Is Existentialism a philosophy (and can I even be an "existentialist")?

topic posted Thu, January 20, 2005 - 7:15 AM by  Unsubscribed
The discussion on Kierkegaard made me go back to Kaufmann's Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (in which he refers to K as the "first existentialist").

Is existentialism really like Platonism where I believe in specific things like the idea of Forms? I've always thought it was more eclectic or rather the placeholder for "I'm a little of this, NOT that, opposed to that over there, . . ." But I wondered what folks thought about these opening comments from Kaufmann:

"Existentialism is not a philosophy but a label for several widely different revolts against traditional philosophy. . . . Certainly, existentialism is not a school of thought nor reducible to any set of tenets. . . . The refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever, and especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy as superficial, academic, and remote from life -- that is the heart of existentialism."
posted by:
Unsubscribed
  • Unsu...
     
    I always thought that existentialism was an examination of our existance, as opposed to metaphysics and such. It's certainly not a "doctrine" but I think it's definately a way of examining things, a little like an improvement on phenominology
    • I think it was Sartre who said "existence precedes essence"...which was really just a reversal of Plato's (?) "the essentia preceeds the existentia"

      ...and isn't the question of existence, a metaphysical one?

      Therefore, can one be "existential" without being somewhat metaphysical? Wouldn't being an "existentialist" mean, among other things, questioning/examining existence? Or, the difference between existence and being?

      Is existence being?

      Does nothing exist? (and how would you know?)

      How does one know what existence is?

      J~
      • Unsu...
         
        You're right about existance being metaphysical if you think about it in those terms "does something exist? why do we exist?" but an existentialist, I think, would simply reject those questions. An existentialist should just describe our "being here" and not try to answer why. I think Jaspers, who really was the one who expanded the term to include people like Nietzsche and others who were around before the term was coined, went a little out of bounds.

        Since Sartre is the one who wrote the book "existentialism" I think he should be the one to answer any questions about what it is.
        • satre was a very irresponsible thinker-- especially with his attempt to unify existentialist thought with socialist ideals(essay was called existentialism is a humanism.) Upon your first read you may get caught up and excited, however upon thinking about what this guy is realy trying to say you realize that his idea of extreme freedom minus any outside conditions that might influence us does a disservice to those who truly want to understand reality.

          Its important to note that he did join the communist party and worked closely with socialist. However he fails to accunt for any material conditions that might inlfuence a persons consciousness. Why he even tried to defend this radical idea of freedom is beyond me--given his political stance.

          He was a pretty good playright however. No wonder hes the only thinker to ever coin the word existenialist--the others were busy writing coherent essays.
          • Unsu...
             
            I don't know much about Sartre but am one who still appreciates his Existentialism as a Humanism talk because it doesn't get all lost in technical mumbo jumbo but simply responds to various challenges brought against it. It feels like more of a chat in a cafe than an academic dissertation - so I like that (cuz I love coffee!).

            I also admire Sartre's desire to deal with Cartesian dualism - effectively. One potential error of an existentialist approach could be my becoming *too* disconnected from reality, insisting that truth is *only* subjectivity. I think his view that "every truth and every action imply both an environment and a human subjectivity" acknowledges the two pieces, but not as a dichotomy. And his further comment that "there is no reality except in action", shows me a path to *express* this freedom which I am rather than do nothing with it, essentially negating its value.

            Lastly, I think Sartre makes a frequent point of distinguishing that I am free *to* project myself into the world, to choose my interaction, but am NOT free *from* the environment in which I find myself. His notion of "de trop", that I experience everything as "in the way", seems to be an acknowlegement of outside conditions.
            • He doesnt' account or peoples values. Do you ever remember picking your values? Its seems very dependant on time and space. We make judgements and decisions based upon our values. Values are anything but objective so it follows that if you and had absolute control the the carpe diem existenialist attitude would seem completely justified. Satre seems to be more of a stickler then most when it comes to freedom and responsibility.

              How free are you if consciousness is heavily influence by the material condidtions(socio economics, and what not)?
              • Unsu...
                 
                I'm not even sure I am free, but I'm certain there's no *utter* freedom. Can't fly, can't breathe underwater, have a physical end point. Clearly there are limits.

                But am I free to *choose*? And does the mere fact that something led up to my choice (as something leads up to everything) mean it was just some forced result I was destined to see unfold? I personally don't think so, but it's hard to see the basis for that conviction.

                The claim that being precedes essence seems to be a prerequisite for human freedom (if I'm not going to invoke something supernatural). To quote Sartre again: "What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world — and defines himself afterwards."

                If I really am self-defining, like Oedipa Maas in Crying of Lot 49 when she asks "Shall I project a world?", then I am, at core, free. But just because I'm self-defining (i.e., I can decide what I believe, and decide how I will respond) doesn't mean I'm free to do whatever (like fly). I'll bump into things (like the ground).

                I like your question about values but I'm not sure how to answer it. What do you mean by the "dependant on time and space" statement? For me, values seem to be self-evolving, that is, when the concept of values first occurs to me, I discover I've already been handed a box full of them without my choosing them. Judgement, when it arises, picks through the box. I think at this point I *do* choose which values I'll huck, which stay in the box, and which I'll add. Then time passes and events occur. I look in the box again. Some values, though dear & full of memories, really need to be tossed out, some need to be added. And some, a very few, still remain.

                For me, it's these values that I continually choose to keep in the box that are my core values. Because I keep saying "yes" to them, by my actions, by the events of my life. But it's the objective realities of my life (losing this wife, getting fired from that job, moving to this place) that cause me to choose again. Every time we move we decide what we'll huck & what we'll keep. That thing we keep is our evolving self.
  • x
    x
    offline 40
    Existentialism is a Philosophy and you can be and "existentialist".

