What is Existentialism?

[Musawi]

I have found this philosophy hard to grasp, because it seems to me to be something which is more based on phychology than a way of living as such. I'm 17, so i lack a great understanding of Philosophy, so bear with me please haha
Any help?

[lily of valley]

heyyy!!!!

i advise u to read Existentialist Ethics by M Warnock. it will give u a very good idea about the main existentialists: kierkegaard, heidegger, and sartre.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Existentialism is a position claiming that people have absolute authority over uncovering the meaning of their lives. I am not much of a fan, it has some good points but has difficulty getting past its assertion of the ego. That is, most of them admit they're just a bunch of atoms but feel sad when the universe doesn't give them an apparent purpose for being alive.

Existentialism is a trendy philosophy, namely because it appeals to a lot of emotional nonsense that people have always liked to hear. I think it's kind of fruity and it hasn't really gotten me anywhere, tread lightly.

[Musawi]

Thank you very much.
I will indeed tread lightly Mr. Ralph, while having at go at reading Existentialist Ethics if i have time after reading my current list of books.
I suppose it is always better to see it for yourself rather than relying on other people's opinions, although i do appreciate your opinions as a starting point. :)

[satyrane]

You could also try Existentialism and Humanism by Sartre; it's a very brief work (based on a lecture Sartre gave), and an approachable introduction to French Existentialism. It includes the central tenets and the differences between the kind of Existentialism practised by Sartre et al, as opposed to Christian Existentialism.

[JJLuke]

I remember hearing that existentialist believe only in the present, and the future and past do not exist.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Thank you very much.
I will indeed tread lightly Mr. Ralph, while having at go at reading Existentialist Ethics if i have time after reading my current list of books.
I suppose it is always better to see it for yourself rather than relying on other people's opinions, although i do appreciate your opinions as a starting point. :)

Yeah, it's extremely trendy in high schools and it was big back in the early to middle part of last century. It had a lot of competition with philosophy of science and epistemology for attention, and it sort of fell out. I can't in my right mind recommend anything by Sartre, though...I haven't personally read any of his stuff but overviews of his philosophy are enough to decide whether he's worth it or not. It's actually hard to consider existentialism a really well defined movement because its proponents differed quite radically...

If you're actually interested in that sort of thing but don't want to read words that don't actually mean anything (for real, even fundamental claims use words that are nonsense under scrutiny) then I suggest The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. I have read this one personally and thought it was pretty good. He isn't necessarily existential but is pretty close. I think it's more of an assessment of the immediate human condition rather than a great philosophical work. Still, it was worth the read.

[JJLuke]

Yeah, it's extremely trendy in high schools and it was big back in the early to middle part of last century. It had a lot of competition with philosophy of science and epistemology for attention, and it sort of fell out. I can't in my right mind recommend anything by Sartre, though...I haven't personally read any of his stuff but overviews of his philosophy are enough to decide whether he's worth it or not. It's actually hard to consider existentialism a really well defined movement because its proponents differed quite radically...

If you're actually interested in that sort of thing but don't want to read words that don't actually mean anything (for real, even fundamental claims use words that are nonsense under scrutiny) then I suggest The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. I have read this one personally and thought it was pretty good. He isn't necessarily existential but is pretty close. I think it's more of an assessment of the immediate human condition rather than a great philosophical work. Still, it was worth the read.

After reading Caligula, anything sounds good from Camus.

[quasimodo1]

Rather than be seduced by existentialism...you might consider something that Conrad said in the novel "Nostromo"..."We should attempt to live in the present with the ".simultaneous constant knowledge of the past and future". paraphrased a little

[quasimodo1]

ANYARA-APHORISMS
~ Philosophy Quotes ~

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Emile M. Cioran
Rumanian-born French philosopher Emile M. Cioran was born on April 8, 1911
Sun in Aries
Nothing is worse than the coarseness and meanness we perpetrate out of timidity. - Emile M. Cioran, The Trouble With Being Born

Moon in Leo
Alone, even doing nothing, you do not waste your time. You do, almost always, in company. No encounter with yourself can be altogether sterile: Something necessarily emerges, even if only the hope of some day meeting yourself again. - E.M. Cioran

Mercury in Taurus (Mercury conjunct Saturn)
We have convictions only if we have studied nothing thoroughly. - E.M. Cioran, The Trouble With Being Born

Venus in Taurus
However versed we may be in satiety, we remain caricatures of our precursor Xerxes. Was it not he who promised by edict a reward to anyone who could invent a new pleasure? That was the most modern gesture of antiquity. - E.M. Cioran

