Existentialism

[bloom]

Basic Existential ideas. Life before Reason.

...There are several philosophical positions, all related to existential philosophy, but the main identifiable common proposition is that existence precedes essence, i.e. that a human exists before his or her existence has value or meaning. Humans define the value or meaning of both his or her existence and the world around him or her in his or her own subjectivity, and wanders between choice, freedom, and existential angst. Existentialism often is associated with anxiety, dread, awareness of death, and freedom. Famous existentialists include Dostoevsky, Sartre, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Camus (although he defines himself as an absurdist and disagreed with a lot of Sartre's ideas), Fanon, Miguel de Unamuno y Jugo, and Simone de Beauvoir.

Existentialism emphasizes action, freedom, and decision as fundamental to human existence; and is fundamentally opposed to the rationalist tradition and to positivism. That is, it argues against definitions of human beings as primarily rational. More generally it rejects all of the Western rationalist definitions of "being" in terms of a rational principle or essence, or as the most general feature that all existing things share in common. Camus posits, in his essay "An Absurd Reasoning," that society and religion falsely teach humans that "the other" (i.e. the world of observable phenomena outside the self) has order and structure. In fact, all attempts by the individual, termed "consciousness," to attempt to map an order or purpose onto "the other" will be met with failure, as "the other" is non-rational and random. When "consciousness" longing for order collides with "the other's" lack of order, a third element is born, "the absurd."

It then follows that, Existentialism tends to view human beings as subjects in an indifferent, objective, often ambiguous, and "absurd" universe, in which meaning is not provided by the natural order, but rather can be created, however provisionally and unstably, by human beings' actions and interpretations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

[Hardrada]

1. There used to be a bit of graffiti I saw years ago when

Life was a magazine.



Life is absurd.

-Sartre

Sartre is absurd.

-"Life"

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Preceded by an even older one...

God is dead.
--Friedrich Nietzsche.

Friedrich Nietzshe is dead.
--God

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Mind:

A British philosophical journal
entered at the Post Office as Fourth Class Matter.

[Hardrada]

4. O yeah, I remember that one too.

I actually took a semester class in Nietzsche's philosophy. And with the professor we had, we had to be very much alive in class! And he revived Nietzschean thought too.

[Sapere aude]

5. So what is a religious person's view of existentialism and are there better definitions out there

than the one offered?


Are we to make fun of something if it doesn't fit our view of life? Or could we be wrong but don't want to accept that as a possibility?

[xchrom]

6. the books of daniel and job both have

pretty extensive existential subtexts written into them.

exitentialism doesn't have to conflict entirely with theism -- if you think of reason as a precursor to action.

[bryant69]

7. I'm not keen on Existentialism

But most of my experience of it comes from Notes from the Underground which is probably not the most upbeat place to start.

I think it was Aristotle who said the Unexamined Life is not worth living? The point to existentialism seems to be that the unexamined life is the only one worth living. And that just seems pretty unpleasant to me.

Bryant

[bloom]

8. I think that DU

is a existential exercise for people who spend much time here.

As in:

"...(Kierkegaard and Nietzsche) were interested in people's concealment of the meaninglessness of life and their use of diversion to escape from boredom.

The wikipedia link mentions that there are varying definitions. It also includes this - which seems like the basic idea:

"Existentialists also believe existence precedes essence, rather than essence preceding existence, man defines his own reality."


While this might seem really obvious - just like my poll about "Reason/Society" or "Life/Nature"....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=102755&mesg_id=102755

...might seem obvious or not (depending on how you look at things). It might be that these ideas make more sense for people like artists and writers (I don't know - that's just a guess).


If you did not grow up with the idea that God gives people meaning (before and after they are born) - this might not seem like much. Some of the ideas were probably written as a response to those ideas. And as a response to the ideas that immortality gives us meaning.

Simone de Beauvior incorporated those existential ideas into a whole history of feminist philosophy - in The Second Sex. It seems like it was probably the perfect book for it's time (© in 1952).

[Jim__]

12. Kierkegaard was one of a number of religious existentialists.

Soren Kierkegaard was an extremely religious Christian. He is also considered by many to have been an existentialist philosopher. He considered Christianity irrational.

[scholarsOrAcademics]

20. Read on

that is an older quaint reading. That position was obsolete long ago.

