Seminar Paper: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarians

Hannah Arendt was an German-American political theorist. Published in 1951, her most famous book “The Origins of Totalitarianism” challenges why totalitarianism started. It was written after world war two and after Hitlers death.  Arendt wanted to give her readers a sense of phenomenal reality of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is; An imposing government that exercise absolute control over all aspects of life in a State, with an aim to eventually dominate the World. There will be zero opposition to a totalitarian ruler. In the chapter “Ideology and Terror”Arendt tries to sum up exactly how totalitarianism worked in the cases of Stalin's Russia and Nazi Germany.

Hannah Arendt reveals that terror is at the center of a totalitarian government, and that this terror is based upon ideology. 

This type of terror exceeds fear. Totalitarianism dominated many governments during the twentieth century. Unlike other forms of government that oppress its people; a totalitarian form of government escapes the boundaries of definition. It is commonly mistaken as a tyranny or dictatorship. Arendt explains that this is because it must begin as a tyranny, an oppressive government, to lift the dividing line of the laws. Arendt uses two particular governments as examples to help clarify the nature of a totalitarian government; fascist Germany and communist Russia. According to Arendt, the totalitarianism that rose in Germany was based upon the ideology of racism. 

Hitler's idea of the ideal Aryan; fitting the profile of fair skin, blue eye, blond skin- to be the desiring race to populate Germany. By creating this ideology of the strong race he wiped out an entire race and religion of Judaism, hence came about genocide.  
Underlying the Nazi’s law of race is Darwin’s idea of the man as product of natural development. Bolshevik’s beliefs in class struggle is like Marx’s notion of society as a gigantic historical movement which races to its own law of motion to the end of historical times when it will abolish itself.

She speaks about law in some detail, something that totalitarian regimes do not succeed purely through aggression and ruthlessness but through a shift in the way the people consider law as a whole. She says that this is where totalitarians law differs from other forms of law. Totalitarians didn’t replace laws. It simply defies laws, and makes clear that it can do so. In the interpretation of totalitarian laws Arendt goes on to say that all laws have become ‘laws of movement,’ neither nature or history was the stabilising source of authority for the Nazi’s or the Russians Bolshevik’s, for the mortal man they are simply movements in themselves. She adds that previous governments used positive laws as the only way to express the difference between right and wrong. In a totalitarian body, positive laws are replaced with terror. Terror ceasing to be solely used for the oppression of any opposition.

She speaks in great length about rule by fear. Totalitarianism destroys human morality and eradicates ideas such as guilt and empathy. Fear was the hazardous element. “Guilt and innocence become senseless notions; “guilty” is he who stands in the way of the natural or historical process which has passed judgment over “inferior races”, over individuals “unfit to live,” over “dying classes and decadent peoples.” 

This is by far the most terrifying aspect of totalitarianism. To make people feel guilty for not doing something. This links to the Milgram experiment where people would take the step further giving the innocent person higher levels of electric shocks every time they are asked to simple ‘carry on’ with the experiment. The only thing the authoritative figure tells you is that ‘you must go on’ and this was sufficient enough for people to carry on. 

Hannah Arendt explains that the totalitarians developed ideologies to impact the masses. There are three types of totalitarian ideologies. Firstly it is that ideologies are based on motion and that the subject matter of an ideology is history. She then adds that ‘Ideologies explain not what is but what becomes’ this links to the idea that ideologies are orientated towards history. This method of thinking could be linked to Hegel’s idea of the zeitgeist, where we are living in a world where we started with a thesis-antithesis and eventually a synthesis will be reached where we result in a euphoria society. 

Secondly ideological thinking becomes independent of all experience. Which it cannot learn anything new even if it is a question of something that has come to pass. Hence why ideological thinking becomes liberated from the reality that we perceive with our five senses. 

Thirdly ideologies have no power to transform reality. 

Ideology is the logic of an idea, the subject matter is history. She went on to explain that Ideological victory of racism and communism over all other isms was decided before the totalitarian movements took hold of precisely these ideologies. All other ideologies have totalitarian qualities but they are only developed by totalitarian movements.

Hannah Arednt goes on to say that the propaganda of the totalitarian movement also serves to set free the thought from experience and reality and that there is a “secret meaning into every public event.”

She sights the the work of Hitler and Stalin as “ideologies of great importance.”  For they did not add a single new thought to the ideas and propaganda slogans of their movements. 

Totalitarian governments could not exist without destroying the realm of life, by isolating men. Total terror leaves no space for private life and the self coercion of totalitarian logic destroys man’s capacity for experience and thought. Isolation can happen in a world whose chief values are dictated by their work, all human activities turned into hard labor. The isolation then becomes loneliness. 

