CavemanUg

I've noticed that the socialist movment slightly preceded existentialism. Marx published his manifesto in 1844. Nearly forty years (1883-1885) later another German philosopher came out with Thus Spake Zarathustra, that man was Nietzche (yeah i know you all know this, but I am just saying it for a key of reference)

It seems odd to me that a mere forty years after the communist manifesto (a book which went against money, and, at the time tradidional values) was proceded by Thus Spake Zarathustra (a book which questioned the moral and religious traditional values).

Now I am not saying that these people where the first to say this, it is more often shown that writers write the general ideals of the times in which they are. It is rare that a writer truely writes ahead of his/her time. So was extistentialism just the next step in rebeling against traditional values which was first started by socialists (as far as my knowledge goes). Or is it independent and not connected.


-Joel-
Through understanding the path we can better understand the destination. Just looking back wondering where we are going now.

John Page

In my book, Socrates was an existentialist - look at his rebellion against the imaginary deities of the times plus his attention to teaching and the commonweal. Maybe there is a connection that existentialists tend to "call 'em as they see 'em" rather than accept the lore of yore.

Cheers, John

philechat

Let's say existentialism is more a "way of life" than anything else, especially in terms of the rebellion against the idea of "morality through reason" that is advocated by Kant. Kierkegaard (a Xian) believes that an ethical life as outlined by Kant must leave one trapped in a static spiritual condition, and that we must overcome our moral prejudices as to live religiously. In his works he criticizes the Christians more vehemently than he did the atheists, in that the Christians are just being "Christians" to perpetuate the bourgeois values of their times.

On the other hand, Nietzsche (another precursor of modern existentialism) holds the same view on morality as Kierkegaard did, except that he does not believe in a God. He notices that most moral ideas proceed from the morality of mores, i.e., old values to be perpetuated by a given community, and denounces any possible "objective" basis for human conduct and morality. Instead of submitting to a conviction (God), as Kierkegaard preached, Nietzsche stresses "affirmation", namely a given light-heartness in the face of all convictions, based on continuous change and self-renewal.

But in either case, there is a strong advocacy of the individual will above human agreements in terms of their opinions on a person's conducts in life. Also, in the opinions of the existentialists, truth is an individual matter above all else. Most existentialists do not preach any "common way" by which every person must follow.

Pyrrho

Existentialism isn't a philosophy. It is simply a bad attitude.

ieyeasu

What? Research and Development isn't philosophical?

So, ernest, if I read you right, Sarte is just Rand but less sure? Give me an example of the divergences, please. I haven't read Sarte so much as I've read about him, so to speak. Thanks, just trying to learn.

miss djax

don't mind my pop culture spin, but camus and satre said some interesting things about sin and
christianity vis a vis atheism....

camus first :

There are some words that I have never really understood, such as sin...For if there is sin against life, it lies perhaps less in despairing of it than in hoping for another life and evading the implacable grandeur of the one we have.


i get that one....works for me, and its one of my beefs with christianity...i have a hard time thinking that
god exists out there with a giant score board, and im rapidly amassing sinner points because i bought
a prada bag and drank a martini and smoked a macanudo...good lord the excess, all of the cardinal sins represented this week!!!

i'm with camus, the sin is in not maximizing
the life we are given...

i remember the parable of the talents from my sunday school daze, and the servant who did NOTHING with their talent was
punished. the one who had used the talent wisely and had created something (actually made more money, but thats beside the point, tee hee) was rewarded.. my fundy parents said 'talents' were currency, but i don't think so. i think god, if he exists at all, would be angry in a people who isolated themselves into a tiny cocoon and did little outside of their fundy lives...

it seems to me that the real 'winners', if there are any in this existential crisis of ours, are the ones that maximized
their talents and lived THEIR lives!!

there's lots to see and do before i take a dirt nap..now THATS a sin as far as i'm concerned....


that being said, i have inspired myself to rejoice with an amusing pinot. it would be a sin if i didn't!!

now satre :

Existentialism is nothing less than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position. It isn't trying to plunge man into despair at all. But if one calls every attitude of unbelief despair, like the Christians, then the word is not being used in its original sense. Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it
declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue. In this sense, existentialism is optimistic, a doctrine of action, and it is plain dishonesty for Christians to make no distinction between their own despair and ours and then to call us
despairing


so you look out into the abyss after your existential crisis and see nothing. who cares? shouldn't that be the happy part? the fact that there is nothing sets you free. im paraphrasing of course
You get one life, stop pissing it away worrying about r rated movies and the devil's music, because it just doesn't matter.

Rousseau_CHN

It is very hard for me to comprehend the two kinds of existentialist: atheistic existentialist and theistic existentialist.

Existentialism is basically a philosophy that claims that life is absurd. There is no meaning to it, no hope, no ten commandments, no tablets, no holy books.

And because of this meaningless, there is freedom: a chance for us to create meaning for our own lives.

The theist existentialist is an absurdity in itself. If there is a God, then he is the meaning (the way, the truth and the life. Which is probably why Gabriel Marcel hated the idea of being grouped with Jasper, Sartre and Camus.

Ernest Sparks

ieyeasu,

me: presume that's "Rand" as in "Ayn ____", author of Objectivism, rather than "Rand" as in "_____ Corporation".

you: What? Research and Development isn't philosophical?

Gee, I thought I was introducing two possible meanings.

you: Sartre is just Rand but less sure?

I wouldn't consider it merely a "just" matter. There must be an ocean of differences between them. The main characters of their fiction are so opposite; the capitalism/socialism split, the psychic health/sickness split, A-is-A vs. Thing-and-Nothing-conjoined, on and on....

But the parallels keep coming to mind: both AR and JPS eventually embarrassed and divided their eager followers; each would consider the other's work poison.

Some real Jean-Paul Sartre reader should respond.

Regards,
ernie

miss djax

i agree wholeheartedly

miss djax

ieyeasu

Sorry Ernest, I clearly should have used the [sarcasm] tag with the bit about RAND.

I thought existentialism was more about not seeking some supernatural reward above the rewards of living fully today? If I read you right, life cannot be lived fully, because its absurdity? Or am I mixing my humanism with my existentialism?