Friday 12 August 2022
Friday 5 August 2022
An Oasis for the Stranded, Losers
—Albert Camus
While Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard and Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky have written extensively about absurdism and issues related to it around a century before him, Albert Camus is the one most closely associated with absurdism philosophy. As a person, he is often labeled as an absurdist author, existentialist thinker, even anarcho-syndicalist. But Camus emphatically says 'no' to the term of author, existentialist, or philosopher—let alone an absurdist. In fact, it seems he prefers not to be given any nicknames, except "The Rebel".
On Existentialism
One thing that is certainly clear is the fact that Camus is a French Algerian, having also a Spanish descent from his mother's side, and was born from a Pied-Noir (a person of European origin who lived in Algeria during French rule, especially one who returned to Europe after Algeria was granted independence) poor family in Algérie-française (French Algeria). In the context of thought, Camus seems to be different from other philosophers—even compared to other influential philosophers, such as Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, to Jean-Paul Sartre—who sleeps on the top of the mattress of Existentialism.
The obvious distinction between Camus and existentialist philosophers is a matter of meaning. Some existentialist philosophers such as Kierkegaard or Nietzsche emphasize meaning in each individual. In short, both require human beings to quickly make sense of their lives. In other words, we as humans are required to live life with meaning, value, or essence.
According to Kierkegaard, what is very important for humans is their own state or existence. But in its existence, human existence is not static, but becomes, which implicitly changes and moves from the possibility to the higher level of reality. He formulated that human beings have three stages on the way to becoming a true self: aesthetic, ethical, and religious. Simplified they are: aesthetic, the pursuit of pleasure; ethical, the assumption of duty to society; religious, obedience to God.
Simply, Kierkegaard wants us to transfiguring the meaning of all existence (despite irony) into the divine dimension (gods and religion)—therefore, the meaning of life according to him is to become a religious existentialist.
Thereafter, Sartre gave an antipodal for Kierkegaard Philosophy (Christian Existentialism) by the design of atheist existentialist on the corpus and discourse of Existentialism—and played the key role in French Existentialism (also influencing giant-man of French cinema: Philippe Garrel and Jean-Luc Godard, which is prominent for their existentialistic storytelling, nihilistic narratives, and atheistic worldview).
Meanwhile, Nietzsche engages us to value our life, to encourage us to become Übermensch (superman/superhuman/overman) who sees his existence as a source of value/meaning/essence—who exploded of all his existence (particularly: tragedy, despair, and suffering) with his legendary phrase: Fatum Brutum Amor Fati; love of fate, even when it comes with so brutal.
But Camus was an anomaly. It is another way, to be precise, a shortcut to unique philosophical thought. In the midst of earth that every day continues to spin like a carousel in the middle of a busy bazzar, the wheels of thought that require humans to live meaningfully, and the many of us who run away from absurdity—Camus want us to face the day full with courage and bravery—without any kind of philosophy which opens another getaway from absurdity.
Camus also said that life was already quaint enough, odd, strange, bizarre, abnormal as well as absurd. Indirectly, Camus assumes that every human being can still live a meaningless life. In other words, being useless is not a problem at all—and that is clearly okay. Camus seemed to be an oasis for some stranded, who were too thirsty because there was no water (meaning/value/essence) to drink.
"Don’t walk in front of me … I may not follow. Don’t walk behind me … I may not lead. Walk beside me … just be my friend." —Albert Camus
On The Myth of Sisyphus
The philosophical essay entitled Le Mythe de Sisyphe (The Myth of Sisyphus) is Camus's statement on the most archaic questions about meaning: "what is the meaning of life?"
In that philosophy essay, which contains 120 pages and originally published in 1942—Camus excorticate the classic problem of the existence of each individual: inevitably undermined by the absurd reality.
Camus shows that humans (as part of the absurdity itself) cannot possibly escape, or flee from the nightmare of the futility of life—as well as the meaninglessness of death.
The Myth of Sisyphus illustrates that life is indeed absurd and that is clearly illustrated by a person named Sisyphus. Based on a myth from Ancient Greece, Sisyphus was once a king—but by a reason of becoming too tyrannical, cruel, and cold-blooded—he was condemned by the Gods/Goddess on the top of Mount Olympus.
Sisyphus was punished, or rather cursed: to push a giant boulder to the top of the mountain—but when the boulder reached the top—the stone would roll back down, and Sisyphus had to do it again from the beginning—until swallowed by the eternity of time.
So that's the only life he has. On a sane level of consciousness, the eternal curse by continually pushing a rock to the top of a mountain—afterward repeating it from the bottom is a sad, pathetic, hopeless, and useless curse. Nonetheless, Camus saw this curse was almost the same as the fate of humans in the world.
Just like a human being who is born, then grows old, then sleeps, then wakes up, in endless repetition of joy and sorrow, meaningless, purposeless, unclear—then dies without knowing why and how the hell he/she becomes a human being, without ever being asked by god or our parents: "hey sweetheart, do you want to be born?"—in short, absurd.
One side of Sisyphus, which we are seldom aware of, is his unconditional acceptance and rebellion at the same time. With grace, he accepted his curse even though it caused resentment and so annoying—when he had to start again from the beginning. Armed with the fire of rebellion—that continues to burn in his left chest—he burns his spirit to carry out his curse without complaining, giving up, let alone committing suicide.
After all, in essence, life is one package with death. We're all going to die, and if Sisyphus could die by suicide to escape his curse, then he wouldn't. The plot twist is that Sisyphus knows that suicide, both physically and philosophically, is suicide—which only an escapist does.
So it is fitting that Sisyphus was bestowed the title of an Absurd Hero (embraces the struggle and the contradiction of living without purpose). Sisyphus has fused with everything that is absurd, even cope with his goddamn boulder (burden, problem, conflict, etc.)—that he faithfully pushes continuously (accepting and rebelling).
Philosophically, Sisyphus gave precious lessons to us. No matter how bastards, brutal, difficult, scoundrel, rotter, damned, godforsaken, shoddy, or absurd our lives are—we can still be happy; so giving up (suicide) is not the right choice.
"The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
—Albert Camus
On Suicide
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest—whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer." Camus states in his essay—The Myth of Sisyphus.
So is this absurd life worth living? It depends on what we are looking for. If we seek certainty, order, and clarity—life will never seem to make us comfortable, let alone happy.
For most people, a life without meaning is not a life worth living. This is why so many of us end our lives on purpose, take one’s life, aka suicide. Camus understood this, then responded directly to it. He advises us to ask ourselves whether this life is worth living or not. But Camus concludes, that suicide doesn't really help us much.
On account of that, there is no more meaning in death in absurd life. Suicide is only a transition, from questions about what makes life worth living. However, in terms of what meaning we might find—it also doesn't really help much.
Our life is absurd, but our courage to live the absurdity is certainly more than enough. We and Sisyphus, may indeed be condemned to living in an absurd world—but the usual search for meaning -- open ten billion opportunities making it more difficult for us to be happy—undoubtedly more pathetic and terrible than the absurdity itself.
The bad news is (physical and philosophical) suicide will never fill the void of human hearts. Regarding good-bad and right-wrong physical suicide, it seems we must agree with Jean-Paul Sartre: "the good-bad and right-wrong of suicide—can only be judged by the perpetrator himself."
Perhaps fortunately, many of us have bad dreams when we are asleep. Unfortunately, some of us have nightmares when awake.