Epictetus, the slave philosopher of Greek origin was the first to distinguish loneliness and solitude. "When you close your doors, and make darkness within, remember never to say that you are alone, for you are not alone; nay, God is within," Epictetus

She concludes that in history we can see that solitary men have always been in danger of loneliness, this came to light in the nineteenth century. For philosophers solitude is a condition of work philosophy is only for the few, they begin to insist that nobody understands them. In Hegel’s deathbed he stated that “Nobody has understood me expect one; and he also misunderstood.” 
Nietzsche, also a lonely man, found himself and started thinking dialogue of solitude in his Sils Maria and Zarathustra. It’s loneliness that causes the loss of one’s self. 

A new form of government who essence is terror and whose principle of action is the logicality of ideological thinking. Such a combination was never used before in the varied forms of political domination. 

Like Hobbes’ social contract, totalitarian regimes are controlled by a figure of authority. In Hobbes’ contract this is the Leviathan. He believed that it is ‘every man against every man’ in society. This is similar to the totalitarians view but their ideology removes man from all his freedom and liberty and for the existentialists this is the key problem. Freedom is the most important factor for man according to the existentialists. Totalitarian regimes removes freedom from society. 

Existentialism

Existentialism the idea that there is no point to focus on existence as your existence is your dasein and you should not worry about anything other than your dasien. 

60’s/70s/80s based on existentialism

Frantz Fanon’s book ‘Wretched of the Earth’:
“The rebel’s weapon is the proof of his humanity. This is irrepressible violence is man re-creating himself”.

If there isn’t any point to anything what would you? How confusing, we need guidance. But the existentialists say there is no right or wrong. 
Existentialists say you should make that decision yourself- It’s all about choice. 

To make a choice- is the heart of existentialism, 
violence is like a accelerated choice- you get stuck in. DO something. Violence is the ultimate type of choice. 

Existentialism is arguable that it is political change, comes from Nietzsche and Heidegger- we can actually cause violence towards to government. Nietzsche is a central figure in it. He makes a break with what we have before. “God is dead” he is not saying a specific god is dead, he is saying about the big structure that we rely on. There is no longer any certainty. When you were a kid you wanted a parent to tell you if a thing is right or wrong. We love certainty. When religion thrived we loved certainty. But now people are starting to drop their faith, the world becomes confusing. And there are no absolutes no certainty. 
“God is dead” Brilliant says Nietzsche, before we were told what to do and think. It was all nonsense, this is no super structure. We have complete freedom. 
This is Nietzsche’s The transvaluation of all values
This is it, there is no other region. We can choose what is good or bad, there is no hierarchy telling us or guiding us.

“At last the horizon seems open once more, our ships can at last put out to sea in face of every danger; every hazard is again permitted to the discerner; the sea, out sea again lies open before us.” 

We are adults, we make choices. 

Morality (Nietzsche) 
If we are all different and there is no absolute morality we have different morals. 
Kant- we are guided by our
Locke- natural rights
Rousseau- general will- rules set out to guide us
Nietzsche says a load of rubbish/ nonsense, we have our own rules. 
Nobody gives us these morals, not even God. 
Ubermensch- The superman the overman, the things we are told as human beings the ubermensch say nonsense i will work this out myself. The ubermensch will overcome and ignore other values set out. 

Choice is crucial to existentialists. 
10 commandments- Children- taught they would be ok if they learnt it. 
But if you say non of this is relevant you have no-one to follow, no plan to go. How can you live in a god-less universe. The only thing you have is choice. Make your own internal reality. Everything is neither right or wrong it is your own choice. 
Heidegger 

claimed he wasn’t an existentialist- How very existentialist of him!

Being and time- highly influential.

It is about existence here. What it means to exist. 

Epistemology - Newton, Locke and Hume- they wanted to know the universe. 
The existentialists just concern over our existence. Not the outer world. 

Not a sociologist asking you what life is like. 

They know that there is not point to anything. If you argue a point what basis do you claim that it is meaningful. 

Religion- Hume attacked it. John Locke idea? A way to work out laws from governments- hard to establish, a different society would contrast different laws. 
There is reason in the world. But where does it come from?

Existentialists say its a given, its about existence. 

Their point is not about reason, its about what we do when we realise there is no reason. 

He first asks- WHAT is it that exists. what is the basic beginning of existence.
It is Dasein. Simply us, we are dasein. 

Heidegger thought human beings are dasein, but it isn’t only humans. 

He attacks Decartes, lays into the Cartesians. 

Decartees Cartesian Dualism- two things in the universe mind and body spirt physicality. 
Hiedegger says this was a disaster. People shouldn’t of believed this. 
If these two things are completely differentness how do they react? it’s like a ghost lifting a chair- two different substances cannot react. 
How can the mind and the body be different how can they react. You cannot move a chair with your mind for example. 

How do we get our minds out into the world.
-Hume says you cant, you’ll never know anything. Billboard example. Anything in the future is unknowable, everything can be falsified. 

Instead of Hume's spectacle idea, cartiasisan dualism.. Heidegger comes up with Dasein. 
Dasein is ‘being in the world.’