Mars in Aquarius
All indignation--from grousing to satanism--marks a point in mental evolution. - E.M. Cioran

Jupiter in Scorpio
It is as an informer that I have prowled around God; incapable of imploring Him, I have spied on Him. - E.M. Cioran

Saturn in Taurus
Let us not be needlessly bitter: certain failures are sometimes fruitful. - E. M. Cioran

Uranus in Capricorn
Nothing slakes my thirst for doubts: if only I had Moses' staff to summon them from the very rock! - E.M. Cioran

Neptune in Cancer
No one should try to live if he has not completed his training as a victim. - E.M. Cioran

Pluto in Gemini
The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is a monster. - E.M. Cioran

Moon's North Node in Taurus
After fifteen years of total solitude, St. Seraphim of Sarow exclaimed at the sight of the least visitor, Oh joy! - E.M. Cioran

More philosopher quotes: Philosophy Quotes

Other quotations? Welcome to Anyara-Aphorisms

© Anyara 2002

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

After reading Caligula, anything sounds good from Camus.

I don't know if I'd ever read anything written by Caligula but he was pretty interesting, I've read quite a bit about him. It's interesting to compare leaders that were actually mentally insane with ones now.

And those above quotes are not existential.

[JJLuke]

I don't know if I'd ever read anything written by Caligula but he was pretty interesting, I've read quite a bit about him. It's interesting to compare leaders that were actually mentally insane with ones now.

And those above quotes are not existential.

I meant the play Caligula written by Camus. As for works written by Caligula, that would be a very interesting read.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I meant the play Caligula written by Camus. As for works written by Caligula, that would be a very interesting read.

Oh, haha my bad. Yeah the real Caligula was a nutcase, I read half a book on him around a year ago. His reign is as tragic as it is hilarious

[JJLuke]

Oh, haha my bad. Yeah the real Caligula was a nutcase, I read half a book on him around a year ago. His reign is as tragic as it is hilarious

Watch the movie about him if your looking for hilarious. Caligula is played by the same guy from Clockwork Orange.

[Ludmila607]

"Existencialists are those who do what they want to do", I have heard someone respond to the answer about Existencialism.
They mainly identify " to be is to do" we are what we do about ourselves by every chose of our lives, by every action, by our Polithical and religious elections.We will define our essence by means of Praxis.
Kierdegaard says that this generate Anxiety and the feeling of being amongt anything.
Heiddeger says we are DA SEIN , "what it is there", not yet defined by anyone but ourselves.
Sartre says there is no God creator and guide.So we are alone and can expect advice from the outside."Existence preceed the essence" so we will define ourselves trhough our lives.Cant escape to this freedom and responsability.We are not an object wich idea someone took to materia , we are here and must do something about it.
What will we do...it is our chosing.
Sartre is easy to read and undertand.But hard to take!

[Orionsbelt]

One book very big in existential circles in "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl the "philosophy" is more a psychology. The premise is that we are here by some miracle or magic but we don't know why. However, in acting, living breathing and being we find purpose. We make it up ourselves. We find it even in the worst circumstances. Hence the no control idea. You don't always have control of what happens to you, only the way you react to it. Some religions object to the notion that we don't know why we are here. God... etc. etc. Others say that religion is just another way to find meaning in reaction to our condition (we exist). It seems dark to some folks. That notion is just as easily overcome from an existentialist point of view by the song "Be happy". After all it's your choice. I guess it's more a point of view.

[AuntShecky]

Is that a rhetorical question or should I take a stab at an answer?
In a nutshell, if one lives his life without to a fixed belief system or traditional philosophy and creates his life as he lives it, he or she is an existentialist. The start-off point
is that "life is no meaning," so one tries to fill that vacuum
in a uniquely individual way.
Authors to read on this subject : Kierkegaard, (don't trust this spelling), Bergson, Camus.
The beat poets (Ginsburg, Ferlinghetti, Corso) are accessible (I think) and their work embodies the philosophy.

[Ludmila607]

One book very big in existential circles in "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl the "philosophy" is more a psychology. The premise is that we are here by some miracle or magic but we don't know why. However, in acting, living breathing and being we find purpose. We make it up ourselves. We find it even in the worst circumstances. Hence the no control idea. You don't always have control of what happens to you, only the way you react to it. Some religions object to the notion that we don't know why we are here. God... etc. etc. Others say that religion is just another way to find meaning in reaction to our condition (we exist). It seems dark to some folks. That notion is just as easily overcome from an existentialist point of view by the song "Be happy". After all it's your choice. I guess it's more a point of view.