On Hope and Leap of Faith
"You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life." —Albert Camus
Camus wrote several well-known works such as L'Étranger/The Stranger (1942), La Peste/The Plague (1947), Le Mythe de Sisyphe/The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), La Chute/The Fall (1956), and L'Homme révolté/The Rebel (1951). His philosophies is filled with the idea of Absurdism—which has a plot about humans seeking meaning.
Inasmuch as we are rational beings & conscious beings, who are improbable can live without meaning, we need to invent our own meaning, devise our own values, live by our own significance.
Absurdism is also about certainty in an uncertain world. The certainty that nothing is certain—in a reality that never offers an explanation and a universe which seems not to give a fuck. But what if we hope for something, for example, for tomorrow? This is even more absurd.
The absurdity lies in the fact that if we use the Linear Concept of Time (or Western Concept of Time), the line of life always points to the future. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the future brings us one step closer to death. The past leads us to the present, and the present will lead us to the future (towards death).
German philosopher and Phenomenology expert, Martin Heidegger, in his book—Being and Time (1927)—has a better term to explain why it is more absurd if we are hoping more to the time—to portray our beings who are trapped in absurdness space-time ... on the puzzling third dimensional world we called reality—he named it Sein-zum-Tode: in a nutshell, a being who realized that he was walking towards a completely unavoidable death; humans who realize that they are in a 'frame' called time.
What lies in the future or tomorrow? Yes, absurdity, also an unpredictable and unavoidable death.
Therefore, we must dare to reject the Leap of Faith. In short, Leap of Faith is an act of believing in or attempting something whose existence or outcome cannot be proved—is same as philosophical suicide (adhering to Religion, Science, Ideology, Philosophy, and so on)—as well as physical suicide (including Euthanasia). Not pretending to be the strongest, but Camus thought, Leap of Faith doesn't seem like the right solution.
It would be better if we carry out insurrection, revolt, and rebel—against a life that is never clear. Embrace an odd life with the even. Beat the establishment with the acceptance of gloom. If it's useless, it doesn't matter. The most important thing is that we keep our passion alive.
Indirectly, Camus wants us to keep the passion of Carpe Diem melting to our bones. Carpe Diem is about living the day, boldly without fear. Fearless to face the tomorrow that may be conducive but conceive death.
So should we hope? Probably not.
"The absurd hero's refusal to hope becomes his singular ability to live in the present with passion." —Albert Camus
On His Death
Camus is a rebel, he bravely lives an absurd life sincerely. He did not commit suicide, physically or philosophically. He may indeed be the ultimate absurdist who live the absurdity and die absurdly.
And the pinnacle of his absurdity? The story of his own death. Camus had a lifelong fear of automobiles. When he started writing about the Philosophy of Absurdism, he wrote: "the most absurd way to die is in a car crash". Later on, in the absurd afternoon of January 4, 1960—a powerful Facel Vega sports car skidded off an icy road in Burgundy (French Region), hit an idle tree, and ploughed into another. Camus was inside that car. He died instantly in that terrible car crash.
God must be like joking, is it?
There are many conspiracies behind his death, including the hypothesis that Albert Camus might have been killed by the KGB—for criticising the Soviet Union. But the most interesting thing is that Camus's friend-turned-rival, Jean-Paul Sartre, writes a comical tribute: "there is an unbearable absurdity in his death."
Camus kicked the bucket three years after receiving one of the most prestigious awards—the Nobel Prize in Literature. But Camus didn't stop there, he would be immortal. Since he was the key to understanding the mind of absurdity of the world. As long as this world is absurd, Camus will stay alive. He will live in the hearts of us—who are confused in the midst of the labyrinth of reality.
Camus and Sisyphus are one entity. They both teach: the absurdity of life that we experience almost every moment, every second, should not make us unhappy. Even the cursed Sisyphus can still be happy, even with the absurd punishment that renders his life meaningless.
Finale
"Should I kill myself, or have a cup of coffee?" —Albert Camus
Absurdist embrace the conflict between our desire of finding meaning and the universe inherently devoid of it. An absurdist is a rebel who will not allow the lack of meaning to stop him/her from living and facing that conflict on a daily basis.
Perhaps, sometimes, we forget to appreciate the little things that makes life worth living.
We should sit under Sisyphus: in living a life with a sincere and total acceptance, in other words, unconditionally for its absurdity. Lastly, a meaningless life doesn't mean it doesn't contain happiness. Live, enjoy, and revolt. Forget about tomorrow, which hasn't happened yet, and perhaps never will. Process and present are the key, results and tomorrow are just a bonus. The path is the main, the goal is only the initial combination—which is called the end.
"But in the end one needs more courage to live than to kill himself." —Albert Camus
May all beings be happy.
Thursday 4 August 2022
Analisis Cerpen “The Wall” - Sartre (Esai Translasi)
Artikel ditulis oleh Emrys Westacott, Ph.D dalam bahasa Inggris dan diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Indonesia oleh Mochammad Aldy Maulana Adha.
Sinopsis
Narator "The Wall", Pablo Ibbieta, adalah seorang anggota Brigade Internasional, sukarelawan dengan pemikiran progresif dari negara lain yang pergi ke Spanyol demi berperang melawan Fasisme Francisco Franco dalam upaya mempertahankan Spanyol sebagai negara republik. Bersama dua orang lainnya, Tom dan Juan, dia ditangkap oleh tentara Franco. Tom aktif dalam perjuangan, seperti Pablo; tetapi Juan hanyalah seorang pemuda yang kebetulan adalah saudara dari seorang anarkis yang giat memerangi fasis.
Interogator Tidak Bertanya Apa-apa
Dalam adegan pertama, mereka diwawancarai dengan cara yang sangat ringkas. Mereka hampir tidak ditanya apa-apa, meskipun sang interogator tampaknya menulis banyak tentang mereka. Pablo ditanya apakah dia tahu keberadaan Ramon Gris, seorang pemimpin anarkis lokal. Dia berkata, tidak mengetahuinya. Mereka kemudian dibawa ke dalam sel. Pada pukul 8:00 malam, seorang petugas datang untuk memberi tahu mereka, dengan cara yang sejujur-jujurnya, bahwa mereka telah dijatuhi hukuman mati dan akan ditembak mati keesokan paginya.
Pengetahuan tentang Kematian yang akan Datang
Secara alami, mereka menghabiskan malam dengan rasa tertekan oleh pengetahuan tentang kematian mereka yang akan datang. Juan tidak berdaya ketika mengasihani dirinya sendiri. Seorang dokter Belgia menemani mereka agar saat-saat terakhir mereka "tidak terlalu sulit". Pablo dan Tom berjuang untuk menerima gagasan kematian pada tingkat intelektual, sementara tubuh mereka mengungkapkan rasa takut yang secara alami memang mereka takuti. Pablo mendapati dirinya basah kuyup oleh keringatnya sendiri; Tom tidak bisa mengontrol kandung kemihnya (dia mengompol).
