Secular Elation

From Encarta Online's page on existentialism:

Does this mean that atheists/humanists reject existentialism? According to the quote, many existentialist philosophers were not strict rationalists, and I know that atheism/humanism/skepticism places unrelenting importance on reason and science. The existentialist thinkers apparently did not.

Ender

Existentialists are basically humanists, since they formulate their entire philosophy upon the individual, the human being. Some existentialists, by virtue of this standpoint are atheists, so don't bother making fallacious bifurcations between atheists and existentialists.

Some atheists/skeptics may be too dogmatic in their usage of reason but in no way does that entail all atheists are prone to bouts of rationality. A few primers on existentialists and the movement may shed illumination on your query more comprehensively than you will find here.

~WiGGiN~

Toto

Existentialism seems so passe. It is connected to a period in recent human history when rationalism had defeated religion, but no one had completely worked out the implications.

Existentialists are sometimes atheists, like Sartre, sometimes people who believe in some kind of elan vital, or human spirit, like Kazantzakis.

I don't know a contemporary live philosopher who considers him or herself an existentialist, but I'm not up on things.

pug846

SE said:

As Ender said, no. There are many flavors of existentialism and at least some existentialists were Christian. It’s not a matter of either wholly accepting reason and “science,” or rejecting it. Most existentialists hold that there is no rational answer to the most important questions such as why we are here.

It’s also hard to pin down exactly what existentialism is (was?). The four big names of the movement would probably include a Marxist, a Nazi, a hard-line anti-Christian atheist, and a devout Christian. If you are interested in learning more about existientialism, I can recommend some good intro books.

Toto said:

There are a few still left . (Although, there numbers are clearly next to nothing.) It was also exceptionally popular in a time period where war and misery were common everywhere. Hard to convince the average American that they should be in despair over something when they make $70,000 a year.

I really enjoy most of the existential authors, but don’t really identify with the movement. Nietzsche is still really popular, and Sartre is certainly still discussed. Christian fundamentalists have pretty much ruined Kierkegaard. In my experience, Hiedeger is still pretty popular, but maybe that’s just me. (My school is really deep into continental philosophy.)

Toto

How so? Why would a fundamentalist even read Kierkegaard? He's Metacrock's favorite, but Meta claims not to be a fundamentalist.

1sec

Sartre and Camus seemed pretty rational to me.

Ender

I concur, one second!

In Hazel Barnes' introduction to Being and Nothingness, she makes a case for Sartrean rationalism.

Most traditional rationalists start from the rational and move to irrational, whereas Sartre does the opposite- from the irrational (existence) to rational (phenomenological existentialism).

~WiGGiN~

xoc

First, how is it possible for Kierkegaard to be ruined by anyone? If your taste of him is lost by the words of other people, so what? The man stood and would "fall" based on his own two feet, the quintessential "individual." It's not possible that anyone could ruin Kierkegaard, only offer an interpretation that you or others may find unattractive.

From Walter Kaufman's intro to The Present Age

Unfortunately I'm limited to using the same quotes I posted on Metacrock's board a while ago because it was from a library book. But apparently Kauffman, who is supposed to be more of the "atheist existentialist", was severe in how he thought Kierkegaard would view the "humanising" of Kierkegaard, or those who would try and rob him of that faith he so strongly held.

I love Kierkegaard. He may lack the same depth of lyrical genius as Nietzsche(IMO), but it is an irrelevent difference in a weaker value of aesthetics. And no offence to Metacrock, but Kierkegaard was undeniably more "fundamentalistic" in his views.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: xoc ]</p>

pug846

Xoc said:

You are undoubtedly correct in that I probably view the “ruining” of Kierkegaard because of the spin others might put on him. (Then again, they probably think the same of me). However, I think a lot can be learned from Kierkegaard if he isn’t viewed only through a Christian looking glass. My comments regarding the “ruining of Kierkegaard” was directed at this and from the comments of numerous graduate students/professors who have relayed to me how Kierkegaard conferences generally go. Productive dialogue is often stifled and potential interpretations of the text are stomped out. Since this is merely third hand “rumor” for most of you, I don’t expect you to put a whole lot of weight into it. Although, for the record, the “rumors” came from quite a few people who are well respected amongst professional philosophers and who have spent their lives studying Kierkegaard.

