I'm no longer an Existentialist

[Green]

asdfasdfasdf

[Art Delfo]

Because it shows that we decide our purpose. We are resposible for our reality. We must take resosiblity for our actions! Why would that be a waste of time? It shows to stop looking for a external meaning of life and start making an internal one.

[thumontico]

existentialism is the base assumption on life... disregarding human myths, traditions and other corruptible bullshit.

[sandpedlar]

To give up responsibility for one's actions not only makes you a self-deceiver, but leaves you no room to gripe about anything.
If it seems reasonable for you to give up reality, I would like to see your logic.
"Philosophy is a luxury, and existentialism is enjoyable and desirable, but existentialism still seems like a waste of time."
It IS a waste, if all one is doing is contemplating it and not putting it into practice.

[Green]

asdf

[Clover]

Have you read Heidegger's works? you might find it more optimistic than Sartre's vision.

[thumontico]

Sartre was a Marxist wasn't he

[Clover]

yeah, I think he was, and so was his partner Simone De Beauvoir

[Green]

sdfg

[Art Delfo]

I don't give up reality. I accept reality. Existentialists delude themselves into believing that we are responsible for our own realitys. Its a form of philosophical idealism that is anti-humanitarian or a form of philosophical materialism that fails to see things as a process (rejects dialectics) and is just as anti-humanitarian as its counterpart. Existentialism is individualized and selfish and destroys compassion. It forgets poor people because it rejects that wealth, happiness, power, and pleasure as means of achieving a good life. The problem here comes with the fact that Existentialism is something that can only be practiced by those who are wealthy enough to take the time to understand it. Only those who are at luxury to become existentialists may do so. Existentialists are pessimists who use their philosophy and actions to negate their pessimism. They feel that this is a way to control their lives even if they don't do anything to control their outer world, but instead only their inner world. We do create our own reality. Yes, our senses have a big infulence but we interprit them. Also the outer world cannot be reached without the inner world. Now..Why do you say that these belifs are anti-humanitarian, i mean an Existentalist feels compassion just like the rest of us. Begin an indiviual does not mean you have to be a selfish asshole. All it means is that you realize that your internal world is an illusion and you control that illusion. Also how you veiw your internal world will detertmain how you act in your outer world. For exampple if you see life as one big party, you will act like its one big party.

How can anyone say that existentialism is a humanism when it is obvious that the welfare of humans has to do with their outer worlds. Your inner world (your mind) is completely determined by your outer world. How you perceive your world though your senses (including your thoughts) determines what happens in your mind, and not the opposite. Once again, just because you are an indivual dosent mean you have to be an asshole. Any way, your inner world dosent infulece the outer wrold right. But all we have is the inner world. Distortions of the outer world. Each of us likes differnt food, each of us sees differnt colors more easily. If I take off my glassess, the world becomes fuzzy, so is the actual worl dfuzzy, or are my senses just telling me that it is fuzzy?

The outer world controls the inner world, and not vice versa. This is why existential materialists (such as the atheists) have failed to move beyond philosophical idealism.

You can not help people if you do not recognize that the outer world comes first. We don't shape the world, instead the world shapes us. So what your saying here is, only Buddhas can help people? Yes seeing the objective world mkaes us less selfish(If fact you have no self at all), but that dosent mean we cant be unselfish living in our inturnal world. It is harder but can be done, if you see the vaule and the suffering of others.

I have many other problems with Existentialism such as human nature, the assumed individual experience, claiming that existance is unexplainable, claiming that the world is unknowable, and other stuff I can't think of right now. I don't believe in individual experience. We all go though the same things and feel the same things. Yeah, I think humans have a nature to. I think we are all naturaly selfish. Yes we do have an individual experence. We do not think and feel the exact same things. For example I don't think the same thing about Existentalism. We do not got hroguh the same things, some of us are poor, other rich, others middle.

I believe that what helps people (is humanitarian) is good and this philosophy and practice pulls people away from helping people because of its individualism which is why I reject it. Well its not a religon. You don't have to agree with everything. And rememebr its about choice.

[Zajko]

We can experience life as if we were watching a movie - as passive entertainment. But sooner or later the "movie" will be over and the reality of our existence will assail our senses like the stench of the horse-shit in the alley as we exit the theater. It is there that we learn the meaning of "exit-stench-ialism"

And to claim that the intellectual constructions of any philosophy have a higher or truer reality than horses and their defecation would clearly be "putting Descartes before the horse."

