wanting to learn more about existentialism

I definately agree with Slutter McGee. Nietzche is more of a postmodernist, than an existentialist. I'd go with Sartre. Being and Nothingness is superb.Positive, hopeful existentialism.

 

I do not belive Nietzche had anything to say on the subject of being anti-modernist or going beyond modernism in architecture or any visual art, and cannot therefore be a postmodernist. His position is that of an existentialist simply because he believes that existence precedes essence, in other words his position is that : in the absence of god we are free and everything is permitted. The statement existence precedes essence is the basic tenet upon which the existentialist movement within philosophy meets. It means precisely that because there is no pre-defined notion of the human race we are free to make what we will of ourselves. We first of all exist and then we define our being. Of course Nietzche is an existentialist - he certainly wasnt a postmodernist as that avenue of thought belongs fairly and squarely in the world of visual art and architecture.

 

Start with Soren Kierkegaard. I found that I related to him more than the other philophers. Then go to Nietzche and Sartre. By then you will be bale to understand why Sartre seems so...pessimistc

 

yea dedefinitely start simple. being and nothingness is incredible but every page is a struggle. takes full concentration. dont miss a thing. i'd start with Gordon Marino or David E. Cooper.

 

oh and nice signature Art delfo. u a H.S.T and burroughs fan?

 

Thanks, those are the types of people I hangout with(appiles to the quote, not the JTHM pic.)
Nope never read them. I plan to read Burroughs sometime though.

 

dam straight u will. fucking gross shit tho, gross sex, peadophila, sadism, heroin, black meat, crack and glass. urgh...

 

You might like a very worthy book by Erich Fromm, called, "The Fear of Freedom". It is not so academic that it is hard work, but challenging enough to guide you a long way to understanding Sartre. Nietzsche is too ambiguous to really be taken seriously within the academic world as an academic philosopher because of the poetic way in which he writes. He is too ambiguous and it leaves a great many people only debating what he meant by certain words or phrases, rather than leaving you with the ability to challenge his logic. Sartre and Fromm are more logically structured (of course I am not reffering to Sartres novels but his academic papers and books)
I have to say that very little of Fromms work could be categorised as having a purely existential meaning since he is mainly known a a psychologist, but he is a revered humanist, and well respected author of left wing text

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

http://www.erich-fromm.de/e/index.htm?/e/play.php?shownews=1