alexist

The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately, in the sense of taking responsibility for who you are, and the ability to make something of yourself. And feeling good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair, but I think the truth is just the opposite. Sartre, once interviewed, said he never really felt a day of despair in his life. But one thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as a real kind of exuberance, a feeling on top of it. It's like your life is yours to create.

I've read the postmodernists with some interest, even admiration, but when I read them I always have this awful nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more that you talk about a person as a social construction, or as a confluence of forces, or as fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. And when Sartre talks about responsibility, he's not talking about something abstract. He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about. It's something very concrete, like you and me talking, making decisions, doing things and taking the consequences.

It might be true that there are six billion people in the world and counting; nevertheless, what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference first of all in material terms, it makes a difference to other people, and it sets an example. In short, I think the message here is that we should never simply write ourselves off and see ourselves as the victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are.

--Waking Life

(Pedantry alert!)

"And so much of our experience is intangible. So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's unspeakable."

Argh! NO!!! The Concise Oxford may list meaning 1 of unspeakable as "that cannot be expressed in words", but its normal usage in modern English carries a specific connotation--that it can't be spoken of because it's offensive, not that the concept or is inherently inexpressible. That's the appropriate word; unfortunately, Linklater (presumably) wanted to avoid duplication. But what he did was destroy the idea he was trying to communicate. (Ironic, isn't it?) A better, more precise line might have been:

"So much of what we perceive cannot be articulated. It's inexpressible."

Unfortunately, this reverses the thought: The first half deals with speech specifically, the second with expression in general. Unfortunately, "inarticulable" isn't a word (or at least isn't one in common usage).

(Pedantic confession: Listening to "No Myth" yesterday, my brain wanted to reshuffle "someone to dance with" to "someone with whom to dance".)

just finished We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families, by Philip Gourevitch. I recommend it highly:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312243359/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0330371215/