Existentialism?

[RadicalRadical]

Any thoughts on the main ideas of this philosophical school? I identify with many of the ideas of it and I have compatibility with many philosophers of this school like Sartre. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it is compatible with Leftist political philosophy?

(Note: I am definitely no expert on philosophy since I have no proper education in the subject so I am all self-taught, so please do not criticize my ideas too much as they are not well developed)

[Plagueround]

I'm kind of in the same boat as you on being mostly self taught with little to no schooling on the subject, so I wouldn't dare trying to go toe to toe with some of our "philosophy heavyweights" around here...but...
I consider myself an existentialist...it just seems to make a lot of sense to me. I'd say leftist thought is extremely compatible with existentialism, and anyone who says otherwise can talk to Satre himself as he was a communist and a marxist. ;)

[shorelinetrance]

Existentialism is one of my "favorites" of philosophy, as in i really enjoy the "tenets". I find sartre incredibly hard to digest, somewhat obfuscated. For that reason i enjoy camus a lot more. You can draw parallels between camus and sartre quite easily because they're really, the heart of existentialism. To touch on your last question, it's incredibly compatible because one of the main ideas of existentialism is bringing individual meaning into your life (not coerced or indoctrinated through societal means) but bourgeoisie society conflicts with this idea. The main "meaning" from what i observe (incoming assumption) in capitalist society is the pursuit of material gain. Which is "coerced" meaning in a sense, indoctrinated. So i've always have had the understanding that leftist political ideologies go hand in hand with existentialism.

Among the other posters in this thread, i am also a self educated in philosophy. Please don't tear me apart :(

[Decolonize The Left]

Existentialism is one of my "favorites" of philosophy, as in i really enjoy the "tenets". I find sartre incredibly hard to digest, somewhat obfuscated. For that reason i enjoy camus a lot more. You can draw parallels between camus and sartre quite easily because they're really, the heart of existentialism.

They are not. In fact, Sartre and Camus are extremely poor displays of existentialism. Sartre may have been a communist, but his notions of interpersonal relationships were completely skewed by his inability to form any meaningful, healthy, ones of his own. Camus was better in this regard, though his philosophy tails into emptiness.

Sartre and Camus were excellent writers (I find Camus more interesting), but fairly poor philosophers. If one seeks existentialist philosophy, one would need to read Kierkegaard and Nietzsche (some Heidegger is good too).

A fine introduction to existentialism can be found in:
Existentialism: Basic Writings, Ed. by C Guignon and D Pereboom
or
Existentialism, Ed. by R Soloman

The former has a rather in-depth presentation of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre. The latter offers less text per-individual, but many more individual philosophers. I recommend both.


To touch on your last question, it's incredibly compatible because one of the main ideas of existentialism is bringing individual meaning into your life (not coerced or indoctrinated through societal means) but bourgeoisie society conflicts with this idea. The main "meaning" from what i observe (incoming assumption) in capitalist society is the pursuit of material gain. Which is "coerced" meaning in a sense, indoctrinated. So i've always have had the understanding that leftist political ideologies go hand in hand with existentialism.

You are correct - they go very well together.


Among the other posters in this thread, i am also a self educated in philosophy. Please don't tear me apart :(

I have restrained myself. ;)

- August

[shorelinetrance]

Sartre and Camus were excellent writers (I find Camus more interesting), but fairly poor philosophers. If one seeks existentialist philosophy, one would need to read Kierkegaard and Nietzsche (some Heidegger is good too).
i've read some nietzsche, but mostly his stuff on moral philosophy and a little bit of thus spoke. i can see how his idea of the overman could be considered "existentialist". heidegger has to be one of the worst philosophical writers in existence. he's definition of obfuscation :D definitely waiting until i take a philosophy course before i read heidegger.

Existentialism, Ed. by R Solomon
r soloman as in richard c solomon? i've heard some of his lectures recorded by the teaching company, very interesting stuff. will check out those books.

I have restrained myself.don't stop! you're one of my favorite posters on revleft, i value your posts highly. :lol:

[Black Dagger]

What is existentialism? I dunno if there is a 'concrete' definition of the term - to me at least it's more an attitude to life and humanity than a highly complex or academic ism.

[Decolonize The Left]

i've read some nietzsche, but mostly his stuff on moral philosophy and a little bit of thus spoke. i can see how his idea of the overman could be considered "existentialist".