For the record, I don’t think Kauffmann ever considered himself an “existentialist.” If anyone has any quotes to the contrary, I would be interested in reading them.

I don’t think you have to rob Kierkegaard of his deeply held faith to “humanize” him in some sense. Just my opinion.

xoc

OK fair enough. I am not going to doubt this report- I'm certainly not a professional philosopher and can only rely on even further heresays of how the philosophical "circles" operate. I was just questiong the premise of how the "ideas" or words and thoughts themselves could be corrupted by later use/misuse. It becomes a new animal I guess.



I just meant that people that would portray him as a "humanist" misrepresent him. Whether or not you can take any of his ideas and reinterpret them or such is another matter. What I liked about Kauffman's intro to that book was how he defended the need for Kierkegaard to be interpretted as K. intended, right or wrong. I appreciate the fact that he alluded to a "false" prophecy of Kierekegaard in the book, or a false sense: "In this age revolution is of all things most unthinkable." and pointed out that a few years after this several revolutions occured. I think it is a great principle in that he is trying to be fair to the original "spirit" of the writer/philosopher, and acknowledge him "warts and all." Kauffman likened those that tried to "dress down" to be like the "kissing Judases" that Kierkegaard wrote about(basically the Judases were "apologists" of a certain sort to Kierkegaard) in that by "feigning" love, (the kiss), they betray. I guess in that sense the "Kierkegaardian" apologist or the "Christian" apologist* betrays the original in that "he" might "change" the message of the o(O)ne they're supposed to be "defending" so that it will be more palatable to the critic. I have a lot of respect for the seriousness of that view, whether or not I buy it wholesale or follow it is another issue. It's a kind of "like it or lump it" proclamation which brings about the need for decision of the people...

Nevertheless of course we can "borrow" from one philosophy certain points or ideas without being commited to it wholesale. I just think it's very important to note the distinction. A Kierkegaardian "humanism" is kind of like a Christiam "marxism"; philosophies that have a tendancy to war "said" to be thus reconciled. Obviously Kierkegaard's views from Fear and Trembling about the "righteousness" of Abraham in going against the humanistic moral ideal is not humanist; but that is because(of course) man's obligation to "God" supercedes what would be a kind of moral, humanist demand. If Kierkegaard weren't a Christian he probably would have been a humanist; but the if is an essential prefix(?) to the point. The idea of "GOD" was very central in importance to the Kierkegaardian world view that many of his books would be empty covers if it were later "removed."

As for my comments on Kauffman, it is a second-hand bit of info I received which could be wrong. I was informed of his analysis or "esposition" of existentialists like Sartre, Nietzsche etc. but I know little about the man except that he's written one of the best intros to a philosophy book I've yet seen. I really know very little on him.

*a footnote about the "kissing Judas" thing. It's kind of funny that in the post I was writing and in the very point about "taking him as it is" I started to try and "qualify" one of Kierkegaard's points so that I might agree with it more! My interpretation on the "kissing Judas" thing would be (and it follows from The Difference Betwen a Genius and an Apostle that it is about the error of certain "apologists" to accept the sketic's viewpoint in giving values to such things as eloquence, etc.; basically it would be evil to obey your father simply because he was a "genius" or eloquent; children should obey their parents(and God) because of authority. Paul is not to be listened to because he's eloquent, but becaues he(as an Apostle, not a Genius), has authority. Therefore the appeals to "listen to the Apostles" because of eloquence is betrayal; they are not to be listened to because they['re profound(as one might listen to Plato) but because they speak with an authority. To put "eloquence" as a reason to listen to them is to shoot them in the feet, as it puts aesthetics on a value in essential matters. This would mean that if someone were "more profound" than an Apostle(and many Geniuses inevitably are), they would lose the "authority" to have valued words. The theological student and Jesus both say the same thing when they say "there is an eternal life", neither having greater profundity and genius in the statement; it is only in the quesiton of "authority" that the essential distinction must be understood. The "Judas" is he who will try and make the God, or "philosopher" in this case, more palatable by "dressing them up" in a certain way to make them more appealing or palatable to the ideological opponent but in the midst "betraying" the original intent and spirit of the "p/Person."

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