Existentialism / Sartre

[spartafc]

Sartre seemed to embrace a certain interpretation of communism.

Does anyone have any thoughts or opinions on either Sartre or Existentialism? Have any rev-lefters explored either?

[Bannockburn]

Sartre seemed to embrace a certain interpretation of communism

Yeah his own. Sartre is his own Marxist completely outside the tradition. If you are using him to get some information on communism or Marxism, then I suggest use somebody else, like – oh I don't know...Marx perhaps.


Does anyone have any thoughts or opinions on either Sartre or Existentialism

Um yeah. He completely misunderstood existentialism in general. He's a garbage picker of other philosopher's ideas. He completely misses what existentialism “is”. And if you're reading him. I suggest to put him down and pick up Heidegger, Kierkegaard, or Nietzsche.

[spartafc]

If you are using him to get some information on communism or Marxism, then I suggest use somebody else, like – oh I don't know...Marx perhaps.


Ah no - I've read, and continue to read, lots of Marx. I'm lucky - my bookshelf is big enough for the works of Marx, Nietzsche and Sartre!

In what particular ways do you believe Sartre misunderstood existentialism?

[Bannockburn]

In what particular ways do you believe Sartre misunderstood existentialism?

Easy. One simply simple example. He says he's an existentialist, and a follower of existentialism. He takes it to be a school of thought. When, existentialism, by history is contrary to any doctrine of thought, or school of thought. Why you think Kierkegaard was so much against, “the System”.

If you didn't see that among Satre's thinking, then you need to go back to the beginning.

[spartafc]

If you didn't see that among Satre's thinking, then you need to go back to the beginning.
I'm largely asking what other individuals think about Sartre and existentialism - but thanks for the helpful (and in no way patronising) advice.

From what or who are you deriving your definition of existentalism exactly?

[Bannockburn]

From what or who are you deriving your definition of existentalism exactly

its hard to pin down what the “definition” of existentialism is. Can't say. But the general essence derive from Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche. They are considered the “fathers of existentialism”. Well what are their main themes? Individuality, freedom, anxiety, despair, etc.

[shadows]

Sartre and Camus are still signifiers of popular existentialism, their books being more accessible than, say, Kierkegaard's. The novelistic approaches they assumed virtually guaranteed this popular embrace, yet they represent significant contradictions within the nebulous area referred to as 'existentialism.' Sartre defended the PCF, while Camus took up that more rightist strand fo what was called existentialism and denounced totalitarian thought, specifically Soviet diamat. (I write here not from text but from impressions formed long ago, during the seventies and sixties.) The 'libertarian Maoists' who morphed into New Philosophers (denounced as 'new mediocrats' today by aging French revolutionaries of the sixties) were supported by Sartre, and Sartre's introduction to Fanon's Wretched of the Earth does not hesitate to endorse revolutionary violence. In short, it seems to me that existentialism is not a uniform system of ideas but a series of meditations on what Engels reputedly wrote (I don't know the source, but suspect Anti-Duhring) that socialism will allow man (humanity) to stop suffering like an animal and begin to suffer like a human being.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:26 AM
its hard to pin down what the “definition” of existentialism is. Can't say.
Defeated yourself there ay?

If you can't pin down a definitionof existentialism, then surely Sartre was wholly right in his Marxism and his existentialism. I haven't time to go into it now but basically, if the themes of existentialism are are what you say, they can be adapted to the emancipation of the working class.

[Nickademus]

my understanding of existentialism is a very broad topic (as is metaphysics etc). its essentially trying to bring rationality to an unrational world. The suffering that humans must go through, despair, anxiety etc., bring a rational understanding to what appears to be a chaotic and unordered world. for that reason i would definately include sartre in that genre.

[Bannockburn]

Defeated yourself there ay?

Hardly. I don't know how you figure? Its the philosophy of existence, and by signification, existence is something which is undefined (is that a word?). Nevertheless this is why I gave you examples of themes rather than set definitions such as metaphysics would work, or logic, or ethics.

[Trissy]

Does anyone have any thoughts or opinions on either Sartre or Existentialism? Have any rev-lefters explored either?

Nietzsche is by far my favourite philosopher although Bertrand Russell and Sartre come close behind him. I like quite a lot of Sartre's philosophy especially the positivity of existence proceeding essence although I don't agree with him that Existentialism is subordinate to Marxism. Rather I think that Existentialism's emphasis on free will cannot be reconciled with Marxism because the Dialectical Materialism of the latter is driven by Economic Determinism (a point I have debated from time to time on here).


