integration of art, media, culture, and ideas without faith to a god.

I, just like any other human, seek meaning in life. But I am an atheist. Instead of god, I can turn to ideologies and philosophy for meaning. There is a wealth of ideas about living a good life. Why not practice that? Furthermore, I am currently in art school studying the visual arts. A lot of my work is portraits and illustrations. I can think of my work as propaganda of ideas and question what it is conveying other than aesthetic beauty. Thinking of my own craft in this way gives me an outlet for the communication of ideas.

With every piece of art that I make, first I should ask myself what the message is. What does it communicate to the audience? How can I be clear with my message? For meaning in philosophy, the first step is to read and listen and otherwise seek out as many ideas and as much knowledge as possible. Then, study this and apply it; let is infuse it into life and the culture I surround myself with.

The questions listed above should be standard for my artistic practice, as well as every other artist. The second important step is the audience. Artists should stop focusing on exhibitions in museums, performances in elite concert halls, and societal elite and instead to the masses- and anyone who needs to hear or see these ideas.

First of all, our focus on consumerism and ‘things’ needs to end. We need meaning, as De Botton says. In society, philosophy should advertise itself as a religion without faith or god. Living these ideas if it is presented in the style of faith will permeate all of culture. Secondly, just as is proposed in the lecture, integrating philosophy and mass media is a great idea. Easily accessible ideas that provide meaning will lead to a more constructive and fulfilled society.

The economic change from the desire for things and consumer items to human needs must come from the private sector. Companies should be created to advertise ideas and education. There is an argument against the commodification of ideas and human needs, but in order to make these easily accessible, capitalist economics is the best way.

The best way to implement private-sector change is through public reform. Unfortunately, this isn’t very applicable in this instance. Instead, we need to encourage those lone geniuses to come out and be entrepreneurs for and of their own ideas. We already have put a price on learning- college, books, video tutorials, etc. TV stations and shows can feature less news of disasters and more ideas about life. All that is needed is more influx of this everywhere.

Humans have always pondered the significance of our existence – ‘the meaning of life. This relentless pursuit for meaning has produced a great deal of metaphysical, theological, scientific, and philosophical speculation. Prominent philosophers throughout history have attempted to provide a meaning to life, with many believing in order to understand the true meaning of life one must first acknowledge one’s existence as ultimately meaningless. Hence, an inconclusive answer to the reason for our existence has led to the creation of many philosophical viewpoints that either attest to or refute a meaning to life. One approach philosophers’ have attempted to explain or expound upon is existentialism. This is a theory that develops into many other schools of thought, all of which will be explored to determine if such a theory can indeed produce meaning to life.

Firstly, existentialism begins with the early philosophy of essentialism, largely expounded upon by Plato and Aristotle. Essentialism can be defined as: “a certain set of core properties that are necessary, or essential for a thing to be what it is” … the entirety of something’s essential properties is therefore conceived as its ‘essence’. Plato’s idealism expressed everything has an ‘essence’ – an idea or form. Additionally, Aristotle asserted all things have a substance that ultimately makes the ‘thing’ what it is; it would not be that ‘thing’ without it. However, in Plato’s Parmenides, Socrates is depicted asserting the notion which suggests if we accept every ‘thing’ or action is comprised of an essence, we must also accept the ‘existence of separate essences for hair, mud, and dirt’. Ultimately, essentialism asserts what fundamentally makes a ‘thing’ what it is, remains established upon an attribute, or a set of attributes. Thus, each entity must appear by certain characteristics, properties, and traits in order to be that specific entity. Moreover, Aristotle believed in order to be a good human, you must adhere to your essence: “What is the essence of life? To serve others and do good”.

Existentialism diverges from essentialism; the theory’s main assertion is: that existence precedes essence. This view reverses the concept of essentialism that expresses the essence (or nature) of a ‘thing’ is more absolute than the mere fact of its existence :

“What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterward, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first, he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be.” – Jean-Paul Sartre

Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche are widely attributed to the investiture of existentialism; their notions are considered a fundamental aspect of the existentialist movement, albeit neither ever specifically referred to their philosophies as existentialism. Jean-Paul Sartre is accredited with the further exploration of existentialism through his investigations in his post-war literature on subjective human experiences within an inherently meaningless reality.

