And for various reasons it has practically been written off in the modern world. ('too hard', 'too obscure', 'not provable', 'like science fiction', etc etc)...

You could apply existentialism to everything in life. You have complete freedom to pursue anything, any system, and you are beholden only to your own authentic self-assessment. The single unifying principle is the individual's judgement and freedom. This is why people can have internal consistency among apparently incompatible beliefs (for instance I am a practicing Jew but I'm also in a sense an atheist -- because it works in my way of balancing things).

And that means that (you think) it is about nothing in particular. That explains a lot too.

I found this approach not very helpful. It may be helpful to other people thought. I would have no idea how to apply these ideas to all of the activities that I am involved with nor does it assist in answering any of the questions that I have. It is a philosophy for another type of person than me.

Seems kind of a defeatist attitude to me, really.

I think we are actually in a much better position to do that now, in this post-modern age, than we were 100 years ago, in many ways.

You may not realize it, but it actually is your philosophy. It allows you to freely consider and integrate ideas from different philosophical and intellectual traditions, as opposed to considering yourself rigidly beholden to one at the exclusion of another. It allows you an individualized learning, apprehension, and assimilation.

but you are not a pre-Socratic, you're as modern as anyone else but you assimilate certain ancient philosophies into your modern thoughts -- and you aren't wholly invested in a single ancient philosophy. Existentialism isn't really a philosophy in the same way, it's simply the freedom to self-define.

I was going to say, this week the leaders of the U.S., China, and Russia, among others, sat down at a table and signed a treaty, the aim of which is to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Now of course it may never come to fruition but the fact of its signature is at least cause for optimism.

And there are two existentialists I really admire: Erich Fromm and Viktor Frankl. Nevertheless I could never wholeheartedly endorse the idea that 'existence precedes essence'. We are born with talents and pre-dispositions, and these seem awfully like 'essence' to me.

Some place called 'United Nations', I believe. Iran didn't sign, but was definitely mentioned. I was actually a bit saddened by the lack of attention it got because I hope it will prove to be a turning point in history.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it'll never work, let's go back to building bomb shelters and hoarding soy. At least that new guy you have is making gestures in the direction of 'making the world a better place'.

I was going to say, this week the leaders of the U.S., China, and Russia, among others, sat down at a table and signed a treaty, the aim of which is to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Now of course it may never come to fruition but the fact of its signature is at least cause for optimism.

And there are two existentialists I really admire: Erich Fromm and Viktor Frankl. Nevertheless I could never wholeheartedly endorse the idea that 'existence precedes essence'. We are born with talents and pre-dispositions, and these seem awfully like 'essence' to me.

jeeprs, you didnt read the fine print...it must have said they agreed to do their best to rid everyone else in the world of their nuclear weapons