He takes it to be a school of thought. When, existentialism, by history is contrary to any doctrine of thought, or school of thought. Why you think Kierkegaard was so much against, “the System”.
I'd hardly call Sartre's view of Existentialism a system when we examine the trend of philosophers that Kierkegaard was opposed to. Leibniz, Kant and Hegel were philosophers who bit by bit took systematic philosophy to new and daunting heights in Germany. Sarte's works are about as systematic as those of Heideggar, and both are far from systematic if we compare them to Hegel or Kant. They both concern themselves mainly with the individual as opposed to the state or humanity as a whole, and I cannot remember either of them giving definate answers to the ethical dilemmas the individual faces on a daily basis.


Defeated yourself there ay?

Hardly. I don't know how you figure?
I think the point he was making is simply if you cannot provide a definition of what Existentialism is then it appears difficult for you to say that Sartre misunderstands it. If I don't fully understand Spinoza then it appears difficult for me to pick up an article on Spinoza and declare it to be wrong because the theme of the article may be on one of the many aspects of Spinoza of which I am ignorant.


Whislt I'd agree that Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are forerunners to the Existentialism of the 20th century although it is important to keep in mind a point that Nietzsche raises from time to time in his works. We fool ourselves if we believe that just because we can formulate a rough concept of something (like Existentialism), that the concept we are trying to understand is unchanging. Just because we can trace Existentialism from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche through to Heideggar it doesn't mean that Existentialism has remained the same. To say that Sartre has misunderstood Existentialism seems to imply that we have understood Existentialism and that it cannot have changed over time, both of which seem a tad premature.

[Bannockburn]

I'd hardly call Sartre's view of Existentialism a system when we examine the trend of philosophers that Kierkegaard was opposed to. Leibniz, Kant and Hegel were philosophers who bit by bit took systematic philosophy to new and daunting heights in Germany. Sarte's works are about as systematic as those of Heideggar, and both are far from systematic if we compare them to Hegel or Kant.

Still don't get it. Kantian, Hegelian are both schools of thought. Existentialism, is contrary to any school of thought. Marxism is a school of thought. Don't matter what perspective you take, you can't reduce existentialism down to a school of thought. Can't be done. Sartre on the other hand, tries. Error.



I think the point he was making is simply if you cannot provide a definition of what Existentialism is then it appears difficult for you to say that Sartre misunderstands it.

Still don't get it. Definitions are open ended. Read Derrida. Can't provide a definition. And yes I can say he misunderstand it on ground with comparison wit other “existential” philosophers. This leads to:


Just because we can trace Existentialism from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche through to Heideggar it doesn't mean that Existentialism has remained the same. To say that Sartre has misunderstood Existentialism seems to imply that we have understood Existentialism and that it cannot have changed over time, both of which seem a tad premature.

That's on the assumption that Nietzsche is correct. We can pull any philosopher out of a hat to use to base our arguments. A sign of immaturity. Anyway... existentialism, as I tend to agree is not fixed, but Sartre tries to fix it. Error. Misunderstanding

I'm not really saying anything controversial. Its the same deal with Sartre's attempt to reduce the individual with Marxism. Can't do it. Can't bridge it.

[Trissy]

Kantian, Hegelian are both schools of thought. Existentialism, is contrary to any school of thought. Marxism is a school of thought. Don't matter what perspective you take, you can't reduce existentialism down to a school of thought. Can't be done. Sartre on the other hand, tries. Error.

What do you mean exactly when you say that Existentialism is contrary to any school of thought? I agree with you when you say that Existentialism is difficult to define but I wouldn't exactly say that Existentialism is contrary to any school of thought even though it is a clear break from systematic philosophy.

Kantian, Hegelian and Marxism are individual schools of thought because they can be more or less defined in a definate manner (ignoring continual debates within the schools naturally). As you said with Existentialism it appears that we can only ever arrive at a loose definition similar to the one that you gave but that does not mean that it is necessarily contrary to any school of thought, but rather that it contains aspects of many different schools of thought and many different ideas from various philosophers. This is why we find that many parts of Heideggar's work are branded existential and he is branded an existentialist even though he denied he was an existentialist and he tried to distance himself from Existentialism. Likewise Sartre is seen by many (including myself) as an existentialist because he addresses many of the topics that you linked with the field (Individuality, freedom, anxiety, despair, etc.).

The fact that Existentialism is not an individual school of thought does not mean that Sartre is not an existentialist because it is debateable whether Sartre was trying to establish a single definition of Existentialism (or as you might put it, Existentialism as a school of thought). From what I read of his work I think that he merely provides his own unique view of existentialism. I do not believe that Sartre saw himself as laying down the concrete definition of Existentialism like some (if you pardon my wording) 'God of Existentialism', anymore then I believe that Marx thought that he was setting down the concrete path to Communism like some 'God of Communism'. They were both clever men and as such I think they would acknowledge that they are as capable of error as you or I. What I think we find in Sartre is a form of Existentialism, Sartrean Existentialism if you will, just like we can get Heideggarian Existentialism despite Heideggar's wishes.


