[crosstobear]

I don't know if anyone here is familiar with the philosophies of Sartre, Camus, Nietzche, Heidegger, etc... but I find it refreshing to think of ourselves outside psychology and psychiatry for once and imagine the world through the lenses of existentialism and phenomenology. Despite the bleakness and pessimism of the existentialist outlook on life, its focus on authenticity, acknowledgement of the human condition, and central thesis of making meaning and constant change are actually very optimistic and can be used to cope with a lot of psychological problems. The philosophy of existentialism posits three levels.

First, there is being, or existence. Also known as being-in-itself. Being is the baseline and exists without rhyme or reason, no justification. Think "I am that I am". Draw a mental diagram- being is the outer circle. Then, there is the negation of being- non-being, or being-for-itself. This is also known as consciousness. The reason it is a negation is because consciousness seeks to constantly negate and differentiate itself from existence. Become aware for a moment of your conscious experience. You are an observer- and your consciousness brings to light phenomena around you- your body, colors, objects, etc. In order for these parts, this screen, to be envisioned as existence, you must acknowledge and negate your conscious experience from the grander scheme of being in order to fulfill the role of an observer. Go back to your mental diagram, draw a circle inside being, and call it consciousness. The final component is phenomena. These are objects, events, things, that are apparent to our consciousness. Cars, other people, cups, chandeliers, dogs, roads, the town, etc. These objects do not exist in and of themselves but rather in relation to our consciousness. Without consciousness, they are not. They only are in relation to consciousness. So draw in your inner circle, objects and call them "phenomena".

Thus, consciousness is grounded in being or existence, which simply is, while phenomena or objects are grounded in consciousness and only exist in relation to it. Thus- time, space are not beings that exist, but rather parts of consciousness that exist in relation to it- more on this later. Likewise- words, the laws of physics, up, down, left, right, sounds, smells, shapes, colors everything we take for granted in this world- are contingent upon our consciousness and exists only in relation to it. An object viewed from multiple angles and at multiple distances exists in multiple ways in relation to the consciousness experiencing it, but without that consciousness, it doesn't exist, per se. Do a phenomenological exercise- pick a word (for example "boat") and say it multiple times, on and on. Eventually it loses its meaning and the absurdity of the word, the object, etc. comes to the fore. Enough thinking about the world and its objects and constructs will also reveal their absurdity and meaninglessness.

Consciousness does a funny thing. It judges- we as humans judge, and this is rooted in expectations and desires, which are rooted in lack, or non-being. A cake is not cooked- not in and of itself, but not cooked in relation to a consciousness that desires or expects for it to be cooked. This is because consciousness is a negation of being, it is a consistent striving to redefine, adapt, and evolve, which is predisposed to finding lack or non-being in the phenomena it experiences. Hence, we want what we can't have. When we get it, we want something else. Objects and phenomena are defined by what they are not, from a consciousness which expects or desires.

Why is this in the personality disorder forum? Because in seeking to create an identity, the human being is striving to differentiate him or herself from existence, and constantly striving to redefine itself. Existentialists posit there is no individual essence that is, only existence, which precedes the essence which the consciousness creates. Time and space, or temporality, don't exist in and of themselves, but are rather tools or languages consciousness uses to organize, dissect, and interpret existence. Thus, outside of consciousness, time and space do not exist, hence being-in-itself is not rooted in anything, but simply is.

Because existence precedes essence, one creates this essence (identity or meaning ascribed to oneself and life) over and over as he or she evolves and experiences new conditions, thus creating new desires and expectations, and thus assigning meaning to him or herself and the phenomena that are experienced. This, in the grand scheme means there is no such thing as true fulfillment and happiness, or an escape from emptiness or the void that many posit the personality disordered have in their psyches. It means that in order to live and avoid the great crime of suicide, one must acknowledge that the ideal is a bogus assumption in a frankly absurd world. It means recognizing the responsibility- the condemnation to be free, as Sartre put it- for one to define their world and themselves as they progress in life toward the inevitable death or oneness with being-in-itself. To essentially make meaning in every situation and take action (action defining the self and one's world) according to that meaning. This is explained in down-to-earth terms in Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" where he dissociates from daily camp life and begins thinking of a future where he is lecturing as a professor on the psychology of concentration camp life. He explains that this made the meaning he needed to take the actions necessary to preserve his life and dignity, which led to him acting humanely, patiently, and with purpose while other inmates were reduced to human animals and were conquered by the oppression of the extermination camp. It is also explained in Camus' "Myth of Sisyphus".