Our existence is simply our interaction with the world. 
I’m in journalism, i’m engaged with it”. Me on the world is not my existence my existence is the interaction and engagement i make with the world. I make this through choice. You have to make a choice to engage with something. 
Dasein is your engagement with the world. 

He is not empirical trying to know the world, he is trying to say we are in the world and we are trying to engage with it. 

No grand theory. This is the way it is, that is what existence is how you engage with the world. 

If your existence is simply interaction with the world he is doing away with the soul and the Cartesian dualism. 

An big grand machine- you can only see the details of your body. If the idealists are right we can see the soul, embedded in his body. 
If you look at someone through the existentialism body. You would not see the physical being, the soul what you would see is every decision that that person would have made. 

The most important thing that defines you is your next decision, it’s the choice you make. 

You are defined by your choices. 

Das Man
Nietzsche ‘slave morality’ the ubermensch. The slave following religion/rules. If we want to be an ubermensch we must overcome this. 
Heidegger says the same. You should not be cowardly and dodge decisions. 
-Bad faith -self conscious people “i don't want to be seen driving in this”  Das Man- you worried about other people, its not you making decisions to find your self you are worried what everyone says and thinks of you. 

Facticity
Is simply the facts of what bought you here. 
Where you were born. All of the facts that have happened up to this point in your life is a persons facticity. If you are defined what has come before this moment you are DAS MAN. you are imperfect. “I had a tough up being” “I don’t stand a chance here” this is you being defined by your facticity (Your past) “University is hard because no one in my family has gone to university” this is defining yourself as what has come before. 

Heidegger says you are thrown into the world 
you could of been born anywhere. 
You local team, British Blood- is nonsense. It is just blood luck. Nationality is a complete slavishly following your facticity. 
Thats all you knew, it was never your choice where you were born. Who your parents are is simply your facticity.
You shouldn’t base your life on your facticity says Heidegger. 
It is just moral luck where you end up 

how do you live an authentic life? You transcend it. (You over come it.) 
It’s Nietzschian.
-Your facticity is not you. It’s just blind luck. 
We react to our facticity. 
We are being in our world
We are defined by our facticity but if we fight our facticity we live an authentic life. 
It’s our reaction to our facility, if you are cowed down by your facticity we are living an unauthentic life. 

Crucial to Fanon- path to escape the role of the victim. 
Interpreted it, we do not need to be victims, We choose not to be victims, to fight against people who make us a victim. 

Satre

Existence precedes essence- we create our own purpose
For example- Simone de Beauvoir “one is not born a women, but becomes a women.” We are defined by our own essence 

key argument in existentialism- The world becomes absurd- there is no guiding spirit, there is no teleological driving force, no purpose history isn’t driving towards and end point- stuff happens good or bad without reason. You could of grown up supporting any football team. There is no primary reason to it. 

Heidegger’s existentialism is clearly right wing. Stare was left wing. Existentialism is broad. 

The life of a person is not determined in advance, by God or moral laws, says Sartre. The only thing I cannot escape is the need to choose. But the possibility of recreating oneself is frightening. People want to be guided by someone else, telling them everything will be ok. People will try to avoid this freedom this is ‘bad faith’. 

Sartre's bad faith
Existentialists generally believe at any choice you make you can recreate yourself. 
Your facticity is your past.
Your future is the choices you make.
If you want to be a sheep then Stare says this is ‘bad faith’ .

The greatest mistake is for us to think that we are one type of person. An object cannot change but you can change. Your next choice can change you- says existentialists. 

If you cannot define yourself or you wont allow yourself to. You can define yourself by anything. You defining yourself is bad faith. 

The alternative to bad faith is to take responsibility for your actions and be defined by your choices. 

it is i who maintain values you being’- in keep with Nietzsche. We can pretty much do anything we want. 

Stare claimed this is our humanity
We start to realise that we are: alone etc.....

(we are alone)
Abandonment- we feel abandoned, God is Dead there is no one to tell us how to act. 

Then we realise it’s tough making choices
Anguish- Humans are fundamentally free, condemned to be free. We have no excused we are responsible for everything we are. You cannot blame anyone else, thats your facticity. You are defined by your choices not your past. We had no choice on our past, why get so hung up on it. Don’t define yourself on your facticity. 

Despair- this is the realisation of that the world may precent us from getting us what we want.

Existentialism is the reaction to the realization that there is no reason to anything.

Sartre's examples
Stare’s pupil ( a real example of a pupil in the second world war, the choice for a boy to look after his mother whilst the nazi’s were in france, or should he go and join the resistance and fight the germans)
Obviously he loves his mother. But the only chance to get rid of the Nazi’s is to fight them. 
Choice between his mother and joining the Free French. 
Abandonment, Anguish- the choice where nothing really has any point anyway and despair. 

Sartre says you are free, you can choice. Just make the choice. You define yourself by this choice. 

Bad faith 
Most people think that because you have a certain role they have expectations of you. 
Students, workers. 
Sartre says...No you are radically free, you have no obligations on you. 
It’s your simple choice what you do. 