This tradition of philosophical enquiry emphasizes a person does not inherently possess a particular identity or value. Alternatively, it is believed an individual is to formulate their own identity and values; and therefore, their meaning of life through their own consciousness. The notion being: that we exist first, then determine our own meaning and identity through the way we live – our ‘essence’. Our purpose is not predetermined. In addition, meaning is subjective as each individual has their own inimitable perspective. However, what exactly is existentialism? Though hard to define, a fitting definition for existentialism is: “The belief through a combination of awareness, free will, and personal responsibility, one can construct meaning within a world that intrinsically has none of its own.” Simply, it is a philosophical tendency based upon finding self and meaning to life through an emphasis on making rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. Therefore, the theory is prominent on personal responsibility, individual existence, free will, and choice. Two forms of existentialism have ultimately emerged: Christian and humanist existentialism. Christian existentialism assists in providing meaning through a religious and spiritual experience, whereas humanist existentialism provides it through formulating individual meaning through personal introspection.

Additionally, it is important to note existentialism is not synonymous with atheism: “the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” This is apparent through existentialist Kierkegaard, a theist:

“What matters is to find a purpose, to see what it really is that God wills that I shall do; the crucial thing is to find a truth which is truth for me, to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die.” – Søren Kierkegaard

However, theistic existentialists deny any sort of teleology. This meaning, that a God may or may not exist, but has not instilled us, our life, or the cosmos with any meaning:

“They [existentialists] refute the notion that God made the universe, or our world, or us, with any particular purpose in mind.”

Consequently, each of us is born to exist in a reality in which our world and our actions; us, lack any real inherent importance. This formulates a fundamental component of existentialism referred to as ‘the absurd’, formulated by 20th-century French thinker Albert Camus. Absurdity is narrowly defined as: “the search for answers in an answerless world.”

“[Absurdity is] the belief that a search for meaning is inherently in conflict with the actual lack of meaning but that one should both accept this and simultaneously rebel against it by embracing what life has to offer.” – Albert Camus

We are creatures that require a sense of meaning. However, existentialism suggests we exist in a universe abundant with meaninglessness. It is asserted since there is no teleology our reality and existence did not occur for any specific reason. This grows into the further belief; if reality does not entail a sense of reason then there are no absolutes one should abide by. Accordingly, there is no sense of cosmic justice, fairness, rules, or order. This fragment of existentialist thought is not merely emphasizing the meaninglessness of life, its pointlessness, and a world without value. Rather, it expresses that while life may be inherently meaningless, we should embrace this and search for existential freedom. These sorts of existential ideologies became prominent during and after World War II. The horrors of the holocaust led many to abandon belief in a world consisting of sets of rules; the destructive path of the Nazis made Europeans struggle to find any meaning.

Consequently, many different philosophical concepts have been utilized by existentialist philosophers to combat this doubt and provide meaning to life such as freedom, authenticity, and bad faith.

Freedom: Sartre confronted the concept of meaningless through exploring the abundance of freedom contained within our existence; he believed we are ‘too free’.

“If there are no guidelines for our actions, then each of us is forced to design our own moral code, to invent morality to live by.” – Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre suggested we are condemned to be free: “you might think that there’s some authority you could look for to answers, but all of the authorities you can think of are fake.” You could abide by the rules of say your parents, the government, or church. However, those authorities or people are no different to you. This means they do not have any answers, they also have to figure out how to exist and live.

“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.” – Jean-Paul Sartre

Authenticity: Due to these ‘fake’ authorities, Sartre along with many other theorists believed the best approach to decision-making or living life is to live authentically.

“The idea that some things are in some sense really you, or express what you are, and others aren’t” – Bernard Williams

Essentially, authenticity proposes the actions of an individual are aligned to their desires and principles. It entails the idea of being true to yourself and the decisions you will face throughout life; asserting you should own up to who you really are. Authenticity has no correlation with the ideals of getting in touch with an ‘inner self’ as existentialists believe individuals have no predetermined ‘essence’.

Bad Faith:

When individuals refuse to accept the fullness of their freedom – the absurd – one, therefore, has ‘bad faith’, or as Sartre named it: “Mauvaise”. It results from a lack of authenticity: “don’t merely know thyself, be thyself.” Typically, bad faith occurs through the habit we have of deceiving ourselves into believing we are not entirely free or do not have the freedom to make choices as we are afraid of the potential consequences. Sartre gives the example of a waiter who tries his hardest to conform to the aspects of what a waiter should be. Sartre believes his over-exaggerated behavior in earnest of being a waiter is merely an imitation of whose essence is to be that of a waiter. In order to pretend being a waiter, he must at least be aware of what he is in fact not; a waiter. Instead, he is solely a conscious being deceiving himself to believe he is a waiter.

