"...what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense existentialism is optimistic, it is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by confusing their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope." (Sartre 214)
When we discussed the assignation of responsibility for the world to all individuals, I was quite struck by the impact it would have. In comparison with the contemporary world it seems to be the polar opposite. To make a sweeping generalization, most people do not even take responsibility for all of their own actions, much less the goings-on of the world around them.
A good example of this is the problem of the bystander effect: when an individual is in an emergency situation, a bystander will not help if there are others present. The probability of one helping the victim decreases as the number of bystanders increases. This makes evident just how unwilling individuals are to accept responsibility for the world around them, even when it means ignoring someone in need of immediate help. Instead, they wordlessly shirk the responsibility onto everyone else, or worse, believe that no one is obligated to help the victim.
When people refuse to take responsibility for the world's problems, there is no way to reach a resolution. Everyone will just continue to suffer, always waiting for the next man in line to stand up and finally do something. However, because this mentality has unfortunately become so pervasive, such an act is unlikely. And I understand, to an extent: as we discussed, recognizing that you are personally responsible for the world that you live in and everything that comprises it is entirely overwhelming, almost unfathomable. To know that inaction toward any malignancy is equivalent to acceptance feels like an insurmountable weight for any one person to carry.
However, I wholly agree with the above quotation by Sartre: this need not be seen as a depressing, overwhelming concept. Allotting everyone with responsibility for their world would assuredly force them to recognize the extent of their freedom as human beings, and their prospective effect on what goes on in the world around them. It is difficult for me to imagine that the masses would then be able to ignore atrocities, as they would feel personal responsibility for the consequences. So instead of being described as hopeless, it is in fact an extremely hopeful idea.
I am glad someone focused on the despair, since I do not think we discuss it very much in class. I am still wondering what the despair is in this atheistic existentialism. Is it the attributing of weight (adversarial coefficient) to this larger sense of responsibility? I think it may actually be regret for the choices we made that created a worse world. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you (and Sartre) that the concept of an individual being responsible for the world he or she lives in doesn't have to be depressing or overwhelming - especially if we consider responsibility as "response-ability." It is not that individuals should feel at fault for all the atrocities in the world and thus compelled to act, but rather feel that they have the freedom to respond to such atrocities. If I'm horrified by starving children in third world countries, I'm "response-able" in that I can stand up, make travel arrangements, and go do what I can to help.
ReplyDeleteEric: I think that feeling a sense of despair about this responsibility comes from feeling that we are unable to react to or make a difference in everything. However, we don't have a choice; we're still responsible either way, and this is an overwhelming idea for most people. In this way, I could see it as being regret for our choices (or inaction) and the consequences they bore.
ReplyDelete