Sartre thinks such people are making metaphysical mistake- turning themselves into inert objects rather than being free beings. 

another example:
Not interpreting someone’s hint they like you. It’s your choice to engage with someone physically and intimately the moment of choice is the key thing. 
If a man put his hand on the table you can choice to put your hand with his and let him know you want to be with him or you don’t.
But this women leaves her hand on his but makes her hand an object. It doesn’t mean anything, she ignores the choice she has made. She dodged the choice, this is bad faith. Misleading, leading someone on. She is ignoring her hand, from a undefined this to a defined thing. 

She’s been defined by him. 

The longer you drag the decision out the harder it will be. 

Another example, a gay man.
A man with gay experiences should he call himself gay? but that is in the past that is his facticity he can make a new choice. 
You have the ability to change you are not an object.
If you said I must be gay because of my experiences Sartre says NO. You are basing this on the past. You can decide now. 

Albert Camus 
The Stranger

Meursault the protagonist of this book appears emotionless and makes choices without the opinions of others effecting him. 

The death of his mother provoke little in the way of emotion for him. He would consider others but not let this effect his choices. When he was sat next to his mothers coffin Meursault smoked. "I felt like i should smoke, I didn't know if i should do it with mumma there, i thought about it, it didn't matter. 
Thoughts like these contributed to his sentencing for killing someone. He again showed know remorse. 

The theme of this book is cited as an example of existentialist although Camus did not regard himself as one. Meursault lived a life where he did not live in bad faith. He continued to stick to his own choices and the past didn't matter to him. This is a key idea to existentialists. 

Logic and Mathematics- Lecture Notes

HCJ Lecture 2

Frege, Russell, Whitehead- logic and mathematics.

(Mathematic and technology language) Very much on the analytic side based on logic and logical positivism. (Frege is german, not anglo saxon.)

Solecistic logic. 

Natural numbers, these words used to count for things. Natural logic from the mathematical field of logic.  

Three fundamental attitudes towards languages, including syntactical number systems such as arithmetic, but especially numbers

1. they are natural and can be empirically observed. 
2. They are intuitions of a harmonic, perfect platonic other word. Numbers are platonic. Pythagorus. Bert Russell started as a platonist- numbers came from a different world. You would never know the noumena of a number it can never be a thing in itself. Platonism. 
3. They are abstract logical objects, constructed purely from syntax. (Frege)

Syntax a set of rules of modifying a meaning of one logical object and another. Adjectives and nouns have syntactic forms. Syntactically altered, Large house- Blue house. 

Frege- Numbers are created using syntax

Numerical naturalism/evolutionary psychology 

Apes and stone age tribes appear to be able to judge simple empirical plurality, typically:

If you are a monkey.

0: absence of a thing ( eg a banana.) 

1= one banana/enough bananas 

2= maybe a lot of bananas/unlimited. 

1 thing, more than one thing and plenty of things. 

Plurality. 

ZERO one and two are strong natural numbers. 

Even for people from advanced cultures small number words are functionally different to large number words. 

If you come into a room and there is one person, you don’t count the one person even with three you can categorize that as a simple plurality. Most people will go up to maybe six or seven objects in a group before counting, using logic relations to the empirical pluralities. 

You can say in a footage ground. it could appear to be empty. You could say there are a few people or a “crowd of people” This is known as simple pluralities. 

Predicate (In logic and grammar) is the result of a process of a calculation.Subject Verb- Predicate. The result of the action of a verb. 

Verbs are operators in Frege logic. 

Syntax- is it learnt or innate? Chomsky. Its complicated it would be impossible for a child to learn it, it must be innate. Against John Locke who thought nothing is innate we learn things. 

Human syntax is subtle compared to syntax on a computer. On a computer it used predicate logic. PC programming was a Very slow progress to begin with. 

Horrie: “Philosophy degrees today are in a lab- trying to put people’s brains into equations.”

PYTHAGOREANISM

Beans- Fetus, strange cult like ideas. But they worships maths. chanting geonomitary.

Prime numbers are pre existing, external supernatural forms. Numbers are a Unknown kantian world. They are not in nature simple plurality. Prime numbers are “Logos’ evidence there must be god, language of God. Prime numbers are invisible. if you divide them you do not get a whole.  Similar to plato’s cave, things for the domain of perfection and eternity. 

Orphic religion, in ancient greece- Nietzsche’s appolonian religion, pace the birth of tragedy. God of music, the harmony of the spheres. The eternal ratio of thirds on strings and harp. Trumpets- judaism. 

All other numbers are just rational represent geometrical ratio’s. 

The special religious significance of the prime number three. Three is the magic number. People behave abnormally to numbers. You wouldn’t say you have a magic word, but with numbers people do. 

the numbers three- you have the rule of thirds. Three quad triads in music. A beginning, middle, end. Three stages. 

