Continental Philosophy

Continental Philosophy

This essay is devoted to the historical development of Continental Philosophy and focuses on existentialism and phenomenology. Since much of Philosophy after Hegel (1770 -1831) is in a large part a response to Hegel idealism, Continental Philosophy falls into this category. The importance of this era is obvious since the world and governments as we see them today show influence from these schools of thought. The following paragraphs will be an attempt to acknowledge as many contributors to Continental Philosophy as the scope of this essay allows and show their response to Hegelian idealism.

Existentialism

Existentialism developed primarily in the twenty years after World War II both had its foundation before the world. Existentialism in a glance has a morbid quality to it since it pervades with pessimism. Existentialists describe the world as irrational and beyond complete comprehension and that; human beings must answer the question of how to live in this absurd environment. To make things worse life will only deteriorate and the meaning and value of life will remain elusive and unreachable. This is a sharp contrast to Hegelian Idealism, which is optimistic in that Hegel believed there is truth and real substance and that humankind’s goal was the infinite search for this truth. He also believed that human thought was real and in this author’s opinion, this is where idealism and existentialism agree since “will” is a conception of thought. There were many contributors to Existentialism. A few of the main ones are as follows:

Primary Existentialism Contributors

Arthur Schopenhauer (1770 -1831) Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) Albert Camus (1913-1960) Jean-Paul Sarte (1905-1980)

(Moore-Bruder 2005)

Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer viewed Hegel as a fake and an idiot who misguided all his students and flowerers. His perception of humans was that they are driven by irrational selfish desire of a petty nature and are subject to a “cosmic-will” (Arthur Schopenhauer 1770 -1831) that is uncontrollable. This “cosmic-will” is the source of all life and the cause of its misery. This misery (he believed) was escapable only through aesthetic pursuits such as art and music, which remove humans from the slavery of the “cosmic-will”. (Moore-Bruder 2005)

(Authors thought: The instinct of survival of oneself or of ones species defines as selfish but can hardly reach a definition of irrational. Again in the author’s opinion: Separating the human form and the “cosmic-will” (or rather energy) into two separate entities is the ultimate philosophical mistake resulting in chaotic interpretation.)

Note: Schopenhauer influenced both Sigmund Freud and Nietzsche

Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard follows the belief in will but seems to differ from Schopenhauer’s view (that humans are powerless to control the pervasive will) in that Kierkegaard believes in the importance of the individual and the choices that are made. However, in seemingly contradiction to his own belief, he believes the world is full of despair and that humans really have only one choice and that is to turn to God for escape. (Moore-Bruder 2005)

Nietzsche

Schopenhauer had an influence on Nietzsche as mentioned earlier and adopted the theory that the world is under the reins of a cosmic will and not by reason. His interpretation of the cosmic will is quite different and describes “will” as the pursuit of power. He believed that humans had become like herds of animals afraid to act alone. Nietzsche believed that only the Super Man could throw off this yoke of slavery. This yoke would include religion and Nietzsche described God as simply dead. Nietzsche also believed that there were no facts and only interpretations. This belief renders metaphysics relatively useless but Nietzsche did ascribe to one point in metaphysics and that is the reoccurrence of events. This is interesting because one who is enslaved cannot bear to think of reliving that slavery repeatedly. That is the definition of hell. In contrast, though, Nietzsche puts forth optimistically that a superman can control life and thoroughly enjoy its recurrence. (Moore-Bruder 2005)

Albert Camus

Camus believed that people live their lives in unawareness and that they survive with what he termed as “forced-optimism”. This leads to self-delusion and unhappiness. He also purported that humans need two things…. clear understanding…. and…warmth and contact from others. The problem being that these two basic needs were virtually unattainable. Still Camus believed that the fight against the absurd nature of life (which does not provide these basic needs) in itself gave life meaning and that giving up was not an option. Camus declared himself agnostic since he could neither prove or disprove the existence of God. (Moore-Bruder 2005)