Semuanya Berubah
Pablo mengamati bagaimana dihadapkan dengan kematian secara radikal mengubah cara pandang tentang segala sesuatu—benda-benda yang dikenal, orang-orang, teman-teman, orang-orang asing, kenangan-kenangan, hasrat-hasrat—merupa padanya dan sikapnya terhadap itu semua berubah total. Dia merenungkan hidupnya pada titik ini:
Pada saat itu aku merasa bahwa aku mendapati seluruh hidupku berada di depanku dan aku berpikir, "Ini adalah omong kosong yang terkutuk". Tidak ada gunanya, sebab semuanya telah selesai. Aku bertanya-tanya bagaimana aku bisa berjalan, tertawa bersama gadis-gadis: aku tidak akan bergerak selincah jari kelingkingku jika aku hanya membayangkan aku akan mati seperti ini. Hidupku berada di depanku, terkunci, tertutup, seperti tas, namun semua yang ada di dalamnya belumlah selesai. Untuk sesaat aku mencoba menilainya. Aku ingin mengatakan pada diriku sendiri, ini adalah kehidupan yang indah. Tapi aku tidak bisa menilainya; itu hanyalah sketsa; aku telah menghabiskan waktuku memalsukan keabadian, aku tidak mengerti apa-apa. Aku tidak melewatkan apa pun: ada begitu banyak hal yang bisa kulewatkan, rasa manzanilla atau mandi yang kulakukan di musim panas di sungai kecil dekat Cadiz; tetapi kematian telah mengecewakan semuanya.
Dikeluarkan dari Sel untuk Ditembak Mati
Pagi tiba, Tom dan Juan dibawa ke luar untuk ditembak mati. Pablo diinterogasi lagi, dan diberitahu bahwa jika dia membeberkan di mana keberadaan Ramon Gris, dia akan dibebaskan dari hukuman mati. Dia dikunci di ruang cuci untuk memikirkannya selama 15 menit ke depan. Sewaktu itu Pablo bertanya-tanya mengapa dia rela mengorbankan hidupnya untuk Gris, dan tidak bisa memberikan jawaban selain bahwa dia harus menjadi "orang yang keras kepala". Ketidakrasionalan dari tindakannya itu menghibur dirinya sendiri.
Melawak
Ditanya sekali lagi untuk mengungkapkan di mana Ramon Gris bersembunyi, Pablo memutuskan untuk bergurau dan menyampaikan jawaban, memberi tahu interogatornya bahwa Gris bersembunyi di pekuburan lokal. Tentara segera dikirim, Pablo pun menunggu kepulangan mereka dan eksekusinya. Namun, beberapa saat kemudian, dia diizinkan bergabung dengan kumpulan tahanan di halaman yang tidak menunggu eksekusi mati, dan diberitahu bahwa dia tidak akan ditembak—setidaknya untuk saat ini. Pablo tidak mengerti mengapa dia dipindahkan dan eksekusi matinya ditunda, sampai salah satu tahanan lain mengatakan kepadanya bahwa Ramon Gris, pagi itu ditemukan dan dibunuh setelah pindah dari tempat persembunyiannya yang lama ke pekuburan lokal. Pablo bereaksi dengan "tertawa keras, sangat keras sampai dia menangis".
Analisis Tema Utama
Elemen penting dari cerita Sartre membantu menghidupkan beberapa konsep sentral eksistensialisme. Tema utama ini meliputi:
Hidup Dihadirkan sebagai Sesuatu yang Dialami
Seperti kebanyakan literatur eksistensialis lainnya, cerita ditulis dari sudut pandang orang pertama, dan narator tidak memiliki pengetahuan di luar masa kini. Dia tahu apa yang dia alami; tetapi dia tidak bisa masuk ke dalam pikiran orang lain; tidak pula dia mengatakan sesuatu seperti, "Kemudian aku menyadari bahwa ..."—yang tentu bermakna melihat kembali masa kini dari masa depan.
Intensitas Sensasi
Pablo mengalami-mengindrai kedinginan, kehangatan, kelaparan, kegelapan, cahaya terang, bebauan, bersimpati (dengan hal-hal kiri, komunisme), dan kenestapaan. Orang-orang menggigil, berkeringat, dan mengompol. Sementara para filsuf seperti Plato melihat sensasi sebagai penghambat pengetahuan, di cerpen ini, sensasi disajikan sebagai jalan dari pemahaman akan sesuatu.
Tidak Ada Ilusi
Pablo dan Tom mendiskusikan sifat kematian mereka yang akan datang sebrutal dan sejujur mungkin, bahkan membayangkan peluru-peluru tenggelam ke dalam daging mereka. Pablo mengakui kepada dirinya sendiri bagaimana ekspektasinya akan kematian telah membuatnya tidak peduli kepada orang lain dan kepada tujuan yang dia perjuangkan.
Kesadaran vs. Hal-hal Material
Tom mengatakan bahwa dia dapat membayangkan tubuhnya terbaring lemah dilubangi peluru; tetapi dia tidak dapat membayangkan ketika dirinya tidak mengada—sebab "diri" yang dia identifikasi adalah kesadarannya, dan kesadaran selalu merupakan kesadaran akan sesuatu. Seperti yang Sartre katakan, "kita tidak dibuat untuk berpikir seperti itu."
Semua Orang Mati Seorang Diri
Kematian memisahkan yang hidup dari yang mati; tetapi mereka yang akan mati juga terpisah dari yang hidup—sebab hanya mereka (yang akan mati) yang dapat mengalami apa yang akan terjadi pada mereka sendiri. Kesadaran yang kuat dan intens akan hal ini menempatkan batas-batas antara mereka (yang akan mati) dan setiap orang.
Kondisi Manusia Diintensifkan
Seperti yang diamati Pablo, para sipirnya juga akan segera mati, hanya sedikit lebih lambat dari dirinya. Hidup di bawah hukuman mati adalah kondisi manusia. Tapi, sewaktu hukuman itu akan segera dilaksanakan, kesadaran yang kuat akan kehidupan meningkat pesat.
Simbolisme Judul
"The Wall" atau Dinding adalah simbol penting dalam cerita pendek ini, dan mengacu pada beberapa dinding atau penghalang.
• Dinding tempat mereka akan ditembak mati.
• Tembok yang memisahkan kehidupan dari kematian.
• Tembok yang memisahkan yang hidup dari yang terpidana mati.
• Dinding yang memisahkan satu individu dengan individu lainnya.
• Dinding yang mencegah kita mencapai pemahaman yang jelas tentang apa itu kematian.
• Dinding yang mewakili materi kasar, yang kontras dengan kesadaran, dan di mana kesadaran manusia akan terhapus saat ditembak mati.
*****
Sumber Literatur:
Understanding Sartre's "The Wall" – ThoughtCo.
Saturday 30 July 2022
Sartre versus Camus (Esai Translasi)
.jpg "SFJ")
Jean-Paul Sartre dan Albert Camus adalah dua ikon utama kehidupan intelektual Prancis abad ke-20, khususnya pada tahun 1940—1960. Karya dan komitmen mereka bersinggungan dan saling merespon begitu banyak tantangan bagi dunia.
Pengantar Sartre versus Camus: Perang dan Filsafat: Latar Belakang Sejarah
Hubungan Sartre-Camus telah memodelkan filsafat Prancis pasca-Perang Dunia II.
Sejak tahun 1943, Sartre dan Camus, berkawan baik, keduanya di mana-mana bersama. Publik, tanpa detail yang jelas, bahkan mencantumkan penulis Nausea dan The Stranger itu di bawah label yang sama: “Eksistensialis”.
Setelah pembebasan Prancis yang dimulai pada 6 Juni 1944, eksistensialisme lebih dari sekadar filsafat yang sedang digemari, ini adalah gaya hidup dan tempat: Saint-Germain-des-Prés (wilayah Paris). The Existentialism Is a Humanism merangkum filsafat ini dengan baik.
Bagi khalayak banyak dapat diringkas dalam satu kalimat: “eksistensi mendahului esensi”.
