Interest Value

Philosophy 138a, "European Existentialism," by its very nature, seems destined to attract a certain number of mid-morning auditors, dilettantes, and "fourth course" seekers. But if Emerson D were entirely filled by curious, rather than "serious" philosophy students, it would not daunt Professor William Earle.

"Students are more interested in this than in Hume," says Professor Earle. "Sartre is not a great classical philosopher, but he is interesting. And if philosophy isn't interesting, it is a burden."

One of the few Americans who could be called an "authority" on existentialism, Professor Earle is visiting from Northwestern during the fall term, after which he will have a year's leave of absence to write a book. A medium-sized, broad-shouldered Midwesterner, he is characterized by horn-rimmed glasses and an intense gaze and manner.

"What attracts me to existentialism is that it is a philosophy of human life, whereas a lot of modern philosophy doesn't have anything to do with anything anybody is interested in. There are uncountable 'problems' in philosophy, but some questions we don't care to know the answer to. Everybody is just about fed up with the traditional problems brought up by Hume, for instance."

Earle's scholarly interest in existentialism took form in 1947, when he spent a year studying under Gaston Berger, a leading European phenomenologist. Existentialism was "very much in the air" in Europe at that time, and Earle went on to receive his degree from the University of Aix-Marseilles in 1948. Before going to France, he studied at the University of Chicago. "I studied in the classical tradition," he comments. "Chicago is a fine place for that sort of scholarship, but it does not have a very creative atmosphere."

"The reason I have chosen existentialist writers is not because of the conclusions they have reached," Earle says. "They aren't important. It's not a religion you have to believe in. My feeling is you must be disciplined in classical philosophy--but that it's the existentialists who have hit on interesting content."

Professor Earle's published work deals mainly with the problem of scientific detachment. Terming his writing "phenomenological" rather than "existential," he has written a critique of Karl Jaspers and an article, "The Standard Observer in the Sciences of Man," which seeks to eliminate the ideal of a strict science of human phenomena.

"One reason existentialists are professionally disliked is that they tend to use literary forms and even slang," Earle says. "But one of the things modern philosophy is discovering is that ordinary language is really the most sensitive.

"A poet is not just a vague philosopher," he added. "Here the existentialists join up with the modern movement to analyze language."

Since existentialism includes a large number of literary and semi-literary works, the question arises as to what literature is "existential" and what is not. Professor Earle regards Sartre's literary work as "realist" rather than existential. "For my money," he said, "Samuel Beckett is doing the most authentic existentialist writing.

"There seems to be very little talent among what 'Beat Generation' writers I have read. One likes to keep one's mind open to fresh talent, but these people think they are artists just by screaming. You can't really 'howl' unless you're a disciplined artist.

"I think a lot of people don't like existentialism because they're leery of Sartre," he noted. "When he says 'Man is a futile passion,' they conclude that all existentialism is negative. Actually this is mainly Sartre's temperament--he has a taste for the morbid.

"But all of these writers are interested in the disintegration of life only because you can achieve a certain kind of lucidity when you are 'cracking up.' They aren't out to promote crack-ups, however."

Earle mentioned the growth of courses in existentialism in other American universities. Yale and Michigan, in addition to his own Northwestern, have added it to their curricula. "It's penetrating, because students are interested in it," he explained. "No doubt Sartre will be stale also in a hundred years or so, but he is very provocative now.

"This question of truth being necessarily fascinating once provoked me into writing an article called "The Interest Theory of Truth." But the article was so dull it refuted itself. Still, it is something to ponder--don't you think?"