I am just discovering Viktor Frankl writtings.I have to read it for helping a kid to study for an exam I was absolutely ignorant about it.
I was very deep impressed to his LOGOTHEARPY and how to use all that is painful and untankely in our lifes to our own grown and benefit(existential benefits)And I felt like¨wel,l I been doing Logotherapy all my life¨ when all you find is people tryig to put your head under the dirt and get underestimated and judged and almost insulted then you find that you can surviveand not only survive , giving sense to a life.Logotherapy is a mix of exitencialism and conductism...Will I let the other tell me who I am??What must I do with my life??or will I chose myself??¨¨
He talks about the emptiness of posmodern society .The lost of ideals and the lost of a life meanig and the scape through drugs, futball, violence, sectarism, illnesses...etc
I agree to you.
Recomend to read and discover Viktor Frankl books.

[Demian]

The first proposal of existentialism is that existence comes before essence. This means that we are here, and have been given no suitable explanations for our being here. Secondly, our actions define who we are. Since thoughts and feelings can not be seen by others we are to be judged by what we do, not our motivations. Conversely, we see others mainly as physical objects because of this fact-that human motivations can be and often are duplicitous. All of this can be summed up by the notion that life is absurd. We are free to choose and thus define our existence every moment-and so we are condemned to freedom by the weight of our own choices that alone define who we are.

[NikolaiI]

Existentialism is a position claiming that people have absolute authority over uncovering the meaning of their lives. I am not much of a fan, it has some good points but has difficulty getting past its assertion of the ego. That is, most of them admit they're just a bunch of atoms but feel sad when the universe doesn't give them an apparent purpose for being alive.

Existentialism is a trendy philosophy, namely because it appeals to a lot of emotional nonsense that people have always liked to hear. I think it's kind of fruity and it hasn't really gotten me anywhere, tread lightly.

Since there are Christian and Atheist Existentialists, that gives it at least a bit of a range. I am a fan of the movement in large part because I am a fan of the intellects and genius of the people who were involved in it, like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and others.

I understand your opinion and respect it. What I know of existentialism is all what I got from a book on it, but I didn't read all of the book. I read a lot of it, but I've never read any Heidigger...but I like it, mostly.

[ballb]

You could also try Existentialism and Humanism by Sartre; it's a very brief work (based on a lecture Sartre gave), and an approachable introduction to French Existentialism. It includes the central tenets and the differences between the kind of Existentialism practised by Sartre et al, as opposed to Christian Existentialism.

You could also try Sartre`s "Road To Freedom" a three volume novel that sets out his ideas in fictional form. Interesting but heavy.

[Hyacinth42]

Existentialism is terrible, and it is one of the many things that I would eradicate if I owned a time machine ;) We were forced to read Camus's "The Stranger" over the summer and I thought it was a terrible book (If life was sooo meaningless to him, why didn't he just slit his wrists in the beginning of the put and put him out of our misery)... Eventually, we got back, and our teachers told us what existentialists believed, and when they explained it, it actually didn't sound that bad ;) But, the whole "life is meaningless" is rather annoying...

I don't mean to offend/sound rude, but I just really dislike existentialism :P

[NikolaiI]

Existentialism is terrible, and it is one of the many things that I would eradicate if I owned a time machine ;) We were forced to read Camus's "The Stranger" over the summer and I thought it was a terrible book (If life was sooo meaningless to him, why didn't he just slit his wrists in the beginning of the put and put him out of our misery)... Eventually, we got back, and our teachers told us what existentialists believed, and when they explained it, it actually didn't sound that bad ;) But, the whole "life is meaningless" is rather annoying...

I don't mean to offend/sound rude, but I just really dislike existentialism :P

I agree about Camus. I actually loved "The Stranger," because I think Camus is a great writer, but I disagree with a lot of his philosophy. In "The Myth of Sysiphus and other Essays," he has a lot of presumptions I find false. He talks about how everyone is afraid of death, and some other things. I think I see some of that in Kierkegaard, too. But there's a lot in Kierkegaard I loved, too.

[Demian]

I was just curious about the Myth of S. I plan on re-reading it, but i don't remember anything about a fear of death in it. It's been a while, however, so maybe it's in there. Although more of a moralist with a slight existential bent, if it did mention death it was probably an allusion to suicide. I took the piece as being life affirming. The man who is condemned by fate to forever do a meaningless task ad infinitum (a metaphor for the activities of modern man) must be happy. It is this joy that has conquered the gods and made him the master of his own fate, thus triumphing even over death (the lurking shadow of suicide).

