The basic premise of existentialism is false: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The basic premise of existentialism is false » The basic premise of existentialism is false

The basic premise of existentialism is false

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

The basic premise of existentialism is false

springmo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 49

Posted 08/05/08 - 12:41 AM:	#51
It goes to show you that Heidegger was more interested in the idea of wasting time than about love. Although that's not necessarily a bad thing because in some of his letters he said some pretty pseudo-profound things to lovers like "I want you to exist." On the other hand I've found that Being and Time has some insight into managing one's time, something that I perhaps need more help with than love

Crow
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Maine, USA
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 08/05/08 - 04:46 PM:	#52
I have limited knowledge of Heidegger, so I stand corrected if I have misrepresented his views. From what I recall, he didn't hold that 'being' was problematic, but it was the 'saying of being' that was problematic. So he deviated from traditional philosophical expression in search of an adequate 'saying', a concern which has been influential to current post-modern philosophies. He also believed that ancient Greek philosophy was a Golden Era which he endeavored to restore to these modern times. These beliefs and concerns of Heidegger's are not my beliefs and concerns, so I have been little motivated to do further reading of Heidegger. But I am interested in the notion of 'being', how it has arisen as a human concept, and to what extent the term 'being' represents anything beyond the subjective experience of humans. Quantum physics represents the elements of reality as superpositions, as fields of probability. They are not specific being, but they are also not just nothing. To refer to these probability fields as having 'being' or 'nonbeing' is just not appropriate. A saying in quantum physics is: Reality is not only stranger than you think, it is stranger than you can think. Whether something exists or not was probably useful information for our ancient ancestors. It made a difference whether or not they would have food that evening. To elevate this merely pragmatic usage to something more primary, as something essential in human existence that needs special attention, is not a given. The question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" seems to make sense within the limited context of human subjectivity. But it makes no sense beyond that limited sphere because the constituents of reality cannot be categorized as 'somethings' or 'nothings'. Also, human subjectivity is derived from and is an aspect of that larger reality. So to what extent is 'being' an important aspect to explore? It is only important if you consider it as 'Being' (capital 'B'), as a primal aspect of this reality in which human subjects make their home.
The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know.

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 589

Posted 08/10/08 - 11:44 AM:	#53
Existentialism, Nihilism, what's the difference? Oh, yeah, lots. My bad on the other post I presented; it was an attack on nihilism, not existentialism. This thread is about Existentialism. The Crowness wrote: "Existence precedes essence" is the basic premise of existentialism, and it is false. It follows that existentialism cannot be considered to be a completely valid philosophy. There are two types of existentialism: Christian theistic existentialism and atheistic existentialism. I think theistic existentialism also has definite problems regarding its validity, but I will be discussing only atheistic existentialism in this post. I'm not sure as to the differences therein these two. Doesn't existentialism basically entail that God or Perfection is illusionary? That existence precedes essence? But in atheistic existentialism, there is no God to have a concept of human essence prior to human existence. A human being comes into existence without predetermined essence, so the person has the full responsibility and freedom to be the creator of his own essence. Free Will for all? We are not born Pizza delivery men... It may well be true that humans are not created by a God who has a preconceived notion of human essence. But it does not follow that humans must then come into existence without any essence at all. Perhaps there is another way a person could come into this world possessing an essential human nature not involving a previous conception by a designer/creator. In fact, Darwin and the string of evolutionary biologists that followed him have shown that descent with modification subject to natural selection does result in characteristics which constitute a human nature. Maybe you could expand on this a bit... I'm lost. What experiments? A human being does not come into this world as a nothingness with total freedom to create himself any which way. True, but he isn't preconceived in essence entirely at birth; existentialists say what happens after birth is more prevalent to what happens before [existence precedes essence; not, there is no essence]. Yet Sartre writes, "What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it." Well, I dunno about there not being a human nature; it's sort of a loose term; let's ditch it for now. I think the issue here is dealing in absolutes. We, as modern peeps, tend to prioritize; old dudes tended to make everything absolute. So aside from the 'no human nature' clause, what is the matter with the quote? Seems to me his main contention in the text you provided was that man only achieves an identity after he has experienced the world. Until then, he is but a child. And children are all the same.
Future Tense Passed Relief the Escapist wrote: Bullshit, self-deception, self-aggrandizement. Explains everything, really...

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.