The 'superhuman' is but one facet of Nietzsche's philosophy - perhaps one of the most misunderstood philosophies in history. The other main facets are 'the eternal recurrence of the same' and 'the death of god.' Combined, these three facets form the most coherent existentialist philosophy I have read. Not only does Nietzsche succeed in explaining what Kierkegaard explains, but he does so without the weight of religion.


heidegger has to be one of the worst philosophical writers in existence. he's definition of obfuscation :D definitely waiting until i take a philosophy course before i read heidegger.

Yes Heidegger has many issues and is very obscure. But his notion of 'authenticity' is easy to understand for many people who find Nietzsche too complicated. For this reason, since 'authenticity' can be explaining in synonymous terms with 'the religious sphere' (Kierkegaard) and 'the child' (Nietzsche), it is helpful to those studying existentialism.


r soloman as in richard c solomon? i've heard some of his lectures before very good stuff.

I have checked my book and the editor is Robert C. Soloman. The book Existentialism has a wonderful assortment of authors and passages. Mine is also perfectly small and portable.


don't stop! you're one of my favorite posters on revleft, i value your posts highly. :lol:

Well shucks :blushing:...

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

What is existentialism?

"A twentieth-century philosophical (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/philosophical) movement (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/movement) emphasizing the uniqueness (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uniqueness) of each human existence (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/existence) in freely (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/freely) making its self-defining choices (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/choices), with foundations in the thought of Soren Kierkegaard (1813-55) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and notably represented in the works of Karl Jaspers (1883-1969), Gabriel Marcel (1887-1973), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-80)." (wiktionary.com)

For a much more in-depth description, this site (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/) will be sufficient.

- August

[Black Dagger]

Sorry, see my edit. I know what people claim 'existentialism' is, how its defined in the encyclopedia etc. Mine was more of a philsophical or rhetorical question.

[shorelinetrance]

The 'superhuman' is but one facet of Nietzsche's philosophy - perhaps one of the most misunderstood philosophies in history. The other main facets are 'the eternal recurrence of the same' and 'the death of god.' Combined, these three facets form the most coherent existentialist philosophy I have read. Not only does Nietzsche succeed in explaining what Kierkegaard explains, but he does so without the weight of religion.
Which one of nietzsches works does he elaborate on the idea eternal recurrence? i think i have all of his major works sitting on my bookshelf. so a little nudge in the right direction would be awesome :cool:.

I have checked my book and the editor is Robert C. Soloman. The book Existentialism has a wonderful assortment of authors and passages. Mine is also perfectly small and portable.
If you haven't listened to robert solomon lecture, you're doing an incredible diservice to yourself.:D If you know your way around the internet, you can find his lectures for free. you seem to have understanding of nietzsche, so i don't think the legality of piracy will stop your search any. ;)

[Decolonize The Left]

Which one of nietzsches works does he elaborate on the idea eternal recurrence? i think i have all of his major works sitting on my bookshelf. so a little nudge in the right direction would be awesome :cool:.

The notion of eternal recurrence is, in my opinion, the most important existential idea. You may find it in The Gay Science, Section 341.

It is also discussed in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (most clearly in the chapter "On the Vision and the Riddle"), though cloaked in metaphor. While this work is far superior to his others, it is certainly the most difficult to understand. Hence I would recommend sitting with The Gay Science and the simple hypothetical scenario involving the demon until one can grasp the magnitude of such a question/idea.


If you haven't listened to robert solomon lecture, you're doing an incredible diservice to yourself.:D If you know your way around the internet, you can find his lectures for free. you seem to have understanding of nietzsche, so i don't think the legality of piracy will stop your search any. ;)

:laugh: It most certainly will not.

- August

[shorelinetrance]

You may find it in The Gay Science, Section 341.
the only nietzsche work i just discovered that i don't have after a long arduous journey to my bookshelf. :crying: might as well find it online and print it out.

It is also discussed in Thus Spoke Zarathustra though cloaked in metaphor.
every time i sit down to read thus spoke zarathustra i find it incredibly metaphorical and hard to "decipher" what is being said. i want to love it, but i just can't ;_;

I would recommend sitting with The Gay Science and the simple hypothetical scenario involving the demon until one can grasp the magnitude of such a question/idea.
i'm off to go read it (after i can get this damn printer to work).:lol:

[Decolonize The Left]

every time i sit down to read thus spoke zarathustra i find it incredibly metaphorical and hard to "decipher" what is being said. i want to love it, but i just can't ;_;

Most academic philosophers will claim that Zarathustra is Nietzsche's 'greatest work,' though few will teach with it. Few actually use it at all to explain Nietzsche's philosophy - interesting, given that it contains his whole set of ideas...

