Reflecting on Existentialism

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Existentialism
  3. » Reflecting on Existentialism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

hue-man
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 09:56 am
Existentialism seems to be in decline. However, I believe that this school of thought will always be remembered and revered because of the important insights it makes in regards to the relevance of human existence and personal experience.

One of my favorite existentialist philosophers is one who didn't even like being considered as an existentialist - Albert Camus. He coined the term absurdism and published books such as the stranger, a happy death, the myth of sisyphus, and the rebel.

As odd as it sounds, I've found consolation in the thoughts of existentialist authors during the darker periods of my life. I believe that it was due to the insights that existentialism makes and the melancholy tone that I could related to at the time. How ironic it is to find that words of consolation don't always have to avoid or deny the insights of meaning, pain and existence.

I've never adopted any of the positions of existentialism, but the thoughts of these thinkers will always hold some reverence in my mind.
 
Victor Eremita
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 03:32 pm
@hue-man,
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.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 03:45 pm
@hue-man,
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.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 03:46 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:
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.


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?
 
Victor Eremita
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 04:01 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
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.


Agreed. In fact, some people even want to claim neo-existentialism is here already, citing neo-existentialists like Foucault... Foucault? An existentialist? Really?

Quote:

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 (Putnam, Dummett, Quine, Searle, et al.), deconstruction (Derrida), and postmodernism (Zizek maybe?) are dominant these days.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 04:08 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:
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.


Yeah, I think analytic philosophy is the leading school of thought. I looked up the positions of analytic philosophy and saw that I held many of the modern positions. Analytic philosophy was constrained for some time due to the rigor of logical positivism.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 04:17 pm
@hue-man,
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.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 04:21 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
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.


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

Ethics in analytic philosophy
 
Victor Eremita
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 04:24 pm
@hue-man,
Quote:

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 totally agree, as I write in my essay on LP and it's lasting ill effects on future philosophy.

Quote:

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.
Quote:
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)
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 04:49 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:


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.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 05:37 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Quote:
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)
Should any sub-field be considered to be the core of philosophy? If so then which ones? Epistemology and logic?

---------- Post added at 07:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

Theaetetus wrote:
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.


They do need to focus on ethics more than they do, but some of them have made an effort since the collapse of logical positivism. G.E.M Anscombe and John Rawls for example.
 
Victor Eremita
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 11:46 pm
@hue-man,
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.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 08:35 am
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:
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".
 
Victor Eremita
 
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:29 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
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".


Right, and continentials write about philosophy of language (Derrida's Of Grammatology) and philosophy of science (Heidegger's Question Concerning Technology); but it's just not their focus, just as analytic's focus is not of the value philosophies, but of the scientific philosophies.
 
rhinogrey
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 12:45 pm
@hue-man,
Philosophy of Mind in the analytic school seems like it's about to exhaust itself. We should leave that **** to the neuroscientists for a little while, then maybe come back to it.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 01:16 am
@hue-man,
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.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 01:31 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;105760 wrote:
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.


I don't think you are being fair to the philosophers that are often called the existentialists. You need to understand that there was a state of mind and a psychology that arose in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, and existentialism was a reaction to that state of being. And now the United States is faced with a similar dilemma that caused that psychological conflict in Europe back then. Don't be surprised to see an American version of existentialism inspired by the existential continental philosophers in the next decade.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 07:10 am
@hue-man,
If there is a common theme amongst existentialist philosophers it is that philosophy must begin with the individual self as it really exists in the world, and that seems to imply the recognition that men, in addition to being the rational animal, are also a complex of passions, needs,doubts, and plans. In this sense, then, it grew out of the insights of Romanticism.

This standpoint may perhaps account for its being the last major attempt to present a complete philosophical viewpoint, despite its shunning of systematic philosophy.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 02:23 am
@hue-man,
Actually, I love the existentialist philosophers in general. I was being a bit unfair, in order to feed a pet theory.
I also love Romanticism, and think highly of Blake and Byron. I just want to make explicit my objections to an otherwise quite seductive and valuable movement.
What many of the existentialist are missing is the humor of a Tristan Tzarza, the transcendental buffoonery of F. Schlegel. Of course Nietzsche (proto-ex) had it at times (his best times?). Camus is funny in The Fall, but it's such a bitter guilty humor. Heidegger is brilliant, but I bet he went through a lot of toilet paper.

Still, it's a sublime and poetic movement, and I'm glad to know of it.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 10:28 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;105760 wrote:
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.


I disagree with the notion that a philosophical position cannot be proven. Why shouldn't the positions of philosophy be subject to the same proof (empirical method and formal logic) required by science? Of course I'm really only speaking of the fields of epistemology, logic, and metaphysics, not the axiological fields.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Existentialism
  3. » Reflecting on Existentialism
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 08:23:20