Existentialism

[Led Zeppelin]

Lately I've been really interested in existentialism, even though I don't know a lot about it. I'm trying to get my hands on a few defining books on the subject, but I have to wait for awhile. So I thought I'd ask people here, who might be existentialists themselves, what it means to be one, or rather, to believe in the philosophical doctrine.

Can someone explain in simple terms (I tried reading the wikipedia article and a few others, didn't have a clue what I was reading) what it means to be a existentialist?

Thanks. Also, could someone explain what makes existentialism different from other philosophies, and if it is compatible with Marxism. Also, what is the "standard" philosophical doctrine that Marxists adhere to?

[Licens Credo]

Well the first thing a person ought to realize about existentialism is that it’s a philosophy that has been embraced by many different philosophers at varying time periods. Most would coin Kierkegaard as being the father of existentialism and Sartre as being the person who made it popular.

Existentialism focuses on a theme present through out and that is the concept of choice. This concept shows up in Kierkegaard’s work Fear and Trembling which is a good start to understanding some concepts of existentialism i.e. uncertainty, subjectivity, etc. Though the reader will come to realize Kierkegaard is a very devout Christian. He calls this the, “leap of faith” a way of reducing oneself to a state of irrationality. He considered this as an approach to an irrational world – the idea of believing in a god. Kierkegaard, however, fiercely criticized the church for degrading the individual. Kierkegaard is a lot of fun to read since he has a genuine, passionate, and engaging writing style.

Within the same time period you have the philosopher Nietzsche who without a doubt had huge impacts on existentialism. He focused on man as being a passionate being who ultimately has a will. He playfully uses ideas of Zarathustra and the Ubermensch to get across his ideals. He set the forecast for a radical skepticism denying that all truths are mere interpretations that are in no way universal – this is predominant through out existentialism. He is also infamous for attacking the church and famously stating, “god is dead!” Nietzsche as a writer is very prolific and very aggressive in opinion. It seems like when you read him he has a strong opinion in everything, though that was intentional. Overall, his ideas of the individual and free will are why he’s a precursor to existentialism.

The next philosopher worth mentioning is Heidegger, a German philosopher who joined the Nazi movement, but was in no way anti-Semitic. Heidegger talks specifically about being there, or as he called it, “Dasein” – this is basically him suggesting that we as humans all go through Dasein whenever we make a choice be it bad or good. It is when that choice is made are existence is made. He also coins the notion that we our simply thrown in to this world with a free will that most people will surrender to others, or a set of daily routines or doctrines. To him this is to be inauthentic since to take the role of others is to be owned by others, not by the self. Heidegger is very complex in his writing… reading Being and Time is not easy. Heidegger is a personal favorite since he really embraces this concept of being engaged in the world and finding a way at being at home with world. He directly affected the next philosopher Sartre.

Jean Paul Sartre is probably most associated with existentialism. He probably addresses the idea of being condemned to freedom and inevitably choices, and responsibility. He believes that we as humans choice who we are rather than having a define path from God. He strongly apposes the notion of a god saying that it imposes the ideas of determinism and absolutes. A famous saying that summarizes existentialism is, “existence precedes essence” something like Aristotle would disagree with, saying the complete opposite in fact. Sartre also talks about the way humans act in regards to their freedoms. He often claims man to act in bad faith as a way of ridding them of responsibility and choice. He would call someone who says, “I’m not good at math because I’m naturally not made to be that way, “as someone acting in bad faith claiming that the freedom to choose is a startling thing. Sartre was also famously a Marxist but whether he truly believed in all the ideals is argued to this day. Marxism and existentialism don’t easily work together but Sartre thought existentialism could potentially humanize Marxism.

Lastly, there is Albert Camus. He was probably the best writer in explaining existentialism through stories and novels. He invents the notion of the absurd in his writing the Myth of Sisyphus, claiming that Sisyphus is much like a human who is in a constant struggle with a meaningless world. Though he argues that as individuals we can give it meaning and that thoughts of suicide should avoided even though life may seem filled with dread and anguish. His philosophy is refereed to as, “absurdism.” Some novels that I would suggest you read our, “The Stranger” and “The Myth of Sisyphus”

Overall, existentialism is very broad and confusing. Though the themes of freedom, choice, dread, existence, uncertainty, and engagement is present through out. The above listed is a very general look at existentialism and was off the top of my head.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I have to say that the above post gives you a good guide to some of the key philosophers. Personally my favourite writer is Camus (I would add the Plague onto the above list of suggested reading), but I have studied Nietzsche and Sartre in at least some depth as well. I never minded other writers, but never spent much time on them.