Still don't get it. Definitions are open ended. Read Derrida. Can't provide a definition. And yes I can say he misunderstand it on ground with comparison wit other “existential” philosophers
I acknowledge that definitions can be open ended but, as I argue above, the fact that Sartre can be seen by some as having the cheek to apply the term existentialist to himself to readily and to actually talk about Existentialism doesn't mean we have to see him as trying to provide/define a single school of Existentialism. I could argue that through comparison to other "existential" philosophers Sartre can easily be included with them.


That's on the assumption that Nietzsche is correct. We can pull any philosopher out of a hat to use to base our arguments. A sign of immaturity.
Well it's not really on the assumption that Nietzsche is correct because otherwise I wouldn't have used the word point would I! I didn't express it as a fact but rather a relevant query that can be raised in the current discussion or when discussing epistemology in general.

Also I don't think you're in a fit position to highlight what you perceive to be a sign of immaturity especially when you don't know me or what I was intending. I mentioned Nietzsche because a) I believe that it was relevant to the discussion and b) I believe in giving credit where it is due when mentioning ideas that are not my own. I certainly did not do it in an attempt to try and overawe others or so as to bathe in the reputation attached to a great name...

or would you prefer that I try to pass other people's ideas off as my own?


Anyway... existentialism, as I tend to agree is not fixed, but Sartre tries to fix it. Error. Misunderstanding
Well, as we shall perhaps discuss, it's not clear that he does try to fix it. It is possible to argue that he presents his own form of Existentialism that will be interpreted in different ways by different ages. It is a similar line of argument to anti-realists who argue that Kant or Utilitarianism are forms of morality without being a definitive morality.


Definitions are open ended. Read Derrida
<_< That is to assume that Derrida is correct.

At the present moment in time I have no desire to read Derrida. People who focus so firmly on linguistics or logic are not to my current taste although that could change with time of course. I am well aware of the hidden dangers for philosophy in language from reading &#39;Truth and lying in a non-moral sense&#39;.

[Palmares]

Related to this thread, can anyone give me some help in this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38966&view=getnewpost) thread?

[Bannockburn]

What do you mean exactly when you say that Existentialism is contrary to any school of thought? I agree with you when you say that Existentialism is difficult to define but I wouldn&#39;t exactly say that Existentialism is contrary to any school of thought even though it is a clear break from systematic philosophy.





I don&#39;t think I need to explain it since you&#39;ve already said it. And I see a small contradiction in the above statement. You say that existentialism is not contrary to general analytical or Anglo-American philosophy, or “systematic” philosophy, however you do claim that it is a clear break from it. Well what else is a opposed to something and being a clear break...break as in fractured away from?




Kantian, Hegelian and Marxism are individual schools of thought because they can be more or less defined in a definate manner (ignoring continual debates within the schools naturally).

well not really. Kantian is transcendental idealism. Hegel is also a form of idealism. Moreover, Marx is a direct decedent of Hegel, and true they are different in substance of dialectical idealism or materialism, yet they adopt the same form of dialectical. So, to say they are “individual” as in, authentic in of and for itself, I think is wrong.


As you said with Existentialism it appears that we can only ever arrive at a loose definition similar to the one that you gave but that does not mean that it is necessarily contrary to any school of thought, but rather that it contains aspects of many different schools of thought and many different ideas from various philosophers.

No. Nietzsche sure dealt with some traditional themes with Plato, Socrates, ethics, etc. However, Nietzsche is a breed all his own. Take Sk for example Sure He adopts Kantian ethics, however that bites the dust when it comes to his actual Christian position..ie, the teleological suspension of the ethical for a subjective personal connection. Something Subjectivity has always had an inferiority status among western metaphysics. So I would say that opposes, or is contrary. Nevertheless, yes they have taken aspects from different schools of thought. Hell, after Descartes is hard to argue that they all have adopted Cartesian metaphysics in a way.


The fact that Existentialism is not an individual school of thought does not mean that Sartre is not an existentialist because it is debateable whether Sartre was trying to establish a single definition of Existentialism (or as you might put it, Existentialism as a school of thought). From what I read of his work I think that he merely provides his own unique view of existentialism

Naw, he tries to define it, contain it. Look, what is one of his most famous works? Well that is easy, is it not? Its Existentialism is a Humanism. That&#39;s a definition. You could say Humanism is existentialism, and still be right (according to Sartre). Yet, these are analytical terms that are circular (like all definitions), and mean the samething.


Also I don&#39;t think you&#39;re in a fit position to highlight what you perceive to be a sign of immaturity especially when you don&#39;t know me or what I was intending. I mentioned Nietzsche because a) I believe that it was relevant to the discussion and b) I believe in giving credit where it is due when mentioning ideas that are not my own. I certainly did not do it in an attempt to try and overawe others or so as to bathe in the reputation attached to a great name

Oh Brother. Not the, “I&#39;m going to hide in my subject self” so I won&#39;t be criticized anymore position. Granted I don&#39;t know you. That is obvious. Yet, by your own writing it appears that you have zero formal education in philosophy. Can we get back on subject now?