Existentialists posit that the world is irrational and meaningless to the point of absurdity- again, going back to the lack of justification, purpose, or reason that defines being-in-itself, or existence. It just is. In the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus depicts the Greek mythical figure that is condemned to rolling a rock up a mountain, only for it to roll down again and for him to push it up again. Faced with such a monotonous, prison-like existence, why doesn't Sisyphus kill himself? That is the fundamental question of being- to endure or to vanish, and for existentialists, suicide is the antithesis of the one existential goal of endurance and meaning-making. Hence, while we all have lives like Sisyphus- pointless, meaningless, mundane and full of suffering and pain, it is still possible to find meaning in these lives. In fact, it is imperative to live a meaningful life, because of temporality- we are given one life and death is inevitable, thus in light of our progression toward death, we must ask ourselves if we live meaningfully. Imagine Sisyphus singing Lady Gaga while rolling his rock up the mountain, or playing mental tic-tac-toe, talking to himself at length, talking to an imaginary friend, fixating on and studying the beauty of the mountains and trees around him, or simply alternating the path which he rolls the rock up the hill, or which arm he uses to roll it up. These are all attempts by which Sisyphus, through action, defines his meaningless life. He may even justify each push up the hill; this is how he makes meaning. This is the metaphor of the Sisyphean predicament of the human condition.

So do people really, truly "know themselves"? Do people have "identities"? Not in so far as static, immutable personalities go. It is true that much of our patterns of action are determined through attachments and events, developmental milestones, etc. But as adaptation machines and Sisypheans, we are constantly- inevitably- changing ourselves and our worlds through our changing desires, expectations, and meanings. This is rooted in the fact that our consciousness is a negation of being- as observers of this absurd and meaningless world, we MUST differentiate ourselves from what we see in order to make sense of it because it only exists in relation to us. Our identities, our "selves" change. You as an angsty 13 year old are not you as a 20-something, you as a married, child-rearing 30 something, you as a 50, 60, 80, etc something.

A fundamental part of the human condition is that we are engaged in this quixotic struggle for immortality and infinity- to achieve oneness with being or existence. To outlive our temporality. But this is impossible due to our role as negations of being. Thus, the emptiness we feel, the constant existential angst, the lack of true self, and the feeling of lack or abandonment are very natural parts of the human condition. It is by nature the definition of consciousness and negation of existence. Its just that different personalities cope with this existential angst in different ways- narcissists likewise.

Key to existentialism is the goal of achieving authenticity. Are you living true to yourself at the moment? Are you making your own meaning of the world? Defining things in accordance to your desires and expectations? Are you changing for yourself, according to yourself, or are you acting in "bad faith"? Bad faith is a term that existentialists use to describe learned helplessness and a self-consciousness which essentially posits that outside circumstances and people are in control of one's life. Acting authentically and taking responsibility means knowing that when a gun is held to your head by a robber, you still have a choice, and that choice has consequences, and should be made taking into consideration what you want. Take route A and give the man your money, hoping he will not shoot, or route B, attempt to push off his hand and perhaps be shot in the process. Either route you take, you made a choice and cannot say you were forced to. Authenticity means living for yourself and evolving, constantly ascribing meaning. Creating meaning. It is impossible to find meaning in a meaningless world and to find a true, static "this is who I am". It is however possible to redefine, evolve, and keep oneself moving along and living a meaningful life by creating meaning for oneself.

It's my argument that those of us with personality disorders or the traits of them were not given the security in attachment or care at the earliest ages where we come to terms with the void, the meaninglessness and lack of justification of existence. Thus, we had no proper defenses to construct a healthy, functioning way of keeping safe from existential despair and angst, and recognition of this is key to any therapeutic endeavor. At the end, this is an inevitable response to the human existential condition that the unprepared and unprotected child's mind makes when he or she is raised or exposed to conditions that prevent the healthy negotiation of existential angst.