[scholarsOrAcademics]

21. reading the chatter of the irrational

from "Chatter": language and History by Peter Fenves
“Once generalized, Kierkegaard’s negotiation with “Christendom” strikes at every word until each one becomes a “word,” which cannot be distinguished from its “tone.” The result of these tonal strikes is the historically and geographically demarcated region of the world called “Christendom” held in quotation marks: “Christendom” as a name, emptied of content; ”Christendom” as an idle vehicle of speech, abstracted, made colloquial, turned into an x. Since Kierkegaard could not discover terms of negotiation with “chatter” in Scripture, since this strategy of tonal modulation “without authority” cannot be found in the texts from which “Christendom” receives its name, he had no choice but to find it in profane texts. And this finding could only be done in writing and reviewing this writing. The peculiar prophetics developed in his “solo” reading is as a result an altogether profane one. The future of “chatter,” which is indissociable from an unauthorized order to Go Back, is likewise profane, so profane and so common that it cannot, with the authority of a “no!” distinguish itself from the sacred, the uncommon, and the uncommunicable. page 247
This is a difficult book, at least it was for me.

[struggle4progress]

24. I consider myself a religious existentionalist. The point is that ..

.. we all create the meanings of our own lives by our choices.

Lives lived without conscious construction of meaning are absurd, not in the sense that they are funny or that they are suitable objects of derision, but in the sense that they lack meaning.

Religious and ethical elements become relevant as we try to decide how to live our lives and what choices will best give our lives meaning. There are better choices and worse choices, and some choices will certainly preferable to others; but to say this is not the same as to say that there is only one right choice.

[scholarsOrAcademics]

25. choice. When did you start using adjectives?

your comment:"There are better choices and worse choices, and some choices will certainly preferable to others; but to say this is not the same as to say that there is only one right choice."
To me, from reading Foucault's The Order of Things the start of choices is when you start to reflect on what you prefer and deploy as objects to be added to designate preferences and their rankings. Labels.

[Evoman]

9. I'm a positivist absurdist.

Life is meaningless, but we can find the meaning of meaningless through scientific reasoning.

Ha.

Evoman

[Az]

10. There is no meaning to life other than what we make of it

Substitute purpose for meaning if you so choose.

[beam me up scottie]

11. You think the definition of existentialism is life before reason?

"Existentialists also believe existence precedes essence, rather than essence preceding existence, man defines his own reality."

While this might seem really obvious - just like my poll about "Reason/Society" or "Life/Nature"....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

...might seem obvious or not (depending on how you look at things). It might be that these ideas make more sense for people like artists and writers (I don't know - that's just a guess).

You really should stop taking mail order and wiki courses in philosophy, bloom.

Existentialism is far more complicated than you realize and in no way does it support the ideas (if you can even call them that) you used to create your ridiculous poll choices.

Try again.

[bloom]

13. You would be more effective in discussions if you lost the hostility.

[greyl]

14. Wouldn't an existentialist take responsibility for that? nt

[bloom]

15. People being responsible for their own hostility.

It's not clear to me if you are intending to be hostile or not.


Some people are pretty slick about it.


I wouldn't expect that all existentialists take responsibility for their actions and reactions any more than all atheists or pick your religion other people.

Of course there is always the ideal.


Perhaps you would like to answer your question ? :shrug:

[greyl]

16. Existentialism isn't the lack of belief.

In one regard, it is the belief that one is totally responsible for everything, including offense given and offense taken.

(The answer to my question is "yes", but only someone familiar with existentialism would be aware of that.)

edit: and not hostile, more of a gentle ribbing.

[bloom]

18. I wasn't saying that Existentialism IS the lack of belief.

or didn't mean for my words to be interpreted that way. Sounds like some existentialists believe(d) in "God" and some didn't. It does sound like there was generally more questioning for those existentialists who did believe than among many other believers.


As far as: In one regard, it is the belief that one is totally responsible for everything, including offense given and offense taken.

That sounds like quite an extreme view - at least the "one is totally responsible for everything" part.


I generally try to avoid taking offense if someone didn't mean it. But I generally avoid people who are mostly interested in games of one-man-ship instead of understanding. I know that some people really like such stuff - but it's really not what I'm interested in. While I do see some opinions as being better (for various reasons) than others - my philosophy is not based on some idea like the person who has read the most wins or something. I don't expect to win any such games. I am open to different ways of looking at things, however. And I realize that some people are just better communicators than others. I try to give people some slack in regards to style.