Eksistensialisme Sartre dirancang pertama sebagai filsafat kebebasan dan tanggung jawab: kita adalah apa yang kita lakukan, bukan makhluk yang takdirnya telah ditentukan sebelumnya. Menurut kata kunci hari ini, tentang 'komitmen'.
Camus tentu tidak menolak untuk terlibat, tetapi ia menolak label “eksistensialis” dan bahkan seorang filsuf. Sejak tahun 1947, ketidak sepakatan politik antara Sartre dan Camus memperdalam Camus untuk mencela kubu Stalin, bagian dari "rumah tangga" Sartre yang Komunis.
Pada tahun 1952, Jeanson (teman Sartre) diterbitkan dalam jurnal Sartre, “Modern Times”, sebuah laporan yang sangat kritis terhadap The Rebel. Buku terakhir Camus dianggap reaksioner, dan penuh penilaian yang keliru. Camus, tidak memedulikan Jeanson, merespon langsung ke Sartre. Edisi berikutnya dari “Modern Times” diterbitkan di sebelah surat dar itanggapan keras Camus kepada Sartre:
“Campuran gelap antara rasa puas diri dan kerentanan selalu memperkecil hati untuk mengatakan seluruh kebenaran … Mungkin Anda miskin, tetapi Anda tidak lagi miskin. Anda adalah warga negara dan seperti Jeanson yang seperti saya … moral Anda pertama kali diubah menjadi moralisme, hari ini lebih dari sekadar sastra, besok mungkin menjadi tidak bermoral.”
Camus dan Sartre tidak akan pernah bertemu. Namun, empat tahun kemudian, ketika Tentara Merah menumpas pemberontakan di Budapest, Sartre pada gilirannya (diikuti oleh sejumlah besar intelektual) memutuskan hubungan dengan Partai Komunis. Akan tetapi, perang di Aljazair antara Sartre dengan seorang pendukung kemerdekaan, Camus, yang masih ingin percaya pada jalan penyelesaian yang damai, kembali pecah.
Camus dan Eksistensialisme
Albert Camus (1913—1960), yang dianugerahi Penghargaan Nobel pada tahun 1957, adalah kawan pertama Jean-Paul Sartre yang kemudian menjadi lawannya. Tidak seperti Sartre, yang seorang laki-laki borjuis, Camus adalah laki-laki pinggiran kota yang miskin. Camus merasa mewakili pemikiran Mediterania, dengan kata lain, kemurnian dari (Yunani, Latin, klasik). Kemurnian antara instrumental dalam desain absurd dan manusia absurd adalah segalanya, di atas semua yang memikirkan dengan jernih perihal kehidupan. Sikap “Hellenik” atau “Hellenistik” ini bahkan lebih menonjol meskipun bersentuhan dengan budaya Arab atau Spanyol, tetapi Camus sama sekali tidak dipengaruhi dan terpengaruh Islam (meskipun bersentuhan langsung dengan budaya Arab).
Eksistensialisme Camus adalah eksistensialis yang putus asa, tetapi tanpa nausea dan disgust ala Sartrean. Eksistensialisme Camus adalah peramal putus asa, pendiri kebesaran manusia dan humanisme Camusian.
Manusia absurd adalah pusat pemikiran Camus. Seperti para filsuf eksistensialis lainnya, perasaan absurditas adalah konsekuensi dari sifat dasar keberadaan manusia—tidak terbatas pada wajah absolut yang dilemparkan ke dalam dunia yang sama sekali tidak memiliki rasa peduli. Namun, seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh Camus, absurditas tidak terletak pada manusia ataupun alam semesta: ini adalah hasil dari pengamatannya dan realisasi paradoks itu. Beberapa sikap dimungkinkan. Camus menolak sikap eskapis (melarikan diri): bunuh diri, yang ditarik kembali dengan menghapusnya, salah satu istilah dari kontradiksi (penekanan kesadaran). Ia juga menolak doktrin-doktrin bahwa dunia ini terletak di luar dasarnya dan harapan yang akan memberi makna pada kehidupan, keyakinan agama, pemikiran bunuh diri filosofis (Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Shestov).
Manusia absurd adalah seseorang yang menerima tantangan dengan lugas, ini adalah dasar dari pemberontakannya yang membawanya untuk mengambil baik kebebasannya, tetapi juga kontradiksinya sendiri dengan memutuskan untuk hidup dengan hasrat dan hanya dengan apa yang ia ketahui.
Karya Camus:
The Myth of Sisyphus (1942)
The Rebel (1951)
The Stranger (1944)
The Plague (1947)
The Fall (1956)
Sartre: Eksistensialisme adalah Humanisme: 1946
Ketika mempertimbangkan objek yang diproduksi seperti buku atau pemotong kertas, objek ini dibuat oleh seorang pengrajin yang terinspirasi oleh konsep yang diamaksud dengan konsep potong kertas, dan juga teknik bagian pra-produksi dari konsep tersebut, yang pada dasarnya adalahr esep. Jadi, pembuka adalah objek yang bekerja dengan cara tertentu dan, di sisi lain, juga memiliki manfaat yang pasti, dan kita tidak dapat mengasumsikan seorang manusia yang akan menghasilkan pisau kertas tanpa mengetahui apa yang akan melayani tujuannya. Mari kita katakan bahwa untuk pemotong, bensin—yaitu semua resep dan kualitas yang dapat memproduksi dan mendefinisikannya—mendahului eksistensi, dan kehadiran di depan saya, seperti pembuka surat atau buku semacam itu ditentukan. Di sini kita memiliki penglihatan teknis tentang dunia di mana kita dapat mengatakan bahwa tahap-tahap produksi itu mendahului eksistensi.
Eksistensialisme ateistik, yang saya wakili, […] mengatakan bahwa jika Tuhan tidak ada, setidaknya ada makhluk yang eksistensinya mendahului esensi, makhluk yang ada sebelum dapat didefinisikan oleh konsep apa pun dan makhluk ini adalah manusia atau, seperti yang dikatakan Heidegger, realitas-manusia1. Apa yang dimaksud di sini bahwa eksistensi mendahului esensi? Ini berarti bahwa manusia pertama-tama ada, terjadi, muncul di dunia, dan itu ditentukan kemudian. Manusia, sebagai mana dikandung oleh eksistensialisme, tidak dapat didefinisikan, adalah bahwa ia bukan yang pertama. Itu akan terjadi, dan itu akan menjadi seperti yang telah terjadi. Jadi, tidak ada kodrat manusia, karena tidak ada sosok Adikodrati yang memikirkannya. Manusia tidak hanya seperti yang berkembang, tetapi seperti yang diinginkannya, dan ketika ia berkembang dari sana, seperti yang ia inginkan setelah momentum keberadaan ini, manusia tidak lain adalah apa adanya. Ini adalah prinsip pertama eksistensialisme. […]
Maksudnya manusia pertama-tama ada, artinya manusia terutama adalah apa yang dilemparkan ke masa depan, dan apa yang secara sadar melihat ke masa depan. Manusia pada dasarnya adalah sebuah proyek yang dihayati secara subjektif, dari pada buih, pembusukan atau kembang kol, tidak ada yang ada sebelum proyek ini, tidak ada yang di surga yang dapat dipahami2, dan manusia apa yang pertama kali harus diproyeksikan.
1 – realitas manusia: dalam bahasa Jerman, diterjemahkan Dasein (secara harfiah "berada di sana"), yang berarti cara keberadaan manusia, karena ia masih direncanakan.