That is to assume that Derrida is correct.

At the present moment in time I have no desire to read Derrida. People who focus so firmly on linguistics or logic are not to my current taste although that could change with time of course. I am well aware of the hidden dangers for philosophy in language from reading &#39;Truth and lying in a non-moral sense&#39;.

Well you should read Derrida. Obviously you know zero of him. Granted I do assume he is correct because there has not been one critique of him that is worth reading, and two by the shear evidence in support of his argument. You already agreed definitions are open ended...I don&#39;t need to go any further. Also, he doesn&#39;t stay only within lanaguage. Actually, far from it

Also, sorry for me replying to late after your post. I got a knew telescope, and I&#39;ve been using it for a bit.

[Trissy]

I see a small contradiction in the above statement. You say that existentialism is not contrary to general analytical or Anglo-American philosophy, or “systematic” philosophy, however you do claim that it is a clear break from it.
When I mention systematic philosophy I was not referring to the analytic tradition of philosophy but rather using the term in a wider sense similar to that used by Nietzsche in the beginning of Twilight of the Idols ["I mistrust all sysematizers an avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity"]. By it I refer to heavily structured works that attempt to provide definite answers to major questions through a clear methodical approach. In modern philosophy it can be traced back to Descartes and followed through the works of Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel. Kierkegaard is a reaction against Hegel and his predecessors in the style in which he writes and the approach he takes to the individual, hence he can be seen as a break from them. This too can be seen in Nietzsche and the other writers who are linked to Existentialism.

With that in mind I sincerely hope that what I previously asserted about Existentialism not being necessarily opposed to schools of thought can be held at the same time as believing that Existentialism marks a break from the systematic trend that came before it. With that explained I don’t believe there to be any contradiction in my position.


well not really. Kantian is transcendental idealism. Hegel is also a form of idealism. Moreover, Marx is a direct decedent of Hegel, and true they are different in substance of dialectical idealism or materialism, yet they adopt the same form of dialectical. So, to say they are “individual” as in, authentic in of and for itself, I think is wrong.
Granted that Kant is identified as a transcendental idealist, and Hegel a dialectical idealist but that is not what I was getting at. True they offered new expressions of the older distinction between Idealism and Materialism but moreover what they said in their works have become individual schools of thought in there own right. Philosophers have identified themselves (and many still do) as Kantians, Neo-Kantians, Hegelians and Cartesians, etc. There are journals specifically addressing these schools in which their followers debate, try to further clarify and draw as many conclusions from these philosophers as they can.

Seen in this light I argue that although Existentialism struggles to be reduced to a single school of thought (such as Kantian or Marxism), it can still be seen as a loosely defined field that incorporates many different forms such as Sartrean or Heideggerian.

*By individual I mean &#39;Marked by or expressing individuality; distinctive or individualistic&#39;


No. Nietzsche sure dealt with some traditional themes with Plato, Socrates, ethics, etc. However, Nietzsche is a breed all his own. Take Sk for example Sure He adopts Kantian ethics, however that bites the dust when it comes to his actual Christian position..ie, the teleological suspension of the ethical for a subjective personal connection. Something Subjectivity has always had an inferiority status among western metaphysics
I think you have misunderstood me here. I did not mean to imply that the Existential philosophers such as Nietzsche and Kierkegaard based their works on the works of others. No, I myself agree with you that they were very much their own philosophers even if they owe the odd aspect of their thoughts to their predecessors. After all nobody could study philosophy if they desired to create entirely unique and new philosophies&#33; We all have our influences and I would be foolish to say otherwise.

No what I meant was that Existentialism can be examined in the views of Sartre, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Jaspers, Camus, etc. without us ever arriving at a concrete definition of Existentialism. We can have a loose definition of Existentialism and yet still have the schools of thought of Sartrean Existentialism and the others. The personal interpretations of Existentialism provided by any of these writers need not mean that they are trying to reduce it to a single school of thought.


Look, what is one of his most famous works? Well that is easy, is it not? It&#39;s Existentialism is a Humanism. That&#39;s a definition. You could say Humanism is existentialism, and still be right (according to Sartre). Yet, these are analytical terms that are circular (like all definitions), and mean the samething.
True it is probably Sartre&#39;s most well read work but I think we must bear some things in mind. Firstly different translators interpret the title of that lecture rather differently. It is called either &#39;Existentialism & Humanism&#39; or as you put it &#39;Existentialism is a Humanism&#39;. Seeing as I am not both a translating expert and a Sartre specialist (and I shall guess that you aren&#39;t either) I have no idea of knowing which is the more suitable translation or which Sartre&#39;s other works would have favoured. I view it as an academic debate similar to the one that surrounds the title of Nietzsche&#39;s &#39;On the Genealogy of Morality&#39; / &#39;On the Genealogy of Morals&#39;. My point being that we shouldn&#39;t be swift to take anything substantial from the title alone.

In the actual lecture itself he mentions that Existentialism is a form of Humanism which to me is far from a concrete definition because in many ways it remains very much open-ended and up for debate. Humanism itself is tricky to define after all because Sartre seeks to clarify what he means when he uses the term. The fact that it is open-ended and up for debate I believe is shown by the fact that it prompted Heidegger to write his ‘Letter on Humanism’. If the lecture was a simple attempt to define Existentialism it would seem oddly arrogant of Sartre considering the brevity of the work.

If Sartre provides a definition then I believe it is in no way an attempt to define Existentialism for everyone but rather a form of Existentialism (namely his own). In it we can of course look for an attempt to produce a possible definition of Existentialism but the question remains as to whether it is an attempt to establish the sole authoritarian definition of Existentialism. I still don’t think that it is the latter.

In his lecture I think we have no option but to take Sartre at face value and see his talk as an attempt to defend the Existentialism from its Catholic critics and its Marxist critics. He in my eyes merely seeks to defend it from the idea that it dwells on the negative, that it leads to nihilism, anarchy and chaos, that it is a bourgeois philosophy and that it encourages people to live an ascetic life of quietism. He attempts to show that Existentialism is a positive (if not austere) philosophy that urges people to live fully– that is to make choices in acknowledgement of the fact that they are ultimately responsible for their actions.


Oh Brother. Not the, “I&#39;m going to hide in my subject self” so I won&#39;t be criticized anymore position
I&#39;m not hiding behind anything. All I am saying is that if you&#39;re going to criticize my style of argument it seems a tad rash to construct a firm opinion on the few posts I&#39;ve written on this subject especially when I&#39;ve written nearly 280 posts in this philosophy section. It&#39;s like dismissing a book because of a sentence here or there, or a song because of its opening few notes.

(N.B. I’m also not implying that one needs to have read anywhere near all of them to form an opinion. Just that people try to refrain from insulting others merely for having different views here or there)


Yet, by your own writing it appears that you have zero formal education in philosophy. Can we get back on subject now?

I&#39;m happy to get back to the subject but before we do I&#39;ll just point out that once again your crude assumption is wrong. I&#39;m currently studying Philosophy at the University of Sheffield and have been studying philosophy for about five years or so now. I severely doubt that I could have gotten where I am if I had no ability or knowledge of the subject at all.

[Bannockburn]

I can&#39;t believe you wrote all that. Anyway..I guess I should respond somewhat.



When I mention systematic philosophy I was not referring to the analytic tradition of philosophy but rather using the term in a wider sense similar to that used by Nietzsche in the beginning of Twilight of the Idols ["I mistrust all sysematizers an avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity"]. By it I refer to heavily structured works that attempt to provide definite answers to major questions through a clear methodical approach

Clear methodical approach. Yeah, that is what is called analytical philosophy. Kinda like...oh I don&#39;t know the clear methodical approach of Descartes.


Kierkegaard is a reaction against Hegel and his predecessors in the style in which he writes and the approach he takes to the individual, hence he can be seen as a break from them. This too can be seen in Nietzsche and the other writers who are linked to Existentialism.

Yeah. No argument there. This is why it&#39;s contrary. Something I already said. Hegel is system. Sk is not. I think I&#39;m speaking clearly here?


With that in mind I sincerely hope that what I previously asserted about Existentialism not being necessarily opposed to schools of thought can be held at the same time as believing that Existentialism marks a break from the systematic trend that came before it. With that explained I don’t believe there to be any contradiction in my position

Dude, you can&#39;t eat your cake and have it too. Its its a break from it, then thats what it is. Existentialism is a break to systematic philosophy...but, not opposed? Its like saying Buddhism broke from Hinduism, but not opposed. Its still a contradiction.


Granted that Kant is identified as a transcendental idealist, and Hegel a dialectical idealist but that is not what I was getting at. True they offered new expressions of the older distinction between Idealism and Materialism but moreover what they said in their works have become individual schools of thought in there own right. Philosophers have identified themselves (and many still do) as Kantians, Neo-Kantians, Hegelians and Cartesians, etc. There are journals specifically addressing these schools in which their followers debate, try to further clarify and draw as many conclusions from these philosophers as they can.

Granted. No arguments. However, Descartes would have not been Descartes without Aristotle. They are all linked. neo-Kantian wouldn&#39;t be anything without Kant. Marx wouldn&#39;t have been anything without Hegel. So again, to say individual – as in authentic IN of AND for ITSELF – is wrong.


Seen in this light I argue that although Existentialism struggles to be reduced to a single school of thought (such as Kantian or Marxism), it can still be seen as a loosely defined field that incorporates many different forms such as Sartrean or Heideggerian.