As far as giving offense - I will say what I think is the truth - or at the very least my opinion. If my opinion is offensive to someone - like if someone doesn't like the fact that I see some atheists as essentially having the same patriarchal attitudes as some of the problematic patriarchal religionists have - then that's too bad. If I am responsible that someone takes offense to that - then so what? :shrug: I'm not going to apologize for it. I think that that is the problem of the person who has taken offense.

I don't make a point of going around looking for ways to offend people - even those people who like to hop on my threads for the sole purpose of offending me (and I'm not saying that you are - but if you see one of my recent threads - you would know what I'm talking about). Some people are clearly trying to offend and to be offended. I'm not one them.

[Evoman]

19. Alright, alright, I'm sorry that you were offended.

I was just joking around with you. I thought I was being funny.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Then let me know when this turns into a discussion.

I have a feeling it will bomb as badly as your poll since its only purpose seems to be to support the false choices, non-existent ideas and Wikipedia definitions used in that poll.

Besides, I'm not hostile, I'm grateful. I thought this week in R/T was going to be boring, but you've added to the entertainment value immensely.

Hell, some of Evoman's best work is in your poll thread.

[Odin2005]

22. Meh, I'm more of a Positivist myself.

I don't beleive in free will, so that automatically puts me at odds with Existientialism.

This page I found has a good chart showing different philosophical positions: http://users.california.com/~eameece/questionnaire.htm


The up-down axis is Spiritualism vs. Materialism and the left-right axis is Reason vs. Experience. I took the quiz on the page and I got 74 Materialism and 19 Rationalsim.

[Odin2005]

23. Wiki on Positivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

Positivism is a philosophy developed by Auguste Comte (widely regarded as the first true sociologist) in the middle of the 19th century that stated that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method. This view is sometimes referred to as a scientist ideology, and is often shared by technocrats who believe in the necessary progress through scientific progress, and by naturalists, who argue that any method for gaining knowledge should be limited to natural, physical, and material approaches. As an approach to the philosophy of science deriving from Enlightenment thinkers like Pierre-Simon Laplace (and many others), positivism was first systematically theorized by Comte, who saw the scientific method as replacing metaphysics in the history of thought, and who observed the circular dependence of theory and observation in science. Comte was thus one of the leading thinkers of the social evolutionism thought. Brazil's national motto, Ordem e Progresso ("Order and Progress") was taken from Comte's positivism, also influential in Poland. Positivism is the most evolved stage of society in anthropological Evolutionism, the point where science and rational explanation for scientific phenomena develops. Marxism and predictive dialectics is a highly positivist system of theory. However Marxism rejects positivism and views it as subjective idealism, because it limits itself only to facts and does not examine the underlying causes of things.

The key features of positivism as of the 1950s, as defined in the "received view"<9>, are:

1. A focus on science as a product, a linguistic or numerical set of statements;
2. A concern with axiomatization, that is, with demonstrating the logical structure and coherence of these statements;
3. An insistence on at least some of these statements being testable, that is amenable to being verified, confirmed, or falsified by the empirical observation of reality; statements that would, by their nature, be regarded as untestable included the teleological; (Thus positivism rejects much of classical metaphysics.)
4. The belief that science is markedly cumulative;
5. The belief that science is predominantly transcultural;
6. The belief that science rests on specific results that are dissociated from the personality and social position of the investigator;
7. The belief that science contains theories or research traditions that are largely commensurable;
8. The belief that science sometimes incorporates new ideas that are discontinuous from old ones;
9. The belief that science involves the idea of the unity of science, that there is, underlying the various scientific disciplines, basically one science about one real world.

Positivism is also depicted as "the view that all true knowledge is scientific,"<10> and that all things are ultimately measurable. Because of its "close association with reductionism,"<10> positivism and reductionism involve the view that "entities of one kind... are reducible to entities of another,"<10> such as societies to numbers, or mental events to chemical events. It also involves the contention that "processes are reducible to physiological, physical or chemical events,"<10> and even that "social processes are reducible to relationships between and actions of individuals,"<10> or that "biological organisms are reducible to physical systems."