sweep

sorry, i can't elaborate much, but i will say that existentialism was probably a reaction to world war. Possibly a loss in faith at that time triggered a more secular worldview.

I think sartre might have suggested that 'god is dead' and that we are responsible for our own actions. People have to choose their own lifestyles, so i suppose he would tend to adopt a relativist position.

Please don't take my word for it, as it has been quite a while since i read on this subject, but i do remember that sartre went on to reject most of his initial work and there are many more writers who could offer a slant on the subject. I suggest you study hard and take your time. It's a thick jungle but if you do enough hacking, i'm sure you could find a clearing> more help needed from this community.

One more thing. Have you considered that death is actually practical and the final freedom of humans. What if one were trapped in a mountain for instance. Oh, if you're having a shitty week then i suggest you buy some "MONKEY" videos. Not monkey, monkeys- the monkey, the heavenly sage. Things have worked out well, it seems to me, our current mindset has created some unsuitable conditions, which can only result in inequality, and stem from the power of the body.

regards

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: sweet as a nut ]</p>

Samhain

I mainly identify myself as a Sartrean-Existentialist, while also referring to the writings of Camus amoung others, but like AtlanticCitySlave, I do tend to part company with the philosophy when it suits me (which may very well be the point). I do not view Existentialism as a depressing philosophy, actually, I hold, that when taken in the correct way it is very empowering and very benevolent, however, common perceptions and the previous "existentialists" would seem to conflict with this idea unfortunately. As a philosophy major a whole lot of my writings and theses have been centered around the existentialist philosophy, and I'm currently working on compromising some of the contradictions between "Being and Nothingness" and "Existentialism is a Humanism". I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have concerning the philosophy of Existentialism if I am qualified to answer them, though I would not be surprised if there were quite a few others here who might be more knowledgeable in that realm than I.

Darwin's Finch

One book I found to be of great help in getting Sartre straight was Hazel Barnes's Existential Ethics, essentially an elaboration of certain themes in Being and Nothingness, which she also translated. AFAIK, it is still in print.

WJ

(Hi Sam)strub!

I think most would agree there are seemingly 3 types of existentialist; theist, atheist and agnostic.

Example:

Sartre: atheist
Kant: agnostic
Pascal: theist

The movement has its roots in anti-rationalism and intellectualism as derived from Plato. The common points relate to reason not ultimately explaining the nature of our Being, our essence of who we are. Were it breaks off from there (in the form of choice, which is important in the movement itself-volitional existence)is in one direction, [using the direct metaphor] of Being and Nothingness-atheism, and the concept of God and subsequent leap into absurdity.

Perhaps the more interesting views for all existentialists as well as other modernists/humanists like Schopenhaur would be the recognition of human sentient existence and the will to be. The atheist elects to conclude nothingness in the face of being, where the agnostic says there has got to be something more, or at least there 'might' be something more to our existence, that is. Then the theist of course, has already taken the so-called leap of faith.

Samhain

It will be noted that while WJ's summary of atheist existentialists accurately portrays the stereotypes laid in place since the time of Sartre and Camus, I will further note that this portrayal, while common, is perhaps, non-factual. Nothingness is not necessarily confirmed or postulated by the atheist existentialist, but rather, in place of nothingness, absurdity is noted. Absurdity of existence, and the common stereotype that existence is nothingness are two contradicting and very different points. Absurdity does not necessitate nothingness, but rather, existence confirms being, and sets apart that which is nothingness - death or non-existence. Of course the point may be somewhat blurred by the idea of anguish, that is, anguish because of both absurdity of existence and nothingness.

As will also be noted, essences defined are not necessarily coinciding for the atheist and the theist existentialists. And the differences are also vast, not solely based, but partly based on this point (i.e. essences derived by nature and by the base of our existence vs. essences derived from creation by a god).

It is my feeling, as well, that the theistic existentialist philosophy is largely a joke, as the two main points (i.e. affirmation of existence, and servitude toward a supernatural entity during the whole of that existence or the quest for the spiritual essence which gives meaning to existence [what I feel is, in fact, denial of existence], as Kierkegaard may have put it) largely contradict one another. Also the points that also lead me to this conclusion would also have largely to do with the idea that essence (i.e. spiritual essence) preceeds existence, a position held by many theistic "existentialists", in great opposition of the atheistic existentialist view that existence preceeds essence. While both may stress individual existence and responsibility for one's own actions, the differences are so fundamental that they would seem as two philosophies set in direct opposition of one another. Of course, I do not expect WJ to conform to the exact same problematic philosophy that is theistic existentialism, but do take note that it is usually neither concerned with humanism or existence.

WJ

Sam!

I'm running short on time today but did want to continue the discussion because I'm a big fan of existentialism (how selfish of me)! My first thought relates to human sentient existence and angst. I would certainly agree that both of these human attributes or qualities of existence is part of Being, but as you allude, they are resolved by opposing thought processes. Would you not agree?

Now you talked about existence's primacy. (The reason is that human essences are unknown, period.) If you are an existentialist, would you not agree with that? And if you do, what follows? The answers that both of us have to that question comprise the 'opposites' you alluded to.

Right?

Walrus

Samhain

WJ,

As I've no doubt stated numerous times before, I do not define essences in the same fashion as you would, and knowledge of essences is a non-issue for me really. I do not believe that they are unknown, but I do not think that the two of us define the essences of existence in the same way either. Thus, if you wish to have a discussion in regards to existence vs. essence and which holds primacy you'll have to establish some guidelines when discussing essences. I do not agree or disagree as of this point, but await clarification.