Sorry, couldn't resist...

[Columbo]

Green said
The outer world controls the inner world, and not vice versa. This is why existential materialists (such as the atheists) have failed to move beyond philosophical idealism.

Ah that will explain mathematics then? I see mathematics in the external world and apply it to my way of life ?-
Have you seen the number 1 anywhere, or the number 276996, that did not come from a human hand or a human invention?
I am asking how you explain mathematics away using the above sentence?
Infact you seem to be saying that there are no deductive reasoning powers within us. Whereas I would say that our powers to reason out such things as mathematics has changed our world far more than our external world changed us
we are all still apes in spite of our religion and politics and computers etc etc
Existentialism is not an idealist philosophy it is an attempt at a description
It describes life rather than prescribes a way of life

[White Feather]

existentialism seems like a waste of time.
Existential Philosophy is a waste of time, as is all Philosophy. Philosophy, when it is enpowered by politics, becomes an Ideology. If that Ideology is not destructive to Society it becomes a Religion.

Existential Philosophy is like your imaginning what it would be to yield the power of your country's ruler; it is just delusion and desire, powerless to affect change. That Existentialism exists only in your mind.

[Columbo]

Existential Philosophy is a waste of time, as is all Philosophy. Philosophy, when it is enpowered by politics, becomes an Ideology. If that Ideology is not destructive to Society it becomes a Religion.So where did your computer come from since the scientists and mathematicians it took to design that thing would know well the works of major philosophers such as the logical positivists and analytic philosophers whos works contributed to scientific methodology

[Shane99X]

You can't argue with someone who stills views the world by how it applies to the HD.

To me, existentialism is naked.

Its bullshitless.

It without ethnocentricity of any sort.

It seems silly to reject open exploration of everything because the process of looking at reality as it is doesn't fit into a political/economic viewpoint...

[Shane99X]

Existential Philosophy is a waste of time, as is all Philosophy. Philosophy, when it is enpowered by politics, becomes an Ideology. If that Ideology is not destructive to Society it becomes a Religion.

Existential Philosophy is like your imaginning what it would be to yield the power of your country's ruler; it is just delusion and desire, powerless to affect change. That Existentialism exists only in your mind.Exactly.

Don't you get it.

Philosophy in general and existentialism if particular are the most human of all.

Without the awareness of self and the search for truth we are not human.

[Shane99X]

Green, you seem to think that existentialism is supposed to be an answer, like christianity or communism.

It's not, it's questioning.

You say you want to help people, why?

"Because helping people is good"

Why, because it feels, good?

Why does it feel good, why does something that makes me feel good not make you feel good, and if the feeling and experience is different how do you know what good is?

When you stop assuming that the meanings and answers that you have learned throughout your life are truthful you open you mind to a greater truth.

That there is no truth.
There is no objective good and evil or right and wrong.

They are real, but they don't have any objective meaning outside of the meaning that you place on them.

think about it this way:

Lets say you have a favorite t-shirt.
Because of the design or rarity or some other value that you place on this tshirt, it is improtant to you above all of your other shirts.

But you placing importance on that tshirt doesnt mean that in reality it is an important thing.

It is only important (to you), because of the value that you've placed on it.

Now apply that same logic to gold, money, land, weather, terrain, stars, words, actions, and finally morality.

How can you honestly prove that something has value outside of the value that you or a likeminded group place on that something?

Or maybe that's just me being a nihilist...

[JLPMGHRS]

That there is no truth.How can that be true?

There is no objective good and evil or right and wrong

They are real, but they don't have any objective meaning outside of the meaning that you place on them.do you really believe that? have you ever thought about where this ultimately leads to?

[Shane99X]

How can that be true?
Good question...

do you really believe that? have you ever thought about where this ultimately leads to?

Should I be fearful of my thoughts?
And what if it is the only truth, should i let my fear keep me from accepting it?

[JLPMGHRS]

Should I be fearful of my thoughts?
And what if it is the only truth, should i let my fear keep me from accepting it?well, what i'm saying is that beliefs have consequences. some beliefs are of little importance and consequence to us, some are a lot more important.

There is no objective good and evil or right and wrong...

Do you think that it is alright to torture babies for fun?

[Shane99X]

Do you think that it is alright to torture babies for fun?No, i do not.

