podpolia

Just one of a number of interesting articles written to show what reports of D-Day would have looked like had the BBC written as they do now.

…and the conclusion of that story.

Not something you see everyday.

A very informative article about Iraq, Israel, etc.

The more I read about existentialism (I'm currently reading The Existential Imagination which is a collection of stories and pieces of literature that espouse existential beliefs) the more it strikes me as simply an excuse for the existentialist to do essentially whatever they want. I know that this isn't really the intention of the set of ideas that has come to be known as existentialism, but in stating that “Dialogue between a priest and a dying man” by the Marquis de Sade is existentialist the authors have shown what is to me the supreme flaw of existentialism: the ability to simply ignore what one does not like of the world, be it morality or even happiness.
Existentialism recognizes what I believe to be an important part of life: the subjectivity of human experience. Everyone views things through their own subjective lens, which is shaped by the individual mind. However, there is a dangerous tendancy as well to minimize the importance of the objective. Because it is experienced through the subjective mind, many existentialists merely minimize the importance of the objective, ignore it altogether, or most dangerously of all, they subject it to the individual will of the subjective mind. While I agree that it is indeed bad faith to simply blindly accept one's subjective notions as the whole truth, I feel that this dictates that one carefully examine what can be learned of the objective world THROUGH the subjective, rather than accepting the subjective as the whole of existance. To me, this moves dangerously close to solipsism.
I am sure that Sartre or one of his ilk would declare me to be in bad faith for my beliefs in things about which I have no proof. Christianity is soundly rejected by many of the pieces that I have read so far in this book, and even openly scoffed at. I see this as hypocricy from people who claim that the individual notions are the most important part of the world. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the introduction essay about existentialism, but I'm getting more and more of a feeling that a core of good ideas (the analysis of the objective and the subjective, the denial of easy answers and the insistance of examining existance and forming one's own opinions about it) is being distorted by a few into a set of ideas espousing the replacement of a balanced subjective/objective worldview built by careful analysis by the complete dominance of the subjective self. From my point of view (particularly visible in the case of the piece by de Sade) this is merely the subjection of reason and restraint to the sin-nature of humanity.
The pieces (with the possible exception of de Sade) are all very insightful, however. I particularly enjoyed “The Grand Inquisitor” from The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoyevsky, and the short story “Memoirs of a Lunatic” by Tolstoy. To quote part of the end of the latter…
“At that moment the full light of the truth was kindled in me, and I grew into what I am now. If all this horror does not necessarily exist around me, then it certainly does exist within me.”
This is, to me, the proper goal of existentialism: the recognition that existential angst is subjective, and must be overcome. While it may not be overcome completely, and the individual may still be subject to the feeling that existence is absurd, I fully believe that one must do as the title character did in Miguel de Unamuno's “Saint Emmanuel the Good, Martyr” did, and make the irrational leap to belief in something beyond what one can comprehend. Although Father Emmanuel could not believe in God (or, as the narrator suggests, believed that he could not believe in God), it is quite obvious through the story that he had faith nonetheless. His existence was one long 'dark night of the soul,' but the presence of God made itself known through his good deeds and even miracles performed by him. It is quite appropriate that the name Emmanuel means 'God with us,' as God was obviously with him. This story illustrates beautifully (and indeed, it is a beautiful story, much like the piece by Dostoyevsky earlier) that we may have all kinds of hardships in life. What is necessary is the leap into the surreal and the irrational domain of faith. While it is jarring to modern sensibilites to be asked to believe in something without proof, it is through faith that our lives can be made meaningful. The struggle for us, indeed, is to maintain faith, even when we cannot rationally believe. Lazarus illustrates this when he tells his sister how he was indeed praying for the soul of their mother, but that he could not have faith that his prayers did any good. He was bearing the same cross as Father Emmanuel — the inability to believe in one's faith in God — but also made obvious through his actions that such a faith was present in himself as well, at some level. This also shows the limitations of living in existentialist 'good faith,' as Lazarus and Father Emmanuel were unable to subjectively acknowledge what was objectively present — a faith in God that was stronger than that of most everyone around them.
This has rambled on a bit, but writing like this helps me analyze what I'm thinking about as well as telling it to others. I hope I didn't spoil the Father Emmanuel story for anyone who might want to read it, but it and the piece by Dostoyevsky are intensely powerful pieces of literature, and are DEFINITELY reccomended reading. Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky's pieces in this book are illustrative of what I love about Russian literature — the acknowledgement of suffering, the realism and despair of the suffering within the characters, and the amazing and overwhelming love that flows from the characters when they have overcome their suffering.

This is an interesting article. I knew I wasn't the only one, and it's nice to know that conservative punks are standing up for themselves. The image evoked in the last two paragraphs in particular amuse me a great deal, and I may have to work on photoshopping a picture or two…

…and both candidates look like cartoon characters.

An interesting article about the Catholic communion/politician controversy, that largely sums up my views on the matter. But written a lot more coherently than I usually do.

This amuses me. If this was caught on film (and the media actually decides to air it, unlike what they did with Kerry's earlier comments on Bush's fall from his bike) then this might sway some people. It's really amazing that somebody who can exhibit that little control while being heckled made it to be a Senator. And if he keeps up with the stupid PR moves, and the media finally airs one, it could be the equivalent of Dukakis' tank.