currently on my playlist

procrastination:
v. intr.
To put off doing something, especially out of habitual carelessness or laziness.
v. tr.
To postpone or delay needlessly.

here we go...
playlist 1 -
1. mysterons - portishead
2. raindrop prelude - chopin
3. njosnavelin - sigur ros
4. breathe in - frou frou
5. avril 14th - aphex twin
6. don't panic - coldplay
7. such great heights - postal service (thanks Matt!)
8. nightfire - amon tobin
9. one of these things first - nick drake
10. heaven sent - esthero

playlist 2 -
1. can't buy me love - beattles
2. dazed and confused - zeppelin
3. three libras - a perfect circle
4. toxicity - system of a down
5. otherside - chili peppers
6. in limbo - radiohead
7. lebanese blonde - thievery corporation
8. parabola - tool

Is Existentialism compatible with Christianity?

These are simply some initial considerations, based on a discussion in David E. Cooper's book, "Existentialism: A Reconstruction"

How is existentialism seen as being in conflict with Christianity?

1. ‘the idea of God is contradictory’
Cooper argues (on behalf of Sartre and Nietzsche) that the theistic God represents a being ‘For-Itself’ and ‘In-Itself. To be a ‘For-Itself’ God must be a ‘lack,’ or a ‘nothingness’ dependant on a reality present to His consciousness. To be an ‘In-Itself’ God must not lack nor be dependant upon anything. Cooper raises the typical Scholastic question, ‘how could a God who is complete and perfect need or want to create a world?’

:: the religious existentialist who embraces the Christian God usually embraces the typical paradoxes therewith. For example, the incarnation is what Kierkegaard calls the ‘absolute paradox.’ However, this paradox is one which should inspire the ‘leap of faith’ which he writes can enable to ‘discover something that thought cannot think.’

2. ‘a Creator-God is incompatible with human freedom’
The theistic God furnished us with an ‘essence’ – a predetermined way of being – so that we are all preconceived by God (and hence have purpose). Cooper argues that this is incompatible with the Existentialist belief that ‘existence precedes essence,’ and that man is what he makes of himself. At this point, one could also note that the Existentialist does not believe in a universal human nature (see previous post).

:: my thoughts with respect to purpose: I am thinking about Psalm 139. I would argue that creation necessitates purpose, and that purpose implies importance. For example, if I create a hammer, it is with the purpose of hammering something. Without the need to hammer something, the hammer would cease to be important. The hammer is only important in that it fulfills a particular purpose. Now, in comparing human-existence to a hammer, I am certainly not trying to dehumanize humanity in addition to the measure it has already suffered; however, I see that in having a purpose, we have a ‘thing’ to which we must adhere, live up to, and a reason to be. I don’t know. I have a hard time believing that God would simply create humans with absolutely no purpose at all.

:: my thoughts with respect to universal human nature: From where do we get our view that there is a universal human nature? Is the Existential view really in conflict with the Christian belief that humans (Adam, and hence his descendents) were ‘created in the image of God,’ and that ‘all men have fallen short of the glory of God’? Do imago deo or 'fallenness' constitute a universal nature?

:: Discussion?

What is an Existentialist? Part I

if you are unsure, or if you are curious to know what constitutes an existentialist, this list should help.

Existentialists affirm....

• Finitude :: humans are limited
• Contingency :: there is no eternal grammar to the order of the universe; things just are for no particular reason, and, therefore, could be otherwise, also for no particular reason
• Situatedness :: we are always already in a situation that has structured and informed our perspective; we can never "reason" ourselves into an objective position
• Lived Temporality :: who we are can never be reduced to a temporal "slice" of our biography; we are always becoming "other"
• Mood and Will :: mood and will are not accidental or incidental; they are disclosive and have cognitive importance
• Freedom is a Task :: freedom is not a possession, and is not given by mere consciousness; instead, it is something that we have to work at by pulling ourselves out of the social consciousness; humans make who they are
• Cognitive Impenetrability of Existence :: we cannot "describe away" the unknown; there may be no answer to many of our questions
• Responsibility :: we are without excuse; we have to own who we are; you are responsible for what you become
• Mystery :: it will always exist as a result of our finitude
• Singularity and Concreteness of Human Individuation :: there is no human nature that we all share; differences cannot be generalized
• Intersubjectivity
• Embodied and Engaged Self Understanding :: recognizes that who we are is somthing we are making through emmeshment in the situations we find ourselves in; you cannot pull yourself out and keep your identity
• Life-World Meanings :: there are certain things that we associate together ie. a pencil and a piece of paper
• Fact-Value Holism :: there are no "facts" that aren't already value-laden
• Honest Realism :: emphasis on authenticity; does not approve of "easy optimism"

Essentially, existentialists reject much modernist thinking -- they reject the notion that through objective reason, we can know everything, and through education, we become better people. Existentialists believe that nothing can be completely objective because we cannot divorce ourselves from our situation (see "Situatedness") and we cannot know everything because we are finite (see "Finitude").

Comments? Thoughts?

Are you an Existentialist?

it is (surprise surprise) nearly four o clock in the morning, and yet i am unable to sleep. without school to keep me grounded, i am losing all track of time and space. i am in my final days of winter break, before i go back to my usual life at Trinity Western University, but this break has been absolutely wonderful for several reasons:
- i spent time with everyone in my immediate family (so great)
- i had a lot of fun with some awesome friends
- i enjoyed the break from community standards :)
- i took in some excellent movies
- i had the chance to read!

speaking of awesome movies, i saw Garden State over the break, which is an amazing film. I also saw Napoleon Dynamite which, in its own sarcastic and almost-painful way, was hilarious.

i started reading The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie which has been very interesting so far. I was really hoping to have it done by the end of the break, but I am starting to have my doubts as to whether or not that will actually happen. maybe if I get in a good solid chunk of reading tomorrow and sunday, it is still possible.

it's also been wonderful to meet new people over the break, or simply spend time with people that i have not hung out with very much this semester.

but even though the fun is, in some ways, over, i'm still looking forward to my classes this semester -- particulary American Lit and Canadian Lit.
nah -- the fun's never over.