Huh? Dude, you can&#39;t be Sartrean. That is the whole point. How can I be a follower of an individual with his own unique experiences. Impossible. Unlike, say Hegel...who has a system to follow.



By individual I mean &#39;Marked by or expressing individuality; distinctive or individualistic&#39;

Dude, you can&#39;t define a word, and use that same word within the definition. Its circular. Man this is so elementary.



No what I meant was that Existentialism can be examined in the views of Sartre, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Jaspers, Camus, etc. without us ever arriving at a concrete definition of Existentialism. We can have a loose definition of Existentialism and yet still have the schools of thought of Sartrean Existentialism and the others.

Yeah, I think, no. I already covered this. Granted we can have in mind Sartre or whoever. That is not being existential though. Also, all of them failed to define existentialism, (with the exception of Sartre). Hence, we never know the essence of existentialism, rather certain attributes of traditional themes covered under the “title” existentialism. Man you honestly don&#39;t get it. Existentialism is about existence. You can not, under any circumstances place existence which is free flowing, self creating into a rigorous schematic form or rules, procedures, methods, logic, etc. If you do, it completely neglects and negates existentialism.


&#39;Existentialism & Humanism&#39;

Man, take a logic class. “And” is connective between two statements. Without one, you don&#39;t have the other.


If Sartre provides a definition then I believe it is in no way an attempt to define Existentialism for everyone but rather a form of Existentialism (namely his own). Thank you. However, by defining you still place it within a framework. Can&#39;t be done as a whole, yet for the individual..yeah I can go with that.



I&#39;m not hiding behind anything
you made the statement. Also, who is insulting anyone?


I&#39;m happy to get back to the subject but before we do I&#39;ll just point out that once again your crude assumption is wrong. I&#39;m currently studying Philosophy at the University of Sheffield and have been studying philosophy for about five years or so now. I severely doubt that I could have gotten where I am if I had no ability or knowledge of the subject at all.

Congrats. And so what? And what assumptions? Your own omission actually proved my point. So you studied 5 years of it. So what? Professors study their lives, and still assume they honestly don&#39;t have it down...say for Hegel. Five years is a fart in the wind. Granted, this also goes for me as well. A fart in the wind.

Also, yeah I can doubt it. You be amazed how many people pick up “Tao and Winnie the pooh”, and philosophy and the matrix (local Chapters selections) and think they know what they are talking about. Rhetoric is great like that – also. What does post count have to do with anything?

[Trissy]

Clear methodical approach. Yeah, that is what is called analytical philosophy. Kinda like...oh I don&#39;t know the clear methodical approach of Descartes
Yes but it&#39;s not as simple as that because Spinoza and Hegel are sometimes seen as synthetic philosophers in their system building style. That&#39;s why I deliberately avoided using the term analytic and opted for systematic.


Dude, you can&#39;t eat your cake and have it too. Its its a break from it, then thats what it is. Existentialism is a break to systematic philosophy...but, not opposed? Its like saying Buddhism broke from Hinduism, but not opposed. Its still a contradiction.
It can be opposed to reducing things to a single school of thought at the same time as not being opposed to things being expressed in the terms of many different schools of thought. To me the key part is the use of the plural when we say &#39;contrary to schools of thought&#39;. I agree that people like Kierkegaard are against reducing the world to a single school of thought (like Hegel’s) but I don&#39;t think that one can be opposed to schools of thought successfully because it would involve the continual danger of becoming a school of thought itself making any expression of one&#39;s view nie on impossible. Publishing books would be a sure fire way of neutralising one’s own argument.

To signify this I used the term break from. &#39;Break from&#39; can be used in to mean something alone the lines of ‘a change from’. It can (as you say) imply opposition at the same time but it doesn&#39;t have to. Buddhism can be both a break from Hinduism and opposed to it. Aquinas can be seen as a break from St.Augustine but that does not mean that Aquinas is opposed to Augustine.


Huh? Dude, you can&#39;t be Sartrean. That is the whole point. How can I be a follower of an individual with his own unique experiences. Impossible. Unlike, say Hegel...who has a system to follow.
Why does someone need to have a system to have people who agree with their arguments and work? As long as you say something that others can examine, criticise and evaluate then I think people can more or less say that they agree or disagree with main bulk of your work and even continue to work along similar lines. All people need to be able to do is identify some trends in your work. They don’t have to be a perfect replica of Sartre to agree with a Sartrean approach to ethics or Existentialism or Marxism (the least likely). If people can call themselves Nietzschean when his work is far more fragmented and debateable then I see no problem with people calling themselves Sartrean.




By individual I mean &#39;Marked by or expressing individuality; distinctive or individualistic&#39;
Dude, you can&#39;t define a word, and use that same word within the definition. Its circular. Man this is so elementary.
Yes individuality is mentioned in the definition of individual but they are not the same words. They are closely related and perhaps even stem from the same source but they are different words none the less. I understand circularity and this to me is not an example of it. Unless perhaps if you wanted to argue that all language is effectively circular but then that’d apply to everyone’s use of words and not just mine.

