How to Date an Existentialist

Note:  Sorry this post is a few days late!  Been preoccupied with real life, so internet life has been on the back burner.

I once went to the Johnny Rockets in the Palisades Mall with my friends Emily and Hiram.  Our waiter was a self-proclaimed existentialist who drew faces with the ketchup bottle.  I was in Intro to Philosophy, so I decided to ask him what he thought of Kierkegaard.  And he had no clue.  He was not a real existentialist.  Le sigh.  So what is a real existentialist?  What does that even mean?  If being a cynical nihilist isn’t the same thing, then what is an existentialist????  Dictionary.com provides this answer:

noun. Philosophy.

a philosophical attitude associated especially with Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and opposed to rationalism and empiricism, that stresses the individual’s unique position as a self-determining agent responsible for the authenticity of his or her choices.

If you want an in-depth definition, the Wikipedia page seems pretty legit on this one.  So, with that being said, how the heck am I supposed to date one of these absurd people?  Have no fear, some guidelines are here!

Guideline #1: Always be authentic.  This is a big deal with existentialists, because authenticity (aka being true to yourself and your spirit/character/personality) is the compass by which all human activity is guided.  Thus, the most attractive quality that an existentialist is looking for is authenticity to oneself.  This means that you should not lie about yourself in order to impress your date.  You should also be honest about things you like or dislike (whether or not they agree with you).  I’m also guessing that existentialists are probably not all that big on damaging secrets.

It’ll kill ya if you’re not authentic or terrific (or Nick)

Guideline #2: Don’t freak out over existential angst or despair.  In my opinion, people are drawn to codified existentialism because they already suffer from existential angst and despair.  What that translates to for you, is that your partner might have bouts of frustration with society and depression (this is especially likely if you are undergraduates, because undergraduates are the whiniest, most confused people I know).  Even an existentialist is likely to hide such social faux pas as a mental instability (because even she feels the pressure of stigma, despite her authenticity), so this is a problem that will probably only arise in serious relationships.  When your significant other goes through these phases, it is important to handle them well, which means keeping your calm and not using is as fight fodder later.

Guideline #3: Watch movies and discuss existential qualities in them.  Of course, by now, you should have realized that when dating any type of academically or philosophically bent person, films by Wes Anderson are a must.  Go for The Darjeeling Limited.  I also recommend the chronology of films by Woody Allen (especially the stuff before Mia Farrow).  Sleeper is a good choice, so is Midnight in Paris.

Guideline #4: Existence precedes essence.  This concept says that the most important thing about an individual is the fact that that person is an individual.  If you are a sociologist trying to date an existentialist, I can tell you right now that it is not going to work out.  To a sociologist, a person is largely the product of society, but to an existentialist, a person is herself (or himself) an individual primarily.  An existentialist is defined by her own consciousness, the fact that she is a thinking, breathing being, as opposed to the assumed roles and stereotypes that society tries to throw on her.  The actuality of her life is her essence, not what society uses to define her.  What this means for you is that you should stop studying sociology if you want to date an existentialist.

Guideline #5: Embrace the Absurd.  The Absurd is a key concept in existentialism.  No meaning (according to the Absurd) can be found in the world except the meaning that we give to the world.  So, basically, it’s the opposite of karma.  Both good and bad things will happen to good and bad people.  Why?  Because life is absurd.  We create meaning.  To really embrace the Absurd, I recommend that you explore the philosophical teachings of Monty Python.  They are experts in the Absurd (and in philosophy (and in soccer)).

Guideline #6: Take things as they are.  This comes from a concept created by Sarte called facticity.  Wonderful, wonderful Wikipedia explains facticity in terms of the past.  Your past is a part of who you are, but it is not all of who you are (which would negate the present and the future).  You are not never your past, because it is what it is, but you are also not only your past.  Denying the past would be inauthentic.  Facticity deals with things that simply are how they are, and you can’t change them (where you were born, for example), but they are not the definition (essence) of you.  Accepting facticity will help you to relax with your date, go with the flow.  Sometimes things are how they are.  Adjust for it.  Have a date and it’s pouring rain?  You can’t control the weather; but you can control your reaction.  And if you just accept that things need to be modified to accommodate the uncontrollable flash flood, then you will be able to relax.  And a relaxed person is an attractive person.

