Existentialism, Rationalism, Empricism

[BrassFusion]

I'm interested in existentialist philosophies (yes, each philosopher has their own philosophy) myself. Plus, there are tons of authors who have dabbled in existentialist thoughts, ideas, and theories. Each one of them has very different things to say and focus on, yet they all semm to fall into the realm of existentialism.

Basically, I agree with what Paper Hearts has to say more or less.

Before deciding that something is bullshit, why don't you read more about it, BrassFusion? People's arguements about philosophy on DGN aren't going to be anything like actually picking up a book by Sartre and reading it. Honestly, you might enjoy some of his writing. Or, you might think it's bs, and that's fine. Existentialism is often difficult to define, and I've not yet read a good definition that does it justice because it involves way too many sub-philosophies.

As far as people using big words and showing their intelligence, why not play intellectual games? Exercising the mind doens't hurt anyone. Sure, people can be pretentious. But, just because you have no clue what they're talking about doesn't make them a jackass.

The point is, I've ASKED people to explain to me what existentialism means and they couldn't tell me. This was after I tried reading a few definitions (the ones pasted in the original post), and a few encyclopedia entries. This isn't something I thought of the other day ("Hmm. I'm going to trash someone's philosophy now, I'll google 'philosophy' and pick one at random"); I've been tracking this down for years now.

I suppose I could read the works of philosophers who refer to themselves as "existentialist," but nothing in those would necessarily tell me what the unifying character of an existentialist IS. That would be like reading the whole King James Bible to get to John 3:16, except I don't have a chapter and verse for the cornerstone of any given philosophy. I'm not concerned with unnecessary specifics. There's also room for error when you try to define something like that based on your own interpretation of a large body of work. Heck, Sartre could write "I like toast" in a PM to someone like you, and I could read it, and think, "Wow, that's so deep and existential. That could be TRULY what existentialism means."

But that would be silly.

All that said, what does the word mean to YOU that you're defending it so vehemently without validating it to me first?

[SouthernFriedGhoul]

I think this definition from Wikipedia describes the trem best:

"Existentialism is a philosophical movement that is generally considered a study that pursues meaning in existence and seeks value for the existing individual. Existentialism, unlike other fields of philosophy, does not treat the individual as a concept, and values individual subjectivity over objectivity. As a result, questions regarding the meaning of life and subjective experience are seen as being of paramount importance, above all other scientific and philosophical pursuits.

There are several philosophical positions all related to existential philosophy but the main identifiable common proposition is that existence precedes essence, i.e. that a man exists before his existence has value or meaning. This value or meaning, and the value or meaning of the world around him, man defines himself in his own subjectivity, and wanders between choice, freedom, and existential angst. Existentialism often is associated with anxiety, dread, awareness of death, and freedom. Famous existentialists include Sartre, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Camus, Fanon and de Beauvoir.

Existentialism emphasizes action, freedom, and decision as fundamental to human existence and is fundamentally opposed to the rationalist tradition and to positivism. That is, it argues against definitions of human beings either as primarily rational, knowing beings who relate to reality primarily as an object of knowledge, or for whom action can or ought to be regulated by rational principles, or as beings who can be defined in terms of their behavior as it looks to or is studied by others. More generally it rejects all of the Western rationalist definitions of being in terms of a rational principle or essence or as the most general feature that all existing things share in common. Existentialism tends to view human beings as subjects in an indifferent, objective, often ambiguous, and "absurd" universe in which meaning is not provided by the natural order, but rather can be created, however provisionally and unstably, by human beings' actions and interpretations.

Although there are certain common tendencies among existentialist thinkers, there are major differences and disagreements among them, and not all of them even affiliate themselves with or accept the validity of the term "existentialism". In German, the phrase Existenzphilosophie (philosophy of existence) is also used."

Yes, I know that's a long-winded diatribe about something that you want a succinct definition for. But, just saying that's it's a school of philosophy that deals with the meaning of existence and focuses on the individual is rather vague. I think that because it is a complex set of philosophies is why you can never get a good simplified definition for it. No, that's not a cop-out, but how I honestly feel.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Thats probably a bit to long of a description. I think she was looking for the short version. "Man is the measure of all things" or "I decide what morals/ethics are.. not some outside source". Is the short version.

Thus its seen as "pessimistic" "godless" or "without morals" by many. Pointless meaningless universe. (to the critics)

Brass , often you'll see people using the term who think they know what it means, but really dont, thus it often gets confusing.

[BrassFusion]

Although there are certain common tendencies among existentialist thinkers, there are major differences and disagreements among them, and not all of them even affiliate themselves with or accept the validity of the term "existentialism".

Ok, this line kinda sums it up for me. It validates my belief that the general term (NOT any individual's beliefs in reality or existence, mind you!) may be invalid.

Yes, I know that's a long-winded diatribe about something that you want a succinct definition for. But, just saying that's it's a school of philosophy that deals with the meaning of existence and focuses on the individual is rather vague. I think that because it is a complex set of philosophies is why you can never get a good simplified definition for it. No, that's not a cop-out, but how I honestly feel.

It sounds like someone drew up a word to lump together philosophies that don't need lumping together, and that there's confusion as to whether that term denotes its own philosophical system. After reading this article I'm less inclined to believe it does.

Hell. A term that can't be defined when researched for as long as I have so far and defended and negated by various people like this one has been should NOT be used in legitimate circumstances.

I suppose I feel much the same about the term "existentialism" as I do about the term "goth," then.

