• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Closereads
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Closereads
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Episode 140: Beauvoir on the Ambiguous Human Condition

May 30, 2016 by Mark Linsenmayer 12 Comments

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/partiallyexaminedlife/PEL_ep_140_5-10-16.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:08:54 — 118.1MB)

Simone de BeauvoirOn Simone De Beauvoir's The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947), parts I and II. For Wes Alwan's summary of this book, go here.

We return to existentialism! Instead of describing our predicament as "absurd," de Beauvoir prefers "ambiguous": We are a biological organism in the world, yet we're also free consciousness transcending the given situation. Truly coming to terms with this freedom means not only understanding that you transcend any label of character ("villain") or role ("doctor") that you or anyone else has put on you, but also recognizing that your freedom requires the freedom of others.

And this is the challenge of her book: In an existentialist world view that denies pre-existing moral laws, whether given by God or Reason or anything else, how can ethics be possible? Wouldn't it just be all subjective, or relative, if, as Nietzsche says, we are the ones who create values? What prevents an existentialist from being a self-consistent monster à la the antagonist of Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men?

The key is recognizing and preserving this human ambiguity. We are things in the world, yet qua consciousness, we're really a hole in the world, a little pit of desire, an unpredictable action behind a pair of eyes, and to embrace our negativity means recognizing not only that no external, alien moral law causes or commands our behavior, but also willing that being exist, i.e., the being of the things we desire, the projects we want to enact in the world, and the happiness of other people and improvement of the world. Self-consistently embracing our free nature therefore means willing the good, and this willing is an act of creation much like creation of an artwork.

Mark, Wes, Seth, and Dylan are all on board this time to fill out this picture and try to figure out whether de Beauvoir is right that not only does this existentialist picture support ethics, but in fact it's the only way to support ethics: a pre-existent, objective standard would not allow us the freedom to actually choose the good. Think about how, for Plato, we never knowingly choose evil; we always want what we think is good but sometimes are just mistaken. De Beauvoir, like Augustine, thinks that we really can perversely choose to deny our nature, deny our freedom (though that denial remains a free choice), where pretending like Aristotle and (in a different way) most theologians that we have a built-in teleological "good" that by our nature we were meant to pursue is just another way of actually denying our total freedom.

Recommended prerequisites: De Beauvoir's book is a great introduction to existentialism, if you haven't read any, and our discussion should be mostly clear, but it may help you especially to listen to our ep. 10 on Kant's ethics, which also argues for the "self-legislation" of ethics. Other touchstones are Nietzsche (most centrally ep. 84), Camus (ep. 4), and especially Sartre (ep. 87). We also bring up Augustine (eps. 121 and 122), Eva Brann's take on Nietzsche (ep. 120), and stoicism (ep. 124).

End song: "Reasonably Lonely," by Mark Lint & the Simulacra from The Sinking and the Aftermath, recorded in 2000 and 2003, newly mixed.

De Beauvoir image by Corey Mohler.

Please support PEL!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Podcast Episodes Tagged With: existentialism, freedom, meta-ethics, philosophy podcast, Simone de Beauvoir

Comments

  1. dmf says

    May 30, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    ambiguity in this case is a denial/rejection of hegelian dialectics.
    Zizek interestingly reads lacanian lack into Hegel and so is working against folks like the Pittsburgh hegelians, one can see this in his recent remarks against changes in bathroom policies where he supports the rights of people to use whatever bathroom they desire but rejects any sense that matters like sexuality/gender/etc can be settled (as normal, healthy, human-rights, or the like) for individuals or societies, that they are fundamentally ambiguous.
    Do we think that in some sense SDB was pushing an existentialism as humanism as Heidegger diagnosed in Sartre?

    Reply
  2. Wayne Schroeder says

    May 31, 2016 at 7:45 pm

    The PEL bros continue in their excellent abilities to examine philosophers, not as Gods to be deified, but as thinkers to be respected, and to be appropriately disrespected/critiqued for their deficits and excesses, a great formula for the quizzical world of philosophy.

    Their skills are again demonstrated tackling Simon De Beauvoir and her well kept mister, Sartre. They have pulled us through the knot-hole of Nietzsche, given us reflections of the Heraclitian Eva Braun and her negative interpretation of Nietzsche, and here remind us that existentialism is the various attempts to explicate Nietzsche. They have reminded us of Husserl and his phenomenological excess of the ideal, of Heidegger and his insistence on Being, of Hegel and his insistence on the ideal and the other. We see the themes being worked out with these philosophers of subject/object, self/other, transcendent (ideal)/empirical(material) and come to the existential emphasis by De Beauvoir on ambiguity, backed up by Sartre’s emphasis on responsibility, appealing to disclosure of being and asking, how can an ethic be grounded? How can an objective standard be brought to an existential table which rejects an apriori essence?

    This is where it becomes instructive to see how postmodern deconstructive forces have come to play an ongoing force in philosophy. Derrida’s claim to fame is not to have provided any essence to his approach, but deconstruction itself (at least in the early Derrida). He never intended to write about anything, but always only responded to what needed deconstruction, to capture the object/subject, self/other, transcendent (ideal)/empirical (material) opposites/paradoxes that were being left out, and to basically deconstruct the possibility of knowing the thing in itself such as justice, freedom, what have you–always respecting our limits of knowing, and like Socrates, knowing what one does not know as a basis for wisdom.