Thoughts, let's please discuss.

[crosstobear]

Some good reads:

"Essays in Existentialism", "Being & Nothingness", "Existentialism & Humanism", "The Wall", "Nausea" by Jean-Paul Sartre

"The Myth of Sisyphus", "Resistance, Rebellion & Death", "The Rebel", "The Plague", "The Stranger", "A Happy Death", "Exile & The Kingdom" by Albert Camus

"Being & Time" by Martin Heidegger

"The Existentialist's Guide to Death, the Universe, & Nothingness", "How to Be an Existentialist: Or How to Get Real, Get a Grip, and Stop Making Excuses", "Sartre: A Guide for the Perplexed" by Gary Cox

"Thus Spake Zarathustra", "Beyond Good & Evil", "Will to Power", "The Gay Science", "The Antichrist", "Ecce Homo", "The Geneology of Morals", "Twilight of the Idols" by Friedrich Nietzche

"Existentialism: A Guide for the Perplexed" by Steven Earshaw

"Introducing Existentialism" by Richard Appignanesi

"Man's Search for Meaning", "The Will to Meaning" by Viktor Frankl

"The Sickness Unto Death", "The Concept of Anxiety", "The Concept of Dread", "Works of Love", "Fear & Trembling", by Soren Kierkegaard.

You were never loved, so you do not know how to love yourself or anyone else.

[crosstobear]

Originally Posted by ValentinaVVV

You were never loved, so you do not know how to love yourself or anyone else.

Are you talking about PD's in general?

Yes. The root of a lot of PDs has to do with infancy and childhood bonding. Just like you mentioned, insecure attachment.

[DechanDawa]

The last thing Nietzche did before going completely insane was to stop some people in the street who were beating a horse. I once saw a painting of this incident...in the scene Nietzche is in a long white nightgown, and he has his arms around the horse's neck, and he is both hugging and protecting the horse. In the same way we need to protect ourselves from the cruelty of existence. We do this through various ways...not so productively with addictions, and more productively with family, friendships, work, and special interests. When all these fail and there is a tear in the curtain, one just waits. The tears repair themselves. It is best to view philosophy as a game, and not the only way to truth. As for consciousness and reality, I don't agree with any philosophy that promotes solipcism. That is, that reality does not exist once we close our eyes. I don't believe this. I believe that there is an absolute reality...but I cannot go much further beyond asserting that it exists as I have no proof. God consciousness is beautifully illustrated in art, music, and works of literature, and I can appreciate the beauty of these expressions while not fully adhering to any one doctrine. In the end, actions in life should be based on good faith. This should bring some peace of mind and solace in the face of the abyss.

If anyone has been the victim of actions based on bad faith...the difference between good faith and bad faith is easily discerned. Betrayal, lies, deceit, and abuse are acts of bad faith. In this way, how to live is simple. Choose the good.

There is a simple parable about how to live. It is said to have originated in Buddhism, but it has been retold many times in many different cultures. Even the Russian author of War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy, wrote his version. In the story a man is chased by a tiger and the man climbs over a cliff. He manages to hang on by a tiny branch. A black mouse and a white mouse are gnawing through the branch. He cannot climb back up because the tiger is waiting with mouth open. He cannot chase the mice away because he is hanging onto the branch with both hands. He sees one bright berry glistening from the branch. He leans over and plucks the berry off the branch with his teeth and it falls into his mouth. When he bites down the berry explodes in his mouth with juicy sweetness. The man smiles.

For me, the berry on the branch is a my morning cup of coffee. It comforts me, and somehow reassures me.

When there is a tear in the curtain, I wait. So far, the tears mend themselves, almost miraculously. But one day there will be a tear that does not mend itself. That is madness or death. I don't know if our soul or consciousness flies onto a new existence, or God consciousness, of we simply turn into stardust. I do believe that whatever happens, we are a part of a whole. Enlightenment is not merely a loss of singular consciousness, but rather, a larger more encompassing and wise awareness.

