Existentialism

[TodHackett]

Does anyone else believe this forum has been hijacked by those who would rather debate religious questions, and hardly reference these to the literature from which they spring, rather than questions concerning literature? I want to see threads dedicated to the rise of literary movements such as transcendentalism, romanticism, symbolism, etc.; but instead I'm bombarded with religious bickering that amounts to nothing because each individual is too preoccupied with convincing the other of their own righteousness that nothing at all could be accomplished. This is a literature forum, not a religious forum. I don't mind this argumentation in moderation, and do admit to having learned a lot about other religions from this forum, but I come here to discuss literature, not religion.

Here, here! So, I shall start a thread to discuss one of my own literary interests-- Existentialism.

I've heard more definitions for this word/idea than I can count; let me hazard my own definition here:

--Existentialism, as a literary movement, highlights the tension between immediate, physical experience and the metaphysical implications of that experience. It does this in order to defend the efficacy of individual experience against the (often) hyper-mediated, "distant" experience of modern life.--

Anthony Giddens explains what I mean by "the (often) hyper-mediated, 'distant' experience of modern life" beautifully in _The Consequences of Modernity_, most especially in the sections on "Modernity, Time, and Space", "Disembedding", "The Reflexivity of Modernity" and "Trust and Ontological Security". If someone asks, I will try to explain it, rather than just referencing his work. You could also go to Freud, Benjamin and Baudelaire, esp. their writings on "shock" in modern experience.

---And now, I will point to two pieces of literature that, I think, best highlight the Existentialist Movement.---

The first is the murder that occurs at the end of Part I of Albert Camus' _The Stranger_.

This chapter is a prime example of Existentialist thought because this murder, in a sense, is not a murder at all-- Camus writes it as a mechanical process, not a metaphysical act. Mersault, the shooter, kills the Algerian, but in this passage that idea-- the idea of "murder"-- is only an afterthought. What Camus focuses on are purely physical sensations-- the piercing sun in Mersault's eyes, the sting of sweat on his brow, the press of the gun's butt on his hand, the 'crack!' of the shots. It is only after all of this that the process takes on its metaphysical, "good vs. evil" facade-- and then, only because Mersault's trial re-casts it that way. This is what makes the trial itself absurd-- it is looking at a physical process and trying to recast it as an act driven by evil intent.

The second is Palahniuk's "Kiss" chapter in _Fight Club_. Those of you who have seen the movie but not read the book know something of this, but I'd tell you to pull the book and read it, or at least this chapter of it.

This is a prime example of Existentialist thought because Palahniuk paints, in a very stark way, the tension between immediate experience (the burning lye on the narrator/protagonist's hand) and mediated experience (the story Tyler Durden tells about the origins of soap). The narrator, like the modern subject, finds himself torn; on the one hand, he has the experience of a very real, searing pain; on the other, he has the mediated, "distant" experience of the story-- a story that takes place over many years, and happened centuries ago in a distant land. And Palahliuk makes a point of constantly reminding us of this tension-- the whole time Durden is telling this story, he is constantly reminding the narrator not to get lost in it; reminding him to "come back to the pain".

So, anybody else out there want to chime in? Any Gide fans?

[Charles Darnay]

Never heard of Gide, but I do enjoy Jean-Paul Sartre and the whole concept of existentailism. I think your examples were very good ones, especially the one from Fight Club. I think Camus's work is more nihilistic than existialism - they are somewhat similar with key dfferenes.

In response to Chapman's post - I agree that this site may be a bit overflowing with religious debates. some of them are interesting but too many become redundant - especailly, as you accurately point out, many of them are simply attempts to say "I'm right" - while others do develop philosophically.

I noticed you mentioned Romanticism as a literary movement - hazza. I personally believe that this is the most under-rated literary movement - over shadowed by the Enlightenment way of thought.

Romatnicism, for those who do not know, was a literary/artistic movement which rejected the cold logical aspects of the world and set out to reunite man with nature. The Romatnic writer's also to the opportuantly to point out great flaws in their society - Blake and Shelly are excellent examples.