Jean-Paul Sarte

Sarte did not believe in God and thus believed that life was what you made of it and a human defined themselves by their actions and thoughts. He also believed that of course if there were no God then there was not a particular meaning to existence. However, he differed human from insect saying that humans had both existence and self-awareness a unique quality. In addition, Sarte believed that since man was not under divine intervention that humans were in essence free and thus entirely responsible for their own actions. (Authors thought: This is an extremely important point since in Sarte’s world humans could not kill in the name of religion.) Sarte seemed confused with his godless belief because he associated God as the creator of values so that in the absence of God humans would have to create their own values. In this creation, humans would become responsible for each other and the entire human race and thus would experience continual anxiety. Since many people do not seem anxious he described their condition with the term of “bad faith” which he went on to say was the unawareness or escape from this responsibility. (Moore-Bruder 2005) (Author’s opinion: Sarte was unaware of the ultimate law governing the universe “the law of cause and effect” from which value is the natural occurrence either through trial and error or through awareness.)

Phenomenology

Phenomenology defines as the philosophy of “world-in-experience”. The world of things is one of perception and touch without assumptions. (Moore-Bruder 2005) Some of the major contributors to Phenomenology are as follows but to keep within the constraints of this essay only the first four will receive an explanation:

Phenomenology Contributors

Edmund Husserl (1859・1938) Martin Heidegger (1889・1976) Emmanuel Levinas (1906・1995) Jurgen Habermas (1929・) Jacques Derrida (1930・) Gilles Deleuze (1925・1995) Richard Rorty (1931・)

(Moore-Bruder 2005)

Edmund Husserl

Husserl made the first attempt to bring Europe out of its existentialism mindset. He brought forth two processes: one called transcendental phenomenology (research phenomena without guesses to its nature) and the other phenomenological reduction (to reduce the world to the phenomena perceived by all human beings). Husserl’s methods explore the world much like metaphysics but without making hypothetical assumptions. (Moore-Bruder 2005)

Martin Heidegger

Heidegger was influenced by Husserl are at least was in agreement with him in the need or desire to bring philosophy to more solid ground but was quite different since he deviated from objects as to what needed to be understood. He was fixated on the one concept that seems forgotten in humans search for meaning. For Heidegger the “Nature of Being” was the only worthwhile study. He felt humans had become obsessed with objects and had forgotten the search for being. (Moore-Bruder 2005)

Emmanuel Levinas

Levinas tried to establish a belief in the necessary difference of the “Other”. He believed that it was a mistake to study “Being” if it regarded others with sameness. This he felt was especially true of God. God is an “other”, which defies understanding. (Moore-Bruder 2005) (Author’s opinion: Levinas seems existential since the ultimate truths are unattainable by humans. Like most theological philosophers he starts with a philosophy from childhood and bends the world to fit his belief)

Jurgen Habermas

For Habermas, philosophy reaches understanding in our relationship with others rather than through a set of scientific rules. Habermas believes that we cannot understand ourselves if we have no awareness of the nature of other people. He also believed that an ideology can distort the truth and that one can overcome this through the perfect dialogue situation, which is one where the individuals involved can speak freely without being afraid. (Moore-Bruder 2005)

Conclusion

This essay has shown that Continental philosophy and especially existentialism on the European continent was a response to Hegel’s Idealism. Each existential philosopher was opposed to Hegel’s optimistic approach and painted the world as an irrational and absurd reality. However, each existential philosopher gave at least some outlet for the human being; two examples are Kierkegaard’s God or Nietzsche’s Superman.

Phenomenology grew from existentialism in an attempt to provide a more logical useful philosophy. Phenomenology was an attempt to bring into focus a shared perception of reality. A way if you will to bring humans to a middle ground of perception. One point shown throughout the essay is the synergetic chain of ideas that show the obvious influence of one philosopher (or human) on another. This point lends credit to Habermas’s belief that understanding comes through interaction with others. Following this thought, it is this author’s firm belief that knowledge of itself has no meaning, that knowledge becomes wisdom in its ability to help and further our understanding of what we call life.

Reference

Moore-Bruder (2005), The McGraw-Hill Companies, Philosophy: the power of ideas, Sixth Edition, I. Metaphysics and epistemology: existence and knowledge, Chap. 8, the continental tradition


People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *