Existentialism

[Morten]

Existentialism is something I've always felt very akin to, an attitude and general feeling of life that I share with many of the existentialist writers. It comes in many different forms of course, from Kierkegaard's early inklings and deep-sea thoughts and anxieties to Sartre's atheist existentalism.

Kierkegaard, my native countryman, and Albert Camus are the two with whom I feel I identify the most. Though I don't share Kierkegaard's faith, his attacks on Christendom and the hypocrisy of institutionalized religion is something I support. Most importantly, however, is the fact that he rebelled passionately against Hegelian systematic thougt, and became the triumphant defender of the single individual being.

The philosophy of the absurd that Camus explores in The Myth of Sisyphus is astonishing and important. He rejects God, but he also rejects nihilism and suicide. It can be seen as an argument against those who believe life with God sinks into meaninglessness and indifference.

Just some thoughts, anyway.

[NikolaiI]

There are about a hundred threads on this forum relating to existentialism.

[blazeofglory]

Existentialism is something I've always felt very akin to, an attitude and general feeling of life that I share with many of the existentialist writers. It comes in many different forms of course, from Kierkegaard's early inklings and deep-sea thoughts and anxieties to Sartre's atheist existentalism.

Kierkegaard, my native countryman, and Albert Camus are the two with whom I feel I identify the most. Though I don't share Kierkegaard's faith, his attacks on Christendom and the hypocrisy of institutionalized religion is something I support. Most importantly, however, is the fact that he rebelled passionately against Hegelian systematic thougt, and became the triumphant defender of the single individual being.

The philosophy of the absurd that Camus explores in The Myth of Sisyphus is astonishing and important. He rejects God, but he also rejects nihilism and suicide. It can be seen as an argument against those who believe life with God sinks into meaninglessness and indifference.

Just some thoughts, anyway.

All ideologies go through a conduit of evolution. Now existentialism does not appeal to us the way it did to our ancestors.

Now we have deconstruction. This is too a momentous tempest. This can not last.

[CognitiveArtist]

Existentialism is a key part of continental philosophy hence philosophy in general. It deserves discussion.


All ideologies go through a conduit of evolution. Now existentialism does not appeal to us the way it did to our ancestors.

Now we have deconstruction. This is too a momentous tempest. This can not last.

It would be shortsighted to call existentialism an ideology or dogma. To quote my dear Walter Kaufmann "The refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever, and especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy as superficial, academic, and remote from life-that is the heart of existentialism". The "ism" in existentialism is somewhat a misnomer, the thinkers are far too diverse for ultimate categorisation.

Do you know what deconstruction is? I'm rather versed in much philosophy but I haven't managed to get even a preliminary grip on Derrida. I take the "momentous tempest" comment to be saying deconstruction is itself bad, which I would like to see explained. As for it being something that "can not last" I take this judging that it should not last. Even if "it won't last" is all that's being said, I don't think that could convincingly be stated. The 20th century was about as interesting and deep as the rest of the whole history of philosophy.


It's good to hear appreciation of Kierkegaard being voiced. He's unfortunately overlooked next to Camus (who isn't really an existentialist), Sartre and Nietzsche. Kierkegaard is a struggle and I've needed ample secondary sources to break through his texts, but when your able to read his works and fathom his meanings it is incomparable. Likewise I'm unable to have Kierkegaardian faith, as his faith is so completely demanding. Although, I think it's commonly mistaken that Kierkegaard was a run of the mill Christian who believed in some abstract, personal God. That isn't his God at all. Kierkegaard's God is roughly "that anything is possible", that is, that a person can find so many things in this world the centre of their life and can fill their life completely with meaning.

The reason why I, and others from which I've learned, don't consider Camus an existentalist is because Camus' beliefs were that we should just face the absurd (that is, the world. Which is completely without meaning). Camus called himself a Pagan, which is rather fitting with his philosophy as I know it. I don't know if he termed himself an "absurdist" but that would also be a fine label for him. Despite his philosophy seeming to be Pagan or absurdist, I recall hearing people say his novels are existentialist and not Pagan/absurdist, though I don't know enough Camus to clarify.
Existentialists admit that the world is without meaning, but they refuse to say the lives they lead aren't meaningful. The meaning for an existentialist is subjective, they value their values, like Nietzsche's Ubermensch or nobles or Kierkegaard's knight of faith (despite the 'values' no having any objective meaning. Possible values are a friendships, a romantic relationship etc). Kierkegaard was great because he established the idea of "subjective truth". I remember being perplexed by this at first, as I only thought of truth being objective. But the idea is the individual finds something true for them personally (it isn't some reasonable, objective truth quest like Hegel's mediation).

