WJ

To answer the original question, I have found that most atheist's, since they base their 'faith' on objective reality (and most seem to be materialists) have quite a disdain for Existentialism. Though as been said, some existential writers were in fact atheists, there were many who were not (SK and Pascal for instance).

You see, Atheism and Being don't mix. Particularly when hanging one's hat on apriori logic to explain everything!

Walrus
-----------
P(a) denies predication of existence. Have you had your dose of denial today?

John Page

I don't see the argument for Atheism and Being not mixing. If Existentialism is about living in the real and immediate world it would seem to be at odds with any a priori religion. Finally, if Existentialism can be classified as a kind of religion (due to its a priori assumptions) it would seem to foil some of the "objectivity" claimed from the prior postings.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

xoc

If existentialism hangs it's hat on a priori logic, materialism hangs it's hat on a priori assumptions. Existentialism can allow the individual to actually exist; that is really exist as an individual rather than be the collection of matter that causes an elusive and incorrect conception of existence as the "individual". Actually the existentialist assumes the first Cartesian argument of the existence of the "self" (which was the easiest and most obvious argument to prove) and may question the latter Cartesian argument "proving" the existence of the external world; the materialist simply assumes the latter and tries to fit all other "apparent" kinds of being into that one by a dance of materials.

WJ

John and x!

"I don't see the argument for Atheism and Being not mixing. If Existentialism is about living in the real and immediate world it would seem to be at odds with any a priori religion. Finally, if Existentialism can be classified as a kind of religion (due to its a priori assumptions) it would seem to foil some of the "objectivity" claimed from the prior postings."


Let me clarify. I agree, the same logic that is used by the atheist [and theist] (apriori) to make claims about existence is contradictory to the whole notion of human Being.

That is one reason why 'inductive reasoning' for example provides more of better mix or approach to understanding issues relative to the meaning of existence. FL is not concerned with meaning; Existentialism is.

Like mathematics [apriori-FL], essences are timeless concepts; human existence is dependent on time. That of course has been at the very heart of the 'problems' associated with say, physics and cosmology, to name a few.

Consciousness depends on time.

Bones
-----------

I've told you before Spock, you have no feelings. You're a vulcan for God's sake.

John Page

Hmmmm. I guess my thought was that Existentialism goes some way toward discarding (all) systems based on preconceived a priori notions. It does, however, raise the amusing question of how the a priori notions came in to being.......