As for compatibility with Marxism, you probably want to check out Sartre. In Existentialism is a humanism he roughly (it is quite poorly written because it was intended as a verbal address) argued thatrather than taking our absence of objective meaning lying down, and acting with indifference or worse embracing quietism (inaction), that we should embrace our choices. He claims that we live in a world of "intersubjectivity." "The other is indispensible to my existence and equally so to any knowledge I can have of myself."-Sartre

Where Sartre argues more specifically in favour of Marxism is in his later works, and there is a thread that (hopefully) I can link specifically on that. Subjectivity in this sense does not necessarily have to exclude a humanistic philosophy.

If you could post what it is you found confusing perhaps explanations could be offered? There are lots of potentially confusing areas...

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 11:31 PM
Can someone explain in simple terms (I tried reading the wikipedia article and a few others, didn't have a clue what I was reading) what it means to be a existentialist?
I can give it a shot... the basic idea of existentialism is that there is no meaning in the universe, as there is no God. We're all on our own. Therefore, it is up to each of us to make our own meaning, as expressed through our actions.

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 05:31 AM
Also, what is the "standard" philosophical doctrine that Marxists adhere to?
The nature of man is to be found in his material production of subsistence.

[hoopla]

Existentialism is for professionals only :angry:

;)

:D

[Led Zeppelin]

Ok, I didn't respond to this thread yesterday because I wanted to wait to get more responses. Thanks for the posts everyone, but still, it didn't really fully answer any of my questions. Licens Credo's post was informative on the history of existentialism, and how it has developed over time, but it didn't really go in-depth about what it is, or what it means to be one. As for the other posts:


Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+--> (Hegemonicretribution)If you could post what it is you found confusing perhaps explanations could be offered?[/b]

Alright, for example, I have no clue what this means:


Originally posted by wikipedia+--> (wikipedia)Identities are constructed by the individual consciousness only: As an extension of the first tenet, the individual consciousness constructs a "self" or "identity" for itself. An "identity" can include beliefs, projects, and various other things of value. Sartre argues that no one else, including God if He existed, can choose your "identity" for you. Kierkegaard's knight of faith and Nietzsche's Übermensch are some such examples of those who create their own "identity".
[/b]

The individual consciousness constructs an identity for itself, but this is not true because it's influenced by many factors. Actually, I think a persons identity is constructed more by a persons social environment than just by the person himself in isolation from everything else that might have an effect on the way it is constructed.

I don't really know a lot about philosophy, haven't read much on it, but that seems logical to me.

Here's another example of something I don't really understand:


Originally posted by wikipedia
Values are subjective: Sartre accepts the premise that something is valuable because the individual consciousness chooses to value it. Sartre denies there are any objective standards on which to base values.

Doesn't this go against objective facts? I mean, it doesn't matter how a person values their own house, or their own car, or their own money for that matter, since it is all determined by the system, i.e., objective standards on which to base values do exist.

I don't want to come off as an idiot here, but is that in reference only to "personal values"? Like morals or something?

This one is mind boggling:


[email protected]
There are several terms Sartre uses in his works. Being in-itself are objects that are not free and cannot change its essence. Being for-itself are free: it does not need to be what it is and can change into what it is not. Consciousness is usually considered being for-itself. Sartre distinguishes between positional and non-positional consciousness. Non-positional consciousness is being merely conscious of one's surroundings. Positional consciousness puts consciousness into relation of one's surroundings. This entails an explicit awareness of being conscious of one's surroundings. Sartre argues identity is constructed by this explicit awareness of consciousness.

What the hell does that mean? :blink:

Also, could you just tell me in simple terms what it means to be an existentialist in practice. What makes them different from other people? Are they more open-minded? Are they more politically aware? Do they have certain fixed views on subjects?

Thanks.


Chrysalis
The nature of man is to be found in his material production of subsistence.

What is this philosophical doctrine called?

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:10 AM

What is this philosophical doctrine called?
I think it's called nothing. You can read about it in the German Ideology (The materialist concept of history). Here's a quote:

"The premisses from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premisses from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are real individuals, their activity, and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premisses can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.

The first premiss of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals."

[Licens Credo]

Also, could you just tell me in simple terms what it means to be an existentialist in practice. What makes them different from other people? Are they more open-minded? Are they more politically aware? Do they have certain fixed views on subjects?