I'm not saying that we as human beings do not subscribe to any morality or that we shouldn't.

What i'm saying is that our sence of morality is a result of a combination of forces.

Environment, upbringing, evolution, self-interest, ect, and not the result of an awareness of some cosmic duality.

In other words, morality is subjective and flexible, not objective and absolute.

[JLPMGHRS]

What i'm saying is that our sence of morality is a result of a combination of forces.

Environment, upbringing, evolution, self-interest, ect, and not the result of an awareness of some cosmic duality.

In other words, morality is subjective and flexible, not objective and absolute.So, if your next door neighbor was torturing babies for fun and he had no problem with it, would that be alright?

[Shane99X]

So, if your next door neighbor was torturing babies for fun and he had no problem with it, would that be alright?
I've already answered this question.
Would i be alright with someone torturing babies?
No i would not be alright with someone torturing babies.

Whether or not i think a particular action is good or bad is beside the point.

You are either not understanding what it is that i'm saying or you are choosing to ignore it...

[JLPMGHRS]

I've already answered this question.
Would i be alright with someone torturing babies?
No i would not be alright with someone torturing babies.

Whether or not i think a particular action is good or bad is beside the point.

You are either not understanding what it is that i'm saying or you are choosing to ignore it...i was just trying to make a point, trying to see if you would agree that it is absolutely never alright for someone to torture babies for fun.

[Shane99X]

i was just trying to make a point, trying to see if you would agree that it is absolutely never alright for someone to torture babies for fun.
To my worldview and sence of morality, no.

But that isn't really making much a point, and it isn't the point of contention.

It still says nothing about objective or absolute morality, only that the shared general morality of human existence doesn't allow for the torture of babies. This doesn't affect whether or not the act itself is a universal "evil".

[JLPMGHRS]

To my worldview and sence of morality, no.

But that isn't really making much a point, and it isn't the point of contention.

It still says nothing about objective or absolute morality, only that the shared general morality of human existence doesn't allow for the torture of babies. This doesn't affect whether or not the act itself is a universal "evil".well, either you believe that it is never alright for someone to torture babies for fun or you don't believe that. If you believe that it is never alright, well then that would be a moral absolute.

[Shane99X]

well, either you believe that it is never alright for someone to torture babies for fun or you don't believe that. If you believe that it is never alright, well then that would be a moral absolute.
You're messing with me aren't you?

Just because I don't believe that it is ever okay to tortue babies, doesn't mean that torturing babies is a universal or objective evil. It only means that human beings don't allow baby torture in their concept of what is good.

I also don't believe that it is ever okay to wear plaid, but that doesn't mean that it is a universal truth that wearing plaid is a bad thing.

[Shane99X]

Definition of terms regarding morality:


http://en.wikipedia.org

Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth) against which moral questions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_questions) can be judged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judged), and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. "Absolutism" is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism), which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society), cultural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture), historical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History) or personal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person) references, and to situational ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics), which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.

According to moral absolutists, morals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral) are inherent in the laws of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_the_universe), the nature of humanity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_of_humanity), the will of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God), or some other fundamental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental) source. Moral absolutists regard actions as inherently moral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) or immoral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immorality). Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery), war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War), dictatorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship), the death penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment), or childhood abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_abuse) to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.

In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur. Lying, for instance, would always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). This rare view of moral absolutism might be contrasted with moral consequentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism)—the view that the morality of an action depends on the context or consequences of that action.

Modern human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) theory is a form of moral absolutism, usually based on the nature of humanity and the essence of human nature. One such theory was constructed by John Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) in his A Theory of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice).

Moral nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism) is the philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) or ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology) that there are no such things as right, wrong, good, or evil. It contends that moral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics) statements are neither true nor false. It is the diametric opposite of moral absolutism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism) and also distinguished from moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism). Moral nihilism is closely related to moral skepticism, which is a term more frequently used in contemporary philosophy.

Niccolò Machiavelli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli) is sometimes presented as a model of moral nihilism, but that is highly questionable. His book Il Principe (The Prince (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince)) was silent on moral matters, which shocked a European tradition that throughout the Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) had inculcated moral lessons in its political philosophies. But silence about morality is not tantamount to outright nihilism. Machiavelli does say that the Prince must override moral reasons in favor of power-maintaining reasons of State, but he also says, particularly in his other works, that the successful ruler should be guided by Pagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism), rather than Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) virtues. Hence, Machiavelli presents an alternative to the ethical theories of his day, rather than an all-out rejection of all morality. Closer to being an example of moral nihilism is Thrasymachus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrasymachus), as he is portrayed in Plato's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato) Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_%28dialogue%29). Thrasymachus can, however, be interpreted as offering a revisionary account of justice, rather than a total rejection of morality and normative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative) discourse.

