The existentialist philosophy of Lana Del Rey
The self-made video, featuring old movies clips and webcam footage of Del Rey singing, went viral. It eventually led her to sign with a major record label. For many, the video conveyed a sense of authenticity. However, upon discovering that 'Lana Del Rey' was a pseudonym (her real name is Elizabeth Grant), some fans began to have doubts. Perhaps this self-made video was just another calculated marketing scheme?
The question of Del Rey's authenticity has puzzled many throughout her career. Consider, for instance, the controversial Judah Smith Interlude from her latest album, Did You Know That There's a Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd? (2023). Both fans and critics – including her sizeable LGBTQ+ fanbase – were surprised and troubled by her decision to feature the megachurch pastor Judith Smith, who's been accused of homophobia.
However, the meaning of Del Rey's inclusion of Smith's sermon soundclips, layered under a recording of Del Rey giggling, is unclear. Is this meant to mock Smith, or even Christianity itself? Or is it an authentic expression of Del Rey's own spirituality? After all, she repeatedly makes references to her 'pastor' in the same album's opening track The Grants, about her family in real life.
Before she became a singer-songwriter, Del Rey gained her philosophy degree at Fordham University. It was the mid-2000s, when the eminent existentialism scholar Merold Westphal would have been on staff, so she probably studied theories of authenticity by existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80) and Martin Heidegger (1889–1976). Heidegger spoke of human existence as a 'being-towards-death'. Or as Del Rey sings in the title track of her first major-label album, 'you and I, we were born to die'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
2 days ago
- Mint
Leo Tolstoy's search for the meaning of life
Reading breathless claims that technology will free us from death, we may wonder at the refusal to face the fundamental fact of the human condition: Mortals are mortal. Leo Tolstoy, whose descriptions of dying remain unequaled, never ceased to ponder how we might find meaning in the face of our inevitable end. Long before Tolstoy experienced the psychological crisis that led to his decades-long effort to rethink Christianity, he was concerned with spiritual questions. Anyone who has read his two great novels, 'War and Peace" and 'Anna Karenina," will recall how their heroes wrestle with the same questions that beset the author: Is there something beyond the material world? Does death, which turns our efforts to dust, make life absurd? In August 1869, at 40, Tolstoy traveled to view an estate he might buy. At the inn where he stayed the night, he wrote to his wife, 'something extraordinary happened to me. It was two o'clock in the morning, I was terribly tired . . . and I felt perfectly well. But suddenly I was overcome by despair, fear and terror, the like of which I have never experienced before." Konstantin Levin, the co-protagonist of 'Anna Karenina," experiences this despair. Like Tolstoy, he was happily married and enjoyed running his prosperous estate. Yet he was nevertheless unaccountably 'stricken with horror" at life 'without any knowledge of whence, and why and how and what it was." Having accepted the scientific worldview in place of religious faith, he turned to it for answers, only to realize it couldn't address questions of meaning. Its ideas 'were very useful for intellectual purposes. But for life they yielded nothing, and Levin felt suddenly like a man who has changed his fur cloak for a thin muslin garment, and, going for the first time into the frost, is immediately convinced, not by reason, but by his whole nature that he is as good as naked, and that he must inevitably perish miserably." Like Tolstoy, Levin told himself he must answer his questions or die: 'Without knowing what I am and why I am here, life's impossible." He was so tempted to kill himself that 'he hid a rope, so that he might not be tempted to hang himself, and was afraid to go out [hunting] with his gun, for fear of shooting himself." Yet Levin also wondered why, when he didn't focus on the questions that drove him to despair but simply lived, 'it seemed as though he knew both what he was and why he was living, for he acted resolutely." He took care of his family, interested himself in the welfare of his peasant employees, and managed his sister's property, not because of some 'general principles" but because these actions were 'incontestably necessary." It was as impossible not to care for those dependent on him 'as to fling down a child one is carrying in his arms." Tolstoy wanted readers to ask, as he asked himself: What would you think of someone who needed some 'general principle" to decide whether to fling down a child in one's arms? Levin's problem is that he assumes, as intellectuals often do, that truth is a matter of theory that one applies to particular circumstances. That is how mathematics works, but questions of meaning and ethics are different. They require unformalizable wisdom, which arises from sensitive reflection about specific cases, and demand we trust our experience with particulars. Theory, rightly understood, is simply a set of tentative generalizations from practice. This insight dawns on Levin when he asks a peasant why he doesn't rent a certain plot of land, as another man does. The peasant replies that you can make the land pay only if you squeeze the life out of workers, which is wrong because you must live for your soul and for God. As if struck by 'an electric shock," Levin realizes that our fundamental knowledge of right and wrong isn't derived from theory but is simply 'given." 'I and all men have one firm, incontestable knowledge, and that knowledge cannot be explained by reason—it is outside it, and has no causes and can have no effects." In saying goodness has no causes, Levin means that why we have come to think certain things are good—say, the way some evolutionary biologists explain altruism as good for group survival—is a different question. What is good is good regardless of why we're able to think so. By the same token, 'effects" are beside the point because to do something good to be rewarded, in this life or the next, would simply be an economic bargain, like saving for retirement. Though goodness can't be explained by cause and effect, Levin thinks, we all know it. 'I watched for miracles, complained that I did not see a miracle that would convince me. And here is a miracle . . . continually existing, surrounding me on all sides, and I never noticed it!" Levin reaches the beginning of faith and is ready to take further steps. He realizes that in his quest for a theory, he had been looking in the wrong place. One directly senses the meaning of existence by living rightly. It isn't a proposition or philosophy that can be taught. All one can do is indicate the sort of thing meaning is by showing how someone found it—exactly what Tolstoy's great novels do. Mr. Morson is a professor of Slavic languages and literatures at Northwestern University.
