I found Sartre's discussion of the coefficient of adversity in his essay Freedom and Facticity: The Situation to be rather fascinating. He states that it is through humankind's freedom to choose its own goals and aspirations that otherwise neutral objects develop either helpful or harmful qualities. The example of the crag was presented, which to a climber becomes an obstacle but to an artist becomes a spectacle. To the climber, it is either scalable or unscalable. To the artist, it is either beautiful or ugly. The notion reminds me of the manner in which I considered the Existentialism movement prior to taking this course. I thought, at a basic level, that Existentialism involves humans assigning meaning to their own surroundings, their own lives, and their own existence.
Sartre's claim is certainly a bold one. It suggests that any situation that an individual is in can be viewed as positive or negative depending on the coefficient that is assigned to it. And the coefficient is determined by the goal that the individual has chosen for him/herself. Consider a wreck on the interstate that creates miles upon miles of standstill traffic. To an individual whose goal is to arrive at work on time, the traffic situation is an obstacle and is thus assigned a coefficient of adversity. To an individual whose goal is to postpone his/her arrival for as long as possible, the situation is beneficial and thus assigned a more positive coefficient.
This leads me to believe that any situation I ever find myself in can be switched from harmful to helpful, or vis versa, simply by an alteration of my perspective. Poor grades are only a bad thing if my goal is to receive good ones. So that raises a question. Is it really just a matter of one's perspective? Can any situation be altered by simply changing the coefficient of adversity?
It seems to me that it might be a little more complicated than a quick alteration of one's outlook. In the case of physical pain or abuse, most people would agree that it is not beneficial or enjoyable (there are a few strange exceptions, but I won't spend any time addressing those). And I cannot seem to find a perspective that would justify the abuse having anything other than a negative coefficient. Or perhaps the abuse itself cannot be considered a neutral object because it stems from human emotion? Perhaps I'm missing the point. Any comments or corrections would be greatly appreciated.
Unconventional though it may be, I am inclined to agree with Sartre: it is our perception of situations that determines their relative goodness/helpfulness/whatever. Your example of the wreck and subsequent traffic is a great one that really shows how this idea works. We perceive everything in relation to our own motivations and desires, and attribute value accordingly.
ReplyDeleteYour proposition about pain only seeming to be negative made me think back to studying Stoicism in Search. Of course, that feels like forever ago, and so my picture of it may not be wholly accurate. Nevertheless, I remember that a major aspect of the belief was that even things that seem bad for you can be good. For example, if you are tortured by an enemy and escape, that experience will actually make you feel stronger and more capable of dealing with adversity. This idea may be a little too optimistic, but I think it does well to emphasize the point that we are the ones to determine how we view our world and all that affects us.
I think I agree with you, Anna. We assign meaning, and either negative or positive coefficients, to everything around us. We can control how we view a situation, and thus control how it affects us. Eleanor Roosevelt said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent," which I think is in parallel to Sartre's concept of freedom.
ReplyDelete