Existentialism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Existentialism » Existentialism

Existentialism
its realy hard to find a good definition.

Existentialism

alliop
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 37

Posted 05/10/08 - 06:30 PM: Subject: Existentialism	#1
So what exactly is existentialism? I have heard so many diferent definitions of existentialism but they all seeem to conflict or are extrememly vague. I have a pretty good understanding of most other isms but existentialism just seems to elude me.

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 315

Posted 05/11/08 - 12:07 AM:	#2
Existentialism makes five distinct claims, all of them untenable and philosophical obscurantism at its best: 1 - Existentialism asserts that man as a conscious being finds himself in a pre-existing world with its own reality and history, and that man cannot think that world away. Essentially, its saying that what a person thinks isnt reality, the world itself is reality. Intellectual response - If man's ultimate reality was the same world we all inhabit, then all our subjective experiences would be the same, creating an objective view from the collective mankind. however, as these poncy philosophers fail to realise, the human race's prowess at deluding itself is second to none. No two subjective experiences are ever the same, and as such, each individuals world; their reality, is different. In essence, there are seven billion different realities out there, and as such there does not exist one over-riding world reality. If it was the case that all mankind saw the same world, subjectivity would give way to objectivity. However, humans are subjective creatures by their very nature. People can tell themselves all kinds of wonderful things. They can tell themselves that existentialism is the best way of thinking despite its obvious flaws; they can tell themselves that AFL is a good sport; they can even tell themselves that Shatner isn’t a fantastic singer. Thankfully, seven billion different realities helps keep the world interesting. If we were all as boring as our friend Sartre, well….we would…all be…you know…boring. There may, may, be an objective truth out there, but we will never reach it. Real World response - BS 2 – Sartrean existentialism holds that God does not exist. He says that without God, there is no higher power to define man. Intellectual response – My first response is to say to existentialists – prove to me that God does not exitst. To which they typically reply “prove to me that god does exist” (so cunning, these existentialists aren’t they?). To which my point then becomes, as belief in God is a matter of faith, and disbelief in God is usually a matter of a lack of scientific proof, it essentially becomes faith vs. science. Faith doesn’t require proof, whereas that’s all science is. So, we are back to - prove to me that God doesn’t exist. What’s that? You can’t? Ah, seems I win again. In addition, why does man need to define himself by a higher power? I define man by man, doesn’t mean there is no God. True, people tend to define themselves by the deity they follow, but it doesn’t follow that they must define themselves by that. Real World response – BS 3 – Existence precedes essence. Basically, man exists without purpose, is born and defines the meaning of his existence. Intellectual response – Perhaps so, but it is the height of existential arrogance to believe that just because they aren’t smart enough to work out the grand plan, does not mean that there is no plan, it just means they aren’t bright enough to work it out. It must drive existentialists mad, seeing all these people who believe in a big plan with no proof whatsoever, and not getting it themselves. That’s right, I’m saying that religion is over the heads of existentialists. Real World response – BS 4 – Values are subjective. There are no objective standards upon which to base values. Intellectual response – Contrary to popular belief, there are such things as good and evil, right and wrong. True, there are subjective elements to value systems in that each person decides for themselves what they want to believe and adhere to (yes you existential tools, even those who believe in a God decide for themselves what moral code they want to live by). Despite this, there is a universal set of right and wrong behaviours. An objective universal code. One would find it hard to justify the position that rape isn’t wrong. Mankind insists on questioning everything, which is fair enough, but there are universal wrongs, and the kind of pointless dithering existentialism stands for only serves to increase doubt about was is right, and what is wrong. And if one is talking about values in terms of goods and so forth that people value, well, then I would also argue that items such as food and water are objectively valued by all mankind. Real World response – Who cares? 5 – Responsibility for choices. Every person is responsible for the decisions they make, regardless of the consequences. Intellectual response – Again, typical existential arrogance. They really think we need them to tell us we are responsible for our own actions? Hell, even the oft touted example from these people, that people who believe in religion aren’t responsible for their own actions because of their belief in a higher power is bullshit. Just because one believes in a higher power, it does not mean that people are no longer responsible for their own actions. I mean just read a few chapters of the old testament of the bible if you really require proof of that, Genesis for example, with Sodom and Gomorrah being burnt to the ground. They did the deeds, they suffered the consequences. They were responsible. Edited by The_Rational_Animal on 05/11/08 - 12:15 AM
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3722

