This two part college lecture series takes a look at
existentialism as a living and relevant philosophy of our age. Solomon, the
lecturer, lays a foundation for existential principles by reviewing the
emergence of individual responsibility in the writings and philosophy of such
well-known existentialists as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, Heidegger, and
others, before he concludes the series with six lectures covering the greatest
existentialist of them all, Jean-Paul Sartre.
As part of this course I have read selected passages
from several books, as well as some relevant plays and other short stories and
essays written from the existential viewpoint and meant to express its tenants,
including the following:
Existentialism – edited by: Robert C. Solomon (1974).
This is the main accompanying text that goes with this lecture series.
From Rationalism to Existentialism: The
Existentialists and their Nineteenth-Century Backgrounds – by: Robert C.
Solomon (1972). This was one of the secondary accompanying texts.
Sartre, The Wall, and Other Stories – translated by:
Lloyd Alexander (1948). An interesting collection of fiction written by Sartre
to express his key ideas in practical terms. The Wall, and parts of these other
stories are discussed in Solomon’s lectures.
The Trial – by: Franz Kafka, translation by David
Wyllie. Another story discussed at some length by Solomon.
Existentialism From Dostoevsky to Sartre: Basic
Writings of Existentialism by Sartre, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Kafka, Heidegger,
and others – Selected and Introduced by: Walter Kaufmann (1956, 1974, 2004).
This book was sent to me by a good friend who’d heard I was studying
existentialism and thought it would help. And it did help, especially by
providing alternative translations for some of the important writings discussed
by Solomon, and also by providing an alternative take on the meaning of
existentialism itself somewhat different from Solomon’s view.
Kaufmann defines existentialism like this: “The
refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation of the adequacy of
any body of beliefs whatever, and especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction
with traditional philosophy as superficial, academic, and remote from life –
that is the heart of existentialism.”
If that were the accepted definition for
existentialism then I’d say, “Sign me up!” But, unfortunately, others, such as
Solomon, and the great existential philosophers themselves, while generally
agreeing that existentialism ultimately defies any fixed definition (i.e. it is
generally agreed to be a living, developing, and hence changing philosophy) it
has other premises that are fundamental to its cause. And one of those
fundamental tenants is the idea of freedom (free will) and individual
responsibility (as suggested by the very title of Solomon’s lecture series).
I take issue with such concepts, but only in variation
to how these terms are defined and used. In other words, I don’t necessarily
disagree, I just feel it is critically important to be extremely careful about
how one does agree.
