Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Existentialism

Philosophy Forum
» Existentialism
» Existentialism

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Existentialism is a philosophical movement dedicated to the exploration of the human condition. Individual responsibility, authenticity, dread and anxiety, joyfulness and faith, are all part of this condition. The various philosophers, theologians, psychologists and writers associated with existentialism have engaged with this philosophy in many different ways and come to different conclusions about it.

To begin in existentialism, here are some introductory links from the Internet:

* Existentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
* Existential Primer: Home Page
* Existentialism - MSN Encarta
* A Primer on Kierkegaardian Motifs

So now that you're somewhat familiar with what is existentialism, what is NOT existentialism?

Existentialism is not anti-religious: It has Christian strands, as exemplified by the father of Existentialism, S?ren Kierkegaard, it has Jewish strands, as in Martin Buber, and it has atheist strands in Jean-Paul Sartre.

Existentialism does not think there is no objective truth: Subjectivity in the existentialist sense, means that for any truth to have value for a person, that person must appropriate that truth subjectively. If that person only relates to a truth objectively; it has no meaning for him. But there are still objective truths!

Existentialism does not amount to irrationalism: Irrationality is sometimes associated with existentialism. Now there are some individuals, like Lev Shestov, who openly embrace irrationalism. Existentialism merely posits that the individual must make choices, before himself or before God, and that those choices can be rationally informed or not.

Existentialism is not inherently depressing!: Sin, Angst, Guilt, Nothingess, Death, Love, Absurdity, Despair. Sounds depressing, but what about these other existentialist terms: Freedom, Purity of Heart, Overcoming, Edifying, Seizing Life, Being, Love, Faith, Hope. The existentialists never said life was easy, but they said it is worth it.

Hope to see you back with questions!

@Victor Eremita,

I would not myself be comfortable with calling SK the father of existentialism although he, along with Nietzsche were the first to seriously consider existentialist themes. Moreover, if Nietzsche is included in the list of existentialists philosophers, then at least one of them was in fact anti-religious and one of them questioned the existence of absolute truth.
Moreover, the tentative definition seems to ignore the phenomenological branch which substituted the clarification of human meaning for absolute truth as the goal of philosophical thinking. The contemporary alliance between hermeneutic and existential thinking is slowly becoming clear.

It seems, moreover, that what unites various philosophers into the collective term of existentialism is more a methodological standpoint than the family resemblances of their conclusions. For this group, philosophy to be successful must begin with an analysis and thoroughly descriptive understanding of the individual Selfhood as it stands in its world. This is the existence that is prior to essence that Sartre proclaims.

So diverse a group of thinkers would seem, then, to make any attempt at definition extremely difficult, even if one resorts to a negative definition [which can never be complete]. I would propose that one simply identifies those philosophers that are considered Existentialists as a definition.

@jgweed,

Kierkegaard wouldn't be an existentialist himself, but nevertheless, parts of his philosophy are the first pillars for key existentialist themes, so he is the father of existentialism, even if he didn't know it.

I must admit, that I'm more familiar with original existentialism (pre-Heidegger, SK, FN, Jaspers, Marcel), than phenomenological existentialsm. Perhaps a new thread would be in order for that.

@Victor Eremita,

Sarte's subtitle for Being and Nothingness is "An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology," yet he himself coined the term Existentialism. The alliance between Existentialist and Phenomenological thinking almost seems to blur any distinction for the the purposes of this thread.
We should probably acknowledge that none of the philosophers would be satisfied or happy being called Existentialists or even associated with any school of thought, and simply accept the term's utility in discussing a group of often independent-minded philosophers with family resemblances.

We may wish to say undogmatically and strictly tentatively that what seems to be common amongst these thinkers is that the problem of being and of knowledge cannot be made a subject of objective inquiry, but must begin with the Self's reflection on his own particular existence in time and space; that is to say that in some sense, existence, or "presence" is basic to any understanding of the world from an ontological, ethical and an epistemological horizon. Sartre, in his famous essay "Existentialism is a Humanism," writes that what unites the atheistic and Christian existentialists is a common assumption that "existence precedes essence, or if you prefer, that subjectivity must be the starting point" of philosophical thinking.

We seem to have some more or less clear historical groupings:
I. Precursors---e.g. SK or FWN
II. Mid-Century Existentialists---Jaspers, Sartre, Heidegger
III. Late Existentialists---Schultz, Foucault

In III, one can include many of the contemporary Hermeneutical thinkers as well.

@jgweed,

It was Gabriel Marcel who coined the term existentialism.

It seems to me that phenomenology provided a tool for existentialist philosophers like Sartre, Heidegger, Beauvoir, Tillich and Merleau Ponty; provides a systematic way of working with "existence" that was lacking in Kierkegaard, FN, Jaspers, Wahl, etc.

But the fundamental questions of existentialism still remain, regardless how it is analyzed.

@Victor Eremita,

Perhaps we might say there is a "German" strand of existentialism (the earlier variant of Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Jaspers, etc.) and a "French" strand (the later version of Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Camus et al.), but I would argue that Heidegger is the central link in the chain. Therefore, it is also important that we recognise the role played by the early French "phenomenologists", especially Levinas, but also Sartre himself, who had a significant role in introducing a French audience to Heidegger's work. Regarding the overall shift from Germany to France, the lectures of both Jean Wahl and Alexandre Kojeve on Hegel were of enormous importance.

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

Existentialism is a philosophical movement dedicated to the exploration of the human condition. Individual responsibility, authenticity, dread and anxiety, joyfulness and faith, are all part of this condition. The various philosophers, theologians, psychologists and writers associated with existentialism have engaged with this philosophy in many different ways and come to different conclusions about it.