    Nevertheless, does uncertainty simply mean relativism? If not, how not? The value of philosophy De Beauvoir expresses is the problems that become raised, and that those problems become place-holders of where to focus our attention. These are positive values for philosophy. Not quite so helpful is her stepping into paradoxes and claiming a kind of universality for Freedom, rather than approaching it as a multiplicity with acts of singularity (thus the Sunday School teacher quality of trying to convert people, in this case to responsibility for Freedom–an oxymoron), of stepping beyond the limits of the subjective and claiming and objective grounding of the concept of Freedom, of giving transcendent (ideal) meaning to Freedom and essentially violating the existential premise not to collapse the ambiguity between the ideal and the empirical in favor of a new Ideal, a new beast slouching toward Bethlehem.

    She also focuses on lack, which has reverberations via Lacan as noted above, and desire which is vastly expanded by Deleuze. Thinking of lack and desire as place holders for a focus on value does seem to be the way through these concepts. As Eva Brauns’ unnecessarily negative interpretation of Nietzsche’s will to power, we can sidestep any negativity of lack or nothingness in SDB as PEL does.

    What gets confusing in philosophy is when psychological constructs enter the picture, raising the spectre of subjectivity. But this is exactly what Nietzsche did in defining value as perspectivial (relative, but not arbitrary), perspectival to the (here comes the psychological counfounding of philosophy) drives we are consciously and unconsciously subject to (the ambiguity of free-will versus determinism psychologically and thus affecting the will).

    What awaits is the process of replacing the universal with multiplicity, the individual with singularity, and being with becoming.

    Reply
  3. Pancho Mulongeni says

    June 4, 2016 at 6:30 am

    I am privileged to have heard this! Now I am so drawn to it, Freedom as the ultimate end. To have the freedom to create your own lack, which is the basis of your ethics. How do I work it into my Catholicism though? That’s a joke

    Thanks again, you reconnect me to late philosopher grandfather, who did ethics in Bulgaria (Pancho Danev)

    Reply
  4. Michael Oxenrider says

    June 4, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    I don’t know if anyone’s seen this, but here’s someone’s Prezi that really clarifies things. She goes into the different stages of awareness and groups everything really nicely.

    https://prezi.com/m/mjd7v3ezx8nf/simone-de-beauvoir-ethics-of-ambiguity/

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Episode 140: De Beauvoir on the Ambiguous Human Condition (Part Two) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 6, 2016 at 7:00 am

    […] to part 1 before this, or get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen edition with your PEL Citizenship. Please support […]

    Reply
  2. Beauvoir, Freedom, and Feminism | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 6, 2016 at 7:30 am

    […] existentialist foundation for her views on women, and we’ve started exploring that in our recent episode on  Beauvoir’s The Ethics of Ambiguity. Her take on the human condition, the tension between our […]

    Reply
  3. Episode 141: De Beauvoir’s Existentialism: Moral and Political Dilemmas (Part One) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 13, 2016 at 7:01 am

    […] ep. 140, we described De B's picture of our "ambiguous" existential situation and how proper recognition of […]

    Reply
  4. Episode 141: De Beauvoir’s Existentialism: Moral and Political Dilemmas (Part Two) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 20, 2016 at 7:00 am

    […] existentialism? Come join us on the Sun. 6/26 Aftershow at 5pm ET (covering our discussion back to ep. 140) to tell us what you think. This requires signing up to be PEL Citizen, which in turn gives you […]

    Reply
  5. Episode 145: Emmanuel Levinas: Why Be Ethical? (Part One) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    September 4, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    […] with the account of Levinas's contemporary Simone de Beauvoir, whose ethics we just covered in episode 140. She was arguing (in a Kantian sort of way) that ethics is contemporaneous with willing, which is […]

    Reply
  6. Episode 160: Orwell on Totalitarianism and Language (Part One) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    March 13, 2017 at 7:00 am

    […] which should really be called factionalism, which involves putting all your efforts (à la Beauvoir's "serious man") in the service of country or party or […]

    Reply
  7. Existentialism: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes - The Daily Idea says:
    October 31, 2019 at 1:50 pm

    […] Beauvoir on the Ambiguous Human Condition […]

    Reply
  8. PvI#36: Authentic Snake Oil w/ Skye Cleary says:
    August 12, 2022 at 8:44 am

    […] For more on this ladder of authenticity, i.e. Beauvoir’s take on ways of lacking, see PEL’s episodes on her Ethics of Ambiguity. […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 325: Paul Grice on Meaning and Conversation (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Shep Solimine on Ep. 325: Paul Grice on Meaning and Conversation (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Jonathan Wood on Closereads: Emerson’s Oversoul (Part One for PEL Supporters)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 232: Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex” (Part One)
  • carolyn carew on Ep. 232: Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex” (Part One)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

PEL Citizens have access to all podcast episodes, free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Closereads
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in