[genoveva]

I've always thought of Existentialism as being a general contemplation of our existence in the here and now. This could include contemplation of the "life after death", but mostly existentialists would say when we die, we're dead- period. The world is full of random, meaningless happenings, and there is nothing after death. According to Sparknotes 101, existentialism "refers to the idea that there is no higher meaning to the universe or to man's existence, and no rational order to the events of the world". There is no higher meaning (or inner/godly consequence) for Meursault killing the Arab. He fired the gun for that sake alone, not for some grander reason. Along with The Plague and The Fall, The Myth of Sisyphus, and The Rebel, Camus classified his philosophy as The Absurd (rather than Existentialist). However, most people would classify Camus in the Existentialist category and as a result, the Absurd often is described in any type of Existentialist discussion.

I've always considered Dostoevsky as an Existentialist.

[Sami]

Yes, I remember reading somewhere that Sartre was really the only writer who accepted the label “Existentialism”. The others did not define themselves as existentialists despite common points in their writing/thinking.

The only book I’ve read by Sartre is “The Age of Reason” and the main thing I remember about it is a character cruelly drowning some kittens (apparently because he’s filled with self-loathing). I’m a cat lover so this wasn’t a big hit with me.

I’ve read some of Simone De Beauvoir’s autobiography and I found her pretty interesting. She has some good insights into Sartre’s character – he didn’t come across as very appealing to say the least.

[Doctor Boogaloo]

I've always subscribed to Sartre's dictum that 'hell is other people.' Nietzsche also found the contemplation of suicide to be of comfort on the nights of greatest despair.
Ahh, existentialism. The liberating downer of philosophies. (To be taken in small doses.)

[genoveva]

But, Nietzsche is really a nihilist rather than an existentialist.

[chmpman]

In response to Chapman's post -
Do to time constraints I am forced to only respond to the haphazard way in which Charles Darnay butchered my screenname. It is chmpman, not Chapman. Not all Montanans where chaps. I'll be back though after I refresh my memory on the small bit of Sartre I've read to post my thoughts on Existential literature.

[Charles Darnay]

Do to time constraints I am forced to only respond to the haphazard way in which Charles Darnay butchered my screenname. It is chmpman, not Chapman. Not all Montanans where chaps. I'll be back though after I refresh my memory on the small bit of Sartre I've read to post my thoughts on Existential literature.

And I appologize for it...... I'm often careless when typing in a hurry....

[chmpman]

No harm done, I was honestly a bit amused by it.

[genoveva]

Other Existentialist (related) philosophers/authors:

Karl Jaspers
Soren Kierkegaard
Martin Heidegger
Gabriel Marcel
Fraz Kafka
Unamuno
Lawrence
Andre Malraux
Herman Hesse
Faulkner
Robert Frost
Graham Green
Arthur Koestler
Dickens
Balzac
Pushkin

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I once tried existentialism, but the Gitanes played hell with my throat. :nod:

I have The Outsider next on my 'to read' list - just as soon as I've finished the Martin Amis I'm reading now. I will post some slightly more serious comments after that.

[Scheherazade]

I have The Outsider next on my 'to read' list - just as soon as I've finished the Martin Amis I'm reading now. I will post some slightly more serious comments after that.I hope you can read The Plague right after The Outsider because the contrast between the two is very striking.

Both books are among my favorites. :)

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I hope you can read The Plague right after The Outsider because the contrast between the two is very striking.

Both books are among my favorites. :)

Funnily enough, I found both of these going real cheap in a bookshop and bought them - £3 each!! So I may well do that. Thanks for the advice Scher.

