No Excuses: Existentialism and the Meaning of Life – DVD lecture series by: Professor Robert Solomon (University of Texas, 2000)

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.

Man’s Search For Meaning --- by: Viktor E. Frankl (1959, 2006)

This book was a gift from a friend of mine. I’m surprised that I have never read it before now. It is extremely well known and revered, and exactly the kind of book that would have piqued my interest if I had ever picked it up and read the back cover.

It is the memoir of a Jewish psychiatrist who survived several years in various Nazi death camps. He uses his experiences there to illustrate his ideas about the psychological (and/or spiritual) importance of finding a reason to live (i.e. meaning). He also writes some about the psychoanalytical therapy technique based on this principle that he developed and calls “logotherapy”.

I really like the way he thinks, and his ideas are extremely consistent with my own (especially since my “epiphany”, which in a real sense was no more than my own personal realization that all my suffering was for a reason – i.e. I found the exact kind of “meaning” that Frankl writes about in this book). My only real critique is that he doesn’t acknowledge the fact that while everyone has a choice in how they respond to injustice and suffering, not everyone REALIZES that they have a choice; and this realization is NOT a choice, but a kind of gift (in the same sense that good health is a gift).

The Serial Killer Whisperer: How One Man's Tragedy Helped Unlock the Deadliest Secrets of the World's Most Terrifying Killers --- by: Pete Earley (2012)

I read this book only because the "Whisperer" it is about wrote to me and offered to be my friend. Normally I wouldn't read a book that so obviously sensationalizes rape and murder for corporate profit, unless I have some special interest, and in this case, because the man that this book is supposed to be about wrote to me, I did.

Of course, the book is about rape and murder, and murdering murderers as it turns out (one of the murderers in this book ended up being executed because of this book, which the author boasts about in this current edition), and it's depiction of the "Whisperer" is - according to what the "Whisperer" told me himself in his letters - extremely lacking and outright erroneous (though I wonder then why he promotes the book himself on his own personal website...?).

As for me, as soon as I learned that the "Whisperer" is still actively involved with marketed media organizations (apparently with T.V. and movies these days) I informed him that I could no longer correspond after exchanging just three letters. I wished him the best of luck and promised not to spill any of the "secrets" (my terminology) he revealed to me in his letters on this blog. So I wont.

The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Clarify Some Issues About the So-Called Psychopathic Personality – by: Hervey Cleckley (1941)

This is the book that historically established the “psychopath” as an American fixture. At the time it was written the term “psychopath” was scarcely used and had no clear definition (like the term “witch” before the Malleus Maleficarum was written). The Mask of Sanity didn’t so much define the term as much as it identified the so-called phenomenon. It did this by using numerous case studies as examples, rather than any kind of concise, or even clear, scientific definitions. In fact, Cleckley’s methods of establishing the existence of psychopaths are a remarkable reflection of the reasoning used in the Malleus Maleficarum itself.

Needless to say, I was not impressed. And I’m even less impressed by the fact that so-called “experts on psychopathy” often refer to this book with religious tones, and unashamedly refer to Cleckley as the “founding father [of psychopathology]”. I list it here because it is a book I read after I started writing for this blog (while in Riverside County Jail, back in 2010), and because anyone interested in the rise of the psychopath myth should read it; because it is after all the primary source of the myth itself.    

Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle: From The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 8, Bollingen Series XX (1960), translated by: R.F.C. Hull (1973), 2010 edition

This book, originally a scientific paper written by one of my favorite scientists of all time (one of the rare scientists willing to admit to the crippling limitations of the so-called scientific method), was a bit over my head. Jung assumes he is writing for other well educated scientists, and makes no qualms about quoting Greek, Latin, or some other original source to make a point. Thus many points are lost to me, but I was able to understand enough to at least bolster my own grasp of what Jung himself considered his most significant contribution to the art of science: synchronicity.

Jung is the only scientists I know of who seems to understand the material reality of the immaterial phenomenon I like to call the Living truth, which he calls the psychoid, and is the basis of numerous theological and metaphysical concepts, such as Christ and Buddha, to mention just two.

Biology, Sixth Edition – by: Neil A. Campbell and Jane B. Reece (2002)

   This is a large (over 1300 pages) college Biology textbook. I asked a friend to order it for me since it was one of the texts most frequently referenced as “Essential Reading” along with the DVD Biology course I signed up for (*). The course itself is dated ten years, so I knew this would be an outdated edition (the current edition is on something like nine or ten) and hence VERY affordable (this edition cost less than $15, and that includes shipping, while the newest edition probably costs hundreds of dollars).

   It’s a beautiful book, and already has made the biology course I’m taking dozens of times more interesting (and informative, which for me is practically synonymous with interesting).

   (*) The prison education department provides the DVDs (and DVD player) only, without any accompanying books or other study materials.

Note: This is another book that I have not yet read, though I certainly intend to read most of it. I list it here because it has already become an important part of my life, and I expect it to remain so for some time to come.

The Gaia Hypothesis: Science On A Pagan Planet – by: Michael Ruse (2013)

   I asked for this book and received it as a gift from a friend who bought a copy for herself to read along with me. That made me a little self-conscious as I read because I kept thinking how dull this book must seem for my friend. It’s the kind of book I actually enjoy though. Not because it’s a pleasure to read --- it’s not --- but rather, because it’s full of information and perspectives that was new to me.

   Don’t get me wrong; I knew about as much as most people about the Gaia hypothesis to begin with. I also knew that the idea of Earth as a living organism has been around for thousands of years. But, what I didn’t know, and found very interesting, was the specific socio-political forces that tugged and pulled at the very concept of a living planet in our modern age. The details were insightful, and significant to me as a wanna-be philosopher.

   No real surprises though. The information merely added to and supported my previous experiences with how ideas play out in the mind of society. I should write my own book someday about how we think collectively, and about how those collective thoughts are expressed in our individual lives.

   Maybe I will, if Gaia lets me.