Guideline #7: Live theatre is a must.  Still haven’t seen Waiting for Godot?  Are you hoping to catch the local troupe’s production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead? How do you really feel about No Exit?.  You are finally able to go to these plays without feeling like the most pretentious person you know!  Take your existentialist date with you (and they can be the most pretentious person you know!) and enjoy the drama and comedy created by some of existentialism’s greatest thinkers.  Sarte and Camus were both playwrights as well as philosophers.

Guideline #8:  When bored, play a game of Questions.  Nothing to do with your existentialist honey?  Fancy a game of Questions?  Why would you want to play that?  What’s the point of the game?  How do you win?  How do you lose?  Is losing a bad thing?  Why do people put so much emphasis on winning?  Why can’t we pursue things for ourselves?  Why is the world so competitive?  Do you fear failure?  Do you fear death? Do you fear life?  Is life good?  Is God good?  Is God real?  Is reality real?  Why do you go on?  When do you stop?  How do you keep asking questions?  Would you like some concrete rules for the game?

Don’t be Mean to Meno

Hey, guys!  I’ve been working on this philosophy paper for a while now, and the best way I found to write it was to pretend it was a blog post.  The assignment was to explain a section of the Meno to an imaginary third party and then discuss if Meno knows the eidos of virtue, and if so, does he know that he knows it?  So now that it’s all typed up nicely in wordpress, I figure I may as well publish it, right?

In Plato’s Meno, the self-titled character comes to Socrates with a question, leading to a long dialogue between the two about the essence, or eidos of virtue; but who is Meno and why does he want to know about virtue?  When Meno asks how virtue is obtained, Socrates replies that no one in all of Athens would be able to answer that question because not one of them, including himself, even knows what virtue is.

Although the dialogue is set in Athens, Meno is from Thessaly, a place known for wealth and horsemanship–not philosophy.  So when he approaches Socrates and asks how to obtain virtue, the older Athenian seems to be taken aback.  He praises Gorgias, a well-known Sophist and his intellectual enemy, for having transformed the city.  Just from the structure of Meno’s question, Socrates can tell that he studies under Gorgias.  Meno, unfortunately, does not understand Socrates’ biting irony and he misses the hidden insult to his beloved teacher.  Perhaps if he had been able to see through the empty praise, the dialogue would have gone differently, but as is, it was above his comprehension.  When Socrates professes not to know what virtue even is, he also loops everyone he has ever met into the category of the unknowing.  This leads Meno to ask if Socrates had met Gorgias while Gorgias was in Athens.  Of course Socrates had met Gorgias, but being a “forgetful sort of person” (Plato, 116), he does not remember what Gorgias claims to be virtue.  Does Meno agree with Gorgias, and can he explain to Socrates the eidos of virtue?

Meno is not prepared to explain virtue, but he assuredly claims that there is no difficulty about it, and launches into a list of characteristics associated with virtue.  He makes distinctions between virtue for a man and for a woman, also for a child and for an elderly person.  Indeed, there are many more kinds of virtue so that no one be at a loss at any time for it.  Socrates lets him speak, but when Meno is done, the Athenian spurs him by comparing his answer to a swarm of bees when he had only wanted to know what the bees all had in common with each other.

Throughout the course of the dialogue, Socrates is constantly redirecting Meno toward the eidos of virtue.  Meno struggles to follow Socrates’ thought pattern often, and he ends up agreeing with Socrates or pretending to understand frequently, presumably to help Socrates arrive at his definition of virtue faster.  After all, this is not the conversation Meno wants to be having; he is still looking for the easiest way to get virtue.  His quest to get virtue by itself shows Meno’s flawed understanding of virtue, and Socrates takes it upon himself to correct Meno’s mind.

Along the way to discovering the true eidos of virtue, Socrates and Meno arrive at several different possible definitions.  They even arrive at a solution that Socrates admits could be the answer for which they are searching.  At first, while paring down the virtues Meno originally listed, Meno combines his ideas of feminine and masculine virtues and proposes that virtue is the ability to govern men.  That would be good, Socrates says, if not for children and slaves.  He asks Meno if “a slave be capable of governing his master” (119).  Socrates also suggests adding justice to the equation.  That would be good, Meno agrees, because justice is a virtue.

