Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
Today I started reading Existentialism and Human Emotions by Jean-Paul Sartre. No fewer than 15 pages in, I realized I was wasting my time. Existentialism is the philosophy that "[Mankind] ... appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself.". This is a wholly arbitrary argument. As a cosmologist, I take the humble stance that there is nothing special about humans, or being human. We can, as it happens, learn a great deal about very special things, like the laws of nature and the workings of logic. The crucial fallacy I see in the existential argument is that it supposes "essence" (understanding) to be somehow separate from "existence" (being). Essence neither precedes nor succeeds existence, they are one in the same. One might argue that a rock may not be conscious, but it is real; and, for that matter, a fictitious character may not be real but he makes conscious decisions. I argue that our feeble attempts at modeling nature and understanding our own thoughts are just another part of reality. The self is a mysterious thing, and an inescapable one. That doesn't mean the self is somehow isolated or separable from reality. Any such separation is imaginary. And that imagination is a part of reality. In any case, as a scientist, the existential philosophy bored me, because there can be no testable evidence to support it, one way or the other, just like God. There are philosophies that do provide testable hypothesis! Maybe I should spend my time reading and writing about those? Where's my new Plato book? That Socrates, what a joker! ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() ![]() |
There's a book based on this thought called The Stranger ![]() |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
um...when i read gendou-sama post the first thought was is it about (well i forgot who wrote it) "i think therefore i am" yup about that sentence?? ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
the trick is, we can use logic to describe the world around us, but it has it's limits. it is possible to make a claim that doesn't mean anything. like, i could claim the color purple smells like the number three. "I think, therefore I am" is a claim that doesn't mean anything. just isolate the "I am" part, and you've already implied that "I think". you see, to say, "I am" you'd have to be thinking about what to say. to go further, just say, "I" (or "Me" in attempt to please the grammar gods) and you've already made your presence known, so "I am" would be redundant, because we heard you and know you're there. Some might argue that the very act of thinking reinforces the notion or reality of existence, but i defer them to the very unthoughtful whilst very real rock on the ground. See, it's a lot of talk, but no progress. No testable hypothesis. Feels a bit spooky, but ... Boring! ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Existentialism
|
Sometimes, things do not have to be testable. Sometimes it is just because we humans don't know much that we use all these 'talks' to prove our existence, search for the self within us and in the process, brings us closer to see reality for what it is. Since science can't tell us who we really are, we have to find it for ourself, in 'talks'. |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
Talking about something in a philosophical format is a process of logical analysis. What you're talking about is spirituality, which lies outside the logical realm. ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Existentialism
|
Perhaps, but the thing is that philosophy is an abstract type of thought: that means there is no correct or wrong answer to what Existentialism means, or any other philosophical thoughts that is. Maybe the 'reality' that you believe in must be logical, but to me, my defintion of reality is different. Philosophy mirrors reality in this world, and the meaning of reality itself is also not very clear, thus the many different types of philosophy here. Maybe to the person who thought about Existentialism, this is his/ her reality. After all, I am just a layman in the philosophical world. My basic knowledge comes from reading, which means i am not really qualified to argue like a pro here :) |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
That is NOT what abstract means at all! The word you are looking for is subjective. I don't think there is any use at all in arguing things that are subjective. Identifying them, sure, but not arguing them, that's a waste of time. There most certainly is a "right" answer to the definition of any word, although this definition is local to a conversation, and can appear changed in another conversation. Philosophy can easily be bogged down and brought to a halt by sloppy semantics. The claim that your reality is different than my reality is FALSE if you define reality as our "mutual independently testable environment". Meaning, if I look at the clock, I can tell you what time it is, and you can look, too, and we will agree. Similarly, if I measure the length of a pen with a ruler, I can give it to you, let you measure for yourself, and we can agree there, too. Of course, we might disagree about whether the current time of day is "good" or "bad" or "early" or "late". Good/bad, early/late, etc. are subjective, and not worth arguing about in a philosophical setting. If we happen to agree, it's coincidence, and if we happen to disagree, there's nothing we can do but agree to disagree! Boring! I, too, am not well read in philosophy; which is something that I am in the process of rectifying. ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