[Sami]

Other Existentialist (related) philosophers/authors:

Karl Jaspers
Soren Kierkegaard
Martin Heidegger
Gabriel Marcel
Fraz Kafka
Unamuno
Lawrence
Andre Malraux
Herman Hesse
Faulkner
Robert Frost
Graham Green
Arthur Koestler
Dickens
Balzac
Pushkin



Looking at this list I don’t think I really understand what the main/common features of existentialism are exactly (although I admit I am not really familiar with most of these authors).
I was under the impression that existentialism emphasized an individual’s freedom to create meanings and that this produced a sort of detachment from social contexts, norms, and so on. I think you see this type of detachment quite clearly in Camus’ “Outsider”? But I am not sure how, say, Dickens would qualify as an existentialist writer? From what I’ve read of Dickens’ work it seems to me that he often draws attention to the ways that contexts shape actions - he’s interested in presenting a social critique for instance rather than detachment from social contexts?

According to Sparknotes 101, existentialism "refers to the idea that there is no higher meaning to the universe or to man's existence, and no rational order to the events of the world".
Couldn't this definition apply to various viewpoints or philosophical positions? E.g. doesn't Nietzsche qualify as an existentialist according to this definition?
Can someone explain??

[Sami]

Anthony Giddens explains what I mean by "the (often) hyper-mediated, 'distant' experience of modern life" beautifully in _The Consequences of Modernity_, most especially in the sections on "Modernity, Time, and Space", "Disembedding", "The Reflexivity of Modernity" and "Trust and Ontological Security". If someone asks, I will try to explain it, rather than just referencing his work.
Yes please! I’d be interested to hear your explanation if you have time. I think you are saying that Giddens is a critic of existentialism rather proposing an existentialsit viewpoint in his own work - right?

Isn’t Giddens' “structuration theory” intended as critique of both structuralism and existentialist-type philosophies? He discusses “reflexivity” in contrast to a choice between either structure or agency/action?

[Charles Darnay]

But I am not sure how, say, Dickens would qualify as an existentialist writer?

I agree with you on that one.... I would definatly not classify Dickens as existentailistic writing and am interested to know where the logic of that comes from.

I suppose Carton's character in A Tale of Two Cities can kind of be seen as existentailism - but even that's a bit of a stretch

[genoveva]

Couldn't this definition apply to various viewpoints or philosophical positions? E.g. doesn't Nietzsche qualify as an existentialist according to this definition?
Can someone explain??


You're right. Nietzsche is clearly an Existentialist even though he would deny it and is more specifically a nihilist. I think I was too rash to separate the two.

I pulled the list of Existentialist (& related) from the introduction by Hayden Carruth of Sartre's Nausea (Lloyd Alexander translator, 1964 New Directions Publishing Corp.). To be brief, I had meant to infer that the authors were somehow related to Existentialism in that they were either "traditionally" thought of as Existentialists, or in some way influenced the genre (movement?). For example, Hegel and Kierkagaard held opposing views which greatly influenced Existentialism (I know, vague).

Anyhow, the reference to Dickens (& other authors mentioned above) was pulled from this passage:

"...it is worth remembering that if Existentialism flowered in the world of Graham Greene, Andre Malraux, and Arthur Koestler, it origninated in the world of Dickens, Balzac, and Pushkin."

Earlier in that same paragraph, Carruth explains that:

"Each of the great Existentialist thinkers pursues his separate course toward the re-establishment of the individual person in the face of Nothingness and absurdity."

He goes on to say...

"It has deep significance for those who have lived through social chaos, uprootedness, irrational torture, and this accounts for the pessimism and nightmarish imagery that pervade much Existentialist writing."

From the little I remember about the little I've read of Dickens, I do remember nightmarish scenes and underlying themes of the individual being smashed by an uncaring government. Perhaps others might have better examples.

Carruth goes on to explain how Existentialists do often deny the label of Existentialist and conceeds that it is hard to define:

"There are so many branches of Existentialism that a number of the principal Existentialist writers have repudiated the term altogether; they deny they are Existentialists and refuse to associate in the common ferment. Nevertheless we go on calling them Existentialists, and we are quite right to do so".

On defining Existentialism:

"Nobody knows. That is, nobody can pin it down in a statement, though a number of people, including Sartre, have tried. Simply because Existentialism is not a produce of antecedent intellectual determinations, but a free transmutation of living experience, it cannot be defined. Nevertheless the important tendencies are evident enough."

He goes on to say that Existentialism is a "recoil from rationalism".