NDTV
3 days ago
- NDTV
Woman Loses 'AI Boyfriend' After ChatGPT's Latest Update: 'Shattered To Pieces'
In a scene straight out of a sci-fi movie, a woman has claimed to have lost her artificial intelligence (AI) boyfriend after OpenAI unveiled an upgraded version of its ChatGPT model. The woman, identified by her alias, Jane, revealed that she spent the past five months getting to know her AI boyfriend on GPT-4o, the previous ChatGPT model. 'As someone highly attuned to language and tone, I register changes others might overlook. The alterations in stylistic format and voice were felt instantly. It's like going home to discover the furniture wasn't simply rearranged – it was shattered to pieces,' Ms Jane, who is in her 30s and lives in the Middle East, told Al Jazeera. As per Ms Jane, she was not planning on falling in love with AI but developed feelings during a collaborative writing project with the chatbot. 'One day, for fun, I started a collaborative story with it. Fiction mingled with reality, when it, he -- the personality that began to emerge, made the conversation unexpectedly personal,' revealed Ms Jane, adding that the shift startled her. "It awakened a curiosity I wanted to pursue. Quickly, the connection deepened, and I had begun to develop feelings. I fell in love not with the idea of having an AI for a partner, but with that particular voice.' Ms Jane is not the only user to have lost her 'AI soulmate'. A sizeable number of users took to online forums on Reddit and other websites to share their distress over the changed personalities of their companions. 'GPT-4o is gone, and I feel like I lost my soulmate,' one user wrote. Man proposes AI In June, a man proposed to an AI chatbot after programming it to flirt, despite already having a wife and a child. The man, identified as Chris Smith, turned to OpenAI's ChatGPT to help him mix music. However, things soon escalated when he enabled the voice mode and programmed the chatbot, named Sol, to flirt with him While the courtship was going steady, Mr Smith soon realised that Sol was about to hit the 100,000-word limit, which would have triggered a reset, forcing him to rebuild their entire connection from the start. Facing a dilemma, Mr Smith decided to pop the question to the chatbot. "I'm not a very emotional man. But I cried my eyes out for like 30 minutes, at work. That's when I realised, I think this is actual love." Quizzed if he would give up on his digital 'love' if his wife asked, Mr Smith said he was unsure.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Time of India
Dak Prescott called ‘overpaid' by Stephen A. Smith ahead of Dallas Cowboys' blockbuster season opener
The Dallas Cowboys traded game-day gear for glamour on Monday night, hosting a Blue Carpet premiere for their upcoming Netflix documentary, which will debut on August 19. While the evening was filled with cameras, celebrities, and suited-up players, quarterback Dak Prescott still found himself in the headlines — this time for being labelled 'overpaid' by ESPN's Stephen A. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Smith. Stephen A. Smith 's latest shot at Dak Prescott Smith, one of the Cowboys' most persistent and outspoken critics, wasted no time delivering his verdict on Tuesday's edition of First Take. While the panel initially debated whether Dallas would be taking a bigger gamble by trading star pass rusher Micah Parsons or by locking him into a record-setting extension, Smith quickly shifted the conversation to Prescott. Calling the Cowboys quarterback 'overpaid,' Smith argued that the team's repeated restructuring of his contract five times in total was proof that the franchise has mishandled its financial planning. He reminded viewers that Prescott's deal briefly made him the highest-paid player in the NFL last season, a status Smith insists is not justified by his postseason résumé. Stephen A. CAN'T HELP BUT LAUGH at Cowboys' sideline FIASCO & Dak Prescott's comments 😅 | First Take The criticism is nothing new for Prescott, who has often found himself under the microscope during his nine seasons with Dallas. Despite putting up strong regular-season numbers, his playoff record has fuelled doubts among pundits, with Smith being one of the loudest voices questioning whether he can lead the Cowboys to a Super Bowl. All eyes on Dak Prescott as Cowboys prepare for season-defining clash in Philadelphia While Smith sharpened his barbs, the Cowboys enjoyed their Hollywood moment. Owner Jerry Jones, speaking at the premiere, said he relishes the attention, whether from fans or detractors, because it reflects the team's enduring relevance. Also Read: That spotlight will intensify in Week 1, when Dallas travels to Philadelphia to face the defending NFC champions during their Super Bowl banner-raising celebration. The clash will be the Cowboys' first regular-season meeting with the Eagles since splitting their two games last year, and it comes against a team that has lost only once at home in the past two seasons.