[shai]

Camus is more of an absurdist than an existentialist. Personally, i buy into absurdism much more as it goes a little bit deeper, in my opinion, than the high school emoism of existentialism, and in doing so actually you get some fundemental and happy conclusions.

They Myth of Sysiphus is a must read.

[GregoryKnoll]

Existentialism is the idea that man is ultimately in control. It deals with the freedom and even the inevitability of choice, and emphasizes man's subjective relationship with the world, right down to his own sensory experiences, rather than viewing "man" as a concept. In short, it's the idea that idealogy serves man, and not the other way around."

I would suggest that you read Camus. The Stranger and The Plague are both perfect examples of existentialism (although Camus would probably find that statement objectionable). If you read the stranger, Make sure you read the Matthew Ward translation (although, I'm not sure if you can really get ahold of the Gilbert or Laredo translations nowadays). the informality of the language that Ward uses, as well as the use of the term "maman", is crucial to the first part of the text and is more faithful to the original French.

If you're looking for something less ambiguous, I know of a series of books called the "Teach Yourself" philosophy series. I'm not sure of exactly who publishes this series, but they provide a good, albeit a very elementary, understanding of virtually any philosophy that you would like to study.

[GregoryKnoll]

Also, after having posted my previous response, I noticed that a few people up there having taken to the idea that existentialism presupposes that life is meaningless. This is not the case at all. I would like to adress the person who made a reference to The Stranger, something to the effect of: "He (Mersault) should have slit his wrists..." In The Stranger, Mersault never even eludes to being despondent in any way. He's simply a sensible person, responding sensibly to the INsensible circumstances unfolding around him. And in the second part of the novel, while he sits in his cell and is forced to "re-evaluate" himself, right down to that memorable monologue at the very end when he goes off on his tyraid in front of the Chaplain, he comes to the same conclusion, hoping that the crowds at his be-heading "greet him with cries of hate". That, to me anyway, is re-affirming, not depressing. Just thought I'd share some insight.:)

[NikolaiI]

Also, after having posted my previous response, I noticed that a few people up there having taken to the idea that existentialism presupposes that life is meaningless. This is not the case at all. I would like to adress the person who made a reference to The Stranger, something to the effect of: "He (Mersault) should have slit his wrists..." In The Stranger, Mersault never even eludes to being despondent in any way. He's simply a sensible person, responding sensibly to the INsensible circumstances unfolding around him. And in the second part of the novel, while he sits in his cell and is forced to "re-evaluate" himself, right down to that memorable monologue at the very end when he goes off on his tyraid in front of the Chaplain, he comes to the same conclusion, hoping that the crowds at his be-heading "greet him with cries of hate". That, to me anyway, is re-affirming, not depressing. Just thought I'd share some insight.:)

Yeah! I loved that! I read that bit first in a book on existentialism titled the same, with other excerpts, etc...then later I read the novel and loved it. What I like about Camus, is that he shows how one person can find some happiness, I thought. It seems like the main character is a little too detached, and doesn't quite enjoy life as much because of it, but then who knows? It's sad and reminiscint in the way it's told about this one guy, who probably most people will never knew, etc., etc. - lonely because there are so many people. Just a thought but I definitely like the main character.

And I didn't say life has no inherent meaning, I was criticizing Camus for saying that. But then I haven't read enough of him to criticize him fairly. I like him though. What I think is that life is inherently unstable, and that can lead to forlornness, sorrow, depression, death; all of that. There's just an inherent sadness to life that can be overwhelming, just as there is an inherent joy.

[RemiAnn]

I dare say that no matter your age anything is achievable. Never let yourself fall into the trap of believing because you are young you cannot grasp a concept. That is why they teach us at a young age because although they dare not wish to admit it, that is when we are in the prime of life. It is when we can go beyond the confines of this world and pursue what no one has dared pursue before. Take a chance. You may be young, but be bold as well.

[Vaynor]

Two cows are standing in a field. One says to the other, "What do you think about this mad cow disease?"
"What do I care?" says the other. "I'm a helicopter."

[Echetos]

What is Existentialism?


I have found this philosophy hard to grasp, because it seems to me to be something which is more based on phychology than a way of living as such. I'm 17, so i lack a great understanding of Philosophy, so bear with me please haha
Any help?