Existentialists oppose humanism (but are not inhumane).

Existentialists, he says, insist that "reality is only what he himself knows and experiences".

As a result, s/he can never know God or if a God exists because s/he only knows himself. The Existentialist must confront Nothingness. The Nothingness before birth, and the Nothingness after death. "Why is there anything instead of nothing?" Why do people believe there is something after death? Why do people believe there is something rather than nothing?

An Existentialist would say that the world is nonrational. There is no divine order or purpose of things. Human kind is an accident. We are an accident. Not important. Just another "by-product" of this world we live in.

*angst*

Off to contemplate life...

[Charles Darnay]

now that is some interesting reading

[Virgil]

As far as I can tell, and it's been many years since I studied existentialism, there doesn't seem to be many things that they would agree on. It strikes me that this is more a lumping of various, diverse writers together rather than a coherent movement. In my opinion, a hundred years from now this will all be forgotten. The writers may remain based on the quality of their writing, but the philosophy will be just another "ism." I mean, it's not much of a philosphy when you can sum it up with: "I fear death, therefore I dread." Haven't we always feared death? What's new here? That's just my two cents.

[Charles Darnay]

I would have to disagree... I would think that in our growing atheistic world existentialism would become more popular instead of fading out.

[Virgil]

(1) Not all existentialists are atheists. Kikenkard, Dostiesvski, Tolstoy. I'm believ even Hiedegger. Just because you're an atheist doesn't make you an existentialist or vice versa.

(2) Existentialism essentially ended with the death of Camus in the 1950's. Is there anyone of note who claims to be an existentialist today?

(3) Most existentialists mentioned here wouldn't even agree that they're existentialists. Can anyone summarize what is common between them all?

[rockinbro1559]

Sydney Carton could not be considered a true existentialist because of his love for Lucie. I would have to agree that I would want to see the logic in classifying Dickens as an existentialist writer. But Graham Greene and the other authors are defiinetly classified as thus.

[genoveva]

As far as I can tell, and it's been many years since I studied existentialism, there doesn't seem to be many things that they would agree on. It strikes me that this is more a lumping of various, diverse writers together rather than a coherent movement. In my opinion, a hundred years from now this will all be forgotten. The writers may remain based on the quality of their writing, but the philosophy will be just another "ism." I mean, it's not much of a philosphy when you can sum it up with: "I fear death, therefore I dread."

It would be fun to come up with a list of things Existentialists (in general) do agree upon. I'm sure there would be many things! Perhaps another day when I can leisurely read online all day long...

I think the most basic cohesive element is that Existentialists acknowledge the truth in the individual's experiential existence above all else.

I doubt (and certainly hope not!) that Existentialism will have been forgotten about 100 years from now.

A little more of what Hayden Carruth has to say:

"Someone has said that Existentialism is a philosophy- if a philosophy at all- that has been independently invented by millions of people simply responding to the emergency of life in a modern world."

"Philosophical truth assumes many forms precisely because times change and men's needs change with them".

[genoveva]

(2) Existentialism essentially ended with the death of Camus in the 1950's. Is there anyone of note who claims to be an existentialist today?


This is not true. That's like saying Christianity essentially ended with the death of Christ.

It isn't necessary to be "anyone of note" to be an Existentialist. An Existentialist would even agree with that. It's not our fault, or our parents, or any gods that we are who we are. It's all a random accident anyway.

I'd consider myself an existentialist.

[Virgil]

Sydney Carton could not be considered a true existentialist because of his love for Lucie. I would have to agree that I would want to see the logic in classifying Dickens as an existentialist writer. But Graham Greene and the other authors are defiinetly classified as thus.
I've never heard that Greene is an existentialist. Wasn't his whole focus Roman Catholicism? I suppose it doesn't exclude him being an existentialist, the one novel I read, Brighton Rock, (fine novel BTW, well worth reading) didn't seem to have any element of existentialism.