Similarly, nihilism should not be equated with non-cognitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism) or emotivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism). These are doctrines about the meaning or function of moral language, and as such they are compatible with acknowledgement of moral value. Many non-cognitivists and emotivists acknowledge the existence of moral truths and values, but maintains that it is not the function of moral discourse to refer to such truths. Its function is, rather, to express feelings of approval or disapproval, and to recommend similar feelings to others.

Nihilism is perhaps most strikingly defended by the fictional character Bazarov, in Ivan Turgenev's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Turgenev) novel Fathers and Sons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons).



Moral relativism takes the position that moral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) or ethical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics) propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism) to social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society), cultural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture), historical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History) or personal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person) circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values) as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

Some moral relativists — for example, the existentialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism) Jean-Paul Sartre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre) — hold that a personal and subjective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective) moral core (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_core) lies or ought to lie at the foundation of individuals' moral acts. In this view public morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) reflects social convention, and only personal, subjective morality expresses true authenticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_%28philosophy%29).

Moral relativism does not equate to moral pluralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism) or to value pluralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_pluralism) (which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but does not require granting them equal validity). Moral relativism, in contrast, contends that opposing moral positions have no truth-value, and that no preferred standard of reference exists by which to judge them.

[JLPMGHRS]

I also don't believe that it is ever okay to wear plaid, but that doesn't mean that it is a universal truth that wearing plaid is a bad thing.that's pretty funny.

i do think you try to remove yourself from being a human to evaluate things, which of course you can't do. everything is seen through your human eyes. that is reality as you know it.

As you know, everything we know, we know as a human so why try to seperate reality from the human experience. you're always going to be a human.(if that makes any sense)

[Shane99X]

that's pretty funny.

i do think you try to remove yourself from being a human to evaluate things, which of course you can't do. everything is seen through your human eyes. that is reality as you know it.

As you know, everything we know, we know as a human so why try to seperate reality from the human experience. you're always going to be a human.(if that makes any sense)
So, now your position is: You can't escape it so why bother?

You gave up soooooo easy....

[Shane99X]

that's pretty funny.

that is reality as you know it.

But, that doesn't mean it is reality as it actually is.

So, after repeating baby torture time and again, you've given up?

Typical.

Too bad.

[JLPMGHRS]

But, that doesn't mean it is reality as it actually is.

So, after repeating baby torture time and again, you've given up?

Typical.

Too bad.i'm not exactly sure how what I said is "giving up" whatever that means. Maybe you can explain.

We can't escape the human experience. This is reality. This is what I believe and applies just as much to you whether you believe it or not. It is the starting point.

Everything we know starts from this, including your position that we can't know anything objectively(which, by the way, uses logic)

[Shane99X]

We can't escape the human experience. This is reality. This is what I believe and applies just as much to you whether you believe it or not.
Holy shit, now i know you're messing with me!
Of course the human experience applies to me, i never claimed it didn't!
I never claimed that we could escape the human experience!

What i did say is that human morality can not be proven to be a universal absolute or part of an objective (outside the realm of human experience) reality.

And your subsequent reply was: "So you think it's okay to toture babies?"

Those links and terms i provided, research them, just a little...

[JLPMGHRS]

Holy shit, now i know you're messing with me!
Of course the human experience applies to me, i never claimed it didn't!
I never claimed that we could escape the human experience!i never said you said that.

What i did say is that human morality can not be proven to be a universal absolute or part of an objective (outside the realm of human experience) reality.it's human morality. it applies to humans. we can look at animals and see that they don't have the same morality(from what we observe). the point is we have it.

as i said before, the starting point for us to know anything is our humanity which include the laws of logic. i don't think this is an escape, i think it's reality. if you agree with this, which it seems to me you do, then what difference does it make if we can prove something outside of the realm of human experience. we could only do this if we were something other than human.

[JLPMGHRS]

i also differ with your definition of "objective". i don't define objective as something outside the realm of human experience necessarily. objective is having actual existence or reality.