Socrates jumps on this chance to confuse Meno a bit more, and asks if justice is virtue, or just a part of virtue.  If it is a part, can it be used to define the whole?  Socrates prompts Meno to list other virtues like justice; Meno provides courage, wisdom, temperance, and dignity.  However, this act reverses their synthesis of before, as they yet again have a slew of virtues with no defining characteristic between them in common.  Socrates is looking for “a single virtue which permeates each of them” (119).

Meno cedes that this might be too hard for him still, so the pair take a quick foray into the definition of shape and color.  After agreeing that a circle is a shape and not shape itself, and white is a color and not color itself, Socrates asks Meno to create a plausible definition for both shape and color–each one’s respective eidos.  Meno, perhaps afraid of looking more like a fool, asks Socrates to do it instead.  Socrates does, on the condition that Meno then follow his example and do the same for virtue.

Eventually Meno defines virtue as “desiring fine things and being able to acquire them” (124).  Socrates attacks the word ‘fine,’ which could also be translated as ‘beautiful.’  Does Meno mean beautiful things, or good things?  Which would be better?  Meno admits that good would be better, and the two have a small discussion about good and evil.  Both seem to uphold the idea that man inherently desires good, even if his personal views of good are skewed and end up being evil.  Therefore, because all people desire good, the difference between them is the power.  They have arrived at the eidos of virtue: “the power of acquiring good things” (125).

This victory is somewhat deflated when Socrates asks Meno what he means by ‘good.’  Meno admits that the good things he wishes to acquire are money and political office.  If these materialistic goods set the standard for virtue, the definition needs to be reworked to require some form of justice in acquisition.  The clause of justice, however, brings them back to the beginning of their argument.  Since justice is a virtue, it cannot be used to define virtue.  Meno nearly gives up in defeat, calling Socrates a paralyzing sting-ray.  Socrates counters that he is just as perplexed by the question of virtue as Meno is.  The difference seems to be that Socrates is willing to look for the answer.

Meno suddenly challenges Socrates by asking the older man how he can search for something he does not know.  Socrates recognizes this question as a trap, and he calls it such.  Then he defends his right to search for answers because “the soul is immortal and has been reborn many times, and has seen all things” (129).  Socrates believes that somewhere inside of himself and every other person is infinite knowledge that has merely been forgotten.  This form of spiritual immortality allows him to ask questions and seek for answers.

At this point in the discussion, the question that remains is if Meno knows the eidos of virtue or not.  If so, does he realize that he knows it?  For most of the dialogue, Meno responds to Socrates the way a house with a shallow foundation would react to a heavy storm.  He is intelligent enough to follow Socrates’ outpouring of knowledge, but if Socrates increased his pressure on Meno to think for himself, Meno would collapse.  That said, Meno still manages to propose a definition of virtue that only needs minimal tweaking by Socrates to make it completely correct.  The eidos of virtue comes out of Meno’s mind first, but does this mean that he knows what he is saying?

Socrates asks Meno to define what is good once they have reached the eidos of virtue because he suspects that Meno’s heart and intentions are not in line with true virtue.  Meno is focused on physical, worldly gain instead of spiritual and mental growth.  At this point, Meno’s original question of obtaining virtue could be reworded as ‘how does one use virtue to obtain monetary advancement?’ in order to accurately reflect the condition of his heart.  Does Meno know the eidos of true virtue?  Quite possibly, but he is like the evil man who thinks what he desires is good.  Even if that man’s perception of something is good, it is still evil to everything outside of himself.  In the same way, Meno’s understanding of what is good is so essentially flawed that what he views as virtuous could be the farthest thing from true virtue.  If his opinions on good are not taken into account, then yes, Meno knows the eidos of virtue.  However, to ignore that detail would negate everything else in Meno’s worldview, nullifying his definition of virtue.  There is no true way to discern if Meno knows the eidos of virtue or not, but if he does know it, he does not realize he possesses this knowledge.  If he did, he would never have entered into a dialogue with Socrates.