2 - Di surga dapat dipahami: di langit ide, rumah, menurut Plato, esensi dari semua hal.
Jean-Paul Sartre versus Albert Camus
Sartre dan Camus telah menulis karya tanpa pernah mengetahui bahwa karya-karya itu akan membuat mereka terkenal. Sartre menghargai The Stranger, sementara Camus tertarik pada Nausea dan The Wall. Akan tetapi, kita tidak bisa membayangkan pandangan dunia yang lebih berlawanan dari pada Sartre, dibayangi oleh kengerian alam yang mendalam, dan Camus, oleh cinta Mediterania yang terang. Persahabatan sulit bergabung dengan kedua penulis itu setelah Pembebasan Prancis, Camus tidak pernah berhenti untuk menjauhkan vis-à-vis eksistensialisme Sartre. Pecahnya mereka, yang menyebabkan kegemparan besar pada tahun 1952 mungkin menandai perbedaan politik, Sartre mengalami lebih banyak simpati dan Camus tumbuh dan mengalami kengerian dari komunisme Soviet. Namun, ia menghabiskan sebagian besar perceraian antara dua konsepsi kehidupan dan sastra: humanisme, pemberontakan, cinta kebahagiaan, cinta "bentuk yang baik" Camus, komitmen politik, revolusi, obsesi dengan rasa bersalah, jijik dengan "sastra" di Sartre. Jika di luar semua perbedaan ini ada suatu kesatuan tertentu antara karya mereka masing-masing, itu ada di cakrawala tahun yang sama, yang umum bagi mereka dan mereka membantu membentuknya bersama. Dapat dijelaskan bahwa eksistensialis mememiliki sedikit melampaui cakupan sebuah generasi, dan ia tidak memiliki literatur yang subur yang telah menunjukkan dua puluh tahun sebelumnya, surealisme. Mentor pembelajar ini memiliki, tetapi tidak banyak.
*****
Sumber Literatur: Tim, "Sartre vs. Camus: The battle of french philosophers, February 17, 2022, " in Philosophy & Philosophers, February 17, 2022, https://www.the-philosophy.com/sartre-vs-camus.
Sunday 24 July 2022
Transendensi Ego à la Sartre (Esai Translasi)
.jpg)
Artikel ditulis oleh Emrys Westacott, Ph.D dalam bahasa Inggris dan diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Indonesia oleh Mochammad Aldy Maulana Adha.
The Transendence of the Ego adalah esai filsafat yang diterbitkan oleh Jean-Paul Sartre pada tahun 1936. Di dalamnya, dia mengemukakan pandangannya bahwa the self (diri) atau “ego” bukanlah sesuatu yang seseorang (kita) sadari.
Model kesadaran yang dikemukakan Sartre dalam esai ini dapat diuraikan sebagai berikut. Kesadaran selalu intensional (disengaja); yaitu, selalu merupakan kesadaran akan sesuatu. 'Objek' kesadaran dapat berupa hampir semua jenis hal: objek fisik, proposisi, keadaan, citra atau suasana hati yang diingat—apa pun yang dapat ditangkap oleh kesadaran. Inilah “prinsip intensionalitas” yang menjadi titik pangkal fenomenologi (Edmund) Husserl.
Sartre meradikalisasi prinsip ini dengan menegaskan bahwa kesadaran tidak lain hanyalah intensionalitas (prinsip kunci filsafat Husserl; kesadaran yang selalu mengarah pada sesuatu 'Consciousness on Something', seperti halnya kesadaran akan waktu, kesadaran akan tempat, dan kesadaran akan eksistensi dirinya sendiri). Artinya, kesadaran adalah aktivitas yang murni, dan menyangkal bahwa ada "ego" yang terletak di dalam, di balik atau di bawah kesadaran sebagai sumbernya atau ada kondisi yang diperlukan. Pembenaran klaim ini adalah salah satu tujuan utama Sartre dalam The Transendence of the Ego.
Sartre pertama-tama membedakan antara dua mode kesadaran: kesadaran yang tak-terefleksikan dan kesadaran yang terefleksikan. Kesadaran yang tak-terefleksikan hanyalah kesadaran Aku yang biasa tentang hal-hal selain kesadaran itu sendiri: burung, lebah, sepotong musik, makna kalimat, wajah yang teringat, dan lain-lain. Menurut Sartre, kesadaran pada saat yang sama menempatkan dan menggenggam objeknya. Dan dia menggambarkan kesadaran seperti itu sebagai "posisional" dan sebagai "thetic". Apa yang Sartre maksud dengan istilah-istilah ini tidak sepenuhnya jelas, tetapi dia tampaknya mengacu pada fakta bahwa dalam kesadaran Aku tentang apa pun, ada aktivitas dan kepasifan.
Kesadaran suatu objek adalah posisional karena ia menempatkan objek: yaitu, ia mengarahkan dirinya sendiri ke objek (misalnya apel, atau pohon) dan memerhatikannya. Ini adalah "thetic" dalam kesadaran yang menghadapkan objeknya sebagai sesuatu yang diberikan kepadanya, atau sebagai sesuatu yang telah ditempatkan.
Sartre juga mengklaim bahwa kesadaran, bahkan ketika tidak merefleksikan, minimal selalu sadar akan dirinya sendiri. Mode kesadaran ini dia gambarkan sebagai "non-posisional" dan "non-thetic" yang menunjukkan bahwa dalam mode ini, kesadaran tidak memosisikan dirinya sebagai objek, juga tidak dihadapkan dengan dirinya sendiri. Sebaliknya, kesadaran diri yang tidak dapat direduksi ini dianggap sebagai kualitas yang tetap dari kesadaran yang tak-terefleksikan dan kesadaran yang terefleksikan.
Kesadaran yang terefleksikan adalah kesadaran yang memosisikan dirinya sebagai objeknya. Pada dasarnya, kata Sartre, kesadaran yang terefleksikan dan kesadaran yang merupakan objek refleksi ("kesadaran yang direfleksikan") adalah identik (serupa). Namun demikian, kita dapat membedakanya, setidaknya dalam abstraksi, dan membicarakan tentang dua kesadaran di sini: yang merefleksikan dan yang terefleksikan.
Tujuan utamanya dalam menganalisis kesadaran diri adalah untuk menunjukkan bahwa refleksi diri tidak mendukung tesis bahwa ada ego yang terletak di dalam atau di balik kesadaran. Sartre pertama-tama membedakan dua jenis refleksi: (1) refleksi pada keadaan sebelum kesadaran yang diingat oleh pikiran melalui memori—maka keadaan sebelum kesadaran ini sekarang menjadi objek kesadaran saat ini; dan (2) refleksi di masa yang benar-benar saat ini—di mana kesadaran menguasai dirinya seperti sekarang untuk objeknya. Refleksi retrospektif dari jenis pertama, menurutnya, hanya mengungkapkan kesadaran objek yang tak-terefleksikan bersama dengan kesadaran diri non-posisional yang merupakan fitur kesadaran yang tetap.
Itu tidak mengungkapkan kehadiran "Aku" di dalam kesadaran. Refleksi jenis kedua, yang merupakan jenis yang dilakukan (René) Descartes ketika dia menyatakan "Aku berpikir, maka Aku ada," sepertinya dianggap lebih mungkin untuk mengungkapkan jenis "Aku" ini. Sartre menyangkal hal ini, bagaimanapun, dengan alasan bahwa "Aku" yang biasanya dianggap ditemukan oleh kesadaran di sini, pada kenyataannya, hanyalah produk refleksi. Di pertengahan esainya, dia memberikan penjelasannya tentang bagaimana hal ini terjadi.
