Is Existentialism only for the Pure of Heart?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 09:09 am
@Victor Eremita,
If:
Pure of heart = naitivy = yes
Pure of heart = idealism = naivity
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 10:24 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;127860 wrote:
If:
Pure of heart = naitivy = yes
Pure of heart = idealism = naivity


Clear as a refreshing glass of icewater.
 
Antoine Roquenti
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 07:29 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita;108074 wrote:


Kierkegaard would probably call bad faith, being untrue to one's self.


But anyway, yeah, can we really achieve the existentialist ideal (Absurd Hero, Knight of Faith, Ubermensch, etc); without being true to one's self all the way? I personally don't think so.


...and thus Kierkegaards bad faith is "the sickness unto death"...

Speaking of the existentialist ideal, is it not just an act of bad faith as it demands that you believe you belive in it?*
The ideal according to Sartre, IS the being-in-itself-for-itself which is a super-mega-ultra-impossible-being (hence man is a useless passion and a true self (to be in touch with) does no exist).


* which is how Sartre describes it in Sketch for a theory of emotions and in the chapter about bad faith in B&N)
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 07:44 pm
@Antoine Roquenti,
Antoine Roquenti;130159 wrote:
...and thus Kierkegaards bad faith is "the sickness unto death"...

Speaking of the existentialist ideal, is it not just an act of bad faith as it demands that you believe you belive in it?*
The ideal according to Sartre, IS the being-in-itself-for-itself which is a super-mega-ultra-impossible-being (hence man is a useless passion and a true self (to be in touch with) does no exist).


* which is how Sartre describes it in Sketch for a theory of emotions and in the chapter about bad faith in B&N)


Man as a useless passion is one of my favorite concepts from him. I started this thread "donkey and carrot" on such a theme. Have you read Kojeve on Hegel? Man is Time is a Hole or Nothingness nihilating in Space. Man is the Desire of a Desire. (A Desire for Recognition). Kojeve likes to capitalize, or his translator does, probably to stress the particular use of the word within the system. Anyway, Kojeve's lectures on Hegel were influenced by Heidegger and Marx. I'd be shocked if Sartre wasn't directly influenced by them.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 08:23 am
@Victor Eremita,
Don't be shocked. Sartre was influenced by all three, especially Heidegger (Being and NOTHINGNESS, Being and TIME) and, after the war, by Marx (1960:Critique de la raison dialectique).
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 02:22 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;130241 wrote:
Don't be shocked. Sartre was influenced by all three, especially Heidegger (Being and NOTHINGNESS, Being and TIME) and, after the war, by Marx (1960:Critique de la raison dialectique).


I knew about Heidegger but wasn't sure about Kojeve. But then Kojeve dropped the "hole and being" theme and it seemed like more than a coincidence. By the way, that's one of the poetic aspects of Kojeve/Hegel/Sartre. Man as a nothingness. Man as a futile passion. Man as Time.
 
itsalljustbs
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 09:42 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita;107229 wrote:
Most existential philosophers posit an ideal man that embodies their version of existential philosophy, and is something to which strive for. Camus had his Absurd Hero, Kierkegaard had the Knight of Faith, Nietzsche had the Ubermensch, Unamuno had the Immortal Man; while Dostoevsky, Kafka, and Sartre create characters in their novels and plays that embody both the strengths and weaknesses of their philosophies.

Maybe some people can and do reach this ideal, but what if most of us could only dream about achieving such ideals, never reaching it. We just go on stuck in our desparing, anguished, untermensched, bad faithed self. Does that make us failures if we do not reach an existential ideal? Is the existential ideal just too high?

Or do you think Kierkegaard is right, that just becoming and wanting to be the self you truly are, is sufficient enough? In other words, some will become great, while some will never be, but as long as you become what you want to be, that would be enough?


I see existentialism as a style of thinking based on experiences and perceptions rather than some kind of enlightenment or ideal you achieve.

Therefore, an existentialist will have many high and low points in their lives as it is these experiences and perceptions that shape their thinking.

I don't believe existentialism is a hat you can choose to wear or something to be studied and practiced.

You either are an existentialist or you are not and most existentialists probably have never even heard the term that describes them.
 
awareness
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 05:49 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Everyone is perfect or ideal and will reach it in their own time and at their own pace. Finding it is accomplished by letting go of everything that is not truly you. The body, desires, judgments, thoughts, feelings, experiences etc., For some they accomplish it in 100's of lifetimes others 1000's. When you are ready to return to The Source" of your consciousness you will undo all you are not and become your perfect self.
 
itsalljustbs
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 06:51 pm
@awareness,
awareness;138440 wrote:
Everyone is perfect or ideal and will reach it in their own time and at their own pace. Finding it is accomplished by letting go of everything that is not truly you. The body, desires, judgments, thoughts, feelings, experiences etc., For some they accomplish it in 100's of lifetimes others 1000's. When you are ready to return to The Source" of your consciousness you will undo all you are not and become your perfect self.


Reincarnation is a generally a way to avoid being responsible for your own life and live in the present.
 
Wozz
 
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 04:53 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Referring to the OP.

Existentialism could act as ones philosophy for a perfect society and person really.
When you go to pick out a Christmas tree you have a sense of what you want...fullness, tall, strong
. I read Sartes piece on Existentialism in ethics as well, which would make sense in the standard of perfection.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 07:23:13