In Christianity three is massive. Father, son, holy spirit. Rises on the third day. Coincidence? 

Greek’s feared no.1 and zero. Greek counting began with two. zero would not be something they entertain. It is naturally impossible to have nothing, nothingness cannot be an object. 

Islam love the no.1. There is only one substance, allah. 

No. 5 and no.7 are important. pentagrams. 

Arisitotle physics was a matter of sold geometrical fundamental objects. 

This is all ophism and also the codified religion of pythagoreanism. 

Pythagoras regarded only plurals as natural numbers so they began counting with two. “one” and “Not One” were different logical categories. The odyssey- the cylops, “my name is no one” “No one is there” Frege cites the same problems in logic. There is no one on the road, does not mean the same thing as the road is empty and anyway the road is not empty because it contains at least the road. 

SPECIAL PROBLEM OF NOTHING AND ZERO.

Zero as a operator came from India. Arabic letters are where numbers came from. 

It was avery difficult concept because zero+nothing BUT nothing is something. This is contra to and breaks Aristotle's law of contradiction, the foundational axiom of all logic. Problem of the law of contradiction solved by Leibniz monads, that an object can “contain” its own negation. Modern philosophers of mathematics have thus asset that zero is a natural number, logically derived as 1-1=0 

“Nothing” is a philosophic absurdity like somebody like Heidegger would asset Also the qualitative differnteraly gap between 0=nothing and 1= something as big as the universe. 

 Aristotle huge step on the way. Yes we know things but here is a way to know how you knew these things. Why do you know the swan is white? 

All swans are white- proposition

This bird is a swan therefore it is white. 

knew these things. Why do you know the swan is white. 

BUT The australian black swan cleared that out. 

Zero is nothing and nothing is something. The first rule of Aristotle's logic was not to contradict the moon is the moon the sun is the sun. therefore the sun isn't the moon. 

The problem here is the consistently. 

0+1=0 but 0x1=0 so what does +1 mean? 0+1=1 1+1=2

plus 1 is doing different things all the time. it is not a stable syntactical object. Frege solves that. Numbers are platonic entireties, not known as things in itself. 

Attitude today 

Numbers are logical objects- Frege Revolutionary thought. ‘The Grundlagen.’ this is a third approach of numbers- LOGICAL OBJECTS

Book ‘the foundations of arithmetic.’ 

Arithmetic is just a language according to Frege  

Adapted by Russell and Whitehead as an attempt to demonstrate the logical basis for numbers arithmetic and mathematics thus refuting platonism and numerological mysticism. 

Rejected Mill’s numerological empiricism. you cannot find zero in nature. and then there is the + 1 increment. Not coming from a platonic therefore numbers must be derived from logic. in his book ‘equations’ 

FREGE’S METHOD

All things that are identical are equal to themselves. ( This is apriori, deductive.) 

It follows all things which are pairs are identical to all other pairs regardless of what they are pairs of.

The class of all pairs contains all pairs and this can be given a purely nominal symbol eg two a word or numeral, it does no matter.

Larger numbers can be built as logical constructs along the lines of the class of all things which are pairs of pairs we can attach any symbol we like to this the conventional one would be ‘four’ 

One is the class of all things which are not associated with other things

Zero as a class of all possible objects which are NOT equal to themselves. There are no such objects by definition. 

Bertrand Russell 1872-1970

Posthaste

The philosophy for language- Wittgenstein 

Frege moved logic to syllogistic logic. 

-It’s possible for a sentence to make sense but have no reference. It makes sense but there is no point of reference. This conversation would make sense but there are no reference points 

Frege solves that with a new form of language the Beriffsschrift. 

THE END. 

Existentialists

Existentialism Reading and Seminar notes taken from "Anthony Kenny's Philosophy In The Modern World ." 

During the 19th century there was an exchange of philosophical ideas between Europe and other English speaking countries. 

Existentialism, led in France by Jean-Paul Satre and in Germany by Martin Heidegger, in Europe was a popular school. 

In the second half of the twentieth century the ideas of existentialism only had limited success. 

Freud 1860- He had the greatest influence on the Anglo American philosophical thought throughout the twentieth century. But he did not regard himself as a philosopher but as a scientist and a creator of a new science. 

Those who were engaged in teaching philosophy of the mind or ethics were forced to take into account of Freud’s ideas about Psychoanalysis and a human having an ego. Although very few would describe themselves as Freudian. 

Notes on Freud:

Born in Moravia in 1860

He had an Austrian Family of non observant Jews. 

Moved to Vienna and trained as a Doctor.

Specialised in brain anatomy

He then moved to Paris to study as a neurologist 

1895 he published work on hysteria and an analysis of mental illness.

Seized hypnosis as a method of treatment- Called psychoanalysis 

He was convinced that psychological traumas dated back to infancy and had a sexual content

Medical colleagues isolated him and his ideas. But he continued his practice in Vienna.

1990 he published his most important work “The interpretation of Dreams”. Dreams are no less than neurotic symptoms were a coded expression of repressed sexual desires.