Ringkasan Singkat
Secara singkat, penjelasannya adalah sebagai berikut. Momen-momen terpisah dari kesadaran reflektif disatukan dengan ditafsirkan sebagai pancaran dari keadaan, tindakan, dan karakteristik Aku, yang semuanya melampaui momen refleksi saat ini. Misalnya, kesadaran Aku untuk membenci sesuatu sekarang dan kesadaran Aku untuk membenci hal yang sama pada momen lain disatukan oleh gagasan bahwa "Aku" membenci hal itu—kebencian menjadi keadaan yang bertahan melampaui momen-momen kebencian yang disadari.
Tindakan menampilkan fungsi yang serupa. Jadi, ketika Descartes menegaskan "Aku sekarang meragukan" kesadarannya tidak terlibat dalam refleksi murni pada dirinya sendiri seperti pada saat ini, momen ini. Dia membiarkan sebuah kesadaran bahwa saat ini keraguan adalah bagian dari tindakan yang dimulai sebelumnya dan akan berlanjut selama beberapa waktu untuk menginformasikan refleksinya. Momen-momen keraguan yang terpisah disatukan oleh tindakan, dan kesatuan ini diekspresikan dalam "Aku" yang dia sertakan dalam pernyataannya.
Maka, "ego", tidak ditemukan dalam refleksi—selain diciptakan oleh dirinya sendiri. Namun, itu bukan abstraksi, atau ide belaka. Sebaliknya, ini adalah "totalitas konkret" dari kondisi kesadaran reflektif Aku, yang dibentuk olehnya dalam cara seperti melodi yang dibentuk dengan nada-nada terpisah. Kita memang, kata Sartre, menangkap ego "dari sudut mata kita" ketika kita berefleksi; tetapi jika kita mencoba untuk fokus padanya dan menjadikannya objek kesadaran, itu pasti menghilang, karena itu hanya muncul melalui kesadaran yang merefleksikan dirinya sendiri (bukan pada ego, yang merupakan sesuatu yang lain).
Kesimpulan yang ditarik Sartre dari analisisnya tentang kesadaran adalah bahwa fenomenologi tidak memiliki alasan untuk menempatkan ego di dalam atau di balik kesadaran. Dia mengklaim, lebih lanjut, pandangannya tentang ego sebagai sesuatu yang merefleksikan konstruksi kesadaran, dan yang oleh karena itu harus dianggap hanya sebagai objek kesadaran lain yang, seperti semua objek lainnya, mentransendensikan kesadaran, memiliki keunggulan-keunggulan yang nyata. Secara khusus, ia memberikan sanggahan atas solipsisme (gagasan bahwa dunia tersusun dari Aku dan isi pikiran Aku), membantu kita mengatasi skeptisisme mengenai keberadaan/eksistensi dari pikiran-pikiran orang lain, dan meletakkan dasar bagi filsafat para eksistensialis (baca: eksistensialisme) yang benar-benar melibatkan dunia nyata (manusia) dan benda-benda.
*****
Sumber Literatur:
'A Summary of Sartre's 'The Transcendence of the Ego' – ThoughtCo.
Friday 15 July 2022
Give Poems A Chance
Such tragedies create a womb for magnum opus literary works—poetry of human suffering, anger, frustration but also hopes. And no doubt, we can interpret peace by poetry, by poems as have been created by young people in the Southeast Asian region.
The ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation organized last year a poetry competition for ASEAN's young citizens, and asked the region's renowned writers and poets: Okky Madasari (Indonesia), Melizarani T. Selva (Malaysia), and Hariz Fadhilah (Brunei Darussalam), to review and select the best poems.
The Institute then published a book of these best poems on Jan. 13, with Okky Madasari becoming the editor of this 56-page book titled "ASEAN Peace Poems".
Calm before the storm
—Yizhi Ria Riangmi (Indonesia)
When peace comes,
you will not find her on the edge of an olive branch,
or a ceasefire;
she will not be in the silence of the Tabernacle
or in the gentle waves lapping against your calves at the beaches;
only remnants of her remain in the temples,
not even on quiet hills overlooking sleeping skyscrapers.If peace comes,
you will feel her on the brims of tidal waves just as they cascade
across the shore,
after a fire, when the walls are dampened, blackened with
lingering soot, ash thickening the air,
in hospitals, during a doctor's long shift; they always say silent
hallways are a bad omen;
in the thick of a protest, voices reverberating across the streets,
the aftermath of a break-up, when the lovers leave;When peace comes,
you will not find her serene.
Instead,
she courts chaos
like Saturn yearning for Jupiter's kiss,
long awaiting his passing
for her moment of bliss.#2
This anthology flows quite smoothly from every poem to another poem, making it difficult to simply stick with just reading a few poems from it and exit. Each poem is like walking together, gathering in the midst of a cold square, and sue things that must be voiced with the pureness sound of children inside their beings. The metaphors are done in vibrant colors. They range from strong-lined imaginary filled with a piece of agony to obscure scenes of a tropic beauty.
The contexture of words that we construct and formulate in such a way, which we call poetry—was an intellectual and creative medium to explore the many forms of duality, for instance, peace and conflict: from simple moments of tranquility, to complex arrangements of harmony; from ordinary restlessness of consciousness, to knotty composition of despondence.
In this collection of close and warm poetry, there is a kind of personal nerve-racking that is nicely conjured by the magic of language—into a collective urgency related to the climate crisis, global peace, unto the future of this world. Turning the pages of this anthology poems is a voyage of sounds, color, odour, and heterogeneous forms of psychological expression through the medium of text.
The Formula of Peace
Dani (Indonesia)
A little girl asked Einstein, "What is the formula of peace?" She
thought it would be the most challenging question and the
most serious scientific problem Einstein had ever encoun-
tered. "The greatest physicist in the world, can we really have
perpetual peace?" She wondered why war happened.
She could not accept, if humans were longing for peace, why
they still committed violence from time to time.
"Is it the universal theorem of physics, the absolute law of
the universe?" She was severely disturbed, why people could
conduct heinous crimes against humanity in the name of
peace. Thus, the little girl asked Einstein again, "What is the
formula of peace?"
"EMC².
Empathy, Mindfulness, Critical Inquiry and Compassion."
#25
Beneath the ASEAN Peace Poems, there is an ancient longing for peace, of home, of past, of present, of future, of nature. There is a kind of utopia that is the antithesis of violence, anger, and war. It is heartwarming when read every poem by using conscience. Like attending a monumental campaign—which invites the reader to linger, consider, to stop talking, and start listening.
With poetry we can muse our reality, devise our existence, and redefine our collective values such as peace. And sorrowful worlds are gasoline for artistic or poetic inspiration. The poets or artists would go into furor poeticus (ecstasy), poetic madness, mystic experience, or divine frenzy—when they are feeling blue.