One can understand it if one approaches it in the correct manner. Nietzsche leaves hints throughout the entire book, little bits of thread to grab and be pulled through the metaphor to the central ideas at play.

But one must always remember that Nietzsche is always playing.

- August

[Hit The North]

(Note: I am definitely no expert on philosophy since I have no proper education in the subject so I am all self-taught, so please do not criticize my ideas too much as they are not well developed)


I'm kind of in the same boat as you on being mostly self taught with little to no schooling on the subject, so I wouldn't dare trying to go toe to toe with some of our "philosophy heavyweights" around here...but...


Among the other posters in this thread, i am also a self educated in philosophy. Please don't tear me apart

Guys, what's with all the Fear and Trembling? I didn't realise that the philosophy forum was so forbidding. Be reassured that even the moderator of this forum has no formal training in philosophy (waddaya mean, "it shows!"? :lol:) and take heart from Gramsci's assertion that we are all philosophers (with a small 'p').


Do you think it is compatible with Leftist political philosophy?



Not inevitably. The problem (or charm?) of existentialism is that it can be adapted to any point on the political spectrum. Remember that Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were social conservatives and Heiddeger joined the Nazi's and helped to witch hunt Jewish academics from his university.

[Apeiron]

To be technical, Sartre is necessarily at the heart of existentialism as he's the one who popularized the term... though his philosophy is quite obviously indebted to phenomenology (particularly Husserl and Heidegger), as well as Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, so its not really too big of a point.

I find Sartre to be a rather significant and interesting philosopher. Some of the language he adopts from Husserl and Heidegger is a bit convoluted and abstruse, but I find his philosophical system to be compelling and quite sophisticated, though not without its problems. Simone de Beauvoir's account of existentialism is less problematic in my opinion, as her account grants far more consideration to the role of the body in experience and ends up not succumbing to the dualism that Sartre ultimately fails at transcending.

From what I understand Sartre was a Marxist (I've heard that he was a Maoist, though I'm not certain of this), but I think his relationship with the Marxist tradition is a controversial one. His chief work on this is apparently the Critique of Dialectical Reason which I've never read. There are a number of aspects of his philosophical system that don't quite mesh with particular aspects of Marxism - depending on how you interpret Marx, of course - but Sartre grants consciousness a great deal of autonomy that may not jive with most historical materialists (though perhaps this problem is reconcilable). I find his account of ontological freedom to be problematic in a number of ways (primarily related to the autonomy of consciousness vis-a-vis material conditions), some of which are more adequately addressed by Beauvoir... despite this, they were both certainly leftists (de Beauvoir explicitly advocates for socialism in The Second Sex, and Sartre was, as noted, some kind of Marxist) and their ideas are indubitably compatible with much leftist political thought. I think the poster shorelinetrace makes a good point about this - the whole enterprise of existentialism is one of constituting a meaningful individual existence by means of a freely-chosen project. This is incompatible with the demands of capitalist society.

Camus was a leftist too, and a rather prominent critic of French colonialism (Sartre was critical on this point as well). Camus I find to be a much better writer than philosopher; I enjoy his novels immensely, and though his philosophy is full of some beautiful writing and captivating metaphors, the project as a whole is not so impressive. That said, a number of his books are ranked among my favorites, particularly The Fall.

Oh, and Nietzsche is perhaps my favorite 'modern' philosopher. Incredible writer and thinker, and despite the 'uses and abuses' of his thought historically, many aspects of his work (philosophically, stylistically, methodologically, etc.) hold great potential for leftist political critique and subversion. Personally I find his critique of metaphysics and particularly his critique of the subject to be useful paradigms for examining and critiquing existing philosophical and political regimes.

[Decolonize The Left]

Guys, what's with all the Fear and Trembling?

:D



Not inevitably. The problem (or charm?) of existentialism is that it can be adapted to any point on the political spectrum. Remember that Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were social conservatives and Heiddeger joined the Nazi's and helped to witch hunt Jewish academics from his university.

That's because it's an apolitical philosophy. Existentialism is not to be confused with those who constructed and advocated it (while those you mentioned are negative examples, Sartre and Camus were commies...) - it is merely a way of relating to one's situation. I believe it to be an extremely healthy way.