    Here is an image I found for this tribe (I hope people like it!):

    www.blender3d.org/cms/typo3...1b98f3.jpg
    • Unsu...
       
      Love the image! Very Zen . . . I mean, existential.
      • Unsu...
         
        Does the faith one has in their belief give that belief value seemingly b/c without value or worth, couldnt that belief just cease to exsist in that one's exsistence? To be an exsistianialist you must evolve + form your own thought, but to achieve this you must decide what is valuable to yourself, and the basis of that is to decide what you consider is worthy to exist, the foundation your own exsistence. I'm rambling, i dunno...agree or prove me wrong.
        • Unsu...
           
          "Does the faith one has in their belief give that belief value . . ."

          I think I'd substitute the word "conviction" for "faith", and then I'd say this:

          Does my conviction that a certain belief is true, give that belief it's value? Is it the things that I can't **not** believe, the things that I can't escape accepting (whether rational or not) that are the foundation of my beliefs or, as you said, give them their value?

          I think so. I think it's silly to imagine we arrive at our beliefs logically and with some sort of argumentative analysis. ("It's true, therefore I believe it.") Instead, we find ourselves in life, shit happens to us, and then we respond. When we reflect (honestly) on our responses, we *discover* what we believe.

          I pretend to myself I'm a "brave" person; then one night in a dark alley some guy is beating the crap out of a woman and I slink around the corner, pretending I didn't see anything.

          People don't "have" qualities, their "being" doesn't have a particular composition. I'm not brave, noble, evil, stupid, kind. I act here-right-now in a kind manner; I behave here-right-now as a total dolt. These behaviors don't *define* me; they don't arise out of who I am (because there really is no I . . .), they simply are, in that moment, an aspect of my ongoing expression.

          "you must decide what is valuable to yourself"

          I agree entirely. But for me, the hard thing is: **on what** do I base my decision?
          • Unsu...
             
            i try to think i base my decision on what i consider is love. i just want to make the world a better place 4 everyone.
            • Unsu...
               
              Okay, so I (you) base my (your) decision on love, on wanting to make the world a better place.

              How do I do that in reality? I have an option to go to undergraduate school in Berkeley or travel to Africa and work with the Peace Corp. Which makes the world a better place? I run into a girl at Polk & California who's looking for money, probably to buy cigarettes or drugs - in any case, to meet a need she has. Do I pass her by or give her cash? My 18 year old son has just told me his girlfriend is pregnant and he thinks he should marry her. How do I counsel him?

              "A better place 4 everyone." Does this equal "the most good for the most number of people"? If 51% of everyone is "happy," is that equal to "the best?"

              How do I, as a single individual, regardless of others, make my decision? How do I decide what "love" is? How do I decide what "good" is?
              • Unsu...
                 
                god damn kidd, have some confidence in yourself. Confidence=beauty in my eyes. I do what i want based on the good energy i believe i naturally possess, + if people dont like it, they can let me know, but i only care if its people that i love that r telling me im being dumb or irrational. Do what will make you happy, + what u think makes this place a better place. But im just a strangerr so u dont have to be even reading this.
                • Unsu...
                   
                  ur no stranger and i like ur comments and they're to the point.

                  i just don't think it's as easy as u make it sound. absolutely do what makes u happy and makes it a better place, but that's not as easy to do as you imply. what happens when i have 2 choices that are hard to choose between?

                  i don't have a problem with confidence, and wasn't trying to "call u dumb" so am sorry if that's ur thought. thanks for the discussion.

                  confidence=beauty? uh . . . not sure i follow this . . .
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     
                    Naw, I was trying to use people who call me dumb as an example for a consequence that happens when one chooses do what they truly feel.
                    > Not all beauty=confidence, but i the people who i am attracted are confident, but i try not to be a personalist, but i cant deny what i am attracted to, shit, sorry that point was a bit irrelevant to our discussion.
                    > When u have 2 choices to make, and u can't decide, maybe u should do either. I assume you're young, maybe you still have tendencies within in you that you still need to cultivate.
                    > Umm....i guess one just has to continually self examine why they are happy at certian points in their lives to be able, aknowledge the true raw emotions that possess this happiness, and possibly research + seeking wisdom on how to use this energy one possesses to achieve what evers cleva to them.
  • I think that what Kaufman is getting at is summed up by Sartre's famous phrase: existence preceeds essence. The rebellion against traditional forms of thought is a realization of our own free will. It is the antithesis of Plato's inverted world (in the Nietzschean sense). The platonic forms and "the Good" from which they spring were described as those unchangable and immutable truths as Plato believed that truth had to be unchanging (in my opinion one of the reasons Socrates never claimed to no truth was because he was looking for a truth that doesn't exist (i.e. truth does change)). Existentialism is a highly subjective and relativistic philosophy. While Sartre was greatly troubled by ethics and deriving and existential ethical thesis, he did make one prohibition in Being and Nothingness in refence to what he called "bad faith". Bad Faith is defined as denying one's own facticity or transcendence. Part of our transcendence (for sartre) is that we are free to define our own goals and live our lives in what we we see fit. A platonic form and the good from which it springs sets up an absolutist framework.

    That's kind of my immediate reaction. What do other people think?

    Nick
    • Unsu...
       
      Past the mourning and "reactionary" aspect of surviving "the death of god" can come a point in an individual where they decide their actions in the present. Perhaps born from the refuse of presumptuous dogmatic religions who are capable of living with the absence of the present and the presence of present action justified by higher will and higher forces. Existentialism is a philosophy (open for discussion) against our need to justify actions and instead take responsibilities for our choices and our lives. This is how things are and how are we dealing with them? In a sense existentialism is empowering of the individual and disempowering of the forces outside of ourselves and the present.
      BU

Recent topics in "Existentialism"