His books were highly readable and he began to teach pupils and gain colleagues.

Freud has had an enormous influence on society, in relation to sexual mores and to our understanding of mental illnesses.

The ID is like Schopenhauer’s life form which is the Will. Why does talking help according to Freud? It reveals your memories, usually the ones you suppressed and those that are a bad memory. This becomes an illness if you suppress your memories, according to Freud. Talking in psychoanalysis is positive, he would argue there is nothing to be embarrassed about. If you think of homosexuality this has made a big difference for today. years ago this was a topic that many people avioded, they would suppress the idea. It is much more accetped today to dicuss homosexual experiences and feelings. Homosexuality has become less of an illness. Freud would literally say, don’t bottle it up. 

Freud’s contemporaries were shocked by his emphasis on infantile sexuality. 

Husserl’s Phenomenology 

Similar to that of Sigmund Freud. Also born into Jewish family and attended lectures in Vienna. He also studied the human mind. Both men faced Nazi anti- Semitism. Freud was driven out of Austria to die in exile and Husserl’s books brunt by German troops in 1939. 

Husserl initially studied mathematics and astronomy not medicine. Husserl’s interest in philosophy began in his lectures from Franz Brentano in Vienna in 1884-1886. 

Brento tried to relate Aristotelian philosophy of the mind to contemporary experimental inquiry, this was in his influential book “Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint,” published in 1874. The book explained that the consciousness came in tow kinds; physical and mental phenomena. 

Physical phenomena- colours and smells 

Mental phenomena- thoughts charatarised by having content or immanent object. 

These two phenomena’s are similar to Hume’s idea and sensation. 

We can only speculate about the world. 

You see what you need to see in the world. 

Husserl was influenced by Brento’s approach to philosophy although Husserl continued to focus on mathematics to begin with. 

His first book, published in 1891, was called “Philosophy of Arithmetic.” The book attempted to explain our numerical concepts by identifying the mental acts that were their psychological origin. His view was that there was a strict empiricism, but on being shown that such an analysis could not possibly succeed, Husserl shifted his ground and started to defend the idea that the truths of arithmetic had a kind of necessity that could not be accounted for by empiricism. 

He thought zero cannot phenomenologically be possible. But others would argue there is a logical zero. 

The Phenomenon of plurality- More than one thing in a room. When we walk into a room with people in we can initially point out how many people were in that room by a quick glance. The natural number of people to see would be between 5 to 7 lets say. This depends on phenomenal capacity of that observer. Nobody could phenomenologically see thousands of things at once and know how many thousands they just saw. 

Also multiplying in mathematics is conceptual not phenomenological. Husserl provide you can not reduce numbers to pure psychology. 

The philosopher Frege does not see numbers phenomenologically his numbers are only logical. 

In Husserl’s “Logical Investigations” (1990) he argued that logic cannot be derived from psychology. But while Frege focused philosophy of the logical side of the divide, Husserl followed the continental tradition, saw the psychological side. 

The difference between continental and analytic people.

Continental thinkers, would say that everything is subjective experience. This is phenomenological. 

Analytic thinkers would disagree. Mental phenomena is ignored. But meaning resolves into logic. They constantly define things. A computer is purely logical. 

Heidegger (the father of existentialism) 

The concept of being is the first task of being. We must understand being before we do anything else. 

Heidegger created his vocabulary. He created the word Dasein. 

Dasein is not amount thinking- It is effected by mood and emotion. 

In terms of depression Heidegger and other existentialists would argue that YOU are part of the world. You and the world are not two separate ideas. Descartes said there was an external world, but Kant said we do not know the external. 

Your being is the only essence, there is no external world- according to Heidegger. 

Facticity: Derived from the Greek’s ‘fate.’ You cannot choose to change the rules of gravity, you cannot change brutal facts of the world. You can only construct facts in your realities. 

Existentialists embedded in their Dasein are in a bubble. There is no need for them to know what is going on around them because they are so engrossed in what they enjoy doing, in otherwise occupied with their dasein. This sounds very similar for me for when i’m on my phone. I would say this is my dasein at times. 

Existentialists like Heidegger would say “leave me alone i’m doing my own thing’- a very modern cliche thought used today. 

If you are indulged in an activity dasein this is good. But if you are not you reach boredom. Boredom is subjective to time.  

Sartre: 

Believes that perception and imagination have no distinctive difference, and that being, is without reason, without cause, without necessity. Being, just is. It needs no definition as it is defines itself.

Satre would also have a nausea feeling constantly of the idea of dying.  

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is used for recovery. Life is like a story it is purely fiction and you can change it. Bad Faith would be to be part of someone else’s story. Sartre would say that “Being For” is a denial of dasein, you are living on behalf of someone else. A good ethical person for example in a relationship would put their two daseins together. In relationships it is not being for someone else it is just constructing daseins together. In politics you should not let your dasein rule over others and you doing it ‘for your country’ is a political problem Startre encountered. 