- August

[Apeiron]

Remember that Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were social conservatives Kierkegaard aside, I think you're cheating Nietzsche here.... to isolate one point, his rejection of Christian morality is hardly 'socially conservative' in any sense. I don't think you can pigeonhole him politically, and throughout all his writings he ultimately reveals little about any personal political convictions he held. His thought ends up being quite malleable though, and he can add much to the left's 'philosophical toolbox' so long as we're willing to adopt him (or at least in parts).

[Led Zeppelin]

They are not. In fact, Sartre and Camus are extremely poor displays of existentialism. Sartre may have been a communist, but his notions of interpersonal relationships were completely skewed by his inability to form any meaningful, healthy, ones of his own. Camus was better in this regard, though his philosophy tails into emptiness.

Sartre and Camus were excellent writers (I find Camus more interesting), but fairly poor philosophers. If one seeks existentialist philosophy, one would need to read Kierkegaard and Nietzsche (some Heidegger is good too).

You define existentialism to be one thing without taking into account that it has various definitions.

Sartre was a "Marxist existentialist", or a "Sartrean existentialist", to compare his existentialism with Nietzche, and then say; "oh, well, but Nietzche was the real existentialist" is just pointless.

By that logic I could direct you to Dostoyevsky as one of the earliest "existentialist writers", that doesn't mean that Sartre's existentialism is exactly the same as his. In fact it's almost the complete opposite.

And what have you read by Sartre to conclude that he was a "fairly poor philosopher" (as opposed to Nietzche...)?


The problem (or charm?) of existentialism is that it can be adapted to any point on the political spectrum. Remember that Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were social conservatives and Heiddeger joined the Nazi's and helped to witch hunt Jewish academics from his university.

Yes, as I said, there are various forms of "existentialism".

But when Marxists refer to themselves as existentialist, they do so in the Sartrean sense.

[RadicalRadical]

Guys, what's with all the Fear and Trembling? I didn't realise that the philosophy forum was so forbidding. Be reassured that even the moderator of this forum has no formal training in philosophy (waddaya mean, "it shows!"? :lol:) and take heart from Gramsci's assertion that we are all philosophers (with a small 'p').

Thanks for the welcome! It's just that I have observed some threads with some really really deep conversation and big words :D. (Most of these had Rosa posting somewhere :)).

[lombas]

True existentialism ends in absurdism.

So yeah, it is by far the coolest philosophical school, and very much leftist.

[shorelinetrance]

Most of these had Rosa posting somewhere
she's also been studying philosophy/politics for 25 years. i can assume you're still in your teens. personally, i'm 16. i think we can be excused if were not up to par with rosa.:lol:

[Trystan]

What bothers me about the word "existentialism" is the way people use it to describe anything that fits their definition of existentialism. This film is existential, this album is existential etc. etc. Maybe I'm just a pleb, but I really don't follow these people.

Sartre spoke about this 1945 and said that the word had become meaningless, and little has changed.

[Hit The North]

True existentialism ends in absurdism.

So yeah, it is by far the coolest philosophical school, and very much leftist.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that left-wing politics end in absurdity - which definitely is not cool.

[JimFar]

From what I understand Sartre was a Marxist (I've heard that he was a Maoist, though I'm not certain of this)

Sartre's involvement with the Maoists came when the Gaullist government in France initiated a crackdown on the Maoists in 1970. Jean-Pierre Le Dantec, who was editor-in-chief of the newspaper, La Cause du peuple - published by the Maoist group Proletarian Left was arrested and his paper seized. He was immediately replaced by a new editor, Michel Le Bris, who was then arrested ten days later. In other words, the French government was most intent on suppressing the Maoist press at that time. Since the government had made it clear that it would arrest anybody who would take charge of the paper, the Maoists decided to turn to Sartre. So on April 28, 1970, Sartre after meeting with a number of leading Maoists including Benny Levy (then known as Pierre Victor) accepted the post of editor-in-chief. Later that year Sartre accepted the same position at several other Maoist papers that were also facing suppression by the French government. In the meantime,the French National Assembly passed legislation restricting demonstrations, which gave the minister of the interior the power to dissolve the Proletarian Left, which he ordered on May 27, 1970.