Posted 05/11/08 - 12:47 AM:	#3
'Existentialism' in a sentence: there is no (abstract, a priori) 'meaning' 'value' or 'purpose' that can be found in the world, only in the consequences of each individual's (concrete, a posteriori) commitments and/or free, creative acts.
If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

daftninja
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 15, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/15/08 - 01:00 PM: Subject: wow The_Rational_Animal	#4
First of all you seem to conflate all existentialism with Sartre, who was an atheist. This may surprise you but Sartre did little more than mix a simplification (and all but devastated) of Heidegger's Being and Time with items of his own agenda. As we so often find it is not the originators who come to exemplify, but those who popularize. Existentialism begins with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Kierkegaard was EXTREMELY RELIGIOUS, in fact almost all his writing is religious. His motivation was the LACK OF FAITH in so many who claimed to believe. You might try reading Fear and Trembling it is a wonderful introduction to existential themes. However, existentialism comes into its own with Heidegger. For Heidegger Being is an issue. He points out that thou we always suppose we know what is meant by being, we do not. Raising anew the question of the meaning of being, is both the subject of his opus Being and Time and the simplest explanation for onticly 'what' existentialism is. Imagine language without is. - fullzero daftninja.com

Rakitin
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 05/16/08 - 04:20 PM:	#5
RA's claims of existentialism are mostly correct; his editorials on them mostly unnecessary. In addition to Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky's writings are existential in nature and they, especially "The Brothers Karamazov", have a strong religious bent. edit: Speaking of Dostoyevsky, Hubert Dreyfus podcast one of his classes at Berkley called "Existentialism in Literature and Film" that will give you a good understanding of what existentialism is. Find it at http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?se... Edited by Rakitin on 05/17/08 - 05:26 PM. Reason: additional information

hurtle
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/19/08 - 05:36 PM:	#6
Simply stated, existentialism is the broad categorization for a group of writings and other creative arts which attempt to give primacy to the experiential aspects of existence over the systemizations which occur when we generalize that experience through abstract thought. So in an existentialist philosophy, you would be always attempting to draw attention to the act of 'philosophizing' itself as an activity which cannot be separated from the existential condition of the philosopher who is doing the philosophizing--in this sense, Existentialism is the harbinger of Post-modern strategies which seek to foreground the authorial role of the reader or viewer. This is most clearly seen in the work of Kierkegaard in his Pseudonymous writings, where he establishes the co-existence of several characters who engage in a complex demonstration of different philosophical points of view. By doing this he establishes a space between the texts, in which the reader is created as the author of the experience--the true reader existing between the gaps so to speak. But the use of strategies like this, as well as fiction, irony, parable, diary and letters, is only one aspect of a broader desire by existentialists to make us question the assumption that the categories upon which western societies have been established lie outside of the relative experience of those societies. That is, our notions of good and evil and right and wrong are not immutable and eternal platonic forms which preceded existence, but are in fact, contingent upon that existence. This answers to Kierkegaard's argument against Hegel's dialectic in favor of the notion of repetition--which is in fact quite close in some regards to Nietzsche's notion of eternal return, both of which seek to persuade us that existence precedes essence, which Sartre would later claim as his own idea. Of course, this is an embarrassingly inadequate rundown on a complex set of ideas. But should indicate the decisive and long reaching impact that this loosely defined group of works has had on 20th century society and culture--in spite of what the guardians of 'proper philosophy say!

hurtle
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/19/08 - 10:01 PM:	#7
Rakitin is right, Hubert Dreyfus is a good place to go to find out more about existentialism and phenomenology. I am particularly interested in Kierkegaard's notion of the eternal, and how this relates to his four spheres of existence. I know that in Religious B a 'turn' occurs wherein the eternal is made 'existential'--sort of like an inverted transcendence. But I would be interested to find out more about this from anyone who knows. Cheers

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 160

Posted 05/19/08 - 10:06 PM:	#8
Intellectual response – My first response is to say to existentialists – prove to me that God does not exitst. To which they typically reply “prove to me that god does exist” (so cunning, these existentialists aren’t they?). To which my point then becomes, as belief in God is a matter of faith, and disbelief in God is usually a matter of a lack of scientific proof, it essentially becomes faith vs. science. Faith doesn’t require proof, whereas that’s all science is. So, we are back to - prove to me that God doesn’t exist. What’s that? You can’t? Ah, seems I win again. Win what? All you've shown is that the nonexistence of God cannot be proved, which is to be expected, since a priori reasoning cannot prove the nonexistence of anything that doesn't have contradictory properties. I can't prove the nonexistence of a secret race of evil unicorns who are, as I type, plotting the destruction of humanity, but I'm still not going to write my congressman about it.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.