[Shane99X]

i also differ with your definition of "objective". i don't define objective as something outside the realm of human experience necessarily. objective is having actual existence or reality.Then provide a definition of what you mean by "objective" , i already provided mine.

[Shane99X]

it's human morality. it applies to humans. we can look at animals and see that they don't have the same morality(from what we observe). the point is we have it.

as i said before, the starting point for us to know anything is our humanity which include the laws of logic. i don't think this is an escape, i think it's reality. if you agree with this, which it seems to me you do, then what difference does it make if we can prove something outside of the realm of human experience. we could only do this if we were something other than human.Already addressed this issue.

I'm not saying it isn't a reality, i'm say that it is a subjective reality and not an objective reality.

If our morality only applies to us and no other being it is not absolute it is relative.

And if you can't prove it's existence outside of human experience it's also possible that it is part of our subjective reality and not a part of any objective reality.

Torturing babies is neither good nor evil in an objective sense, it's just torturing babies. Like opening an envelope is neither good nor evil.
To human beings torturing babies is percieved as an evil act, that's because we are applying our subjective morality onto that act, it's not a reflection of the act itself.

[JLPMGHRS]

Already addressed this issue.

I'm not saying it isn't a reality, i'm say that it is a subjective reality and not an objective reality.but isn't "subjective reality" a contradiction in terms. reality is reality like truth is truth. reality doesn't contradict itself.

If our morality only applies to us and no other being it is not absolute it is relative.when i say "absolute" i don't mean that every living and nonliving thing has morality built in. I'm saying human beings do across the board. This is a truth. There are moral absolutes that humanity is aware of.

Because a mouse and I do not have the same morality does not mean that morality is any less real. Because a mouse may not be aware of moral laws does not mean they don't exist in reality.

The fact that human beings are intuitively aware of moral laws is an objective reality.

[Shane99X]

but isn't "subjective reality" a contradiction in terms. reality is reality like truth is truth. reality doesn't contradict itself.

when i say "absolute" i don't mean that every living and nonliving thing has morality built in. I'm saying human beings do across the board. This is a truth. There are moral absolutes that humanity is aware of.

Because a mouse and I do not have the same morality does not mean that morality is any less real. Because a mouse may not be aware of moral laws does not mean they don't exist in reality.

The fact that human beings are intuitively aware of moral laws is an objective reality.
No it's not, guy.
Please read a book.
Absolute is absolute and relative is relative.
not that complicated.

This was fun, but is now as tedious as explaining how a combustion engine works to my 2 year old.:confused:

PM me when you figure this out.

Have a nice day

[JLPMGHRS]

No it's not, guy.
Please read a book.
Absolute is absolute and relative is relative.
not that complicated.

This was fun, but is now as tedious as explaining how a combustion engine works to my 2 year old.http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif

PM me when you figure this out.

Have a nice dayyes, absolute is absolute and relative is relative. Oh well. You're right, we're not getting anywhere. I'll have to figure out a better way to present it and come back to it.

Thanks for the conversation.

Peace.

[Columbo]

yes, absolute is absolute and relative is relative. Oh well. You're right, we're not getting anywhere. I'll have to figure out a better way to present it and come back to it.
But you are arguing over whether or not you can escape for a moment the human condition. Sartre said that there is "no non-human" aspect of the universe, as we are human and are never free to escape the human condition. You therefore cannot ask what it is to KNOW something without the implication that it is "knowing something as a human being". That, you would agree is fine but for one human to "know something" is not for all humans to know it. In this respect we are always bound to a sbjective experience, both as an individual and as the human race.
Shane is right - in this respect:What i did say is that human morality can not be proven to be a universal absolute or part of an objective (outside the realm of human experience) reality.(edited in much later) BTW - the title of this thread is "I am no longer an existentialist". In reply to that I would say: Well I dont believe you ever were an existentialist.
you ask

How is existentialism a humanism? I might reread that. What can being an existentialist do for a person?Well it if you are asking, "how will this improve my life". I can only suggest that you might ask how knowing that there is a force called "gravity" improves your life. It does not. It is a DESCRIPTION and serves as an in depth study, if you want someone else to tell you how to live, perhaps you should read a PRESCRIPTION, like the bible.
To be an existentialist you would need to write academic text that is worthy of publication. You might as well have said "I am no longer a member of the Bloomsbury set", you were never that either.