No Place Like Zamboanga
Earl Carlo Guevarra (Philippines)
I say that there's no place like my hometown
Where the sun sets over the Sulu Sea
Yet I can't go back now to my own town
The crabs and lobsters are fresh in my town There are pink sand
beaches for all to see
I say that there's no place like my hometown
My loved ones all wait for me to come down home and have a
party under the tree
Yet I can't go back now to my own town
These pure islands have palm trees as their crown with fine sand
beaches for all to roam free
I say that there's no place like my hometown
There are rivers and falls just outside town Inside virgin woods
that would make one glee Yet I can't go back now to my own town
Everyone's taking selfies in another town and post on Instagram
of the great sights they see
I say that there's no place like my hometown
Yet I can't go back now to my own town
#14
Lattermost, poetry can't change the world instantly, poetry just slowly changes the way we see the world. Poetry causes us to question our perception, interpretation of everyday reality, and in the end raises global awareness to jointly make the world a million times better place to live in.
As John Lennon screamed to the world to give peace a chance in 1969 as a protest against US involvement in the Vietnam War, now it's time for us to give poems a chance to touch the hearts of the war gods, leaders, and people from all walks of life.
May all beings be happy.
Link to download the book: https://asean-aipr.org/resources/asean-peace-poems/
Thursday 9 June 2022
Friedrich Nietzsche and So On and So On
.jpg)
—Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Throughout the history of western philosophy, no philosopher has been as crazy, brave, frontal, iconic, enigmatic or as eccentric as Nietzsche. No philosopher has ever been as 'edgy' as Nietzsche. As a philosopher, philologist who researches ancient texts, theologist, cultural critics, litterateur, and composers—his muses and insight into human civilization is possibly unquestionable.
With his authentic style, he spit in the face of a world that relies heavily on money, state, politics, religion, and science. As a featherless biped, Nietzsche is like a lunatic rooster who is possessed by a question mark. He was really insane—in the positive connotation: at the age of 24, Nietzsche was awarded a doctorate degree, became a professor of classical philology and was the youngest German professor up to that time.
From a young age, he questioned everything that had been taught to him, and something that was taught to everyone. Nietzsche was born and raised in a religious family. In fact, his father was a devout priest, but young Nietzsche valiantly declared: "God is dead ... and we have killed Him!"
Nietzsche also once said that religion is escapist, dogmatic, and narcissistic. He thought, religion is like looking in the mirror and saying: "my religion is good, my religion is right, other religions are bad and wrong." In a broader perspective, this is certainly dangerous, if belief system in existence and self-identity is not supported by tolerance and empathy.
In other words, it equates to the binary opposition of modernity: "If it is not one, it must be zero. If I am right, then what is outside of me must be wrong. If I am good, then the other must be evil." And unfortunately, this precisely depicts the tendency of some religious people that are still attached to puritanism (rigid religiosity).
According to Nietzsche, the reason why people believe in God or the singular truth is their indecision and fear in facing reality, which has one core, namely self-deception. It would be better if we faced, and truly lived, the transience of existence and the real meaninglessness of life—he added.
Sketchily, Nietzsche simply calls for us to stand on our own feet without the aid of obedience—any form of doctrines, dogmas or status quo. Therefore, Nietzsche not only jumps on adherence of religion, but also belief in values or objective truth such as science.
On Idée Fixe
"There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe."
—Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
To understand Nietzsche, firstly, we need to know that he detested the idée fixe (psychological term: the belief that someone refuses to change their mind even though it might be wrong). For him, this can lead to the death of interpretation (or in a more crude language; the death of God)—it is a logical consequence of the concept of truth which has been final. When something is in the state of idée fixe or in the form of finality, it will die in a certain shroud. There are no new interpretations; static, frigid, and rigid.
By means of idée fixe, the Supreme God will be buried in the dwarf of human conception. It even raises a wild hypothesis: that illogical God is forced into the contents of the logical human mind. And has been final, so The Will for the Truth has become a deadly thing. For example, eight Crusade warfare, endless Middle East wars, eternal Gaza conflict, or Bosnian genocide in 1995, and so on—and so on.
Nietzsche also launched a scathing critique of idée fixe in his book, The Gay Science—first published in 1882—which sometimes translated as The Joyful Wisdom or The Joyous Science:
"... It is further stated that the madman made his way into different churches on the same day, and there intoned his Requiem æternam Deo. When led out and called to account, he always gave the reply: "What are these churches now, if they are not the tombs and monuments of God?"
On Atheism and Binary Oppositions
But Nietzsche did not only criticize the religion and their clergy, he also did not hesitate to criticize atheism. At the root of its essence, atheism itself is a reflection of Radical Aufklärung (Age of Enlightenment centered in Europe) that is too confident in science. And in fact, scientism has become an absolute belief and almost become a new religion who is worshipped by scientists. Perhaps, we cannot run from The Will to Believe, as William James said and named his book.
This idée fixe's model of thinking has actually been reflected in the Modern Age— which was marked by advances in science and technology. To assume that this massive progress can bring enlightenment and become a single field in understanding reality.
That is, one, absolute, and unshakable. Later, a French contemporary philosopher, Jacques Derrida, called this Western culture in the name of logocentrism—which is trapped in binary oppositions (right-wrong, good-bad, etc.)—so that one will defeat the other.
In the context of that Western progress, whether intentionally or not, Nietzsche prophesied the arrival of nihilism. In a nutshell, nihilism became a philosophical school that marked the beginning of the inevitable cultural crisis in which the highest values lost their meaning and led to a loss of purpose.
On Dynamite
"He who cannot obey himself will be commanded. That is the nature of living creatures."
—Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Nietzsche argues that behind every belief whatsoever, there must be a purpose. Thus Nietzsche chose to remain skeptical of widely held beliefs, because he did not fundamentally believe in their cause. Perhaps, that is why Nietzsche is often referred to as 'The Dynamite'—on account of—he is the one who will detonate that belief to pieces.
On January 1st 2004, British anarchist author, teacher, and organizer—John Moore—published 147 pages books namely I Am Not a Man, I Am Dynamite: Friedrich Nietzsche and the Anarchist Tradition.
In essence, Nietzsche was born and destined to surpass man and madman. In fact, he is already very controversial just by the statement, "God is Dead" (German: Got is Tott)—which has shaken dogmas, and truths that have been deemed established as well as absolute. So it is no exaggeration indeed, if Nietzsche refers to himself as 'The Dynamite'.
On Persian Prophet
To study Nietzsche, of course to study about his magnum opus, namely Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (German: Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen)—which contains the famous phrase "God is Dead", although the phrase has previously appeared in The Gay Science.
Objectively, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a magical, poetic, philosophical, and genius book. The influence was also immense on 20th century writers, such as Franz Kafka, Bernard Shaw, Jean-Paul Sartre, unto Albert Camus.
However, the question is ... why Zarathustra? Why did Nietzsche choose (even tends to sanctify?) the Persian prophet of Zoroastrianism? How important was Zarathustra in Nietzsche's life?
To answer this, perhaps, we should read directly from Nietzsche's own autobiography, Ecce Homo. To be precise, a quote from the chapter Why I am a Fatality:
"I have not been asked, as I should have been asked, what the name 'Zarathustra' means in precisely my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist: for what constitutes the tremendous uniqueness of that Persian in history is precisely the opposite of this. Zarathustra was the first to see in the struggle between good and evil the actual wheel in the working of things: the translation of morality into the realm of metaphysics, as force, cause, end-in-itself, is his work. But this question is itself at the bottom of its own answer. Zarathustra created this most fateful of errors, morality: consequently he must also be the first to recognize it. Not only has he had longer and greater experience here than any other thinker … what is more important is that Zarathustra is more truthful than any other thinker. His teaching, and his alone, upholds truthfulness as the supreme virtue … To tell the truth and to shoot well with arrows: that is Persian virtue—Have I been understood? The self-overcoming of morality through truthfulness, the self-overcoming of the moralist into his opposite—into me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth."