I thought I would start off by quoting this because I get the impression your looking for a way to be, and that’s exactly what existentialist is not. Existentialism is a belief not surrounded by principles, doctrines, or absolutes, rather, it works off the moment of things, the human condition per se, and when all thrown together does not tell you what to do but rather suggests that what you do, where you go, and who you become - is up to you, and only you. If you’re looking for a philosophy that spoon feeds, this is probably the wrong one for you.


Identities are constructed by the individual consciousness only: As an extension of the first tenet, the individual consciousness constructs a "self" or "identity" for itself. An "identity" can include beliefs, projects, and various other things of value. Sartre argues that no one else, including God if He existed, can choose your "identity" for you. Kierkegaard's knight of faith and Nietzsche's Übermensch are some such examples of those who create their own "identity".

This is actually quite a simple concept basically saying the mind (individual consciousness) is the only true way of knowing the self since it’s within the self, whereas another person defining you would be outside the self, therefore, not the self. Further disproving your arguments of “influences” - since the individual consciousness still has to factor that in when making the self, nonetheless, it’s the self not the influence making the self – “existence precedes essence.” For example, say it’s raining (influence) your mind is aware of this and now is faced with a choice. Now you want to maintain a dry existence so you take your umbrella, therefore, staying dry.


Values are subjective: Sartre accepts the premise that something is valuable because the individual consciousness chooses to value it. Sartre denies there are any objective standards on which to base values.

I think you may have read that the wrong way but I’ll do my best to clear this up for you. Subjectivity is something relative to the individual consciousness thus when the mind chooses to value something it’s in accordance to the individual therefore in some way it has value, but it’s not a universal value. Objectivity is finding absolutes/universals and claiming them that way. Sartre is basically saying all values are assumptions based on probable cause, etc. As a result everything is subjective, even things like science since they only claim to probable theories, but that doesn’t make them absolutes. Basically, there are no absolute values – only values that individuals conceive for themselves.


Being in-itself are objects that are not free and cannot change its essence. Being for-itself are free: it does not need to be what it is and can change into what it is not.

In-itself suggest the situations we are always in but have no determining factors that effect that situation, so the situation we are thrown in to. The for-itself negates in-itself because for-itself determines the actual situation, so this could be the choices we apply to the situation. Therefore, we are always free to make choices and for-itself is always the determining factor of a situation. Hence Sartre concludes that we are always "more" than our situation and that this is the ontological foundation of our freedom. We are "condemned" to be free, in his hyperbolic phrase. I wouldn;t worry to much about terms created by Sartre. They're quite simply all confusing but if you really want to get a better understanding buy Being and Nothingness.

[hoopla]

Existentialism is a belief not surrounded by principles, doctrines, or absolutes, rather, it works off the moment of thingsWhether or not this is a principle or an absolute is probably a mute point then :lol: No, existentialism does seem open to the same sort of transcendental refutation as e.g. postmodernism.

To be fair to OP I would imagine that existential psycotherapy believes that everyone has something to learn from existentialism

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Massoud+Jul 2 2006, 06:10 AM--> (Massoud @ Jul 2 2006, 06:10 AM) What the hell does that mean? :blink:

[/b]
Licens Credo again has given some good answers, I will try a slightly different/briefer response to your quotes for a bit of contrast.


Originally posted by wikipedia+--> (wikipedia)Identities are constructed by the individual consciousness only: As an extension of the first tenet, the individual consciousness constructs a "self" or "identity" for itself. An "identity" can include beliefs, projects, and various other things of value. Sartre argues that no one else, including God if He existed, can choose your "identity" for you. Kierkegaard's knight of faith and Nietzsche's Übermensch are some such examples of those who create their own "identity".
[/b]As it has been said; existence precedes essence. Your essence, nature or even your "youness" is determined only by yourself through your individual actions. It would be in "bad faith" to allow others to create you, and essentially even this would be your individual choice.


I think a persons identity is constructed more by a persons social environment than just by the person himself in isolation from everything else that might have an effect on the way it is constructed.
How we are born and where etc are part of the human condition, but this does not define us. If I was born into a family of rapists, this would neither excuse or explain any decision on my part to become a rapist, only actions towards this end can do that. Our colour, family, gender, sexuality etc does not define us, whilst there may well be influencial factors in any given circumstance, the choice to adhere to this influence remains a choice. "Consciousness" is important here, and Sartre talks about the importance of being aware.



