notMichaelJackson

Here are two definitions of existentialism-

• existentialism. Based on the writings of Soren Kierkegaard, this family of philosophies teaches that humans create their own existence by choices and actions.
  
  ---------------------------------------------------------
  Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia
  Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

• philosophy stressing the responsibility of the individual for giving meaning to reality

This philosophy, while popular, seems very far from truth to me. It is true that we make choices that affect our lives, but there are far too many aspects of our lives that we cannot control, therefore existentialism cannot be valid. We cannot choose what nation we are born into, what gender we are, what our family income will be, our race, or [bold]anything[/bold] else. Therefore, a great deal is out of our control from the moment we are conceived.

When we attempt to alter our reality we are often faced with severely challenging tasks. For example, if I want to be successful, own a nice house, car, and have a family I have to go to school for years, compete with many others who are at least as qualified as I for a certain job, and then remain a decent worker in order to keep that job. Just surviving can be a daunting task.

I am more of a fatalist who believes we can change our existance slightly, but there is far too much that is not in our control for us to be completely responsible for it.

AtomSmasher

I believe it comes down to interpretation:

This does not mean that we create our own realities in actuality, only that we give it meaning through our own philosophy. We are not given meaning for our lives from an external source like a god or government but that it is the individual who's own sense of purpose and self recognition that defines his existence.
That is only my interpretation of this definition, I have not investigated existentialism personally.

faustuz

I think you are oversimplifying existentialism just a tad. First of all, the various philosophers who are lumped into the category of Existentialist do not agree on fundamentals. It is a pretty broad rubric. Only Sartre actually called himself an existentialist. He is indeed a proponent of total free will, perhaps to a degree that is difficult for the sober mind to accept. But he certainly would never have argued that we humans are immune to external realities. It is what we do with what we are given that matters for Sartre. I think a sense of free will and responsibility is essential to the individual and to society. I mean, what is one to do, wallow in despair over their powerlessness? Sure, we often can’t control our destinies, but what kind of existence would it be believing that one can’t make meaningful choices? Sartre’s is ultimately a philosophy of responsibility, a concept that seems a bit out of fashion. One need not accept all of his conclusions to realize that there is something really useful there.

Kierkegaard was a devout Protestant and so would in no way say that there is no objective reality. To do so would be to say God is only an illusion, something a Christian like Kierkegaard would not say. What he did say was that one could only come to God as an individual, and through their subjective reality. Others can not lead one to God nor can objective knowledge. Kierkegaard was primarily concerned in his philosophy about this question of how one comes to know God. I don’t think your criticisms can apply here.

Camus, who is often called an Existentialist, has himself often been called a fatalist. Read some of his stories where it seems that whatever the characters do turns into nothing. Camus was in his philosophy concerned about how one deals with this disconnect between external reality and internal desires. If you are, as you say, a fatalist then you might want to give him a read. There is currently a pretty interesting thread in this forum on Camus.

I’m not particularly familiar with Jaspers or Heidegger, but I do know that they did everything they could to not be associated with Sartre. In short, it can safely be said that one is not going to get a good feel for the philosophy of the so-called Existentialists from a dictionary definition. It helps, rather, to read what they wrote in order to dispel erroneous preconceptions. There is much there that might help the individual to deal with the disconnect between external reality and internal desires.

thefugitivesaint

I think you may be presenting a disagreement where one is not really present.

Existentialism begins with the premise of ones life as it is from where it is. It does not address inherited genes or inherited social conditions in the manner in which you presented them. They become considerations only in relation to the one who is addressing ones own condition in this life. The question of resposibility for ones own life is really a question about the use of ones life while one has it. What to do? How to live? Whether life is worth the effort even in the face of inevitable death. Hungry entropy eats all in the end so all effort to build, to create, to change, to care, etc. seems pointless. What is one to do with the knowledge that their lifes work will be swept away in time like a childs sandcastle consumed by the tide of the sea?

Existentialism was one attempt among a history of others do deal with these issues in a manner that was central to the subjective presence of the individual in his/her specific historical conditions. There is no truly defined notion of what Existentialism is exactly although its various tendencies share similar assumptions and conclusions. It is not a dogma and there is no doctrine to follow so Existentialism can be what you make of it.

Personally, the ideas expressed within Existentialism did speak loudly to me when i was younger, nihilistic and did not have the experience i have now. I still dig it very much but i don't feel as strongly about it as i once did. I know this doesn't help but i am rushing to type this out before my 15min. break is up.

back to the grinding weight of the 9 to 5.
-theSaint

And, i didn't even address the notion of "lack of control" over ones life even given freewill as an assumed variable in the human condition. Existentialism, in many ways, has a great deal to say about the "illusion" each of us maintains about how much control we think we possess concerning the course of our lives. O well.

los

Although, I do not claim to fully understand this philosophy, let me attempt to explain some of my views.


We do however make the choice to stay where we are born, or move to another place. Keeping our family close to us, or moving away from them, is again a choice. Perhaps a moral choice. Nonetheless, when one becomes of age they can move and never again have contact. And in this day and age one can even choose to change their gender.


Yes, but these are choices one can make. Just as a homeless man who has been offered a job and refused it. That is his choice.

I happen to agree with you to an extent. However, I believe this philosophy is valid even if it is not always practical. (this is my choice, as it is yours to believe otherwise)


I hope you will see my point(s).

August Spies

The original quote does not seem to grasp existentialism at all, and certianly doens't help show the differences between the different "existentialists"

monkey mind

hello nice to meet you. i really know nothing about existentialism but this seems like a fun topic.



Maybe you did choose these things, you just don't remember doing it.



I don't think belief in free will and choice is about magic. ie I choose to be successful and BING I'm successful. It's obviously a little more difficult. What if we look at it from the other direction; why am I successful? Because somewhere in the past I choose to be.

Surviving IS a daunting task, obviously you make the choice to survive everyday. It would be so easy to commit suice. Or stay in bed till you starve to death.



But why are you not completely responsible for it? Isn't holding that belief a choice, same as believing your responsible for everything that happens in the universe?

Anti-Creedance Front

Woooo... got this confused with transcendentalism. Damn huge Latinized words. Anyway, I think the definition speaks of not only the human individual, but the human biomass, humanity together. I think they were well aware of human willpower and disagreements. Actually, this philosophy could be coupled with many religions, that is, if they chose to accept the fact that deities did not interfere with human choice.

monkey mind

I've always had the suspicion that Buddhist philosophy has a lot in common with existentialism. As of yet however, I haven't made a decent exploration in existentialism.

Defiant Heretic

The problem with classifying existentialism is that one of the central tenants is the creation of individual philosophies. Kierkegaar said, “I must find a truth that is true for me...the idea for which I can live or die.” and I think this sums up the philosophy nicely. Existentialism generally holds that there is not an objective meaning of life, but not all existentialists agree with this (e.g. Kierkegaar).