[Sami]

I think I’m getting more and more confused as this thread continues. As I understand it, existentialism refers to a French intellectual movement during the 1940s and 50s, mostly centred on the work of Jean Paul Sartre. I don’t understand the broader use of the term that is being put forward here. Of course other writers have reflected on existence, but I am not sure that I would call this existentialISM. Given the vast number of writers who discuss existence in some sense, I wonder whether applying the term ‘existentialism’ in this broad way threatens to make it such a diverse category that the name ceases to be particularly helpful or informative? What is it that the writers mentioned so far have in common with one another?

Having said that, I don’t know very much about the content of Sartre’s work. It would be interesting to know why it seems to have declined in popularity since at one time I gather existentialism was very fashionable. Doesn’t existentialism (considered as the French movement in the 1940s/50s) have a certain reputation for being pretentious? Why is this so? I usually associate the term with students hanging out in cafes - and, yes Xamonas, I think Gitanes also played a major role too!

[Sami]

I've never heard that Greene is an existentialist. Wasn't his whole focus Roman Catholicism? I suppose it doesn't exclude him being an existentialist, the one novel I read, Brighton Rock, (fine novel BTW, well worth reading) didn't seem to have any element of existentialism.


Virgil, I agree. I am also a bit confused about how “Brighton Rock” could be existentialist. Isn’t the main character in that book presented as a villain? I.e. there’s some moral condemnation of his actions that seems to be missing in existentialist views. Is there a villain in Camus’ “Outsider”?

[TodHackett]

Yes please! I’d be interested to hear your explanation if you have time. I think you are saying that Giddens is a critic of existentialism rather proposing an existentialsit viewpoint in his own work - right?

Isn’t Giddens' “structuration theory” intended as critique of both structuralism and existentialist-type philosophies? He discusses “reflexivity” in contrast to a choice between either structure or agency/action?

My explanation (as above)--

The main sources I draw from here are Giddens, Boorstin, Benjamin and Foucault. In _Consequences_, Giddens talks about the modernity as being partially defind by its process of abstracting of space & time. Giddens says that in modernity, "place" has replaced "space". Let me use a simple example:

You are in your living room, watching a CNN broadcast from Basra, Iraq. On the screen, a reporter and a news-anchor are having a conversation. Arguably, an "event" is taking place here. But where is that event taking place? In your living room, at CNN headquarters in Atlanta, in Basra...?

Giddens would say that the event is happening not in a "space" (a real, bounded, physical area), but in a "place" (a sort of abstraction, based on real, physical experience but not of it... like this "bulletin board"). But this is something only "moderns" have to grapple with. In pre-modernity, so Giddens says, there is no distinction between "space" and "place". One could argue this, but I won't.

Boorstin and Benjamin do the same thing when they consider the layout of a newspaper, only they go about it in slightly different ways. In the opening chapter of _The Image_, Boorstin traces the history of "news" and "journalism" in America, and says basically this: whereas in the 18th century, the newspaper was made in response to the news it printed, in the 20th century, news is made for the newspaper that prints it.

In "The Storyteller", Benjamin says something similar-- that "news" (or "information") has replaced "narrative". "Narrative" is a story that has a sort of poetic integrity. "Narrative" is continuous and centered on the storyteller and his/her audience. It is human. "News" or "information", on the other hand, is discontinuous, and made to fit a pre-existing space. This is similar to the process that Foucault describes in _Discipline and Punish_-- the modern soldier is "distributed in a machinery" (I think this is the quote, or close to it...); he moves from being an individual warrior to being a disciplined and controlled unit in a pre-existing order. (BTW, I think this tension-- between the warrior-as-individual and the soldier-as-unit-- is central to understanding much of the work of the War Poets, and also to Auden's "Shield of Achilles".)

Back to "News". The objective of one who makes "news"-- a journalist-- is to be, well, "objective"-- that is, to de-center the story on himself and center it in a pre-existing realm that is not "subjective", not of the subject, not human. What we get when we pick up a newspaper, then, is a "distributed order" of "objective fact". In modernity, according to Benjamin, these are the stories we tell-- they are post-narrative. And (I think Benjamin would agree)-- these sorts of stories are terribly alienating to the individual. Especially if you are an individual whose lot in life is telling stories. (And this idea, I think, is central to understanding West's writings...)

