Existentialism is in decline, just as any old school of thought was after its heyday, like logical positivism, Thomism, or neoplatonism. Existentialism will most likely receive resurgence in popularity here and there, and individual philosophers like Kierkegaard Nietzsche and Camus, will be still be in demand; but yeah, existentialism as a school of thought belongs in the history books.

One thing that always must be considered when looking at philosophy is the history from which it arose. Existentialism was a European movement that grew out of the World War era of Europe. Sure the precursors Kierkegaard and Nietzsche came well before that, but they were inspired by a decline of the church in the 19th century, and was a perfect inspiration for the times in European society during the first half of the 20th century.

Of course, Camus would not want to be pigeonholed as an existentialist. He was an artist first (novels, plays, short stories) and a philosopher second. Being labeled not only limits your audience, but it also causes others to view you within a certain paradigm.

I wouldn't be surprised to see existentialism to go throw a sort of revival period in times such as they are in the world today. In times of crisis and through periods of moral decline the thinking behind existentialism becomes much more relevant to a larger portion of the population.

Logical positivism was just too radical of a response to idealism. It failed because it was extremely rigorous, and it trivialized the fields of metaphysics and axiology (ethics and aesthetics).
So what is the dominant school right now?

I'm not sure really. I think neo-pragmatism (Rorty), modern analytic philosophy (Dummett, Quine, Searle, et al.), deconstruction (Derrida), and postmodernism (Zizek maybe?) are dominant these days.

Based on my knowledge of current philosophy, I think analytic philosophy stand as the leading school of thought. I think that is also a major problem with current philosophy because I question whether analytic philosophy has any real value to society as a whole. I think current philosophy should embrace applied ethics considering the world is kind of going throw an ethical crisis in so many major aspects of society.

I find it odd that Foucault would be considered an existentialist. It seems that a neo-existential movement would grow out of the United States, not Europe, considering the U.S. has not been through a crisis like that of Europe after the World Wars. In the U.S. we currently have the decline of morality, along with the crumbling economy that makes it ripe for an existential crisis.

Analytic philosophy was constrained for some time due to the rigor of logical positivism.
I think that is also a major problem with current philosophy because I question whether analytic philosophy has any real value to society as a whole.

I think current philosophy should embrace applied ethics considering the world is kind of going throw an ethical crisis in so many major aspects of society.

Modern analytic philosophy is concerned with ethical issues now that it is no longer constrained by logical positivism.

Yeah, but most definitions of analytic philosophy think the core subjects are epistemology and philosophy of language.

Peter Singer and John Rawls, and other ethicists belong in analytic philosophy as a courtesy. (i.e. because they're not Continental enough)

I guess I overlooked them other than Singer. Rawls and Nozick are dead, and the other two are getting up there in age so my mistake is forgivable. Not to mention, I am not a big fan of Singer's work. It is too utilitarian for my liking, and his current target, giving to the poor, is hardly the major concern of the world today. He should be targeting the conditons that give arise to poor people in the first place.

I agree with Victor, analytic philosophy is not really concerned with ethics. They do focus on epistemology and the philo of language, and ethics is barely covered, or many time outright rejected.

Anscombe, Rawls, Hare and MacIntyre are good exceptions to the rule, but nevertheless, "analytic philosophy" is dominated by those who work in epistemology, logic, and philosophy of language, mind, and science. The big names of modern AP: Quine, Austin, Searle, Putnam, Dennett, Dummett, Lewis, Davidson, Tarski, Sosa, Kim, and Chishom; all work primarily in those fields.

The "continentals"; Habermas, Foucault, Derrida, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Deleuze, Levinas, Lyotard, Beauvoir, Sartre, Marx, and Zizek write about metaphysics, philosophy of religion, ethics, social and political philosophy, and history of philosophy much more than their analytic counterparts.

Metaphysics, philosophy of religion, ethics, social and political philosophy, and history of philosophy are very much on the backbench (or even derided) in the analytic philosophy curriculum.

You're right. There needs to be more work in ethics, as well as social and political philosophy. Dennett mostly focuses on the philosophy of mind, but he did write a book that dealt with the philosophy of religion. It was called "Breaking the Spell".

I think Existentialism can be described as some strange late flower of Romanticism.

1. I don't think any philosophical position ever has been or can be proven. They are adopted. And I can't prove this point. You will adopt it if it fits you right.
2. Existence preceding essence. Inescapable responsibility for one's freedom. An ethic of self-creation. Is this not Satan from Paradise Lost? Is this not Hamlet? Is this not Christ crying out that his Father (predetermined essence) has forsaken him?
3. It's hard indeed for man to live without some meaningful role, but man is crafty. To face the void with authenticity is the task of a hero. "Man is a futile passion." The more futile this passion man is, the more heroic. The more absurd, the more heroic. For nothing offends us so much as the meaninglessness of suffering. To make FACING this meaninglessness our task is to transform it into something meaningful.

Let's see who can bench press the most despair. Let's see whose most authentic.

When is man FINISHED investigating his motives? When is his mental-model of himself (and the totality) complete? Never, I would guess.

1. I don't think any philosophical position ever has been or can be proven. They are adopted. And I can't prove this point. You will adopt it if it fits you right.