Existentialists love feminists and the flexibility Black people have had to change their fate. They cannot change the facticity of life but they can re-write their story for example once slavery was scrapped they could re-write their fate. The facticity of a women cannot change but the social role of women and men can change, you can change your narrative. 

Existentialism & Heidegger

Philosophy lecture notes  24/1/13

Just to begin and not lose you completely:

Dasein is a German word which literally means being here (German: da - here; sein - being) often translated in English with the word "existence".

Existentialism 

“it’s existence precedes essence” You’re existence is not the result of anything. reject old fashion beliefs. You’re here but your existence doesn't matter. (Jean Paul Stare book Being and Nothingness.)

(Simone ‘second sex’ Modernism partner of Jean Paul.) We’ll look at this in more detail another time. 

Existentialism is the rejection of Descartes: “I Think therefore i am” 

The phrase would more rather become ‘I am therefore i exist”- there is no need to prove it. This is a Cartesian dualism rejection. 

Existentialists are prepared to say “there are thoughts’- But that is it, nothing more. 

They see everybody as a composite. Illusion- Wittgenstein. (The sea of language)

Isolation tanks would make you go insane- verification principle. 

Where does thinking come from? We do not know and IT DOESN’T MATTER. 

This journey being with Kant, “Critique of pure reason.” Existence is not a predicate. It is not a conclusion or result of something else. 

We must exist before we can think. 

Consciousness does not prove existence. Existentialists are against Descartes and Plato thoughts. Contra Descartes. 

How does consciousness arise? It is a metaphysical, religious or poetical question. How could there not be consciousness? You cannot stand outside consciousness. 

Just examine consciousness as a phenomena. There is no ‘I’

The cartesian ego cannot be found anywhere. Freud tried to find the ego through psycho analysis. But existentialists said there is no’ i’.

In cartesian terms it could be that all life is actually a “dream”- a dream is a sub category of consciousness. 

Dreams are simply a difference mode of consciousness. It is superstitious to see the various levels of consciousness in sleep. There are many states of consciousness. its superstitious to say being a wake is a different level of consciousness. 

HUSSERl

The founder of modern phenomenology His book- “psychology from an empirical Standpoint. ‘measure of a skull. De-mystify psychology which had its origins in Hegelian pseudo science such as phrenology. 

Psychoanalysis is to find the essence within the person. 

Tried to just examine phenomena as they are presented to consciousness. Trying to see objects as they are without any reference to context to the essence of the person. Without any essence of meaning. 

For Husserl there is no difference whether the ideas I am having represent the real world or whether they are fiction or hallucinations. There is a phenomenon of a table- it doesn't matter if it is real. Its irrelevant. 

Heidegger

The text itself, Being and Time 1927- Sein und Zeit. 

Heidegger proclaims end of the metaphysical age form plato to Husserl, though the change began in the 1790’s with Kant and the French revolution. The Logical Positivists in Vienna and Cambridge at the same time were saying the same things. 

He is obsessed with Kant and wife. They see in Kant the start of the person that destroyed metaphysics. 

French revolution used in democracy. The aristocratical ideal. We need to get back to ancient Greece, living on farms. 

He’s hatred of mass civilization, cities and transport. 

If anything he thought Hitler didn't go far enough. 

In the metaphysical age objects exist independently of mind, they ‘subsist’ and the role of the mind is to understand the structure of reality as a kind of mirror. The mission of philosophy was to establish the ‘reality’ of the existence of hte ego as an object within an external world and to describe the nature of this reality (science) 

Objects are only in the mind, whether it is hallucination or not.

Before Husserl people believed objects were really there and they found the nature of an object. 

The primary idea of the metaphysical age was to make thoughts correspond with an underlaying or hidden substra of independently subsisting reality such as descartes ‘god’ or Schopenhauer’s ‘will’ or even Wittgenstein's facticity. He rejected himself from all of these. This is unlike Nietzsche’s rejection, he just didn’t quite get there. 

Thoughts which correspond with reality are ‘truth statements’ even subjects aesthetic intuitions. The poet truth is beauty beauty is truth. Beethoven the noumena of the universe. The will Schopenhauer. 

Heidegger was bitterly against the romantics. 

There is correspondence theory of truth whereby truth is a matter of matching the mind with independent reality. 

Truth is the agreement of knowledge with objects. Objects are eternal and prior to mind (Aristotle) or can be mind dependent (Kant) but they exist either way according to the metaphysicians, even Kant. Kant’s project was not the rejection of metaphysics but its a re-foundation on the basics of active mind by the use of the noumena and phenomena. 

Husserl and Heidegger dispense with the noumena and keep the phenomena, hence phenomenology. I suppose you might call religion and art ‘noumenology.’ Kant was refuted and Schopenhauer’s theory was also disapproved by Heidegger. 

There is no will noumena of the universe as a thing in itself there is only a representation- For example the subjective appearance of things, “the data of consciousness.” 