On Apollonian and Dionysian
As a philosopher, Nietzsche used to express his philosophical ideas in poems, short stories, & novels—with the most poetical form of language. And as a philologist, cultural critic, and litterateur—he muse Greece, which was so famous for its Greek Tragedy—then inspired to dichotomy the two main streams of Greek Art (theatre, literature, etc.) in his book—The Birth of Tragedy. Become the two great poles or duality, namely Apollonian and Dionysian.
Philosophically, Apollo symbolizes light, thinking, self-controlled, logical, utopia, order, sane, and consciousness. While Dionysius represents the dark world, or the opposites such as feeling, antiquity desire, insanity, intoxication, unconsciousness, dystopia, irrationality, and even possessed. In sum, Apollo represents order, science, and rationality—while Dionysius represents music, ecstasy, and passion.
As Nietzsche said, "Without music, life would be a mistake."
Nietzsche views that the elegy of heartbreak: sad artworks, the melancholic poetry, the minor music—seem to provide an orchestra for the grief that many people experience. Its energy is not just limp, but allows us to absorb sadness with the deepest meaning.
So that, in the end, sadness (and suffering) is no longer treated as something that is burdensome, lamented or cursed, and avoided. Anyhow, we must face it, be grateful, absorb it, and enjoy it. Nietzsche assesses how great it means if we can imagine, make friends, and enjoy sadness with courage that burns our left chest.
On Übermensch and Nazism
Frankly, that's why an Übermensch or superman, superhuman, or overman was once echoed by Nietzsche—at first, must be amor (love) the fati (fate) that often brutum (brutal). No wonder, to keep in mind, Nietzsche views that reality is chaos, chaotic, completely formless, messy, mess up, contradictory, disorderly, disorganized, and jumbled.
Nietzsche wanted humankind to grow, reach out, pull out, and go up. But not out of morality nor immorality, but because we live, and life is about The Will to Rule (and The Will to Power too). Therefore, we must be honest with ourselves, and always be creative and innovative.
But over time, it seems that it has become a habit for common people to judge Nietzsche haphazardly (and arbitrarily). Either as a pioneer of irrational ideologies about power, or slander him which indirectly gave birth to fascism and Nazism, especially in Germany.
On this matter, in fact, there are many aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy that are clearly different with Nazism. Thus, he should not be scapegoated for all the hatred, sins, and blood shed by Nazism around the world.
Briefly, Übermensch is ... the ideal superior man of the future who could rise above conventional religion morality to create and impose his own values. We must see that what Nietzsche aspires to, Übermensch is more like an ultra-creative human or a housebreaker of spiritual order—not a man behind the genocide of Jews in the Auschwitz concentration camp ... because he was rejected twice by an art school in Vienna ... who is run by a Jewish rector, nor supreme leader with wacky mustaches ... like a comedian named Charlie Chaplin ... who truly believes in Aryan supremacy, nor imperious empire founder of the Third Reich, nor a screwy Führer (a dictatorial leader), nor a person who thirsts for power to conquer 5 of 5 parts of earth such as Adolf Hitler.
Simply put, Übermensch is a human who loves life, lives life in totality, due to Nietzsche, sees humans as creatures that must continue to exist, and have high aspirations to become super, beyond normality. "To infinity and beyond!" as Buzz Lightyear said in the Toy Story movie (1995).
Later, Übermensch became one of the most philosophical ways to value oneself without turning away from the brutal world—and looking across another world. Since valuing brutal reality or meaning the meaningless of life can only be achieved through Übermensch.
Lattermost, Übermensch is a human being who sees himself as a source of value. One who has reached the level of Übermensch—are who always faces the darkness of reality and fate, and Übermensch is impossible to achieve without understanding Nietzsche's legendary phrase: "Fatum Brutum Amor Fati".
On Fatum Brutum Amor Fati
"Live! Your life!"
The quote could be a small part on the representation of Fatum Brutum Amor Fati. We only live once and, of course, we cannot revise what we have done in the past. That was the perspective of Fatum Brutum Amor Fati: a kind of unconditional affirmation to reconcile with fate. Thus, we are required not to condemn reality. We should live in the present and stand up in the presence of chaotic realities.
Fatum Brutum Amor Fati came as a philosophy or at the same time became a main narrative in living a mortal life. That's the only genuine way, to be able, to reach the end of a good life whenever death comes.
We should admit without the hypocrisy that nearly all of us must have planted hope. We all invest in the future, and as investors, we too often allow temporary emotions to enslave us. Nietzsche may be an anomaly (exception), because he dissociates himself from investing hope in the future.
But clearly, Nietzsche is just an ordinary person who has a different vision from most of us. The difference, perhaps, also from his courage to articulate chaotic-reality beautifully in his outbursts of aphorisms.
On Nietzschean
But life is a choice, to be a normies (one whose tastes, lifestyle, habits, and attitude are mainstream and far from the cutting edge, or a person who is otherwise not notable or remarkable) or a Nietzschean (one who follows the philosophy of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche). But what needs to be underlined first is we need to know that the true meaning of Nietzschean is: a person who follows himself. So, being a Nietzschean is about being ourselves.
Being a Nietzschean means walking against the herd, and going out alone to the wilderness. Being a Nietzschean is about being honest, like Zarathustra—even if it almost certainly will be labeled as edgy, madman, bizarre, or annoying.
Nietzsche encouraged us to become the martyr of ourselves. To be like the most renowned philosopher in Greece, Socrates, who dared to defend his thought—even though, in the end, he was eventually executed by consuming a deadly potion of the poisonous plant hemlock—in account of poisoning the minds of young Athenians, or be accused by questioning the doctrine of Gods/Goddess (belief system) in Ancient Athens.
Once again, Nietzsche is a lone wolf who cannot be domesticated by the common mind. He has melted into solitude. The only love in his life, Lou Salome, even left him. Nietzsche was willing to become estranged from his family and friends, just to defend his beliefs.
Perhaps in reality, loneliness can destroy many people, but Nietzsche faced loneliness through his choices. He obeyed himself. And his exile from people who like to be in herd, actually gave him more awareness of seeing the world with eagle eyes.
Finale
Despite the cynicism of Nietzsche who said that "God is Dead", we should rather acknowledge the fact that The Dynamite didn't mean it literally. He only intended to vent his disgust on people on his eras—who were already so corrupt, cruel, and dumb as to kill the God within themselves.
Perhaps, in his contemplation, Nietzsche did see God being buried. God died in the fight against human ferocity. It is also possible that Nietzsche wants to say: "God has died in the heart of man ... and we are all His/Her murderers."
After all, the God in our reverie, or the real God at all—is indeed not able to be calculated by narrow logic. His/Her almighty looks unreal, like ocean waves crashing against the shoreline. Or a slap to the cheek, or like electricity turning on a light, or like money which can buy a handful of sweet candy.
The mysteriousness of God is also what makes many of us turn atheists or agnostics. Personally, I believe that we can prove God and feel it with our conscience. Seeking God using brain, logic, and rationality is like looking for a Wi-Fi signal with an archaic cell phone that most certainly doesn't have the specifications to connect to Wi-Fi.
Lastly, between the labels like amoral, atheist, agnostic, crazy, or whatever we have attached to Nietzsche, I just want to say that Nietzsche is one of the most religious philosophers ever.
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
—Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
May all beings be happy.