Individuality 1a. The aggregate of qualities and characteristics that distinguish one person or thing from others; character: choices that were intended to express his individuality; monotonous towns lacking in individuality. b. An individual or distinguishing feature.

By individual schools of thought I simply mean schools of thought that have features that distinguish them from one another. It&#39;s not that hard a concept for you to grasp is it? They can have similarities but they are still differences that separate the individual schools. They don&#39;t need to be entirely different. They can stem from similar sources. They are still different can be distinguished from one another.


Man you honestly don&#39;t get it. Existentialism is about existence. You can not, under any circumstances place existence which is free flowing, self creating into a rigorous schematic form or rules, procedures, methods, logic, etc. If you do, it completely neglects and negates existentialism.
Well to be honest I’d guess that I’m not the only one who doesn’t get it if I am to judge by what I read, hear and debate everywhere else. I still believe it is highly debateable that Sartre places existence into ‘a rigorous schematic form or rules, procedures, methods, logic, etc’. I believe there is much about which he says that is open to debate and much that he hasn’t commented upon. If Sartre is not an Existentialist for the above reason then it seems that we also have to lose Heidegger, and if that is the case then Existentialism seems to be in danger of unravelling bit by bit and writer by writer until there is nothing left of it at all.

It appears to me that neither of us is going to shift from our positions and so I don’t know if it is that that worthwhile continuing this discussion.


Man, take a logic class.
Er…no. It hasn’t been necessary for me to do so up until now and so I don’t see the need to do so. People who derive pleasure from Logic in my experience remind me very much of religious people in the sense that what could be called arrogance often masks desperation. Anyway that’s a different debate…


Also, who is insulting anyone?
Well I&#39;ve never heard the phrases "A sign of immaturity" or "by your own writing it appears that you have zero formal education in philosophy" used to complement somebody. If they&#39;re not meant as insults then I fail to see the reason for writing them.


Congrats. And so what?
Well I wasn&#39;t making any other point beyond that you were wrong when you said "by your own writing it appears that you have zero formal education in philosophy". I most certainly wasn&#39;t saying it to state that I am a philosopher let alone a reasonable one. I fully acknowledge that nearly everything I believe to be true could be false and that very much of it probably is. I just get frustrated and annoyed when I feel that people dismiss me too quickly.


And what assumptions?
er...namely "by your own writing it appears that you have zero formal education in philosophy".


Also, yeah I can doubt it. You be amazed how many people pick up “Tao and Winnie the pooh”, and philosophy and the matrix (local Chapters selections) and think they know what they are talking about
Yes but I fully acknowledge the possibility that I am mistaken. I don&#39;t think I am infallible or omniscient, and in fact I&#39;d be a lot happier if mankind were prepared to acknowledge how little it knows. I just believe that I am capable of having a fruitful debate with people regardless of what they&#39;ve studied and what I haven&#39;t. If my lecturers can discuss things with me even though they&#39;ve be studying for far longer then I feel that most people can.


What does post count have to do with anything?

Like I said, it has little to do with anything except to illustrate that you decision to believe that I&#39;ve not studied any philosophy from perhaps 4 or so posts is a bit rash. The many various topics I&#39;ve discussed may (or may not) have provided evidence otherwise.

[Bannockburn]

Yes but it&#39;s not as simple as that because Spinoza and Hegel are sometimes seen as synthetic philosophers in their system building style. That&#39;s why I deliberately avoided using the term analytic and opted for systematic.

I have never ever heard that Spinoza is a synthetic philosophers. Rationalist, yes of course. A systematic rationalist. Well that goes without saying. However, with your deliberate abuse of words that are traditionally used is so far off in left field I don&#39;t even now know where to begin.



It can be opposed to reducing things to a single school of thought at the same time as not being opposed to things being expressed in the terms of many different schools of thought. To me the key part is the use of the plural when we say &#39;contrary to schools of thought&#39;. I agree that people like Kierkegaard are against reducing the world to a single school of thought (like Hegel’s) but I don&#39;t think that one can be opposed to schools of thought successfully because it would involve the continual danger of becoming a school of thought itself making any expression of one&#39;s view nie on impossible. Publishing books would be a sure fire way of neutralising one’s own argument.

Its still a contradiction. It something is opposed to a single school of thought at the same time as not[/i] being opposed doesn&#39;t make any sense in Classic “law of non-contradiction” application. Also, I don&#39;t think any good existential thinker has ever been in any danger to becoming a school of thought. I know you&#39;re a fan of Nietzsche. So, we&#39;ll take him. Simply put: no facts, only perspectives. That is impossible to form as a school of thought because that is itself – is a perspective. Unlike say Sartre who actually says that existentialism is self-creating.