There is no ‘will’ there is only representation.... which is ‘the idea of an object... which is phenomena! 

After Heidegger there is no absolute or highest truth, existence as a thing in itself objectively. There is only subjective ‘weak truths’ and practical truths or convenient truths. which are necessary to being and being is always concrete and specific for Heidegger, “always being in the world” or “being there”- the problem with truths. The truth is grounded in verifiable facts “so called facts.”

Where is Dasein? It is in ‘mood.’ Your mood is you- according to Heidegger. 

God knows i am miserable now. At that moment your mood is you. 

Emotion by metaphysics is seen by an imperfection, to emote is bad its non-verifiable. 

Heidegger says emotion is important it is known now as emotional intelligence. But it used to be called stupidity. 

Truth is therefore no longer a matter of matching thought to reality. But of making reality which is seen as true post-hoc. There is no idea of a correct truth to which one teacher or one culture has access. There are many truths specific to the desires and moods of each individual.

Mood is not a trivial matter for Heidegger but the concrete aspect of being.

Heidegger’s project: 

To clear away all philosophical terminology and throw away all the philosophical concepts and systems since Socrates. He wrote in plain non technical language. In tune with George Orwell and Wittgenstein. We needed to invent a new language. Thinkers and writers in the tradition of Heidegga was completely new. 

To liberate himself from constraints of objectivation and Metaphysics - he doesn't care if you do this though. 

Live an ‘authentic life’ in practical terms to live a simple life in the forest. As a Nazi he had a rousseau-esque loathing of industrial civilization, of cities and sought 

“You are what you eat’- a good Heidegger quote. Ecology is Heidegger. Organic is authentic. New ageism. ‘I'm doing my thing’ vegetarianism- anti modern. He wants to live in a ‘wooden hood.’ Folk music, lots of music, wife at home- this is very Dasein.

Like Nietzsche, Heidegga believes Socrates corrupted Western civilization. We wasted thousands of years thinking about things rather than enjoying things.

Dasein- Being there. like Husserl, Heidegger is not interested in consciousness.

Being is not an abstract idea being at a particular time and place and being engages in practical task, This is our Dasein. ‘The river keeps moving’ We never stop. This is unsettling to Heidegger. We are just thrown into things. Thrown into lectures etc. Constantly thrown into things, like a roller coaster ride. Freedom for Heidegger is complete absorption in a task such absorption in a task makes existence go away. Like the function of music for Schopenhauer but actually makes your existence go away. When you are fully engages in  a task you no longer exist. His advise would be to find you’re dasein.

Existence boredom. Boredom is the problem of being. The opposite of boredom is Dasein. Lack of boredom (engagement in Darien) is non existence. 

Existence requires time. Without the time there would be no boredom. With the infinite time there would be infinite boredom. The perception of lack of time creates a sense of urgency and forces a choice of Dasein. Whatever your Dasein is whether is it a hobby it saves you from boredom. 

Dasein is not thinking it is ‘caring’. Anti thinking. 

Judgments, choices and decisions and formulation of concepts are ways of caring and coping.

PART ONE OF THE BOOK (Being and Time)- Dasein. 

“time is the boundary for the problem of being’ time is boundary of Dasein. 

time is not a thing in itself. Kant discovered the problem of non linear time, and Einstein confided the mutability of time as ‘space time’. So “Space time is the horizon/boundary of being.”

The preparatory analysis of Dasein (“being there”) 

The difference between the hammer and the carpenter is that the hammer has ‘being for’ They have bad faith, they are just used. People that are just being for others is terrible according to Heidegger, un social philosophy.

There are three aspects of time, this Heidegger shares from Kant ( 12 types of time) and the mutability of time obviously references Einstein relative and modernity generally: 

Three aspects of time:

1: Attunement- What causes your mood. The reflection of the time. “Don’t look back” Reflection on the past produces mood. If you think about the past it will usually give you ‘guilt’ He would say Get over it! 

2: Being for itself or ‘Being there”- caring about the task in hand. The is the present mode of the Dasein.

3: Directedness- reflection on the Future. the mood created is ‘dread’ eg- death. do not think about it. This is the ‘Fear of the future.’ Ignore death. 

BLOG

Rector of Freiburg University in the 1930’s, was a dedicated member of the Nazi party- sanctioned book burning, and the removed of all the Jews from the university including Husserl who had been his teacher. 

Post war never recanted his Nazi’sim and was banned from teaching. Thus he was not read until the 1960’s when he was popularised by his French follower Jean Paul Sartre

Sartre- Being and Nothingness’ attempts to remove the boundary of space and time from being. It takes the same structure as Heidegger. 

Past=Guilt

Present=Boredom unless obliterated by Dasein

Future= Fear

Albert Camus’ novel ‘The Outsider’- we’ll look at this in more detail in the future. 

Existentia  (being for/by yourself) vs Existence (objective,objetified being for others)