Today in class, once the explanation of Existential theory had been completely laid down, we got a chance to voice our skepticism. A majority of the arguments seemed to be geared toward practicality. Is Existentialism even possible for humans? In our culture, how can we embrace "finding meaning of life through life itself" when rejecting our institutions could actually lead to death? And on a slightly different note, if Existentialism involves questioning all systems, doesn't Existentialism become a system itself and contradict itself? So one would have to fall into Existentialism without actually thinking about it or being externally influenced to subscribe to the philosophy. Meta-thinking (thinking about thinking) would necessarily have to be absent. This line of conversation brought to my mind one of the characteristics people use to differentiate human beings from animals - conscious thought. And if conscious thought is the obstacle withholding humans from ideal existentialism, that makes animals the ideal existentialists because they - in the grandest generalization - lack that conscious thought. (I internally groaned as Rachel mentioned the gold fish, bringing my train of thought to the verbal conversation - say much more and you'll have stolen my blog post!)
So if our conscious thought is what inevitably confines us, wouldn't it be better to be like animals? A sizable debate is centered around the confining of animals within our zoos. What the people who argue on either side of this debate probably don't realize is that the people walking around the zoo are maybe more restricted than the animals in cages. And maybe zoos are part of another system humans have created to cover up the pain of life. Perhaps we can't bear the freedom we recognize in animals and feel a need to establish our dominance over them despite our confinement.
You may have noticed that this post majorly constitutes questions and hypotheticals. It may even be a little bit annoying - where's the substance? That's how I felt in my mind. During the day, this theory progressed and yet no matter how much I made connections, losing my consciousness doesn't seem worth it. That loss coupled with that freedom isn't appealing. Only while I was reading other people's blog posts, I think I found a response rooted in Camus's "Myth of Sisyphus". Camus argues that while all men suffer through the absurd, two of three peoples can still achieve some form of happiness. The unaware does not recognize their absurd pursuits. The aware person, however, can either suffer under their pain weighed down by knowledge, or they can come to terms with the inevitability of the absurd and even relish in it. So for those struggling with Existentialism but feeling it holds truth for them, there is no need to worry over how to destroy human consciousness and become animal-like. They simply need to accept the absurdity in their life and find comfort in that knowledge. Maybe not simple after all; but would it still be worth it if it wasn't?
The three people you discuss, one of which who is aware of the absurd but chooses to relish in it constitutes the desire of the Matrix character's belief that often "Ignorance is bliss", and, in my opinion, represents a character more similar to Alison from Saunders' "Victory Lap" than an animal. From your post, I conceded that you mean to say animals are the "ultimate existentialists", but where is the component about their understanding of their lack of freedom? Most people would view animals at a lower intelligent level than humans, thus they cannot grasp the idea of the very freedom they lack.
ReplyDelete