Existentialism and the meaning of life

Cypress

Well-known member
The message of existentialism, unlike that of many more obscure and academic philosophical movements, is about as simple as can be. It is that every one of us, as an individual, is responsible—responsible for what we do, responsible for who we are, responsible for the way we face and deal with the world, responsible, ultimately, for the way the world is. It is, in a very short phrase, the philosophy of “no excuses!” Life may be difficult; circumstances may be impossible. There may be obstacles, not least of which are our own personalities, characters, emotions, and limited means or intelligence. But, nevertheless, we are responsible. We cannot shift that burden onto God, or nature, or the ways of the world. If there is a God, we choose to believe. If nature made us one way, it is up to us to decide what we are to do with what nature gives us—whether to go along or fi ght back, to modify or transcend nature. That is what existentialism is all about. We are responsible for ourselves. There are no excuses.

Existentialism is a movement, a “sensibility,” not a set of doctrines.It is not, as it is too often said, a necessarily “gloomy” philosophy. It is, rather, invigorating and positive. Nor is it necessarily atheistic - Soren Kierkegaard is a pious Christian; Nietzsche and Sartre are atheists; Sartre was a Marxist; Camus, a humanitarian; Heidegger, a Nazi.

Three themes pervade existentialism:

- A strong emphasis on the individual (although this is variously defined and understood). A lot of these writers were truly eccentric. Each of them takes individuality in a different direction.

- The central role of the passions, as opposed to the usual philosophical emphasis on reason and rationality. The emphasis instead is on a passionate commitment. For the existentialist, to live is to live passionately.

- The importance of human freedom. Existentialists are concerned with personal freedom, both political freedom and free will. This is central to Kierkegaard and Sartre, but not so obviously to Nietzsche and Heidegger. The relationship between freedom and reason is particularly at issue. Traditionally, acting “rationally” is said to be free, while acting out of emotion is considered being a “slave to one’s passions.” The existentialists suggest that we live best and are most ourselves in terms of passion. Kierkegaard’s notion of “passionate commitment” is central.

The existentialists challenge the idea that human existence is so tied up with thinking. Existentialism basically urges us to live our lives to the fullest, although what this means will take somewhat different forms.




Source credit: Professor Robert C. Solomon, The University of Texas at Austin
 
I prefer my random confluence of sub-atomic particles theory, though.

It more closely matches what I can observe.
 
I prefer my random confluence of sub-atomic particles theory, though.

It more closely matches what I can observe.

My question is, what do you specifically mean by random?

On the flipside, if string theory is right, matter does not even exist is the way we percieve it or concieve of it. Quarks, leptons, hadrons are actually perturbations in extra-dimensional energy fields we cannot percieve.

I remain agnostic on the question of free will vs. determinism, and I am not even sure if we have enough information to even frame the question correctly.

Meanwhile, in the world of Existentialism...

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) is the ultimate existentialist; he concentrates on the issue of responsibility.

It is Sartre’s philosophy, condensed in his great tome, Being and Nothingness, that can best be summarized in the phrase “no excuses!” His analysis of human nature was solidified during the horrible years of the German occupation.

What bothered Sartre was the way that everyone disclaimed responsibility for not helping the Resistance, for living their lives as normally as possible, and for collaborating with the enemy. This context prompted the question “What is human nature?” Their excuses during the war included: “What can I do about it?”—an appeal to individual impotence. “I didn’t start the war, did I?”—an appeal to personal innocence. “Everyone else is doing it”—an appeal to human nature, the instinct for self-preservation. “I couldn’t help it; I had no choice”—the appeal to helplessness. “I couldn’t help it; I was afraid”—the appeal to emotions (as determining behavior).

Against all such excuses, Sartre wants to argue that we are “absolutely free.”

We are responsible for what we do, what we are, and the way our world is. This does not mean (what is absurd) that everyone can do (succeed in) anything they choose. It does mean that there are no ultimate constraints on consciousness, on our ability to undertake (or try) to behave in the most eccentric, courageous, or perverse ways. Our choices aren’t unlimited, but choices are always available.


Source credit, Robert Solomon, University of Texas
 
The message of existentialism, unlike that of many more obscure and academic philosophical movements, is about as simple as can be. It is that every one of us, as an individual, is responsible—responsible for what we do, responsible for who we are, responsible for the way we face and deal with the world, responsible, ultimately, for the way the world is. It is, in a very short phrase, the philosophy of “no excuses!” Life may be difficult; circumstances may be impossible. There may be obstacles, not least of which are our own personalities, characters, emotions, and limited means or intelligence. But, nevertheless, we are responsible. We cannot shift that burden onto God, or nature, or the ways of the world. If there is a God, we choose to believe. If nature made us one way, it is up to us to decide what we are to do with what nature gives us—whether to go along or fi ght back, to modify or transcend nature. That is what existentialism is all about. We are responsible for ourselves. There are no excuses.