i love sartre, of course i too find his philosophical pieces unreadable, you shouldn't necessarily listen to a philosopher word for word Gendou, it is a field one benefits most from when it is delved into eclectically, though i suppose you may only be interested in memorisation and comprehension of each philosopher's particular worldviews in the way you approach more objective subjects. I would look up things having to do with analytical philosophy were i you Gendou, that really seems to be your type of thing. If you're going to get into philosophy though, you should be prepared for a rather sizeable dose of spiritualism and all matters of archaic logical arguments that most knowledgeable modern readers, such as yourself, would scoff at, in fact one as scientific as yourself may not find philosophy to be all too interesting or rewarding as a subject of study. Its more a thing for us eccentrics who aren't quite as interested in saturating ourselves with knowledge on of orthodox sciences, but would rather take up the social sciences. But i would of course encourage you to read up in this most interesting of topics, while i can't say i know you at all, i'll try to think up some philosophers you may enjoy reading up on,Descartes and Socrates, he's quite a fun one, thought you would do best to avoid the religious ones like Calvin, Bacon, et al, you also probably wouldn't enjoy the eastern classics such as Lao Tzu and Confucius (who are two of my personal favourites mind you). Nietzsche is a fun one to read up on. You would learn most perhaps, if you didn't necessarily read all their own treatises, but would approach more broad sources that cover a myriad of philosophers, through description or key excerpts, and then only read the primary pieces of ones you become particularly interested in. to be on topic: to be an existentialist you need not be constrained to the thoughts set by sartre or his predecessors, mainly Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, or any other person, like any philosophy, it is up to the individual to adapt it to their own worldview. Though nowadays, with analytical philosophy nearly ubiquitous in todays world, the philosophical field is devoted nigh entirely to the straight analysis of the philosophers of old, with fewer and fewer people doing any philosophizing. As Sartre in particular is concerned, i have a good number of his books, however i have only actually read through his novels and plays, which i would highly recommend to the prospective reader, especially Nausea (its a classic work of modern literature anyway, so that in itself merits the reading of this book, though i am not sure if you're into literature at all gendou). They are infinitely easier to get through than his straight philosophical pieces like Being & Nothingness, which i would only advise you to read if you are a serious student of philosophy, its not meant for casual academians such as you. i hope i have been of some help to you on your nascent journey into the vast and indefinite realm in which those such as myself do abide and flourish. ![]() |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
Not word for word, eh? You know, I think that's great advice. Maybe I try too hard to force scientific reasoning onto philosophy, destroying some of its beauty. This existentialism stuff may not have much going for it in the way of truths about nature. It could, supposing I give it a chance, be an interesting examination of the human condition. My problem is, I can swallow spiritualism only when it's being honestly advertised as such. It's hard for me to swallow this stuff when authors like Sartre state things in their "this is how it works, trust me, I've thought about it and it makes sense to me, so it must be true" sort way. Thank you very much for the recommendation of Analytical Philosophy. I read the Symposium by Plato, wherein Socrates explains the nature of love. The first half seemed more like a NAMBLA handbook than a logical argument, but I found Socrates's arguments interesting. I do not want to be a casual academian. I want to jump head-first into the cold sea of hardcore philosophy, then writhe around kicking and screaming. It's just my style, but it seems to makes others uncomfortable. Thanks for helping me get a better understanding of this stuff, I feel like I can choose my next reading with a better big picture understanding. P.S.: Who are you, so wise in the ways of philosophy? (Monty Python reference) ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