These concepts prompt us to ‘Nihilism’: “the belief in the ultimate meaningless of life”; one of many existential perspectives devised to refute any meaning to life by challenging the idea that we obtain an essence or purpose. Nihilism is a concept of moral and epistemological skepticism that states all values are baseless as nothing can be truly known. It denies the reputedly meaningful aspects of life as it argues life does not entail any objective meaning, intrinsic value, or purpose. The approach is often associated with radical pessimism and skepticism that can ignite hopelessness in one’s approach to life, personal issues, and ethical rationalism. The theory was popularised by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: “Nihilism is not only the belief that everything deserves to perish, but one actually puts one’s shoulder to the plow; one destroys.” A common misconception is that Nietzsche himself was a nihilist. The sole reason he produced a great deal of literature regarding nihilism was that he was concerned about the impact nihilistic views can have on society and culture. Nietzsche argued that the corrosive effects of nihilism will eventually destroy all moral, religious and metaphysical convictions which will potentially cause humankind’s greatest crisis:

“What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism… For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end…” – Friedrich Nietzsche

In conclusion, what might an existentialist believe is the meaning of life? Due to the ancestry of existentialist thought, individuals can use many schools of thought to find or refute meaning. Initially, essentialism asserts everything has the essence to be considered a certain entity. Existentialism refines the theory of essentialism, since ‘existence precedes essence, one has to find this ‘essence’ throughout their life. Similarly, absurdism: “the search for answers in an answerless world”, suggests although life is meaningless, we should embrace this and find our own existential liberty. Nihilism negates these approaches completely, asserting the ultimate meaningless of life by denying its objective meaning, value, or purpose. Nietzsche highlighted the destructive properties of nihilism on mankind because it erodes all moral, religious, and metaphysical principles. Although there may not be a meaning to life, society would be unable to grow and mature under the influence of nihilism. Therefore, the concepts philosophers used to alleviate this dilemma is; appropriately manage your freedom and live authentically to avoid bad faith. Essentially, an existentialist proposes meaning is found by pairing it with the way we live our lives. There is no implicitly objective answer

According to the social-norm approach, certain standards of behaviour exist in every society and in every age and on the basis of these defined norms, an utterance or behaviour of a particular kind is judged to be polite or impolite. In this regard, Fraser is of the opinion that these standards of behaviour are usually attached with certain speech styles, in that it is noticed that a higher level of formality involves greater politeness (Watts et al. 1992: 4). Thus, the social-norm view is, somewhat, identical with the kind of politeness termed as ‘discernment’. In fact, this way of conceptualizing politeness, more or less, is associated with what Watts (2003) calls first-order politeness – a layman’s conception– that has been raised to the position of second-order politeness with the emergence of modern theories in this area. Some scholars have criticized the social norm view for its inadequate guidelines in investigating linguistic politeness. That is why, Bousfield (2008a) agrees with Fraser’s view that ‘the view of the social norms has few adherents among current researchers’ (Fraser, quoted in Bousfield 2008a: 45). The social-norm approach has declined in popularity though many scholars accept that some of the approaches to politeness still rely on social norms, at least to some extent. For instance, in Brown and Levinson’s model, there are some strategies, which propose that speakers should avoid raising or mitigating the effect of a topic that is conventionally considered painful or threatening to the hearer. This reasoning, in some way, resembles the social-norm approach.

An appealing initiative to understand the fundamental principles in the day-to-day conversation has been made by H. P. Grice (1975), whose work comes under the category of philosophical linguistics wherein a theory of conversation has been developed by philosophers – Austin, Searle, and Grice – not by linguists themselves. Since philosophers have given the theories of conversation, it reflects their natural obsession with certain philosophical issues like meaning, sense, reference and the truth or falsity of propositions. For that reason, their investigations in the area of conversation have contributed a lot to the development of linguistics, pragmatics in particular.

It is known that Grice’s contribution to the ‘pragmatic revolution’ was initiated many years before the publication of the article ‘Meaning’ in 1957, which he expanded later under the title ‘Utterer’s meaning and intention’ in 1969. In this paper, he postulates that any verbal utterance has two levels of meaning recognized as denotative (probably also connotative) meaning offered by the semantics of the language and the other being the speaker’s intention behind the creation of an utterance. The first type of meaning is closely associated with truth conditions and thus it is identified as propositional meaning or truth-conditional meaning. The second type, on the other hand, has close relation with speech act notions, like illocutionary act and illocutionary force. In speech act analysis, thus, the speaker’s intentions have been treated with special attention.