My appreciation of existentialism is largely with Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, which is partly due to their individualist philosophies. They both are most admirable thinkers who felt that good philosophy isn't restricted to universities, also that when ideas are good and meaningful they deserve an equally good style. The idea of the style or attitude of written work being as important, if not more important, then the content is also quite existentialist.

[jgweed]

Existentialism is many things to many people, and under some definitions about the priority of the individual existent being the binding concept, then certainly Camus would be included. One thinks of Wittgenstein's "family resemblances" applying especially to "existentialism."

Then too, we find the two central works of existentialism concerning themselves with being (and nothingness, and time), and these are as much traditional philosophy as anything else. Neither are written in what one might call a "popular" style. I doubt that either Sartre or Heidegger would subscribe to the theory that style is more important than content.
Regards,
jgw

[CognitiveArtist]

Existentialism is many things to many people, and under some definitions about the priority of the individual existent being the binding concept, then certainly Camus would be included. One thinks of Wittgenstein's "family resemblances" applying especially to "existentialism." Focusing upon the individual doesn't in my mind outline existentialism in any real way. Focusing on the individual just generates the elastic term individualism. Individual priority is characteristic of libertarianism, philosophical egoism, postmodernisms etc. Camus is interesting because his thought can make a distinguishing outlier to a broader, more encompassing philosophical category titled existentialism.

Then too, we find the two central works of existentialism concerning themselves with being (and nothingness, and time), and these are as much traditional philosophy as anything else. Neither are written in what one might call a "popular" style. I doubt that either Sartre or Heidegger would subscribe to the theory that style is more important than content.
Regards,
jgw Sartre's philosophy emphasises the radical freedom of the subject, which makes the human either a "being-in-itself","being-for-itself" or a "being-for-others". For Sartre humans should be vigilant about their actions and choices and should be beings-for-themselves. For example, you can be a firefighter who saves the city day in day out from damage and tragedy, but if you do it as a being-for-others where you simply assume the role of firefighter then Sartre deems the deeds self-degrading and bad. But if the firefighter more mindfully goes about his work, with an unassuming autonomous mind whilst he's saving the city then Sartre would deem him authentic by largely existing as a being-for-itself. It is very much for Sartre the attitude or "style" of existing, not what exists but how.
I don't know much about Heidegger, but I do know he emphasises the being-in-the-world (the actuality that a person "is there" in a specific place and time in reality) and that Heidegger focuses on the particularity of being in his existential phenomenology. I do not think the "style above content" schema is a 'universal' tenet of existentialism, but I do see the idea resonating frequently with existentialism. I think it would be easy to "miss the point" of saying style is superior to content, as details or 'content' is always existent in some manner. But when I think of Heidegger's radically new approach to ontology which emphasises the concreteness of the being-in-the-world it helps me to make sense of it by distinguishing it (being in Heidegger's sense) from Descartes ego and Kant's subject. The latter two really ask "what is being?", whereas with Heidegger he provides a rich interpretation of being but "what" isn't really the thing he's trying to describe at all.

[jgweed]

The existentialist priority of the individual is primarily methodological, and does not necessarily force the philosopher into a particular moral or political stance of extreme individualism. Hence, for example, Sartre can maintain that existence precedes essence (at least for human beings), and also champion some of the causes of Marxian socialism (of the uniquely French variety). The existentialist methodology quite naturally leads to the employment of literature to communicate this priority, since it shows humans in concrete situations.

Heidegger's analysis quite properly begins with being-in-the-world, but leads from this not only to the existence of Others and an entire world with human meaning, but also discovers the central role that time plays in providing that meaning.

[Dharmabeat]

Sorry to butt in with nothing profound to add, but I was wondering where a good place would be to start reading up on Existentialism?

[JBI]

Existentialism isn't even a real philosophy. It is more a way of creating a philosophy.

[jgweed]

Obviously, there is no substitute for reading the works of the existentialists themselves, especially given their penchant for producing novels, plays, and popular essays. However, a general overview of the movement, as well as some information about the leading exponents, can be found on-line here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/

A general introduction was written by P.F. Sanborn, Existentialism (Pegasus,1968) or by Wesley Barnes, The Philosophy and Literature of Existentialism(Barrons, 1968). Walter Kaufmann, the translator of Nietzsche, has written Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (Meridian, 1956) that includes some key snippets as well as a general introduction. Generally speaking, more contemporary surveys stress the successor schools of thought, or are dumbed-down to the point of being cartoons.
Cheers,
John

[Trystan]

Sorry to butt in with nothing profound to add, but I was wondering where a good place would be to start reading up on Existentialism?

