I just finished the 6th page of Ch25 on Atheistic Existentialism. I just paused for a while to blog about what I was just feeling before writing.
The two chapters dominantly talked about the exultation of personal choice as a pre-requisite to personal freedom. However, apparently, Atheistic Existentialism furthered its argument by ignoring all sorts of external power, which it claims to be superficial and detrimental to the pursuit of self actualization. The state, for instance, is said to be repressing the individuals for the benefit of the societal goal. In effect, the individual power is kept from reaching its full potential.
Another thing, Existentialism in itself states that all people exist without any form of essences. Put into this world, they make their own essences, leaving us to the thought that good and bad are really superficial. Exemplifying this claim, Nietzche considered the Ancient Greek, which had two kinds of morality. First there was the morality of the noble which embodied selfishness, courage, and power. On the other hand, the morality of the slave considered pity, weakness, and compassion. Subsequently, Nietzche associated the slave morality to be the basis for the Christian morality after the slaves gradually toppled down the government of the noble.
The last claim indeed got me very furious and had me to stop for a while. First, in the theory of Power, the acquisition of power exists as a cycle. At one point in time, the people who experience the loopholes of the current power try to reverse the current power structure. This characteristic is then observed by having those that are repressed by the existing power to try resisting it and soon overturn it. Thus, the claim that the Christian morality is based on the slave morality is definitely a clear un-thoughtful generalization. The grouping of pity, weakness, and compassion and subsequently labeling them as the characteristics of the slave is atrocious especially when Christian values are alone based on Ancient Greek phenomena. Clearly, Nietzche is not cautious of historiography that by which the making of the history should take into consideration the subjects, plots, and the specific details employed in a scene, and try not to generalize over it.
Another thing that got me to do this is his second claim on our going against our natural instinct. He said that naturally, humans are to hate their enemies because that is what instinctively they would have done. Loving them, on the contrary, is implementing self repression. But, again, that would have contradicted the Existentialism premise that human beings are without essences. How could he conclude that hating, which is subjective, is a product of instinctual behaviors? Psychologically even, loving one's enemy relinquishes one from the negative thoughts that result from the experience supporting one to achieving the peak of self-actualization even more (having eliminated the hindrances).
Lastly, Stirner's belief on the repressive influence of the state to the individuals is also lacking. First, he did not further explain the benefit the individuals have after having the state imposes some agreements. When the individual is totally broken free, as what he proposed, then, the repression will come from other individuals. Why? He claimed that individuals have to constantly gear towards achieving self actualization. But in order to do this, he has to feel that his power is greater than his environment, and in turn try to surpass them. If all individuals exhibit this characteristic, then no one can indeed achieve self actualization, better yet get near a quarter of it.
I would have to say that the issues posed by Stirner and Nietzche should be thought of carefully and that everyone should not just readily accept them. Else, I would like to hear any support from the two authors for me to get another perspective.