[BrassFusion]

Thats probably a bit to long of a description. I think she was looking for the short version. "Man is the measure of all things" or "I decide what morals/ethics are.. not some outside source". Is the short version.

Thus its seen as "pessimistic" "godless" or "without morals" by many. Pointless meaningless universe. (to the critics)

Brass , often you'll see people using the term who think they know what it means, but really dont, thus it often gets confusing.

It didn't look like either of those short versions were implied in the "long" one. Really, out of all the definitions I've ever heard for "existentialism," yours is the most valid. But are you sure those are generally accepted to define existentialism on the whole?

[SouthernFriedGhoul]

Thats probably a bit to long of a description. I think she was looking for the short version. "Man is the measure of all things" or "I decide what morals/ethics are.. not some outside source". Is the short version.

Thus its seen as "pessimistic" "godless" or "without morals" by many. Pointless meaningless universe. (to the critics)

Brass , often you'll see people using the term who think they know what it means, but really dont, thus it often gets confusing.

I readily admitted that the definition I used was long-winded. However, I don't think the brief statements you used really define the term. I have to disagree with BrassFusion that those short definitions give it validity. Sorry.

[BrassFusion]

I readily admitted that the definition I used was long-winded. However, I don't think the brief statements you used really define the term. I have to disagree with BrassFusion that those short definitions give it validity. Sorry.

The short definitions, if accurate, WOULD give it validity. The long one is invalid by virtue of its vagary.

[SouthernFriedGhoul]

Ok, this line kinda sums it up for me. It validates my belief that the general term (NOT any individual's beliefs in reality or existence, mind you!) may be invalid.

It sounds like someone drew up a word to lump together philosophies that don't need lumping together, and that there's confusion as to whether that term denotes its own philosophical system. After reading this article I'm less inclined to believe it does.

Hell. A term that can't be defined when researched for as long as I have so far and defended and negated by various people like this one has been should NOT be used in legitimate circumstances.

I suppose I feel much the same about the term "existentialism" as I do about the term "goth," then.

Yeah, I can see how you feel that way. Hell, it's the same way with movements in art. A bunch of people are grouped together under the realm of Surrealism, yet they have nothing in common. Try defining surrealsim in a room full of drunken people... Sometimes artists, musicians, writers, even philosophers are just labled in certain ways to fit them into a category. Yes, I suppose you're right that it's the same way for goths. It's become increasingly difficult to try to define goth these days. That's why there's people like Voltaire who write songs and books to spoof the movement.

[SouthernFriedGhoul]

The short definitions, if accurate, WOULD give it validity. The long one is invalid by virtue of its vagary.

Now I feel the opposite of how you do, I guess. I find the short definitions vague, while the longer one explains more to me. But, I suppose it's a matter of opinion...

[BrassFusion]

Yeah, I can see how you feel that way. Hell, it's the same way with movements in art. A bunch of people are grouped together under the realm of Surrealism, yet they have nothing in common. Try defining surrealsim in a room full of drunken people... Sometimes artists, musicians, writers, even philosophers are just labled in certain ways to fit them into a category. Yes, I suppose you're right that it's the same way for goths. It's become increasingly difficult to try to define goth these days. That's why there's people like Voltaire who write songs and books to spoof the movement.

Oh I love him so much. And yeah, now that you mention it... but if you ask me, philosophy shouldn't be subject to that kind of careless labelling... if philosophers who wrote a bunch of different stuff all agree on a particular principle that's not open to misinterpretation, that would work... "Man created God," for instance. But unless it's really cut and dried like that, labels are just so confusing.

[BrassFusion]

Now I feel the opposite of how you do, I guess. I find the short definitions vague, while the longer one explains more to me. But, I suppose it's a matter of opinion...

The longer one, since it's an encyclopedia entry, seems more like an analysis than a definition. It even allows for the invalidity of the term. How would you define "existentialism," in your own words?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Want a longer version? hehe. Don't get me started on existentialism. =D

Being a longtime student (started around 1990 in true "study" of such things) of philosophy i've become fairly adept at making short (often brash / oversimplistic) summaries of theological/ethical concepts.

In the early days of DGN i used to talk about Kierkegaard often (considered to be the father of existentialism) and he is the first philosopher i seriously studied.

His "The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die." quote is the most noteworthy. He himself was a brick wall often being very crafty about his language and very easily misunderstood. Try reading through "Christian Discourses" without screaming COME OUT WITH IT MAN GOD DAMN!.

He actually was a fire-breathing critic of the christian church. Although he would have considered himself a christian in general. But, virutally all of the later existentialists (the reason we even know about the term) were agnostics/atheists.

I know when i first started out it used to piss me off that i had to read 3 pages of crap just to get someone to tell me wtf "Positivism" or whatever meant.

Having done my homework on Existentialism many times over, in terms of a one or two sentence definition, what i said i think is right on the money.

But , sort of like trying to sum up "christianity" in one or two sentences , people are going to take issue of something you did or did not cover in your summary.

But anyhow the topic paragraph in wikipedia does pretty much say exactly what i said , just in more words.

Existentialism, unlike other fields of philosophy, does not treat the individual as a concept, and values individual subjectivity over objectivity.

That right there is it, but unless you already know what it means, thats a virtual brick-wall sentence. I've had to wade through books and books of the sort of beat-around-the-bush "short" versions of various philosophies so i see it coming a mile away.

This "tends to value" wording is misleading. The only unifying concept between all "modern" existentialism is >subjectivity of man

The term has come to mean this over a long evolution. It didnt start out this way directly and has so many different takes on it that you could , trying hard enough, give it almost any meaning you wanted to.