I find it very comforting to imagine Nietzche, on the brink of madness, standing in the street in his nightgown, saving an old horse from cruelty. More than his words -- this act of good faith says everything about what it means to be human, and to act humanely. Do life one day, one hour, one minute at a time, and try to do no harm. Enjoy what is simple and evident. Extend kindness and compassion.

[crosstobear]

Love your response. Although existentialism isn't solipsism. It actually acknowledges reality in being in itself, when it talks about phenomena being contingent upon a consciousness that is driven by will it doesn't mean these objects don't exist outside of consciousness, but rather that the meaning of these objects are relative to the willing consciousness. Actually reality I accepted through the acknowledgment of facticity. Facticity is the absolute reality that often stands against an individuals will, obstacles to be overcome such as mental or physical illness, heartbreak, etc. Without the existence of reality, "that which does not kill me" would mean nothing.

[DechanDawa]

Okay, since I can't correctly spell solipsism I probably shouldn't expound on it. However, can you please tell me in simple words, what is your point?

Here is one story illustrating why I have a hard time with philosophers: I have a brother who has an advanced degree in philosophy, and he is no happier than anyone else -- and, worse, I think -- he uses philosophy to explain away his and others' pain, and he always does whatever he wants. He also does something that really bothers me. He makes up reality. For instance, he kept calling the daughter of his girlfriend his own daughter, and had her start calling him Dad. After he broke up with the girlfriend this relationship with her daughter continued. He insisted she was his daughter and he referred to himself as her father. All I wanted him to say was she was "like" a daughter but actually not his daughter and he kept saying no, she was his daughter. I said if he said one more time that this non-relative not-adopted young girl was his daughter I would not talk to him. He caused me to hang up on him.

I also kind of forgot what the existentialist say about reality. Why do they say it is meaningless? Because it is like a blank slate?

I studied Buddhism, and although many people think that Buddhism preaches non-reality, it isn't so. For the Buddhist reality is that which remains when everything "not it" is removed, such as our perception of it etc.

I started reading a lot of Stephen Hawking this past year, and to be honest, stuff about the universe and theories about it can get pretty crazy and it kind of creeped me out and even contributed to my depression and anxiety. What we read and expose ourselves to has more impact than we realize.

That's why I go back to the story of the berry.

And you?

[crosstobear]

Existentialists explain reality as conflicting with an individual's desire and due to being-in-itself's unexplained existence, lacking inherent meaning or essence. So in a sense, reality is a blank slate in terms of how consciousness relates to it. A person adds his or her meaning to events and phenomena in order to operate and escape nihilism.

The reason for my response is that existentialism is not solipsism although some people may mistake it for that. The emphasis is on meaning and living authentically. The phrase "everything happens for a reason", even searching for the lesson learned from an event; these are existentialist things. Its about consciousness creating an order to the absurd and meaningless reality, which at the root is organized by time and space which are ways in which consciousness creates meaning. Existence in itself is timeless without consciousness. This doesn't mean solipsism per se.

For instance- obtaining closure after a traumatic event is one way we subjectively make sense and create meaning in order to move on and strengthen ourselves. Closure isn't absolute truth as the intersubjectivity of conscious experiences prevent an absolute truth or definitive meaning. Being lacks inherent essence until the person ascribes it essence. This isn't solipsism as much as it is interpreting reality to avoid nihilism.

[DechanDawa]

Okay. So, would you say that mental disorders are facilitated by a nihilistic outlook?

I always used to joke that I was an eternalist because I wanted everything to go on forever. In the past I was diagnosed as having adjustment disorder, which is about the same thing. I had and still have a very difficult time adjusting to change. I present this as a philosophical problem, because in a way, it is, isn't it?

For instance, I was very upset when my dog died at the age of 12, because I heard that this particular breed could live until 15 or 18. But the dog lived a perfectly respectable 12 years, had a good life, and died quickly, which was a blessing. This is just one example of an adjustment disorder resulting in prolonged grieving, but I have a tendency to do it with everything...friendships, finances, jobs, etc. I just want everything to...not be impermanent. Haha. Then about 18 months ago my only sister died. She had been ill for some time so her death was not a surprise. But, per usual, my grief was excessive and prolonged.