Before 1969, there was a marked dearth of systematic theoretical foundations for politeness that could contribute to the understanding of the meanings of an utterance with respect to politeness. Later in 1969, during a series of lectures delivered at Harvard by William James, Grice emerged as a pioneering figure for suggesting a well-defined framework for the study of politeness in everyday interaction. While discussing ‘Logic and conversation’ during these lectures, Grice talked of a ‘cooperative principle’ for conversation that involved dual-levels of meaning interpretation in interaction.

“Man, first of all, is the being who hurls himself towards a future and who is conscious of imagining himself as being the future” (Sartre in Cooper & McLeod, 2011, p19)

In these modern times, there is little appreciation of the value of Philosophy, a discipline that is two and a half thousand years old. Many dismiss it out of hand, maintaining they have no time for it. Yet as Alex Howard (2000b, p) so rightly points out everyone practises some type of philosophy, whether they realise it or not. “We cannot escape from philosophy: when people say that they do not know any philosophy, what is really meant is that they know only one philosophy, but they have no means of locating or assessing it. As a result, it structures everything they do and care about. It also prevents them from considering alternatives or placing immediate preoccupations into a larger perspective.”

Many people subscribe to the contemporary Capitalist model unquestioningly, whilst bemoaning the relentless stress and alienation of modern society. Sad to be so controlled and defined by forces that one is not aware of. Perhaps one of the positives that may emerge from the escalating climate crisis is the development of a more sustainable and community-based way of life with improved health and happiness as by-products. In the middle of the current mental health crisis and limited resources, one could do worse than join a philosophy group, for instance, the school of philosophy which is currently offering ten-week courses at the discounted price of ten euros. This is a forum to discuss the core issues that concern most people and to meet like-minded others. Philosophy deals with the very questions that bring many to therapy: what is the meaning of my life? How can I be happy? How can I handle stress? As Howard rightly points out there are many ways, other than Therapy, up the mountain. “Philosophy underpins therapy as a means to healing, identity, direction and meaning. It deserves more attention. For that matter, many others have much to offer on the subjects of healing and meaning: poets, painters, essayists, novelists, players and composers. Healing and purpose are far too large and important to be the property of just one group of professionals or care specialists, be they doctors, psychologists, counsellors or whoever.” (2000b, p)

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) is an interesting example. Although he did not identify himself as such, he is recognised as the most prominent of the Philosophers of the Existential School. He lived during World War II, a time of major social-political upheavals when the old order was being overturned. These experiences clearly influenced his philosophy. Witnessing the human instinct to maintain the status quo through the collusion of ordinary fellow French citizens, including himself, during the Nazi occupation of France deeply affected him (Aronson, 1980). He experienced the very real pitfalls of being inauthentic. Despite his affiliation to Marxism, his philosophy was very individualistic and a departure from the traditional collectivist paradigm. Having lived through an era of the tyranny of a Final Solution, little wonder that Sartre was open to multiplicity and non-conformity. Sartre maintained that, in the absence of a God, existence is primary, and essence then follows. “It is a matter of envisaging the self, as a little God which inhabits me and which possesses my freedom as a metaphysical virtue.”(Sartre in Howard, 2000, p344). Sartre focuses on Individualism to the exclusion of culture, race, heritage, religion, community, family and other influences that most mortals adhere to. According to Howard (2000a), Sartre’s notion of self as the individual is the one used today.

Pluralism mirrors the post-modernist, post-structuralist individualism of Sartre (Cooper & McLeod, 2011). Pluralism is significant, and probably unique, as though its approach is evidence-based, its philosophical foundations are ethically orientated. This approach is firmly rooted in specific philosophical beliefs and is value oriented. The Pluralistic philosophy may be a post-modernist 21st-century creature, but its ancestry stretches back to pre-Socratic philosophers who celebrated nature’s diversity. Emerging from the awareness of the horrors of the 20th Century, Pluralism also values diversity and multiplicity though its approach is more pragmatically orientated. Sartre built quite an ivory tower in the notion of the Self as an exclusive divinity. Similar, to Pluralism, Sartre was influenced by Levinas’ ideas (Howard, 2000). Emmanuel Levinas (in Cooper & McLeod, 2011, p15) emphasises that the recognition and respect of others is intrinsic to an ethical relationship, ‘openness to the infinite diversity of others, and to honour and prize them in all their uniqueness.’ That the therapeutic relationship is bigger than its individual parts.

