[PHIL 101 - 4] Sartre says that "man is condemned to be free".

TW: Depression

How would one explain this statement by Sartre to someone who had never read any Sarte before? To start, I would read them this line by Sarte, "Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimise our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. – We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free." There are many people in different religious denominations that use God(s) or their scripture to back up their actions and to accuse others. 

I'd like to start with an example given recent events from the pandemic. Sadly, there are some christians that are, what we call, "anti-maskers." It's defined in the name- these people don't want to wear their mask in public even given the amount of caution and deaths around the world. But they believe it's a righteous thing to do saying 'God will protect me'. Quite humorous, honestly. 

Given my experience with christian ideals, I can speak on them with an existentialist point of view given Sartre's ideals to back me up. With that, I won't be able to present any examples from other religions. Given that, I'd like to introduce how many christians follow the values of their theology even if it's against their will. I've met Catholics who wish to get a divorce with their spouse but wouldn't, solely because christianity is against divorce. If I were Satre, I would say that that is still their decision and if that person really wanted a divorce, they would choose to do so. However, since people take religion as a serious factor of their life, they almost give up their freedom and use religion as an excuse. You can get a divorce. You're just making excuses.

Personally, I've felt "condemned to be free" more than once. Growing up catholic in a strict and very religious household was condemnation enough. I've been told that I've broken all ten commandments by my father at a young age, causing me to give up many of my hobbies and forcing myself to stop liking tv and music. This alone has caused me to be wary of my thoughts and actions, scared of 'sinning'. It was truly a time where I felt condemned to be free. Ultimately, I became severely depressed in highschool and would sleep in late into the afternoon/evening to avoid life in general. It truly felt like I was being condemned to live. 

But now I'm better :D

[PHIL 101 - 3] Hadot writes: "The figure of Socrates is ambiguous, troubling, and strangely disconcerting" (148). Why?

The obvious question is why Hadot describes Socrates in this way. I think it'd be best if we broke it up and analyzed it in pieces. Let's start with definitions. Ambiguous can mean something that is not clear. Troubling can be defined as having problems, fears, and/or anxiety. Finally, disconcerting is an adjective that describes feeling unsettled. He promotes this solely to contest the statement that says that Socrates is "a harmonious figure, combining divine and human characteristics in delicate nuances." He goes on to blatantly discuss how physically ugly Socrates is. This gesture alone is enough to say that it's clear that Hadot simply doesn't like Socrates, which would explain that previous statement describing Socrates.

But what evidence is there to prove that Hadot actually dislikes Socrates, and why? There is actually evidence to prove that Hadot doesn't dislike Socrates completely. He explains that "Socrates' exterior appearance - ugly, buffoon-like, impudent, almost monstrous - was only a mask and a facade." Does this mean that while Hadot doesn't like Socrates appearance physically, he can appreciate his inner appearance.. his thoughts? I doubt it- Hadot goes on to say how "Socrates was not only ugly, but a dissimulator as well." Another word for dissimulator is hypocrite and is later defined in the text as a type of irony of the time. Personally, I find that hilarious because I believe I called Socrates a hypocrite in my last blog post about the Apology since I spotted so many contradictions with his statements. Given that, it's safe to say that Hadot truly dislikes Socrates inside and out.. but why?

It seems like Hadot wasn't the only one who disliked Socrates. I mean, Socrates was sentenced to death so there was a good amount of people with a particular dislike for him. It's displayed throughout the text that Socrates character and hypocritical behavior led to this dislike. One can even call it immense hatred from certain characters such as Nietzsche. 

[PHIL 101 - 2] If you had been a judge at the trial of Socrates, how would you have voted?

If I had been a judge at the trial of Socrates, given the time period, I would've probably voted against him. The impression of being wise and telling other 'wise men' that they aren't based on a quick test almost seems ignorant. However, he says that he doesn't believe himself to be knowledgeable and have pride in his work as a poet would have pride and knowledge in poetry and their own work. Even though that poet is a master of their own work, Socrates still manages to find a 'mistake' or 'flaw' in their actions. This seems to almost be contradictory because Socrates is not a poet and those poems are not his, therefore, who is he to judge? 

I believe that Socrates judgement is flawed and contradicts his statements of not being ignorant of his own 'wise' work. It seems that he is being ignorant simply by his thoughts and actions towards the knowledgeable poet or those other wise men. It doesn't sit well with me how easy he is to judge others but raise himself up as a wise man for not being ignorant of his flaws. That alone, to me at least, does not make a wise man wise. He obviously didn't deserve death, but given the time, he seemed to be a threat for being different and making many enemies.

[PHIL 101 - 1] What does Critchley argue is the role of philosophy?

The main question here is what exactly does Critchley argue is the real role of philosophy? My first thought was that he thinks philosophy is something to be used to free us from the mental captivity of fear, in particular, fear of death. As I kept reading, I thought I nailed it- but after thinking about it I realized I only had a part of it. The role of philosophy, according to Critchley, is to allow us to accept our mortality. Even though there is anxiety and other 'flaws' of human nature, we can't forget that we have an ultimatum and it's inevitable.

To connect with the world we are in today, we can explore how this applies to the pandemic. It's very obvious that the pandemic has caused a sudden wave of intense anxiety globally. And it serves as a reminder that we are mortals. We can get sick and we can die. This, of course, relates directly to what Critchley was saying about human fragility and our weakness. We know we are weak mortal beings, but in the very end he proposes that "our weakness is our strength." We can even dissect that sentence further by saying that the weakness can be represented by COVID and our strength is how we as a body of people have persevered to the point where we now have a vaccine. It's interesting to read especially since this was written before the vaccine was a possibility. 

I have to say I kind of agree with Critchley. I never really thought of philosophy in this manner much. Typically you focus on the 'living' aspect, not the fact that we're all going to die whether we like it or not. That being said, I do agree that the role of philosophy is to have a sense of realism in our lives and to acknowledge death and mortality, but I also think a big part of philosophy is that 'living' aspect.