Sartre - Existentialism and Humanism. It's very straight forward and an enjoyable read. Although you should note that Sartean existentialism can differ from other forms of existentialism in a big way. But he's a good place to start.

[Dharmabeat]

Ah cheers jgweed and Trystan. I'll make sure to check out those sources :)
Been interested in the topic for a little while, just been looking for a good place to start!

[jgweed]

As I think of it and remember my own journey, Sartre's philosophy is a very good place to begin to understand the existentialist movement. His ethical stand is certainly worth considering.
John

[Pyrrho]

I read 'Being and Nothingness' a couple of years ago. And though I finished it (out of pure ambition) I never got what he relly wanted to say. It was really difficult and I felt that I did not know enough philosophical terminology to be able to follow. I heard that 'Existentialism and Humanism' is much easier to understand...

[jgweed]

Sartre sometimes goes overboard on plays on words, for example, "the being of nothingness is the nothingness of being," especially in B&N; even Hazel Barnes admitted privately, as I remember, that sometimes these philosophical "puns" got in the way of his exposition, at least initially.
Existentialism is a Humanism (another possible translation of E&H) is a much more approachable work for the salient ideas of Sartre, although one should keep in mind that it was an occasional piece and therefore stands on its own.

It seems to me that both Heidegger (whose dense and very precise prose is typically German in the worst sort of sense) as well as Sartre are both best approached initially through some of their shorter works, especially with Sartre, where a strictly philosophical vocabulary is less needed.
Cheers,
John

[Pyrrho]

Thanks. I'll try the shorter works. And I bougt a book where the basic philosophical terms are explained. Perhaps like that I'll figure it out.
Which Heidegger would you recommend?

[jgweed]

Heidegger, even for readers versed in philosophy is tough going. I would certainly put off reading him until you have read more approachable philosophers such as Sartre. Then, too, like Nietzsche's, Heidegger's thought evolved (H's famous "turn") over time, or perhaps better, he at least changed emphasis from his early Being and Time.

There are two works which should be considered. His Introduction to Metaphysics (Yale, 2000) begins with a meditation on what it means to think about being, how the Greeks thought about it, and modern conceptions of being (and truth) with special consideration of Nietzsche's thought, and finally leads to his discussion of the unfolding of, the revelation of, being.

I think even more readable is a set of 21 short lectures translated as What is Called Thinking?(Harper, 1968). To quote from the introduction, "Heidegger is persuaded that man is naturally inclined to think and Being desires to be thought truly." Again, H's precious Greeks are invoked, there is a lengthy discussion of Nietzsche's place in such thinking, and constant reference is made to contemporary society where thinking about thinking is extremely difficult. Just as importantly, Heidegger's unique methodology (spiral thinking, or perhaps snowball thinking might describe it) and its structure are clearly evident in this series of lectures.

Comment: I should add that H's interpretation (and translation) of the Greeks, and his view of N are uniquely his own, and always presented as a point to departure in elucidating his own philosophy, however interesting and perhaps profound these interpretations are.
Cheers,
John

[Pyrrho]

Thank you again. Quite impressive. I will try Heidegger once but certainly not very soon if he is that inaccessible. Although the lectures sound quite interesting. Maybe I will venture to have a look at them after I have once again devoted some (hopefully successful) time to Sartre.

[a lost weekend]

As far as existentialism (Existentialism?) goes, I would, in my humblest of the humble opinions, recommend sticking to/with Jean-Paul Sartre as far as introductions go. L'existentialisme est un humanisme is the most readily accessible existentialist manifesto; easy-to-read, ready-to-go, and so forth. More importantly, it is here Sartre sums up the entirety of his philosophical sentiments, as opposed to La Nausee et al.

Heidegger is worthy (to some extent) of casual oversight; I would not (emphasis on I, as in me) go rushing to him, head first. There has been some debate as to the degree to which Heidegger plagiarized certain elements of the great Kierkegaard's writings, particularly in Sein un Zeit.

Oddly, both Sartre and Heidegger were political nuts; Sartre, a leftist and Heidegger a national socialist.

[jgweed]

Unlike some other philosophical schools, existentialism is a philosophy of engagement, perhaps because of its placing the individual existent as prior to any analysis. One remarks in passing upon its understandable tendency to supplement what one would call the accepted forms of philosophical discourse with literary works about individuals in situation.

In Nietzsche, Sartre, and Jaspers we find a sustained analysis of contemporary society, and of the problems the individual faces within it; hence, they raise--- in a serious and immediate manner--- the question of individual authenticity that is not raised by other contemporary schools of thought.