WJ

Hi Sam!

Ok, take this as gospel and perhaps ask your fellow philosophers whether or not this is true.

1. If you truly are an existentialist, then you must buy into the fact that essences are unknown. We of course know this from the cosmological argument (and other laws of natural science) which for the sake of our discussion, we'll call a neutral position.

2. The essence of consciousness is unknown. We cannot ascertain , for instance, how sentience has evolved, let alone self-awareness. sartre, again, would say being and nothingness for 'good reason'-atheism.

3. Platonic essences consisted of perfect ideals as he tailored the Diamerge, which of course is based upon pure reason alone. The spinoffs go from there, onological argument, critique of reason and so forth.

4. Pure abstract, apriori deductive logic, as used by plato and cosmological science, has not been effective in deducing a complete explaination of existence let alone essence(s).

5. The existentialist, for these and other reasons I have not mentioned, places the reality of consciousness as alll we can know about our consciousness or conscious existence in the form of Being-angst, absurdity, etc..

6. Some claim Kant was the precurser to existentialism, because of his critique of pure reason. With regard to essences, in my view, his major credit in metaphysics is the development of the synthetic apriori v. pure analytic propositions about our existence/essence. And we now know that physicist always use synthetic propositions to discover, prove or falsify their theories.

If that does not make sense, please advise. (For some reason, I don't think you are on the same page with respect the fundamental distinctions between essences and existence, and their importance to the movement.

If you cannot agree that essences are unknown or perhaps even cannot be known (please respond to that point), then you are not an existentialist.

Walrus

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Samhain

Clarification, WJ, sorry, your description of essence does not adhere to that which Sartre or Hegel defined it as. And, while I may agree with you in other areas, like I stated before, our definitions of 'essence' are quite different.

Sartre defined 'essences' as what has passed: "Since there is no pre-established pattern for human nature, each man makes his essence as he lives" (Being and Nothingness).

As stated before, we're talking about two different things, so if you'd like to tell me what you're talking about when you say 'essence' perhaps we meet each other halfway.

I take it you mean 'essence' as that which we were made of, the beginnings of mankind, rather than the beginnings of an individual. So, perhaps we can differentiate between universal and individual essences. I don't concern myself much with universal essences (our creation or evolution, the reasons for our consciousness, etc.), but I would say I am curious enough to debate them on occasion. Perhaps this is where the confusion stems from, I was discussing individual essences and I think you were looking at a more universal standpoint.

Yes, well, I would agree that with how you define 'essence' I can understand why.

*nods*

The problem stems from your definition of 'essence'. All writings I have read dealing with existentialism deal with 'essence' as a more individual quality, further, the 'universal essences', as I have coined them, are quite meaningless to the atheist existentialist, our beginnings are of no true import unless it furthers our own, individual, pleasure or existence. We deal in the present, not the past That which is not (or cannot be) known holds no sway over the present or over our own existences.

I concede the point, however, I see that mainly the reason has to do with confusion over the word 'essence' itself, and not for any real definition.

WJ

Hi Sam!

"Since there is no pre-established pattern for human nature, each man makes his essence as he lives" (Being and Nothingness)."

I'm not sure what he means by 'pre-established pattern' so please expound if you will. Or, at least provide your interpretation. My interpretation of that statement is thus. Because he was an atheist, his leap consisted of bridging existence with essence because there is, to him, nothingness, just that we exist. in other wrods, the brute fact that we exist with no other explaination. This nothingness relates to purpose, meaning etc. in one's life. Of course, that's the bleak picture and seems contradictory in the face of consciousness (the intended purpose of).

That is what I meant by 'what follows.' thesaving grace relates to choice. And that choice relates to the individual's freedom (to in fact make a choice) for all existentialists.

Now, though as you know I've embraced the 'religious' (and even the Kantian version of agnosticism in the face of logic)existentailist's view of essence and existence, I have not read enough of Sartre to make an absolute distinction between the religious and non-religious view. Nevertheless I'll sort of define my interpretation (though I do have some Sartre that I can check).

essence= the nature of a thing(s), person, or Being.

existence= consciousness, ideas, thoughts, sentience, volition, and so forth all of which are relative to Being. Also, includes any objects or things as discovered in natural science, physics, etc. to include theories about metaphysics.


Unlike you, I think essence apply to all things whether they are universal, cosmological or otherwise. Likewise, existence encompases all that can be thought to known thru the inquiry of logic, science, epirical sciences, etc..

So what you have is the fact that you seemingly exist. We don't what our essence consists of from a cosmic sense, nor do we truly understand what our conscious existence consists of as it specifically relates to being a human and having all of our attributes as mentioned above.

My argument (as well as Kant's & Keirkegaard, Pascal, etc.):

Either/or; Being and nothingness (no purpose to life) or, Being and something more.

Being and nothingness is more of Hume's skepticism which is self refutting. Being, predicates existence by its very nature. we are creatures that are comletely dependent on time for our understanding of our existence. The journey of life is simply that; the discovery of a some thing that provides for meaning. What do you think provides for any meaning? If there exists no thing but Being and nothingness, why does our consciousness include sentience and volition? Did Sartre explain that, I wonder?

Walrus

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>