Existentialism is a movement, a “sensibility,” not a set of doctrines.It is not, as it is too often said, a necessarily “gloomy” philosophy. It is, rather, invigorating and positive. Nor is it necessarily atheistic - Soren Kierkegaard is a pious Christian; Nietzsche and Sartre are atheists; Sartre was a Marxist; Camus, a humanitarian; Heidegger, a Nazi.

Three themes pervade existentialism:

- A strong emphasis on the individual (although this is variously defined and understood). A lot of these writers were truly eccentric. Each of them takes individuality in a different direction.

- The central role of the passions, as opposed to the usual philosophical emphasis on reason and rationality. The emphasis instead is on a passionate commitment. For the existentialist, to live is to live passionately.

- The importance of human freedom. Existentialists are concerned with personal freedom, both political freedom and free will. This is central to Kierkegaard and Sartre, but not so obviously to Nietzsche and Heidegger. The relationship between freedom and reason is particularly at issue. Traditionally, acting “rationally” is said to be free, while acting out of emotion is considered being a “slave to one’s passions.” The existentialists suggest that we live best and are most ourselves in terms of passion. Kierkegaard’s notion of “passionate commitment” is central.

The existentialists challenge the idea that human existence is so tied up with thinking. Existentialism basically urges us to live our lives to the fullest, although what this means will take somewhat different forms.




Source credit: Professor Robert C. Solomon, The University of Texas at Austin
It took 45 years but I think I'm finally starting to understand Nietzsche.
 
I prefer my random confluence of sub-atomic particles theory, though.

It more closely matches what I can observe.
You also thought it was a good idea to be a punching bag. Sorry but anything you have to say should be taken with a couple of pounds of salt. A grain isnt enough here.
 
It took 45 years but I think I'm finally starting to understand Nietzsche.
The philosophers who are considered Existentialist were a strange bunch. Nietzsche went completely insane. Heidegger was a Nazi sympather. Sartre was a Stalin apologist. Kierkegaard seemed to be a manic depressive who was obsessed with the nature of Christian faith.
 
The philosophers who are considered Existentialist were a strange bunch. Nietzsche went completely insane. Heidegger was a Nazi sympather. Sartre was a Stalin apologist. Kierkegaard seemed to be a manic depressive who was obsessed with the nature of Christian faith.
Most mature people know the difference between the work of a philosopher and their personal lives.
I suspect most people criticizing their private lives never read their actual work.
Typical of self-righteous moralists.
 
Most mature people know the difference between the work of a philosopher and their personal lives.
I suspect most people criticizing their private lives never read their actual work.
Typical of self-righteous moralists.
I've read Nietzsche.


I suspect whatever mental illness Nietzsche, Van Gogh, Kierkegaard, Edward Munch had, seeped through in some indirect, nebulous, and intangible way into their art and philosophy. A lot of geniuses are slightly insane
 
I've read Nietzsche.


I suspect whatever mental illness Nietzsche, Van Gogh, Kierkegaard, Edward Munch had, seeped through in some indirect, nebulous, and intangible way into their art and philosophy. A lot of geniuses are slightly insane
You could say that about literally anyone. Pretty meaningless.

Here is why Trump is this way...here is why Biden is this way...here is why [fill in the blank] is this way....
 
You could say that about literally anyone. Pretty meaningless.

Here is why Trump is this way...here is why Biden is this way...here is why [fill in the blank] is this way....
Stalin apologists, Nazi sympathizers, and people committed to insane asylums are not common experiences.

My OP was a fair and balanced homage to existentialism. Very sympathetic to it.

There's no need to get upset if I point out how strange a lot of these individuals were. I mean, have you actually tried to read one of Camus' books? That is some weird stuff.
 
You could say that about literally anyone. Pretty meaningless.

Stalin apologists, Nazi sympathizers, and people committed to insane asylums are not common experiences.

My OP was a fair and balanced homage to existentialism. Very sympathetic to it.

There's no need to get upset if I point out how strange a lot of these individuals were. I mean, have you actually tried to read one of Camus' books? That is some weird stuff.
There is a good argument that Christianity is a criminal enterprise because the Catholic Church routinely rapes children.
 
I’m trying to start in on him. Finding it a bit of a challenge
I reread Nietzsche's Herd Morality and this time it made sense. The individual or anyone going against groupthink is punished by the group. Nietzsche wrote there's a higher morality that few can obtain. I now believe this is true.
 
The philosophers who are considered Existentialist were a strange bunch. Nietzsche went completely insane. Heidegger was a Nazi sympather. Sartre was a Stalin apologist. Kierkegaard seemed to be a manic depressive who was obsessed with the nature of Christian faith.
I used to allow this to influence what I was reading. Now I know that Stalin turned the Soviet Union from a backward society into an industrial and military superpower. Stalin was a man of action, or what Nietzsche calls Higher Man, who are above the herd.
 
Back
Top