Since then I have fallen into a nihilistic outlook and only very small things bring me pleasure...like a cup of coffee, or suddenly waking up and realizing it is early and I can go back to sleep for another hour. To be honest, I would like to get my life back before falling into this state of dysthymia, which seems like just another word for your garden variety nihilism. Can a philosopher be a kind of doctor of the soul? (I have read Man's Search for Meaning about a dozen times, and lately I feel that maybe his whole theory was wrong, and that the more selfish and resilient survived in the camps, and not those who necessarily had something meaningful to focus on. They were thrivers, not just survivors. I think a thriver survives simply because they are quite hearty, look forward to more living, and dare I say are not as sensitive as others? I used to think I was one those people. Depression and anxiety are such a threat because they imply rigidity and a kind of stubborn refusal to come up with a new meaningful structure...or I should say, infra-structure. It is like losing one's place in life. Exactly that. It is a horrible feeling...I would not say emptiness...but rather, just a refusal to engage, and create...meaning. Yes, sort of like being on strike.

I am going to have to go back and read this whole thread. I need read up on philosophy in the few little manuals I have.

Thank you for this most interesting thread. I am loving it. I will stand aside now and allow others to enter into the conversation...sorry I have dominated it thus far.

[crosstobear]

Nah, I would group mental illness into facticity- its part of the inherently meaningless suffering that occurs in life. Its a set of cards you are dealt. Existentialism requires you to get to a point where you stop seeing yourself as a victim and not let your suffering beat you down into nihilism and living in bad faith or helplessness. Its about playing with these cards in the best way possible and living a meaningful and fulfilling life despite the brutality of reality.

[Out There]

Originally Posted by crosstobear

Nah, I would group mental illness into facticity- its part of the inherently meaningless suffering that occurs in life. Its a set of cards you are dealt. Existentialism requires you to get to a point where you stop seeing yourself as a victim and not let your suffering beat you down into nihilism and living in bad faith or helplessness. Its about playing with these cards in the best way possible and living a meaningful and fulfilling life despite the brutality of reality.

Great thread and thanks to everyone for their contributions. I really relate to playing these cards in the best way possible , also my T is an existential T.

[DechanDawa]

Originally Posted by crosstobear

Nah, I would group mental illness into facticity- its part of the inherently meaningless suffering that occurs in life. Its a set of cards you are dealt. Existentialism requires you to get to a point where you stop seeing yourself as a victim and not let your suffering beat you down into nihilism and living in bad faith or helplessness. Its about playing with these cards in the best way possible and living a meaningful and fulfilling life despite the brutality of reality.

OMG, I might just print this response out and frame it!!!!

[DechanDawa]

Originally Posted by Out There

Great thread and thanks to everyone for their contributions. I really relate to playing these cards in the best way possible , also my T is an existential T.

Can you briefly explain this? Where does philosophy end, therapy begin, or are they co-emergent?

[Out There]

Originally Posted by DechanDawa

Can you briefly explain this? Where does philosophy end, therapy begin, or are they co-emergent?

That's a really good question - perhaps they are co - emergent or maybe there is no end to one and no begining to another. If I discontinued seeing my T I would not see it as " ending ". I don't think I can exclude philosophy from Therapy and I to find meaning to my experiences was very important.

[DechanDawa]

Originally Posted by Out There

That's a really good question - perhaps they are co - emergent or maybe there is no end to one and no begining to another. If I discontinued seeing my T I would not see it as " ending ". I don't think I can exclude philosophy from Therapy and I to find meaning to my experiences was very important.

But, of course, faux meaning would be taboo? I want meaning, but not a panacea. I have lost my place but I don't want to pick up and live in a cheap novel just because I am uncomfortable being homeless. I have experienced a quality life before, and again want a quality life. Is this a proper quest?

[Out There]

Originally Posted by DechanDawa

But, of course, faux meaning would be taboo? I want meaning, but not a panacea. I have lost my place but I don't want to pick up and live in a cheap novel just because I am uncomfortable being homeless. I have experienced a quality life before, and again want a quality life. Is this a proper quest?