[b] To signify this I used the term break from. &#39;Break from&#39; can be used in to mean something alone the lines of ‘a change from’. It can (as you say) imply opposition at the same time but it doesn&#39;t have to

Well if that is the case, I think both of us are falling in the holes of language.


Buddhism can be both a break from Hinduism and opposed to it.

no. I completely disagree. If we use “break from” as in “a change from”, and also opposition. Buddhism is completely contrary to Hinduism. Its simply not a change. Buddhism = no God. Hinduism = God. Change, any which way you like to use it, essentially means different from...contrary to...oppose...it still doesn&#39;t work.


Why does someone need to have a system to have people who agree with their arguments and work?

Well that is the uniqueness of existentialism. That all experiences are unique to the individual and can never be duplicated, or experienced by another individual. This is why a lot of traditional anglo-American philosophers reject existentialism, or if not reject it, doesn&#39;t put much emphasizes on it. I disagree however. But that&#39;s beside the point. Nevertheless, of course we can read it...but to get to the heart of the individual writing it? Never.


Er…no. It hasn’t been necessary for me to do so up until now and so I don’t see the need to do so

You should. It just held thinking and how to think more clearly.

Also, I didn&#39;t reply to the rest of your post because in all honesty, even with my education in philosophy, I still don&#39;t have any formal education in it. Philosophy is open ened





End, and everywhere. Its hard to place it within a building. The mark of a truly good philosopher are individuals who always call themselves students.

[Trissy]

I have never ever heard that Spinoza is a synthetic philosophers. Rationalist, yes of course. A systematic rationalist. Well that goes without saying. However, with your deliberate abuse of words that are traditionally used is so far off in left field I don&#39;t even now know where to begin.
Deliberate abuse of words? Really??? I was just saying that Spinoza is called by some a synthetic philosopher, which in my defense is the truth. I didn&#39;t comment on whether this is a fair description or say that the sense in which the word synthetic is applied to him is the norm. I just stated what to me is a fact because some people do think of him in that light.

Why do they think of him as synthetic? Well in the Ethics he combines (or synthesises) axioms and definitions to form simple propositions and then in turn more detailed propositions. The use of the word synthetic here may not be the most common application of the word but even considering that it&#39;s become predominantly linked in with Logic and Dialectics, I hardly think it makes me an abuser of words.

But who am I to say? I may simply be engaged in sophistry ... :rolleyes:


no. I completely disagree. If we use “break from” as in “a change from”, and also opposition. Buddhism is completely contrary to Hinduism. Its simply not a change. Buddhism = no God. Hinduism = God. Change, any which way you like to use it, essentially means different from...contrary to...oppose...it still doesn&#39;t work
Fine. I agree that Buddhism is contrary to Hinduism. I wasn&#39;t making any particular point when I used the word opposed instead of contrary, at best it was just a sloppy choice of words on my part. &#39;Break from&#39; can be meant in the sense of oppose and in a stronger sense like contrary, but it can still be used in the weaker sense as simply meaning &#39;a change from&#39;.

[TheReadMenace]

Shit, that&#39;s a lot to read.

Regardless of whether or not Sartre&#39;s ideas are existential, and whether or not you can be a follower of one&#39;s experiences, there&#39;s still a lot to feed off of from him.

You don&#39;t have to follow someone else&#39;s experiences; but at the same time, you can learn from them. When I read about his &#39;vision&#39; of the trees being one mass, I didn&#39;t have to follow the teachings of that vision, per se, so much as I adapted them into myself (there&#39;s a difference).

So when you break it down, all reality tumbles down into nothingness. A friend and I were talking about this the other night. I guess, though, it delves more into the ideas of Derrida than Sartre, but that doesn&#39;t matter. Life is struggle, and it is inherently meaningless. When you think about it, there&#39;s no point to anything, because it&#39;s all superfluous.

Everything is broken down by the consciousness - the awareness of self - into experiences, perceptions. That&#39;s reality as we know it. But think of a bunch of jewelry (sp?). You can have a bunch of different earrings, and rings, and bracelets, and necklaces, and they&#39;re all different experiences. But if you put them into a pot and boil them, they all become the same thing - this big, meaningless, superfluous mass. But from that mass of nothingness - the nothingness of existence - you then carve something that has relevance to you. That&#39;s the experience - the carving away of the mass of nothingness into an event either constructive or destructive to yourself.

To me, that&#39;s what Sartre&#39;s works say. It&#39;s about the struggle of the individual to find meaning in a meaningless world. How do you do that? Realise that it all boils down to one essence from which you carve an experience that has meaning to you and to you alone.

So it doesn&#39;t matter, to me, whether or not Sartre is tied down into existentialism. I see him more as a nihilist, personally (though I do feel he has some existential qualities).


Andrew