Enter the existentialists. Finding themselves living in a world without "space", without "narrative", as disciplined units in a pre-existing order, these writers revolt against modernity. They value individual experience and subjectivity over "news", and draw attention to their immediate-- that is, spatial-- surroundings. That's how I read existentialism-- the little bit of it that I've read-- and it seems to make sense to me to read it this way.

And also, it makes total sense to me that these writers would be hesitant to subscribe to a "school" called existentialism-- that would merely re-make them as units in a pre-existing order, and that is one of the sources of their alienation, after all.

So, there you have it, Sami. Thanks for the question... and I'm intersted to hear what you think!

[Charles Darnay]

I don't think love has anything to do wit existentialism - that's once again nihilism..... but as was mentioned, existentialism is so vauge that it is kind of hard to draw the line.

[genoveva]

Enter the existentialists. Finding themselves living in a world without "space", without "narrative", as disciplined units in a pre-existing order, these writers revolt against modernity. They value individual experience and subjectivity over "news", and draw attention to their immediate-- that is, spatial-- surroundings. That's how I read existentialism-- the little bit of it that I've read-- and it seems to make sense to me to read it this way.


I've read your post twice trying to understand it. I agree about the space/place thing, but don't think it's necessarily unique to what distinguishes Existentialism. Perhaps I'm wrong, and maybe someone can give me another example to clarify my misunderstanding. I do agree also that we can't really know what's going on on the other side of the world because we're not there. And because if we're not there we can never really know. Hmm... maybe that's what you mean? Because, as an existentialist, we can only know what we experience? And if we are not experiencing war, we can't really understand it? Not even when described by the media? Hmm...

Okay, Existentialist writers revolting against modernity? Wouldn't that be Post-Modernism? Wait a minute... Do you mean modern in the general sense or modern as in 1940/50 Existentialist modernity? Or do you mean modernity as in 2006? I'm just a little confused because of your example of Iraq and the media. Thanks for clarifying!

[genoveva]

Existentialists do "love". They're filled with passions and emotions. Now this is where the distinction between Nihilist and Absurdist is important. Nihilists and Absurdists are filled with passions as well, but more "negative" ones like anger, angst/anxiety, depression, despair, etc. You're right, not much love there. At least in the meaning of true romantic love (which is a whole 'nuther thread in itself) between two people. But, again, that's typical of Nihilists and Absurdists.

[Sami]

Hi Todd,
Interesting post! Although I don’t think that a revolt against modernity necessarily has to head in the direct of post-modernism, as Genoveva points out, it certainly could do. I am pretty interested to hear why you chose to discuss existentialism in this context. Why is their version of the critique of modernity appealing, or particularly suited to responding to the point about the displacement of physical presence? Perhaps you’re writing this piece for a course, in which case you may be mentioning the existentialists because they’re on the syllabus?

Or, is it because existentialism offers an active view of revolt because of their focus on experience and choice? If so, then maybe they have an advantage over some of the structuralist/post structuralists such as Foucault. I think that the quote about the modern soldier appears in a chapter of “Discipline and Punish” called “Docile Bodies”? In this text Foucault doesn’t emphasize ways that individuals could actively resist modernity, so maybe this is an advanatage of existentialism over other views? As I said, I’m not really familiar with any existentialist works so I’m wondering what specific advantages it offers to your point.

[rachel]

I rather like the thought that when we are born we are just 'thrown' into a situation as it were and make our own existance. Very interesting.I think more people than were probably even aware based their work on that idea.

[TodHackett]

Hi Todd,
Interesting post! Although I don’t think that a revolt against modernity necessarily has to head in the direct of post-modernism, as Genoveva points out, it certainly could do. I am pretty interested to hear why you chose to discuss existentialism in this context. Why is their version of the critique of modernity appealing, or particularly suited to responding to the point about the displacement of physical presence? Perhaps you’re writing this piece for a course, in which case you may be mentioning the existentialists because they’re on the syllabus?