I would not want faux meaning , would a proper quest entail returning to a previous state which could be classed as resilience or would a proper quest entail pursuing growth. For me it is the latter. I cannot paper over the cracks with a panacea - this difficult and this is the challenge and I will continue to roll the boulder uphill. Of course it has meaning , though strangely I have had a medical professional suggest to me that it does not. Physician heal thyself.

[DechanDawa]

Originally Posted by Out There

I would not want faux meaning , would a proper quest entail returning to a previous state which could be classed as resilience or would a proper quest entail pursuing growth. For me it is the latter. I cannot paper over the cracks with a panacea - this difficult and this is the challenge and I will continue to roll the boulder uphill. Of course it has meaning , though strangely I have had a medical professional suggest to me that it does not. Physician heal thyself.

I think I understand. I want...it all. Yes, growth, yes resilience, yes, new input and comrades on the path. How can someone outside of you (professional?) suggest that your meaning is not authentic? I think I can now only measure good faith vs bad faith. I know the difference.

[Out There]

Originally Posted by DechanDawa

I think I understand. I want...it all. Yes, growth, yes resilience, yes, new input and comrades on the path. How can someone outside of you (professional?) suggest that your meaning is not authentic? I think I can now only measure good faith vs bad faith. I know the difference.

I also know the difference between good faith and bad faith - the physicians truths were not the same as mine . He can measure short , that's his choice. I want it all as well and why not?

[DechanDawa]

Because it is essential. I want it all. To accept less is to accept a small life, and that is what I have been contemplating as of late. I don't want to live small.

[DechanDawa]

Well, the truth is...I would like to go back to a more innocent time. But I don't know how to compensate for some searing brutality I have seen in a few people over the past years. Live long enough and you will see more and more...

Some people have a sort of conversion experience, and choose to live in good faith as much as possible (such as Tolstoy) yet retain a sort of melancholia. I think what I want and what is truly possible might be quite different.

Thank you for this lovely thread.

[DechanDawa]

I actually don't find existentialism too friendly a philosophy, but maybe cuz I take it too seriously?

[crosstobear]

Originally Posted by DechanDawa

I actually don't find existentialism too friendly a philosophy, but maybe cuz I take it too seriously?

Hardline existentialism, like that of Sartre and de Beauvoir, can be invalidating at times. It really takes an extreme stance against outside circumstances. Merleau-Ponty's existentialism takes into account mental illness as a barrier to personal choice, but still it can be invalidating. A hallmark of personality disorders is that one really is shaped by outside circumstances and finds oneself in many crappy situations, but at the same time the disorder itself lends to an irresponsible way of looking at things, like bad faith (blaming others and circumstances for bad behavior and choices). It's a hard stance to take and one needs to be absolutely ready for it. I consider myself an existentialist, but to take a hard line stance like that of Sartre can be detrimental. Humans are complex and theories and religions in general tend to be reductionistic. I have a similar take on psychoanalysis, it is reductionistic. I believe one must take an eclectic approach to things.

[DechanDawa]

Could you further explain what you mean by eclectic approach?

[Out There]

Originally Posted by crosstobear

Hardline existentialism, like that of Sartre and de Beauvoir, can be invalidating at times. It really takes an extreme stance against outside circumstances. Merleau-Ponty's existentialism takes into account mental illness as a barrier to personal choice, but still it can be invalidating. A hallmark of personality disorders is that one really is shaped by outside circumstances and finds oneself in many crappy situations, but at the same time the disorder itself lends to an irresponsible way of looking at things, like bad faith (blaming others and circumstances for bad behavior and choices). It's a hard stance to take and one needs to be absolutely ready for it. I consider myself an existentialist, but to take a hard line stance like that of Sartre can be detrimental. Humans are complex and theories and religions in general tend to be reductionistic. I have a similar take on psychoanalysis, it is reductionistic. I believe one must take an eclectic approach to things.

Existentialism is sometimes seen to be pessimistic. I don't take it too seriously and find a sense of humour very much a part of my work , some things I find profound and would probably get bogged down in them if it wasn't balanced with humour. Having said that , I probably am around the Tolstoy place. I will also look at transpersonal and psychoanalysis and recently schizoanalysis which I find most interesting.