Sartre's acceptance of the post of editor-in-chief with several Maoist papers lent his name, his prestige and indeed his active participation to the campaign against the attempts by the government to suppress the Maoists. For this Sartre was attacked by most of the bourgeois press which charged him with grandstanding and self-promotion, while the Communist paper, L'Humanite attacked him for endorsing the "vulgar provocations" of the Maoists. Only Le Monde was in any way supportive.

When the cases of the two arrested editors of La Cause du peuple was taken to the courts, the decision to outlaw the paper was revoked but the editors were still found guilty of violating the law. That verdict was followed by outbreaks of violent demonstrations. In June, Sartre and his friends founded the Association of the Friends of "La Cause du peuple," with Simone de Beauvoir and Liliane Siegel as fronts. They organized public distributions of the paper in Paris with Sartre, Beauvoir, and many leading intellectuals and journalists publicly hawking the paper. Sartre, no stranger to publicity, made sure that there was a photographer from Gallimard to photograph the whole thing. Sartre was arrested, questioned by the police, then released.

Following that incident Sartre who had been called as a witness inthe trial of a Maoist leader, Alain Geismar, refused to come to the court. Instead, he harangued the workers at the Renault Billancourt plants where he called upon the workers to support Geismar's cause. Most of the workers ignored his speech.

Sartre was widely ridiculed in the French press.

Sartre's active involvement with the Maoists continued until 1973. His relations with them were often quite stormy but his involvement did help beat back the government's attempts to suppress or censor the radical press in France.

[apathy maybe]

You seem to be operating on the assumption that left-wing politics end in absurdity - which definitely is not cool.

Oh come on, everything ends in absurdity. Life is absurd, you are absurd (:cool:), don't pet the sweaty things (err, don't sweat the petty things?).

Basically, any philosophy that doesn't (when taken to the logical conclusion) end in absurdity is not materialistic. There is no point to anything, and you can't find any point to any thing (at least not from a materialist perspective).

Actually, I may have wandered off into nihilism there... Sorry ;) :lol:

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism you know you want it.)

[Ratatosk]

I can't pretend to be particularly familiar with existentialism, but the impression I've gotten from every encounter with it is that it's basically a mix of psychology and meaningless babble ("existence precedes essence", "authentic being-towards-death"). Sorry, but when I want to read meaningless babble, I rather prefer the simple anti-philosophy of Zen to the baroque Weltanschaung of authentic Sauerkraut or whatever.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Basically, any philosophy that doesn't (when taken to the logical conclusion) end in absurdity is not materialistic. There is no point to anything, and you can't find any point to any thing (at least not from a materialist perspective). This does not follow because 'absurdity' is a value judgement which the material universe cannot make.

Human beings give meaning to the world. Besides, if it's all pointless why do you bother being an anarchist? You might as well be a capitalist and enrich yourself.

[apathy maybe]

This does not follow because 'absurdity' is a value judgement which the material universe cannot make.

Human beings give meaning to the world. Besides, if it's all pointless why do you bother being an anarchist? You might as well be a capitalist and enrich yourself.


[attempts] to find meaning in the universe ultimately fail (and, hence, are absurd) because no such meaning exists,

I'm an anarchist because I don't follow a "philosophy" as such. Besides, I'm still bound to my biological impulses, and am capable of having fun etc. Anyway, I've evaluated the situation, and I'ld have much more fun in an anarchist society then a capitalist one...

[Hit The North]

[attempts] to find meaning in the universe ultimately fail (and, hence, are absurd) because no such meaning exists,

Fail according to who's terms? Meanings exist if people impose them on their reality.

If someone gestures in a certain way, or laughs or cries, these acts have meaning which is interpreted by both the actor and the observer. To say that they are ultimately meaningless is a meaningless statement in itself.

Perhaps it is existentialism, rather than existence, which is absurd.

[lombas]

You seem to be operating on the assumption that left-wing politics end in absurdity - which definitely is not cool.

I think you should bring your definition of absurdism up-to-date.

Start with Camus.

:D

[Hiero]

What bothers me about the word "existentialism" is the way people use it to describe anything that fits their definition of existentialism. This film is existential, this album is existential etc. etc. Maybe I'm just a pleb, but I really don't follow these people.

Sartre spoke about this 1945 and said that the word had become meaningless, and little has changed.
Yeah true, like have heard people say fight Club has na existentionalist tone. What was existentialist about that?

[shorelinetrance]

What was existentialist about that?
the rejection of materialist bourgeois mentality? it's a prerequisite for becoming an "existentialist" but yes, it's a terrible movie that has a simplistic existential tone.