Or, is it because existentialism offers an active view of revolt because of their focus on experience and choice? If so, then maybe they have an advantage over some of the structuralist/post structuralists such as Foucault. I think that the quote about the modern soldier appears in a chapter of “Discipline and Punish” called “Docile Bodies”? In this text Foucault doesn’t emphasize ways that individuals could actively resist modernity, so maybe this is an advanatage of existentialism over other views? As I said, I’m not really familiar with any existentialist works so I’m wondering what specific advantages it offers to your point.

Sami--

Sorry it's taken me awhile to post; I've been busy with work and all...

No, I'm not writing this for a course. I am on a hiatus from coursework at the moment; I will probably go back for a PhD in a year or two, when my employer will pay for it. I miss classes, and discussions like this one!

As for what "existentailists" I've read, it's pretty much limited to a few works by Camus and one or two by Sartre, so I am far from an expert. Still, I'm interested in hashing out just what "existentialism" is. I like to think that if there is an "existentialist movement", then their "focus on experience and choice" is central. I think this, I guess, because it makes all kinds of sense for a mid-20th century literary movement to go in this direction (as they respond to political regimes that devalue individual experience, new technologies that kill and destroy without ever confronting their victims face-to-face, the distancing effects of mass media, etc). To that end, I might even classify other works as "existentialist"-- _Catch-22_, for example. One of my favorite parts of that book is where Yossarian tells his c/o (in the middle of a war) something like the following-- "But you don't understand. They're not just killing Americans... they're trying to kill me!" All through that book, Yossarian encounters situations where the tension between his experience and his orders is brought to the fore. Another example would be Vonnegut's invention of the terms "granfalloon", "foma" and "karass" in _Cat's Cradle_, all of which draw attention to individual, lived experience-- not state allegiances or mass-market fantasies-- as being the determining factor in people's lives.

So, Sami, I'm interested to hear what your background is in all this, and what you think existentialism is (I get the impression that you know more about this than I do, so if I can specualte, you can certainly speculate). Also, are you at all encouraged by any "critique of modernity"? Who do you find to be most hopeful or inspiring, and why?

[genoveva]

As for what "existentailists" I've read, it's pretty much limited to a few works by Camus and one or two by Sartre, so I am far from an expert. Still, I'm interested in hashing out just what "existentialism" is. I like to think that if there is an "existentialist movement", then their "focus on experience and choice" is central.

Add to your list of "must reads" for Existentialism: Neitzsche and Dostoevsky. Neitzsche, Dostoevsky, Camus, and Sartre all have different styles and different "takes" on existentialism, yet are all considered fundamental to the philosophy.

Wikipedia (is this cheating? :blush: ) has a great definition of Existentialism (quite lengthy) and gives many examples.... This is a good resource to help clarify things and offers Existentialist resources.

They also offer examples of film- one of my favorite formats, and offers Richard Linklator's films, Slacker and Dazed and Confused as examples. If you haven't seen Slacker- you must! It's already put out by the Criterion Collection.

Further, If you're seeking out critical analysis of Existentialism, a good author on it is Robert C. Solomon (professor of my Existentialism course when I was doing my undergrad). He's got 40+ books out, and I've found his writing style to be very readable with simple and clear, easy to digest examples. You could Google him and get access to purchasing his books. I found a book of his, What Neitzsche Really Said, in a local bookstore out here on the West Coast! If anyone else has suggestions for authors/books which critically analyze Existentialism, I would love to hear about them!

[TodHackett]

Didn't even think about Dostoevsky, but you're right, of course. _Notes_, for one, falls pretty clearly into the criteria I set.

[Sami]

Sorry it's taken me awhile to post; I've been busy with work and all...

No, I'm not writing this for a course. I am on a hiatus from coursework at the moment; I will probably go back for a PhD in a year or two, when my employer will pay for it. I miss classes, and discussions like this one!

Todd, no need to apologize - I didn’t think there was a reply-deadline. That’s the nice thing about NOT having to do coursework – you can take your time!

