Obsessed with the nature of Being, * existentialists developed a hybrid composed of philosophy/aesthetics/psychology that has influenced the West since the the publications of works by Kierkegaard, Husserl, and all those designated as existentialists like Sartre and Heidegger. That last guy, Heidegger, makes much of art and hyphenated words like “being-in-the-world.” And that, my dear reader, is a good place to start for this discussion.
Briefly, we can’t seem to get away from the dichotomy of understanding our world that varies between the simplicity of a single word and the complexity of combined meanings. Take that “being-in-the-world” of Heidegger’s, for example. My first thought is, “Where else?” As far as I know, all of us basically understand that what we do and where we exist is a manifestation of “being-in-the-world.”
The influence I wrote about in the first paragraph has led western thinkers into a more oriental way of perception—or at least into that “hybrid” I mentioned above. Today’s obsession with “mindfulness” is a product of that influence, and much what westerners perceive as valuable—outside “things” they accumulate—lies in some version of “being-in-the-world.” Again, “Where else?”
It’s odd how we find both simplicity and complexity as foundations of our existence. “”Give me the straight and narrow,” “Just give me the facts,” “Keep it simple,” “Cut to the chase,” and other expressions reveal our impatience with complexity. “Be thorough,” “What does that really mean,” and “Make your argument complete,” all reveal the opposite perspective. Simplification is both good and bad, as is complexity. The difference between their value lies in the individual’s mood. And that seems to be at the heart of existential thought, which belabors Angst, Dread, and, in a seeming contradiction, Play. To run away from the reality of our own mortality, we visit Disney World, or a resort, a precipitous ride on top a skyscraper, or a mountain cabin as we occupy our minds with play, both physical and mental to escape the simple undeniable fact of our mortality.**
With the growing wealth and complexity of western societies and the proliferation of urban life came the need to “find oneself—elsewhere” or to “find oneself in the moment,” that is to vacation by vacating the “ordinary” life for some place of renewal and escape or to immerse oneself in the present so much that the mind becomes a place of being. Staying in the village or on the farm and never leaving isn’t a modern practice for many. And when actual travel from home isn’t possible, we travel by video, live-streamed or recorded. I’ve never been to the Amalfi Coast, but I know what it looks like; never physically been to the moon, either, or Mars, but I’ve been to both through videos. Heck, I’ve even “been” to a black hole via video-travel thanks to NASA.
I sometimes think that Mike Brady’s (of the movie The Brady Bunch) “Remember, wherever you go, there you are” might be one of the best descriptions of “Being-in-the-world,” the best encapsulation of what pages of existentialist writing could not encapsulate. It’s a simplification, but it holds true for those who are self-aware. It’s “Know thyself” in the actual world. But could Mike Brady also have said, “Remember, whatever you do, is you”?
Today, you will be “somewhere.” You might even be “mentally elsewhere” when you are “physically somewhere”—that’s probably more a modern experience than an ancient one. You have been to so many “elsewheres” through actual and virtual travel, that you can’t say you’ve never left the village or farm. And knowing all those other “wheres” and ways of being-in-the-world, you are steeped in complexity that humans before the rise of civilization probably never knew.
Can you find the meaning of Being where you are? I have a T-shirt with “To do is to be,” “To be is to do,” and “Do-be-do-be-do” respectively attributed to Socrates, Plato, and Frank Sinatra. I’ve seen another T-shirt that attributes the first two sayings to Nietzsche and Kant. In a complex western society, doing often equates to being. We ask strangers, “What do you do?” We define ourselves by what we do in meeting others because attempting to define ourselves by pure “being-in-the-world” is very difficult since all of us can be characterized by our “being-in-the-world” and by our “thingness.” We also define ourselves by our “thinkness,” that is, by intellectual positions we take. In contrast, we believe that what we do is different from what or who we are. Thus, we seek refuge from the complexity of a world of doing by heading for a spa, a quiet retreat, or just an isolated place.