Musawi,

If you are seriously interested in expanding your understanding of existentialism, you should first read an introductory text on existentialist philosophy (I would avoid online encyclopedias as most, if not all, are guilty of making hasty generalizations - this includes Wikipedia). I also recommend rejecting any attempts - made by members of this forum or anyone else for that matter - to answer your original question, 'What is existentialism?'


L. Nathan Oaklander, the author of Existential Philosophy: An Introduction, addresses the dilemma of defining existentialism.

1. The subject matter of existentialism is the individual que individual

*qua is short hand for: "without which it could not be" ("but for").

2. Definitions are necessarily general, in that they apply to all individuals picked out by the term being defined

"The definition of 'bachelor' picks out all those individuals having a certain set of characteristics in common, but it does not tell us anything about an individual as such."

3. To offer a definition of existentialism would take us away from its subject matter

Thus, if we attempt to define what it is to be an individual, we create a principle of classification that is necessarily general in its application.

The subject matter of existentialism, on the other hand, is unique and so particular that any attempt to define it would inevitably lose sight of it.

Existentialist writers attempt to direct our attention to ourselvs as individuals.

That’s it!

Yeah, there are common topics such as:

The Existence and Nature of God
The Nature of Values
Living Authentically and Inauthentically
The Fact of One's Own Death

But the thing to keep in mind is that these philosophers are writing about - you guessed it - their own philosophy!

Though the works mentioned in the previous responses were all existentially relevant, I do not think any of them would be the best way to start your investigation. Without a basic and general understanding of the broad scope of existential thought, their will be no foundation for you to build up your own philosophical platform (which is the entire point). So get a basic introductory text to existentialist philosophy. If you get a chance, take a minute to thumb through the pages and read a few passages. These texts vary significantly in readability and intended audience.

Make sure the introductory text you decide on includes the majority of these people:

Kierkegaard
Nietzsche
Heidegger
Sartre
Camus
de Beauvoir
Jaspers

During this first step of your investigation I can assure you that you'll come across some things that spark your interest, agree with you, that you find truth in, etc. Explore these and abandon the ones that rub you the wrong way. Keep in mind that just because you agree with a certain philosopher on one topic doesn't mean you have to adopt their entire platform; and visa versa. Its your own philosophy!

:thumbs_up

[quasimodo1]

To Echetos: What you just posted might be the best basic intro to existentialism that I've ever read. quasimodo1

[Midas]

When I was squandering my life away in the 'hallowed' Halls' studying these nut cases (if they weren't before they began trying to solve the puzzles of life, and trying to come up with a definitive answer that would set them apart from the rest, they often ended up that way) I found it helpful to condense their various 'isms' into one line statements.

I remember 'existentialism' was: 'theory stressing man's freedom of choice'.

Of course, if one wants to be analytical and waste time and paper enlarging on a theme, one can let oneself get carried away flowering the issue. But, don't forget the risks.

You see, as any child knows, and frequently uses to great effect, any explanation, any answer, on any subject, no matter how well, and extensively delivered can provoke the one concise, basic, question of philosophy - WHY?. Like infinity carried to the extreme, there is no end - no final answer.

***************
Though you can't see, and I could not find a suitable inscrutable 'smiley', as I delivered the above, I was wearing a benign smile (something like an inane grin) which is the required expression for any philosopher who aspires to stand with the exalted and be taken seriously.

[Mētis]

I remember 'existentialism' was: 'theory stressing man's freedom of choice'.


Midas,

Reducing entire schools of philosophical thought to "one line statements" is foolish. However, judging by the rest of your post, you are not concerned about appearing foolish. In the future you may want to consider attempting tounderstand the "various 'isms'" before condensing them down to a meaningless phrase.

Rather than immediately shipping you back to the mainland and sending you to see Echetos, a man who kills everyone who comes near him. I will explain why your one line statement could have been six (or three) randomly selected words and have still explained existentialism just was well.


Existentialism does not stress "freedom of choice". A choice, by nature, can only exist if preceded by the freedom to do so. With no freedom, no choices can exist. You may have been referring to the idea of 'Free Will', as described by Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre's implications of free will are just as important to understanding existentialism:

- All humans have free will.
- Life is a series of choices all of which cause stress
- No decision is void of negative consequences.
- Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation.
- If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through.


The other piece of information that should be considered has already been mentioned in this thread but I feel it deserves reiteration:


Two cows are standing in a field. One says to the other, "What do you think about this mad cow disease?"
"What do I care?" says the other. "I'm a helicopter."