[themnax]

i have no idea wether or not i ever have been but i have always wondered, when people called me that, what the hell they were talking about. several of them tried to explain it to me but i've still never quite 'gotten' it.

i'm pretty sure in some sense i'm something that exists, and maybe even that i'm not the only thing that does, and that i am both distinct from and at the same time in some way connected to the rest of what i'm pretty sure there exists also. like one herking big universe. at least one. and no reason there can't be zillions of those too.

=^^=
.../\...

[Columbo]

Existentialism is a philosophical movement that is generally considered a study that pursues meaning in existence and seeks value for the existing individual. Existentialism, unlike other fields of philosophy, does not treat the individual as a concept, and values individual subjectivity over objectivity. As a result, questions regarding the meaning of life and subjective experience are seen as being of paramount importance, above all other scientific and philosophical pursuits.

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 man exists before his existence has value or meaning. This value or meaning, and the value or meaning of the world around him, man defines himself in his 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 Sartre, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Camus, Fanon and de Beauvoir.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

[themnax]

well in that case whoever called me one must have been making a very strainge kind of joke. i have always found the idea of an impersonal probablistic universe more comforting and far less frightning than for all of the unknown to be subject to personal sentient whim.

=^^=
.../\...

[Columbo]

well in that case whoever called me one must have been making a very strainge kind of joke. i have always found the idea of an impersonal probablistic universe more comforting and far less frightning than for all of the unknown to be subject to personal sentient whimThis is not incompatible with the ideas of existentialist theorists

i have always found the idea of an impersonal probablistic universe more comforting How could it be otherwise - you have no choice to be comfortable in that world - its your world

and far less frightning than for all of the unknown to be subject to personal sentient whim You really should read "Freedom and Responsibility" a collection of essays by JP Sartre
You will see how he is perfectly able to describe that fear.
I really think everyone should look at the work of Sartre and realise that we are living the existentialist life - how can you fail to acknowledge tht first of all you exist and then when you are able to - you go into the world and make that existence an exploration of the possibilities. Fear is when we realise that we are free to choose and that our choices will have significance on everything we become - also we are at first so free we are like fluids in our young days and yet as time goes on we become more and more careful and less likely to choose until we crystalise (until we are no longer becoming but have become) At your death you will be able to see what your choices made you. To want the impersonal is to have the desire that the burden of choice is somewhat removed from you you are limiting your choices - but even that is a choice.

DAH ! I could go on and on but I implore you to read some of Sartres academic works on Freedom and responsibility

[aesther]

i don't think existentialists are pessimists, regarding what the original poster said.

i think to be an existentialist is to believe the responsiblity of life is in your hands, it is your choice, your ability. while i find the outer world affects and determines the inner world, it is ultimately the inner world that interprets and decides what has happened. although they are both inter-linked, and one probably doesn't exist without another. or maybe it does, who knows.

either way, to me existentialism is about dropping all pre-conceived notions about life,
to drop all that culture has imbibed in you, all that your parents taught you, and to live life, moment to moment and learn through awareness what is right and wrong.
This is rpobably impossible to do completely, but i think it is important to try.

This is not to say I'd condone torturing babies, because I've been brought up with the morals not to. But, I think even someone who wasn't trained or un-trained (or taught) to torture babies would not want to, because it would make him/her feel bad. I think it would produce toxic and uncomfortable and distressing chemicals in our bodies, much like when we're in anguish.

I thought about people who like killing, crazy people. How to explain them? Well, I consider those kinds of people's perception of the world as very distorted. and while their happiness may be real to them, I don't believe they are truly happy. After all, while they may feel joy in killing someone, they're clearly fucked up in the head(usually) and definately have issues that other people that are genuinely happy just don't have. So I find the murderer's happiness not real, they're just confused.

So, I think it's important to be an existentialist. I think it is the only true way to life. it is to live life as a celebration, and as an alive, flowing process.
Not some dead thing to be read about, or thought about, but to be Lived.

This philosophy doesn't have to be called existentialism. It has many names.

Taoism teaches this.
I think this is what Jesus was trying to teach, before religion distorted it.
I think this is what Buddha was trying to teach, before religion distorted it. To discover for yourself what is real and what isn't, to discover for yourself what makes you happy and what doesn't, and to do what makes you happy because life is about whatever you want it to be. and happiness feels good, happiness is god, happiness is ectasy.

This is existentialism


To me anyways