And now, dear reader, a politicization of the topic: A key Heideggerian term is Dasein, which, without all the pages of clarification, means "being there." It seems to me that many of those we elect to political offices get thrown into the candidate category simply by being there. The movie Being There with Peter Sellers illustrates what I mean. Chance the gardener of a deceased rich guy is mistaken as Chauncey Gardiner by the wealthy and influential segment of society. He is, in fact, a simpleton, who by the end of the film is the subject of talk about becoming the next President. Anyway, I distinguish between guys like President George Herbert Bush, successful businessman and career politician, and Barack Obama, a "community organizer" who, by "being there," becomes President. Now, you might be a rabid fan of President Obama and think this is an unfair assessment of his rise to power, but I might point out coverage by a local liberal newspaper and by the disgraced political pundit Chris Matthews. The local paper supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy over Obama, as did Matthews. Both the paper and Matthews could not find any accomplishments that would make Obama fit for the office. After Obama defeated Clinton in the primaries, however, the paper and Matthews sang Obama's praises, with Matthews making his famous "thrill up the leg" comment in emotional support. Being there, just plain being there [probably not what Heidegger meant] in the right place at the right time put Obama in office in my estimation. But I suppose that could be said for just about every elected official who rises from "everydayness" to fame, power, and fortune. I suppose, also, that re-election of incumbents on both sides of the aisle is also a manifestation of the power of simply "being there." If you can see it, watch the movie, and if you want to wade through it, read Heidegger's Being and Time. ***
*”Nature of Being” seems a bit oxymoronic. If Being can be taken as “existence itself,” then it is a category that includes “Nature.” But how should I then open this essay? Simply with “Obsessed with Being”? That, in turn, begs a question about what existentialists were doing in attempting to “define” Being (or characterize it) through philosophy, art, sociology, or even psychology: The best example is the plethora of writings centered on van Gogh’s painting of peasant shoes. Do the shoes, which are things-in-this-world, lead us to an understanding of anything beyond our own subjective interpretation. Heidegger “puts” them on a peasant woman’s feet and says they reveal the nature of her being, or her nature, or even her personal history of work in the field (the shoes are very worn). But what insight has he really given us that we don’t already have from experience. Does everyone’s favorite old sweatshirt or pair of jeans define a life or merely indicate that things wear out with use, with “doing” and not with simple “being”?
**Do you find it interesting that those who want to “escape reality” or their ordinary “being-in-the-world” and dread, go on thrill rides that safely frighten, roller coasters, for example? Disney’s Tower of Terror, also? Las Vegas’ Big Shot, Insanity, SkyJump, or X-Scream? Is there something innate that makes us want to confront our own existence and dread in the knowledge that we can do it safely strapped into a thrill ride?
***You might also research the Peter Principle, a late twentieth-century notion that people rise to the level of their incompetence.
Briefly, we can’t seem to get away from the dichotomy of understanding our world that varies between the simplicity of a single word and the complexity of combined meanings. Take that “being-in-the-world” of Heidegger’s, for example. My first thought is, “Where else?” As far as I know, all of us basically understand that what we do and where we exist is a manifestation of “being-in-the-world.”
The influence I wrote about in the first paragraph has led western thinkers into a more oriental way of perception—or at least into that “hybrid” I mentioned above. Today’s obsession with “mindfulness” is a product of that influence, and much what westerners perceive as valuable—outside “things” they accumulate—lies in some version of “being-in-the-world.” Again, “Where else?”
It’s odd how we find both simplicity and complexity as foundations of our existence. “”Give me the straight and narrow,” “Just give me the facts,” “Keep it simple,” “Cut to the chase,” and other expressions reveal our impatience with complexity. “Be thorough,” “What does that really mean,” and “Make your argument complete,” all reveal the opposite perspective. Simplification is both good and bad, as is complexity. The difference between their value lies in the individual’s mood. And that seems to be at the heart of existential thought, which belabors Angst, Dread, and, in a seeming contradiction, Play. To run away from the reality of our own mortality, we visit Disney World, or a resort, a precipitous ride on top a skyscraper, or a mountain cabin as we occupy our minds with play, both physical and mental to escape the simple undeniable fact of our mortality.**
With the growing wealth and complexity of western societies and the proliferation of urban life came the need to “find oneself—elsewhere” or to “find oneself in the moment,” that is to vacation by vacating the “ordinary” life for some place of renewal and escape or to immerse oneself in the present so much that the mind becomes a place of being. Staying in the village or on the farm and never leaving isn’t a modern practice for many. And when actual travel from home isn’t possible, we travel by video, live-streamed or recorded. I’ve never been to the Amalfi Coast, but I know what it looks like; never physically been to the moon, either, or Mars, but I’ve been to both through videos. Heck, I’ve even “been” to a black hole via video-travel thanks to NASA.