Whereas Pluralism explores the world of the Other from the perspective of the client, Sartre seems to be more focused on the Otherness of the individual, the self. He focused on the notions of Freedom, Choice and Responsibility. Cooper and McLeod (2011) acknowledge their existential roots, not that Pluralism is necessarily therapeutically existential but ethically existential. Viewing the Client as the subject, not the object, of Therapy. They adopted Sartre’s idea of Man as “future orientated beings who set for ourselves particular goals and aims and then find ways of working towards them” (2011, p19). Cooper and McLeod credit Sartre’s teachings with them placing client Goals at the core of Pluralistic Therapy.

Just as Sartre thought the world a far more absurd place than we took cognisance of, pluralism is the philosophy of a ’messy universe’. Cooper and McLeod see the world as being complex, not reducible to monistic principles but full of potentiality. They maintain it is therapeutically beneficial to be open and engaged with this richness and diversity. ‘Our experience of the world is more comparable to the relation to our desks in the middle of a project than to the desk after the project has been completed (Connolly in Cooper and McLeod, 2011, p)

Sartre believed that we are responsible for our existence and what we do with it. This resonates with Victor Frankl’s logotherapy (:2004) and Glasser’s (1998) ideal that all we can control are our actions, regardless of circumstances. Glasser maintains that all the world gives us is information and we have choices as to how we interpret this data and how we behave. Choice Theory is an accessible and uplifting philosophy that can free clients from the shackles of victimhood and shows them that, tough and all as the choices may be, there is usually room for improvement.

Sartre believed that people are never fully satisfied because there is always a sense of unfilled potential. We always want to be more. “The being of human reality is suffering because it rises in being as perpetually haunted by a totality which it is without being able to be it, precisely because it could not attain the in-itself without losing itself as for-itself” (Sartre in Howard, 2011, p342). This may appear bleak but is also strangely consoling because it is in the acceptance that life is hard that makes it less so (Scott Peck, ). Glasser (1998) and Frankl (:2004) both maintained that regardless of how dire circumstances are, there is always the possibility of doing something that will make things better. As Choice Theory maintains Quality is ever improving (Glasser, 1998).

According to Sartre “Human reality is it’s own surpassing towards what it lacks” (Howard, 2000, p). That the nature of things is to be always grasping and that anxiety is normal. That one is anxious by virtue of being alive. Which is in keeping with the current neuroscientific thought that humans are hardwired to be anxious, that it is a survival instinct (Hanson, ). Apparently, the brain, ever alert to danger, wants us alive, it does not care if we are miserable or not, As the politically controversial, but popular existential Psychologist, Dr Jordan Peterson points out he has no problem understanding anxiety, depression or addiction because life is tough, and we are all going to die. he is surprised more people do not have all three (12 rules). From a clinical perspective, clients are often anxious about being anxious that there is a faulty belief as CBT () explains that one should be happy all the time causes distress. Pluralism is born of evidence that it’s often the secondary symptoms that cause distress and that for many clients the normalising of anxiety is very therapeutic. Wubbolding (2000), a Reality Therapist, outlines effective Paradoxical techniques that include embracing and even prescribing the symptoms thereby lessening their distressing nature.

Sartre explored the authentic versus inauthentic self which has echoes of Roger’s self-actualised self (). Sartre cautioned against being trapped by roles, that life is full of potentiality. One of the reasons Sartre was attracted to Marxism was because he believed its anti-materialism could free people from economic shackles, but he had had little time for society or community. He believed that what we make of ourselves is influenced by what we imagine others make of us. That “we never lose sight of the fact that we are looked at, and we execute the ensemble of acts which we have come to perform in the presence of the look; better yet we attempt to constitute a being and an ensemble of objects this look” (Sartre in Howard, 2011, p343). Sartre maintained that you know a man by his actions (Howard, 2000). Sartre’s notion of the Human-Being-for-itself, being renewing and ever-changing. He believed that Being-for-others could be a trap and could cause alienation from the authentic self, losing touch with one’s essence and creativity. Being-for-others observed the object for others. In ‘Being for others’ I lose myself and become an alienated object. It does seem that if one is not being true to oneself that there is a tendency towards anxietying, depressing and other controlling behaviours, for instance, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. As if one’s creativity turns in on self-destructively. From a Glasserian Needs perspective, the most important Need is Belonging (1998). Belonging with self must be the foundation for Belonging with others to be genuine and beneficial. Jordan Peterson talks about the importance of speaking one’s truth or Locus, that every time one lies it weakens one ().

