Existentialism

[Buck Birdseed]

Kirkegaard coined the term, Sartre defined it the way we think of it today (ie. without god as a focal point). Bascially it's all about how we're totally free from any moral rules we do not create ourselves and how supposedly horrible this is (angst). Later existentialists were much preoccupied with basing a morality on the lack of morality which is a bit weird I always thought. (Yes, I know, it's a morality based on taking responsibility for your own actions and not claiming anything is "natural" or "pre-determined", don't hit me.)

I prefer the ideas that followed Existentialism, especially radical feminism, late Heideggerian aesthetics and discourse theory. Existentialism is way too pessimistic for me.

[Al B. Sure!]

it seems optimisitic and empowering to me... you and you alone have control of your life and you can achieve whatever you want to achieve.

i guess, from the perspective of an old man, it is horrible though...

[Ben Kenobi]

Kierkegaard has a pretty good definition of existentialism. He says that an existentialist values work above everything else, that if you work hard, the work is more important than the particular goal. It differs from what Kierkegaard values in that the movement, not the direction is the only thing that counts. For Kierkegaard, he critiques existentialism like Lewis Carrol, in that you can run all day, but never get anywhere.

[Meticulous Man]

So, do you people think existentialism is reconcilable with Marxism?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Aivo�so
So, do you people think existentialism is reconcilable with Marxism?

Sartre did, but he is widely derided for this view.

I don't have much time for the philosophical existentialists. Sartre isn't much of a philosopher and Heidegger could use some arguments in place of the turgid prose that is Being and Time. I must admit that because I work in the Analytic tradition I'm not big on Heidegger although I do have a copy of Being and Time and working in Classical Philosophy helps a bit. Perhaps we should have an Apolyton Heidegger reading group?

The idea of absolute freedom tends to be undermined by the scientific world view, although to be fair Sartre would say that human consciousness necessarily transcends any attempt at explanation or determination.

I've always thought that it worked better through novels. Sartre's Nausea manages to communicate his ideas much more effectively than Being and Nothingness.

[lord of the mark]

Names associated with Jewish existentialism are Rosenzweig, Buber, and i think Levinas.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Kierkegaard has a pretty good definition of existentialism. He says that an existentialist values work above everything else, that if you work hard, the work is more important than the particular goal. It differs from what Kierkegaard values in that the movement, not the direction is the only thing that counts. For Kierkegaard, he critiques existentialism like Lewis Carrol, in that you can run all day, but never get anywhere.

For a different view of religious existentialism, I must again suggest to you Fackenheims "to mend the world" this time not for his views of the holocaust, but for his introduction to the philosophy of Franz Rosenzweig.

[Elok]

The only existentialist I have experience with is Nietzsche, who, it can be safely said, was a total Froot Loop. Oh, and I read The Stranger, which posits that true happiness stems from acting noncommittal and banging some halfwitted chick you work with. Or something like that. I lost all interest in that particular philosophy after reading The Stranger. I stick to philosophies that actually say something you can apply to life in a positive fashion, as opposed to whining endlessly about how weak and foolish everyone else is.

[Japher]

stick to philosophies that actually say something you can apply to life in a positive fashion, as opposed to whining endlessly about how weak and foolish everyone else is.

Come now Elok, don't all philosophies endlessly whine about how weak and foolish all those who don't agree are? Especially religious ones. Camus was a depressed individual, that doesn't mean that all existentialist are. He merely addressed the epitamy of the philosophy in that you are responsible for your actions, even if those actions are wrong and make you feel horrible. Still, it was your own personal power that got you to that point, and that you have no one to blame but yourself.

IMO, ppl who don't subscribe to at least personal responsibility for their own actions are those who whine.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have experience with is Nietzsche, who, it can be safely said, was a total Froot Loop.

Why safely said? He also had totally changed around philosophy. Philosophers are still dealing with his statement that a morality that says all men are inviolable cannot exist without a 'God' and since there is no God (at least to him and many people today), how can you justify such a morality? Philosophers are STILL trying to do so, but without success. Nietzsche challenged the 'accepted' norms of philosophy and turned things totally on their heads. That, IMO, is something to be respected.

[devilmunchkin]

i used to label myself as an atheistic existentialist in high school. figures right? I don't even think they taught me the totality of this philosophy either while in h.s. i remember learning all about absurdity and how the human was essentially alienated from everything (god, peers, nature, self..etc) and thinking "holy crap! that's my life!"
now, i think there are some things i missed and i don't consider myself one anymore..but i do remember those tenants and Albert Camus.

[Fake Boris]

I don't see why communism should be incompatible with existentialism. Existentialists suggested that political implication aimed at appeasing the human sufferings could be a way tom undermine the 'absurdity' of life.

As for 'The Stranger', it is a literary work and not philosophical in itself.

[Soul Survivor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I have experience with is Nietzsche, who, it can be safely said, was a total Froot Loop.

Why safely said? He also had totally changed around philosophy. Philosophers are still dealing with his statement that a morality that says all men are inviolable cannot exist without a 'God' and since there is no God (at least to him and many people today), how can you justify such a morality? Philosophers are STILL trying to do so, but without success. Nietzsche challenged the 'accepted' norms of philosophy and turned things totally on their heads. That, IMO, is something to be respected.

Nietzsche writes on both sides of the fine line between genius and insanity....

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


For a different view of religious existentialism, I must again suggest to you Fackenheims "to mend the world" this time not for his views of the holocaust, but for his introduction to the philosophy of Franz Rosenzweig.

Would that be the recently deceased Prof. Emil Fackenheim?

If so, he was one of ours. Go U of T!!!!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I don't see why communism should be incompatible with existentialism. Existentialists suggested that political implication aimed at appeasing the human sufferings could be a way tom undermine the 'absurdity' of life.

But if one is characterized by absolute freedom and nothing is worthwhile unless we make it so by committing ourselves to it, then it follows that there is no reason to privilege being a Marxist-Leninist over being an anarchist, a Republican, a psychopath or a rapist.