I sometimes think that Mike Brady’s (of the movie The Brady Bunch) “Remember, wherever you go, there you are” might be one of the best descriptions of “Being-in-the-world,” the best encapsulation of what pages of existentialist writing could not encapsulate. It’s a simplification, but it holds true for those who are self-aware. It’s “Know thyself” in the actual world. But could Mike Brady also have said, “Remember, whatever you do, is you”?
Today, you will be “somewhere.” You might even be “mentally elsewhere” when you are “physically somewhere”—that’s probably more a modern experience than an ancient one. You have been to so many “elsewheres” through actual and virtual travel, that you can’t say you’ve never left the village or farm. And knowing all those other “wheres” and ways of being-in-the-world, you are steeped in complexity that humans before the rise of civilization probably never knew.
Can you find the meaning of Being where you are? I have a T-shirt with “To do is to be,” “To be is to do,” and “Do-be-do-be-do” respectively attributed to Socrates, Plato, and Frank Sinatra. I’ve seen another T-shirt that attributes the first two sayings to Nietzsche and Kant. In a complex western society, doing often equates to being. We ask strangers, “What do you do?” We define ourselves by what we do in meeting others because attempting to define ourselves by pure “being-in-the-world” is very difficult since all of us can be characterized by our “being-in-the-world” and by our “thingness.” We also define ourselves by our “thinkness,” that is, by intellectual positions we take. In contrast, we believe that what we do is different from what or who we are. Thus, we seek refuge from the complexity of a world of doing by heading for a spa, a quiet retreat, or just an isolated place.
And now, dear reader, a politicization of the topic: A key Heideggerian term is Dasein, which, without all the pages of clarification, means "being there." It seems to me that many of those we elect to political offices get thrown into the candidate category simply by being there. The movie Being There with Peter Sellers illustrates what I mean. Chance the gardener of a deceased rich guy is mistaken as Chauncey Gardiner by the wealthy and influential segment of society. He is, in fact, a simpleton, who by the end of the film is the subject of talk about becoming the next President. Anyway, I distinguish between guys like President George Herbert Bush, successful businessman and career politician, and Barack Obama, a "community organizer" who, by "being there," becomes President. Now, you might be a rabid fan of President Obama and think this is an unfair assessment of his rise to power, but I might point out coverage by a local liberal newspaper and by the disgraced political pundit Chris Matthews. The local paper supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy over Obama, as did Matthews. Both the paper and Matthews could not find any accomplishments that would make Obama fit for the office. After Obama defeated Clinton in the primaries, however, the paper and Matthews sang Obama's praises, with Matthews making his famous "thrill up the leg" comment in emotional support. Being there, just plain being there [probably not what Heidegger meant] in the right place at the right time put Obama in office in my estimation. But I suppose that could be said for just about every elected official who rises from "everydayness" to fame, power, and fortune. I suppose, also, that re-election of incumbents on both sides of the aisle is also a manifestation of the power of simply "being there." If you can see it, watch the movie, and if you want to wade through it, read Heidegger's Being and Time. ***
*”Nature of Being” seems a bit oxymoronic. If Being can be taken as “existence itself,” then it is a category that includes “Nature.” But how should I then open this essay? Simply with “Obsessed with Being”? That, in turn, begs a question about what existentialists were doing in attempting to “define” Being (or characterize it) through philosophy, art, sociology, or even psychology: The best example is the plethora of writings centered on van Gogh’s painting of peasant shoes. Do the shoes, which are things-in-this-world, lead us to an understanding of anything beyond our own subjective interpretation. Heidegger “puts” them on a peasant woman’s feet and says they reveal the nature of her being, or her nature, or even her personal history of work in the field (the shoes are very worn). But what insight has he really given us that we don’t already have from experience. Does everyone’s favorite old sweatshirt or pair of jeans define a life or merely indicate that things wear out with use, with “doing” and not with simple “being”?
**Do you find it interesting that those who want to “escape reality” or their ordinary “being-in-the-world” and dread, go on thrill rides that safely frighten, roller coasters, for example? Disney’s Tower of Terror, also? Las Vegas’ Big Shot, Insanity, SkyJump, or X-Scream? Is there something innate that makes us want to confront our own existence and dread in the knowledge that we can do it safely strapped into a thrill ride?
***You might also research the Peter Principle, a late twentieth-century notion that people rise to the level of their incompetence.
RSS Feed