Sartre was big on responsibility. That one is absolutely free and absolutely responsible (Howard, 2000). He believed that blaming circumstances or others was moral cowardice, that you are responsible and that blaming is irresponsible and acting in bad faith. Actions speak louder than words. Decisions and intentions count far more than past circumstances; what matters is what we make of environments and events. Like Glasser (1980), Sartre had little time for feelings. The client locates, reassesses and takes responsibility for important decisions, interpretations and intentions. Each of these is regarded as more fundamental than particular thoughts or feelings. One acts and then understands one action; one might act out of necessity or habit. In therapy, it is helpful for clients to learn from prior behaviour and to integrate that learning. This parallels the Moral Inventory process of 12-step programmes where recovering people reflect on past mistakes and learn from them (Alcoholics Anonymous, ).

The thrust of Sartre’s philosophy from a psychological perspective seems to be to push on regardless of how one’s feels, which merges with Choice Theory (1998) and Logotherapy (Frankl, 2004). Neuroscientists have discovered that when one resolves to gradually face and overcome fear, rather than avoid it, this activates the attack rather than defensive areas of the brain and has a calming effect (Hanson, ). There is also evidence that when people explore new environments, they activate genes that would not be otherwise activated (Peterson, ). Sartre promoted the benefit of reflecting on the past and getting learning: I am wiser because of my mistakes (Howard, 2000). Glasser (1998) believed if one is living and functioning effectively in the present, the past has less of a hold.

Furthermore, according to Sartre change involves pain or angst. People, in the main, dislike change, the brain resists it, even just in terms of learning new stuff. There is a therapeutic task in overcoming the natural tendency to sacrifice the future self for the present self (Peterson, ). If you settle for what you are, you renounce what you could become (Howard, 2000). A very useful Anxiety hack Jordan Peterson (), applies with clients is to forensically examine the specific anxiety and explore how one has dealt with it in the past. Then develop a strategy around how one will deal with it going forward thus reassuring the mind that things are under control. The strategy or solution need not be fool-proof, but once the mind believes one has a plan it tends to calm down and stop obsessing.

Despite the obvious dichotomy between existentialism and Marxism, Sartre did concede that Man may be partially ‘made’/formed/influenced by climate, the earth, race, class, language, history, childhood and events. As a Marxist, Sartre believed there was an onus on the government to improve the plight of the underprivileged. Yet like Glasser (1998) and Frankl (:2004), he maintained that “adversity in things cannot be an argument against our freedom.” In essence, there is a possibility that challenge can make one stronger as explored by Antifragile (). “A particular crag, which manifests a profound resistance if I wish to displace it, will be on the contrary a valuable aid if I want to climb upon it in order to look over the countryside” (Howard, 2000, p)

As Howard explains (2000, p349), Sartre believed that ‘I exist, I choose, I project, I act and then I discover myself. I exist, and in so doing, I choose, I project, I think, action, I thereby construct and discover myself. I do therefore I am. The Locus of control is internal. Sartre, like Frankl :(2004), believed that we make meaning within what we choose, engage with and intend. Meaning is not be ‘found’ since there is no meaning in any absolute sense. Despite his depressing fictional characters, he maintains that those who set goals and work towards them are more fulfilled. Neuroscience has discovered that goals can act as an analgesic (Hanson, ).

Once more this resonates strongly with a Choice theory that one only has control over one’s behaviour and that all one can do is behave. This also parallels 12-step programmes where members are encouraged to clean their side of the street and to act their way into good thinking, rather than wishing or thinking their way into good acting. ‘Bring the body and the mind follows’ and ‘do the next right thing’ sums up the essence of AA ().

Being-for-others is the ‘me’ that is an observed object for others making something of themselves – co-dependency.

It is absurd that we are born, it is absurd that we die.

Existential psychoanalysis as seeking to determine the original choice.

“Human reality is it’s own surpassing toward what it lacks, it surpasses itself towards the particular being which it would be if it were what it is” (ibid p89)

Quite depressing, notion of never been satisfied, obviously depressive cf we are unfinished articles.

