-When I was working at the prison, I was teaching a man who had murdered his father. He had nearly served his sentence. So one day there was a group of us chatting, and I told them about following this man in a wheelchair along Railway Street the previous evening. He had gone over the kerb, his wheelchair had toppled over and he had gone sprawling out. I helped him get back into his wheelchair, and then he’d carried on one side of the road, I walked on the other. I did not do it to gain anything, simply to help. Maybe he could have crawled to his wheelchair eventually, even pulled himself in. He was in the road, cars would have had to drive round him.
And this man said I should not have done it. When I helped him, I was patronising him, and lessening him with my pity. He was an existentialist, he told me. That was not how people should behave to each other.
And I could not persuade him otherwise.
-No. Because he would not be arguing fairly. He would be seeking to win the argument, not caring about the truth or respect for you. He’s not an existentialist, he is a murderer. Lots of teenagers love caMoo and don’t murder their fathers. He is rationalising. He has done this thing, and he needs to live with himself. He has a Philosophy of Life!
-Or- he really does not understand. Any contact between human beings, even one as necessary to the person helped, from someone not seeking any reward, is an attack. All people are, at all times, in a state of nature with one another, without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal, in continual fear and danger of violent death. But he is a Philosopher, forsooth, and other people are fools and dupes. He can survive because the others are less ruthless and clear-sighted than he.
Love the CaMoo 😀 I considered murder a number of times. Suicide too. But I can’t stand a mess; so I always decided against both. Or either.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s been years since I’ve considered suicide. It’s not that I’m especially optimistic about life–I’m just too stubborn. And I try not to beat myself up, e.g., “You should have capitalized ‘Existentialism’ below, Jim” No! Bad thought!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can capitalise it for you if you want. No-one need ever know!
LikeLike
Yes, please! 🙂
LikeLike
I considered whether if a friend really did decide on it, would I offer to dig a hole for the body? His potential victim was an unpleasant man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The paperwork itself is daunting. So I hear.
LikeLike
Nah. Doing life-insurance on them as well is strictly for trashy novels.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was precisely the popular (“leveled” and banal) treatment of “Existentialism” as a movement that caused H. to disavow it.
LikeLike
I confess I have never read Camus. Who is your H? H, here, is Heather, Heather, Heather or Helen.
LikeLike
Heidegger. I began using “H” for him after the publication of his Black Notebooks. Good grief! And yet, after the war his Jewish former student and lover Hannah Arendt always defended him.
LikeLike
He wrote, World Judaism is ungraspable everywhere and doesn’t need to get involved in military action while continuing to unfurl its influence, whereas we are left to sacrifice the best blood of the best of our people. Does that affect the value of the statement Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by “facts,” ie, by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize “facts” never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness. Does quoting the latter empower or encourage anti-Semitism?
LikeLike
I would answer, “Yes.” But he said more: He called Jews “calculating” and “worldless.” H. was radically anti-Cartesian, i.e., according to him, we are not embodied essence beings plopped down into a world, but rather “being-in-the-world.” So, for him to accuse a people of being “worldless” is tantamount to calling them subhuman.
LikeLike
I suspect the philosophy only matters in so far as it validates this man’s world view. The thought of him coming back out into society is frightening.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He might not be physically violent, but still manipulative. But how awful to be he!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect he believes he’s just fine and it’s everyone else who has problems. 😦
LikeLiked by 2 people