If I were to feel the need to develop a one line statement to describe existentialism it would be:

"I'm a helicopter."


:thumbs_up

[Midas]

Thank you Metis, you have added further support to my point - an admirable job..

You would prefer to say you are a helicopter as an example of existentialism ('Budgie' perhaps ?).

That's OK, You have the freedom of choice to think as you wish. Who am I to stop you if you desire to be a helicopter, or a Jumbo Jet.

Actually, the fact that you chose a humble helicopter, instead of the larger, noble, Jumbo does indicate something, er... now let me see, where are my old text books. Ah, there I go sliding into psychology (so easy to do, and a much more rewarding study - to me that is). Though you can still become as crazy as your patient if you take human nature too seriously.

Thank you again for your kind feedback in making my point - all of them.

(I am still wearing my required philosopher's, all knowing, benign smile)

[NikolaiI]

I am a fan of existentialism. I don't see why it would necessarily be at odds with epistemology; especially since, as someone else said, it has a lot to do with psychology. Notice how Nietzsche often referred to himself as a psychologist. For me existentialism doesn't necessarily have to assert the ego as reality either. Would an existentialist actually have to believe his philosophy, other philosophy, history and science represent actual reality? Why could he not just believe these are all words on paper. To me philosophy, almost all of it, is almost always very connected to art. A novel can be a benchmark in philosophy, but probably has to be a great work of art as well.

Existentialism as I understand it is largely associated with the people writing it; it is a philosopher's particular journey; through feeling alone up until he begins writing philosophy and shaping his world, through his thoughts, ideas, and actions. You can get a very good feel for it by reading some arranged excerpts, perhaps; then you'll get all the great ones. It may be complex to read, and you may not like it (I really did), but the best way to understand it is to read the "existentialists" with an open mind for philosophy, and a mind open to the possibility that you can learn a lot.

[Midas]

".........but the best way to understand it is to read the "existentialists" with an open mind for philosophy, and a mind open to the possibility that you can learn a lot..........."

That is a very profound and important comment, Nikolai, worthy of any philosopher. However, it should not be confined to reading the 'existentionalists' or any particular subject.

I have something I often quote:- 'An open book is useless without an open mind'.

Who originated that? - Newton. No, not that Newton, this 'ever so humble' one. (benign smile)

If only there were as many people with true 'open minds' as there are those who would not admit to having a firmly closed one - we would have a far more benign world.

[NikolaiI]

Well, since this thread went inactive last, I read the rest of that book "Way To Wisdom" by Jaspers. It was really good and inspired me to have confidence in my ideas since I saw almost all of them mirrored in Jaspers. Since then I've put a lot of thought into it all-- what does it mean for me at my age, what will I think about it in the future? Jaspers writes with many, many different ideas that he brings and puts into his paragraphs and chapters, fits them in and expressed it all very well, in a way I don't know if I could do. But still it inspires me to write. I don't think Jaspers is the ultimate opinion, but I did learn a lot from reading him.

[Argyroneta]

A good dose of dostoyevsky and some nietzsche for good measure.

Not part of the french trendastentialist crew but often regarded as honourary members (i wonder why ;) )

[EmilyBronte]

I would recommend reading Camus' "The Stranger" ("L'etranger") and Kafka's "The Metamorphosis". In order to take in the full essence of this concept, reading works deemed to be existentialistic serves as the most effective and enjoyable method.

My Lit teacher also gave us to read an article discussing Camus, and interestingly enough, he did not consider himself to be an existential writer. His work lives as a paradox though, because its absurdity and bluntness makes it impossible to truly classify, but is not not then classified as absurd and blunt? The whole concept of existentialism is so mind-blowing, I am not surprised you asked this question.

[blazeofglory]

The pebble
is a perfect creature
equal to itself
mindful of its limits
filled exactly
with a pebbly meaning
with a scent that does not remind one of anything
does not frighten anything away does not arouse desire
its ardour and coldness
are just and full of dignity
I feel a heavy remorse
when I hold it in my hand
and its noble body
is permeated by false warmth
--Pebbles cannot be tamed
to the end they will look at us
with a calm and very clear eye

This is a really great poem and it moved me immensely and it is a simple poem but it has a meaning condensed and of course consolidated. I compare life with pebbles, and, basically pebbles are seen as things that are inanimate but inside them there is life and we cannot see them. If we can see life in pebbles we attain a state that is likened to Nirvana.

I read it several times and each reading is really meaningful and arresting and as a matter of fact there is vitality and force in the poem. There is some beauty that is really moving.