[email protected]
Values are subjective: Sartre accepts the premise that something is valuable because the individual consciousness chooses to value it. Sartre denies there are any objective standards on which to base values. Morality and values are baseless, and because there is no god we have to live in such a world. The choices we make are to be attributed with more value (different sense of the word) when they are made with recognition of our anguish ann abandonment, and are made with without hope (despair). In other words, Sartre sees choices that are made consciously as being more valuable than those that were made in accordance with custom, or external advice etc...


wikipedia
There are several terms Sartre uses in his works. Being in-itself are objects that are not free and cannot change its essence. Being for-itself are free: it does not need to be what it is and can change into what it is not.We, as humans are being for itself. No matter what is deemed as our essence (be this through occupation, personality, wealth etc) we have some control over this which we can use to change our essence. Existence precedes essence.

Being in itself, or essence preceding existence could apply to (for example) a paper knife. It is created as a paper knife from a concept which existed before its conception. Its essence was determined, and then it was created so that it could exist as this essence, and with no ability to change things.

In summary:As humans we are different, because we make choices, and maintain free-will. These choices afford us the ability to change ourselves.


Consciousness is usually considered being for-itself. Sartre distinguishes between positional and non-positional consciousness. Non-positional consciousness is being merely conscious of one's surroundings. Positional consciousness puts consciousness into relation of one's surroundings. This entails an explicit awareness of being conscious of one's surroundings. .

This is a more complicated and less (initially) crucial idea and I would suggest working with the basic ideas, and perhaps reading a novel or two by Camus first before dealing with "nothingness."

I would advise against tackling Being and Nothingness until you have read some easier and more accessable texts on the subject. I have never read it myself, I thought Sartre was a little too free with vocab and a little incoherent at times, but from what I have read of that text in particular, there are some fairly difficult ideas within.


Sartre argues identity is constructed by this explicit awareness of consciousness.
Perhaps, but how it is argued would take some time to explain, and I have always found it hard to word.


Also, could you just tell me in simple terms what it means to be an existentialist in practice. What makes them different from other people? Are they more open-minded? Are they more politically aware? Do they have certain fixed views on subjects?
Being an existentialist just means that you realise the subjectivity of values, that you are condemned to choose on every occassion, and that you "create" your own "essence" through your actions. To understand it as fixed views is to have completely and utterly misunderstood everything about existentialism.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:32 PM
Being an existentialist just means that you realise the subjectivity of values, that you are condemned to choose on every occassion, and that you "create" your own "essence" through your actions. To understand it as fixed views is to have completely and utterly misunderstood everything about existentialism.
But are these views fixed.?

Your just hot for Satre :lol:

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:20 PM
But are these views fixed.?

Your just hot for Satre :lol:
These aren't views, but insofar as they are they are not fixed. At best they could be considered a rough framework, to be applied subjectively as it is seen fit.

Personally I am not the biggest fan of Sartre, I mucg favour Camus, but the quoted pieces seemed to deal more with Sartre so you know...

A real existentialist would not admit to being an existentialist ;)

[hoopla]

I may have been (was) thinking of poststructuralism, instead of existentialism. Why then, is PS refuted and not existentialism? Can it not say its points are "rough scetches"?

[Led Zeppelin]

Alright, so if that is what existentialism is then anyone who is conscious of himself and his actions and takes responsibility for them is an existentialist. I can even take this further and say that "existentialism" existed before the term was first used. Actually, I can even go one step further and say that the term "existentialism" is in itself irrelevant.

So basically it's very simple; I was an existentialist without even knowing it. I've always taken responsibility for my own actions, I've always recognized the subjectivity of values.

And to Licens Credo, I wasn't looking for a philosophy that "spoon feeds" or something like that, I was just asking what it means. Given the fact that the term "existentialism" exists it must have a meaning therefore I asked about it, I didn't know the term was wholly irrelevant.

[hoopla]

Personally I am not the biggest fan of Sartre, I mucg favour CamusWhat do you think of Jasper. Especially his thesis that transcendence is the failure of thought, and that a philosophy that thinks it knows what Being is is a "slipping away".

[ComradeRed]

Give up now, no two existentialists agree on what existentialism is. Although the stock existentialist wears only black, uttering gnomic sayings ;)

[Janus]

the basic idea of existentialism is that there is no meaning in the universe
I would say that borders more on absurdism.


no two existentialists agree on what existentialism is.
Yeah, there is no precise, defining theory behind it.

Sartre did try to reconciliate Marxism with existentialism though he failed at it. Though there are connections, existentialism does seem to be a bit more idealistic than the materialism behind Marxism.