So, Sami, I'm interested to hear what your background is in all this, and what you think existentialism is (I get the impression that you know more about this than I do, so if I can specualte, you can certainly speculate). Also, are you at all encouraged by any "critique of modernity"? Who do you find to be most hopeful or inspiring, and why?
I can think of several critiques that do a convincing job of pointing out the problems with modernity. It’s deciding what is to be done that’s the hard part! From what I’ve read so far, I probably find Foucault’s view most interesting (but he’s certainly not an existentialist).

As I’ve said in other posts, I honestly don’t know much about existentialism at all. What I find quite interesting is that the existentialist movement in the 1940s/50s produced both complicated philosophy books and literary works, such as novels and plays. And, although the philosophy might not be so popular anymore, the literary works still seem to be quite widely read.

Have other “movements” that came after existentialism produced novels, plays etc. as well as philosophy texts? I would guess that structuralism and post-structuralism haven’t, or at least not in the same way as Sartre and Camus. Aren’t these later movements are most often seen as offering tools for literary criticism, rather than literary works of their own? I realize that one of the main points of post-structuralism is to question the boundaries between literature and philosophy and all that confusing blah de blah, and I guess this would probably be the main reason why Derrida and Lyotard etc. don’t express their philosophy through novels or plays? This is probably a blessing really – I don’t think a novel by Derrida would be very fun to read!

Maybe I’m really wrong here - Are there novelists that see their own works as examples of post-structuralism? I suppose Umberto Eco might be one? I’m wondering whether one of the distinctive things about existentialism is that it allows philosophy and literature to be linked together without getting stuck in the sort of dead-end that later views suffer from?

[Uberzensch]

But, Nietzsche is really a nihilist rather than an existentialist.

I know this is an old thread, but I nearly screamed out when I saw this!

I cannot think of any statement more fundamentally flawed and offensive to Nietzsche. (Sorry for the dramatics!)

To say Nietzsche was a nihilist is to completey ignore his own words and arguments and misinterpret his entire project.

Go back to Beyond Good and Evil - Chapter 1 - On the Prejudices of Philosphers - Nietzche is life affirming. Nihilists are the exact opposite of that. Nietzsche, though destructive in his ciriticisms, is ultimately most interested in creation. Any negativity or destruction is only to make room for the new.

I can keep going, but I'll wait to see if anyone is interested in continuing this dialogue.

[JohnMelmoth]

I'd agree Uberzensch, Nietszche wrote about the "transvaluation" of all values not their destruction. He searched for an ethic that Modern Man could live by.

[WICKES]

This is my feeble attempt

We are, according to the existentialists, born into a world that is utterly meaningless. An individual is not born for anything, we are not here to fulfil or carry out any sort of divine plan or mission. In other words life has no purpose. As Sartre put it "existence precedes essence".

Camus thought our situation was 'absurd': we are built in such a way as to crave meaning but live in a world that has no higher meaning waiting for us. A nasty little joke if ever there was one. Sartre disliked the term 'absurd', for him life was just meaningless.

So, what to do? Nietzsche's answer was the Ubermensch. I think he partly had Castglione's courtier in mind: an aristocratic, graceful individualist- creative, fearless, noble, entirely without self-pity; the sort of man who could write a poem in the morning in Latin or discuss Shakespeare or the use of light in a Turner painting at a tea party in London high society, then in the afternoon get roaring drunk and involved in a fist fight. Somebody like Sir Walter Raleigh: an Elizabethan adventurer, warrior, poet and intellectual who dressed himself in his finest cloathes for his execution. In other words (and this Camus would have agreed with) people who embraced life.

The Ubermensch would also regard all religions as mere human inventions, designed to constrain and limit natural energy and to console and baby us. He would accept life's meaninglessness and create and live by his own code of honour, in the knowledge that all 'truth' was relative and thus that it was ridiculous to condemn the actions of others. His code of morality would be self generated and not have the stamp of approval of any higher power. He could live with this though.

I agree with the above post, he was no nihilist. In fact, his whole philosophy was an attempt to find an answer to the nihilism he saw European civilisation sliding into.