Human reality is by nature an unhappy consciousness with no possibility of surpassing its unhappy state”. Ibid p90 shot me now – presuming Sartre’s philosophy was a big departure

Being-for-itself was that restless spirit that moved on from whatever we had made of ourselves. To finally make ourselves was to die. To be alive was to be forever renewing – Glasser quality & better to make meaning one’s focus rather than happiness. JBP. Don’t sacrifice your future self for your present self.

Sartre didn’t have much time for thoughts and feelings which is in keeping with neuroscience & how much anxiety is hardwired.

Preoccupation with past influences is irresponsible – an act of bad faith.

Decisions and intentions count more for more than past circumstances. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. What matters is what we make of environments and events.

We make meaning within we choose, engage with and intend. Meaning is not absolute, not to be found. Is it personal?

Actions speak louder than words. Bring body, the mind follows – act into good thinking

Actions and words and thoughts and motives are interconnected. Know oneself in behaviour. – all we can do is behave = is it different or contradictory of rt – closely aligned

Analytically appraise the philosophy of ethics and how it informs a therapist’s and researcher’s work.

From a therapeutic perspective and despite its limitations, Sartre’s philosophy has much to recommend it, particularly in the focus on actions and projects. The belief that regardless of genetics, history, circumstances or trauma people always have options is empowering. Sartre’s concept of Man as ”meaning-seeking, purposeful beings” (Cooper & McLeod, 2011, p19).

Sartre’s philosophy has much to offer therapeutically. It is inspiring and future-orientated. It is probably most applicable for deep thinkers and the more cerebral client. Obviously, it has limitations. It would be neither appropriate nor therapeutically beneficial to assert and insist that clients’ problems were of their own making. This is unlike to help the therapeutic aligning that is an important part of counselling (Cooper & McLeod, 2011) or the processing that is often a key element to help clients make sense of their worlds. Also, most people are not bombast enough to reject society’s norms (even if it is just for loved ones, particularly for children’s sake). Sartre may have brazened it out with his arrangement with Simone de Beauvoir but one might wonder how happy she was with the arrangement.

Akin to Choice Theory (1998) with its negligence of emotions, that are certain issues that Sartre’s philosophy would be unlikely to be appropriate for. Therapists need to ascertain how useful it is to focus on client responsibility. For instance, in the case of bereavement or trauma, it is downright insensitive to suggest that the client is responsible. A more person-centred or mindful approach would be more appropriate and therapeutic, creating a space the client and allowing them to process their grief and or trauma.

Sartre suggests meaning is an individual endeavour, he did not entertain meaning as a social activity or the collective unconscious. Similar to Choice theory, ethically it may not be suitable to practice in a purist way with certain clients the centrality of choice. Particularly with clients from more collectively orientated cultures such as the Traveller Community (cf ethnicity book). Thus, it is beneficial to soften notions of choice, within what they see as the confines of their cultural norms. The writer has found in many years of working closely with Travellers that they are suspicious of making plans or being future orientated as they can associate plans with trauma. Previously they may have planned something, for instance, a trip and then often tragedy has befallen (because they experience so much crisis) and then the association is made between planning and bad luck. So useful to adapt/adjust. Ethically it may appear a harsh and unsympathetic philosophy. Howard argues that there are some unnegotiable givens like needing water to live. The pluralistic perspective it is as ever most appropriate to work in a way that fits the individual client.

Not unlike Reality Therapy, Sartre’s neglect of emotion is a significant therapeutic limitation. Often it is important to explore feelings in order to heal. Research has shown (Cooper & McLeod, 2011) that the most effective way to work with clients is the way that best suits the individual.

Though it is probably more effective to focus on meaning than happiness, Sartre did not appear to believe in the possibility of happiness (). Glasser did understand the importance of relationships as a source of contentment (1998). Whereas Sartre places little value on relationships which possibly explains his depressive outlook.

The advantage of the Pluralistic approach is that would can integrate multiple ideas and cherry-pick what works. Glasser understood the importance of relationships as a source of contentment (1998). Whereas Sartre places little value on relationships which possibly explains his depressive outlook.

Many valid answers. No one privileged standpoint. Reality is coloured by perspective. My version. Subjective. Curiosity about the other. All perspectives have validity.

Being-for-itself is that restless spirit that moves on from whatever we had made of itself.