To begin in existentialism, here are some introductory links from the Internet:

* Existentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
* Existential Primer: Home Page
* Existentialism - MSN Encarta
* A Primer on Kierkegaardian Motifs

So now that you're somewhat familiar with what is existentialism, what is NOT existentialism?

Existentialism is not anti-religious: It has Christian strands, as exemplified by the father of Existentialism, S?ren Kierkegaard, it has Jewish strands, as in Martin Buber, and it has atheist strands in Jean-Paul Sartre.

Existentialism does not think there is no objective truth: Subjectivity in the existentialist sense, means that for any truth to have value for a person, that person must appropriate that truth subjectively. If that person only relates to a truth objectively; it has no meaning for him. But there are still objective truths!

Existentialism does not amount to irrationalism: Irrationality is sometimes associated with existentialism. Now there are some individuals, like Lev Shestov, who openly embrace irrationalism. Existentialism merely posits that the individual must make choices, before himself or before God, and that those choices can be rationally informed or not.

Existentialism is not inherently depressing!: Sin, Angst, Guilt, Nothingess, Death, Love, Absurdity, Despair. Sounds depressing, but what about these other existentialist terms: Freedom, Purity of Heart, Overcoming, Edifying, Seizing Life, Being, Love, Faith, Hope. The existentialists never said life was easy, but they said it is worth it.

Hope to see you back with questions!

Hey thanks for the post Smile

I can now have several sites to read and learn about Existentialism :a-ok:

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita;24262 wrote:

Kierkegaard wouldn't be an existentialist himself, but nevertheless, parts of his philosophy are the first pillars for key existentialist themes, so he is the father of existentialism, even if he didn't know it.

"This is not God but man who makes himself into a man" - Maimonides (Rambam) (1135-1204)

A grandfather of existentialism?

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;95886 wrote:

"This is not God but man who makes himself into a man" - Maimonides (Rambam) (1135-1204)

A grandfather of existentialism?

I'm pretty sure you'll find strains of existentialist thinking in the past if you look hard enough and interpret it anachronistically.

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita;95974 wrote:

I'm pretty sure you'll find strains of existentialist thinking in the past if you look hard enough and interpret it anachronistically.

In fact, if you take the pain to read the author, you will discover a complete elaborated system and not a "strain". His proclaiming that existence precedes essence was so explicit and militant that any interpretation is redundant.

I did not intend to disturb your worship of Kierkegaard/Existentialism, but it seems to me that existentialist essence precedes existence of existentialism.

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;96065 wrote:

In fact, if you take the pain to read the author, you will discover a complete elaborated system and not a "strain". His proclaiming that existence precedes essence was so explicit and militant that any interpretation is redundant.

I did not intend to disturb your worship of Kierkegaard/Existentialism, but it seems to me that existentialist essence precedes existence of existentialism.

I may have misspoke, my apologizes, I meant strands of existentialist thinking. I'm saying that one can find traces of existentialism in the past once you know what you're looking for. That said, people think Shakespeare, Pascal, Augustine, and even Socrates can be existentialist thinkers. Kierkegaard certainly thought Socrates was a passionate thinker of existence.

@Victor Eremita,

I agree with this, and it makes me think that existentialism is as old as philosophy, but was identified as a separate school and made fashionable as late as in 20th century.

@Shlomo,

Ayn Rand wanted the term, but was too proud to share it. Came up with "Objectivism."

No, I'm not on her team, but I read her when I was a teen, and she has her merits (and also her pile of absurdities...)

@Victor Eremita,

Placing a definition on existentialism is anti-existentialism in my opinion!

The core of existentialism as I see it is the individuals search for meaning in their lives.

"What is Not Existential? There is no one answer to what is existential, so I am going to present what is not in an attempt to clarify things through the fog. (That is satire, if you read Camus.) By first understanding what existentialism excludes, discussions of what might be included become possible.
Existentialism does not support any of the following:

The good life is one of wealth, pleasure, or honor.
Social approval and social structure trump the individual.
Accept what is and that is enough in life.
Science can and will make everything better.
People are good by nature, ruined by society or external forces."

Therefor, any attempt to define existentialism is an attempt to create a social structure that would discriminate against some individuals.

LaMar

@itsalljustbs,

is not Existentialism about the Human Will ?

@north,

north;138093 wrote:

is not Existentialism about the Human Will ?

What is your definition of human will ?

Free will is considered to be a person's full intent and purpose.

The purpose and the meaning of life are not exactly the same thing.

A purpose is an anticipated outcome and would suggest planing and forethought

A meaning is how something is expressed or signified

LaMar

@itsalljustbs,

Quote:

Originally Posted by north
is not Existentialism about the Human Will ?

itsalljustbs;138124 wrote:
What is your definition of human will ?

the ability to ask question(s)

@north,

north;138127 wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by north
is not Existentialism about the Human Will ?

the ability to ask question(s)

If you mean asking yourself questions or introspection and contemplation of the meaning of your life then I would agree that it is a part of existentialism.

@itsalljustbs,

itsalljustbs;138134 wrote:

north;138127 wrote:

If you mean asking yourself questions or introspection and contemplation of the meaning of your life then I would agree that it is a part of existentialism.

not only that but to question Ideas , period , reasonably

@north,

north;138147 wrote:

itsalljustbs;138134 wrote:

not only that but to question Ideas , period , reasonably

Here is a link that will better help you to understand existentialism:

Existential Primer: Home Page

Philosophy Forum
» Existentialism
» Existentialism

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Existentialism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know