Your welcome, I am glad to be of assistance to you. And I wish you luck in your philosophical pursuits, I myself must admit with some regret that my ventures in the same topic have not been so fruitful in the recent past,with the notable exception of some of the work of Venerable Master Hsing Yun of the Fo Guang Shan Buddhist order, though you have definitely helped rekindle my devotion on such matters, and I think I will start reading up again as well just as soon as I finish Don Quixote, which is the current object of my pleasure reading; I will start reading some more primary sources, my list in the making is currently comprised of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Nietzsche), The Myth of Sisyphus (Albert Camus), The Republic (much to my embarrassment, I haven't read too much into the classical Greek philosophers), as well as continuing to follow the major works of Chinese philosophy, currently my major source of fascination within the philosophical realm. And once again, some random thoughts to correlate with the topic of this thread: The things of value which I gleaned off of [Sartre-ian] existentialism would be the value he placed on free will, (he valued it to the point of denying what he thought to be factual for the sake of his arguments, id est the subconscious in Being & Nothingness), and this stress on free will encourages individual responsibility for one's actions that one could avoid in the schools of Freud and B.F. Skinner. His thoughts on the fundamental separation between the essence and phyiscal body are indeed unscientific and blatant failings of logic as you have clearly stated, but as you will see, many philosophers tend to stray from objective truths, and one does best by forgiving them of this transgression, whilst discounting the fallacies all the same. Re:P.S.: I'm no one too special, just a Senior in highschool, and member of the intelligentsia [or so i would like to think]. ______________________________________________________________________________________ "We are born without reason, prolong ourselves out of weakness, and die by chance." -Jean-Paul Sartre ![]() |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
Argh, you had to quote Sartre, didn't you?![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
Yes, yes i did, here are a few more by sartre just because i like them "Intellectuals cannot be good revolutionaries; they are just good enough to be assassins" "I will not be modest. Humble as much as you like, but not modest. Modesty is the virtue of the lukewarm." and his ever famous "We are condemned to be free." ![]() |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by pyrotechniccow
on 2008-02-11 17:25:35
|
The "I think therefore I am" came from Rene Descartes. It was actually the conclusion of a horde of skepticism, meaning after denying everything is possible. I think one thing is certain is Diodorus Cronus' Master Argument, stating we have no free will. It's pretty simple actually, but pretty unarguable. It states that the impossible cannot come from the possible (true). Next, if one thing were to happen, then that would be actual and possible, rendering the other option(s) impossible. Therefore, since the other options are impossible, then the only thing possible is the one that occurred. For example, it will either rain or not rain tomorrow. If it rains, then that means raining is possible, making "not raining" impossible. And since the impossible cannot come from the possible, "not raining" was impossible to begin with in the first place. And last thing, if anybody is up for a debate (about anything. i love debating), message me. =D
[moo]
|
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
It cracks me up when word games are passed off as logical arguments! Diodorus Cronus' stupid argument has 2 major problems with it. Uncertainty and the arrow of time. I will use your example of the likelihood it will rain on Friday. It is Monday today, and I don't know if it will rain, because of uncertainty. However, the weather report says 10% chance of precipitation. Since it has not yet been decided which is the "thing that actually happened" and which is "the other option", both are possible. So, in my life, the past is not within the range of my free will, but the future is. Free will is not a feature of nature, it is a term used to describe an experiential ramification of the arrow of time (which IS a feature of nature). If you think that the universe is deterministic, whatever that means, and you know the initial conditions, you should be able to tell the future. This is, of course, what scientists do. They predict the outcome of experiments. This does NOT imply that the scientist has no choice but to conduct a future experiment. They could just sit and watch TV. It's up to them! Specifically, what I am disagreeing with is the assumption that the postulate that the future can effect the past. In other words, the rain from tomorrow doesn't effect my free will today. ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
It sounds to me that Diodors Cronus saying is a word called fate. That things are going on as written. Because of initial factors, result is defined. The weather report says 10% chance of precipitation, because their forecast is not perfect, that they are unable to gain more factors to precisely forecast the truth (100%) be it rain or not. Gendou said that he has free will? "Furthermore, if we didn't exist, then the word "exist" wouldn't exist either,"Gendou can it be: "Furthermore, if fate didn't exist, then the word "fate" wouldn't exist either,"? Which one is the truth, Gendou, fate or freedom?
Dream ends when we wake up and life ends when we die.
What's the different? |
Re: Existentialism
Link |
by
![]() |
You propose a false dilemma. Besides, this is not the place to argue semantics. When I produce a child, that child will have freedom. When the Sun swells to a red giant, the fate of the Earth will be realized. Both are "fate" and "freedom" are words worth using. The universe its self seems fated to grow cold and die after a trillion years. However, we have the freedom to explore it in the mean time. The nature of future events is understood as probability by scientific theories, or common sense intuition. It is neither pure fated nor purely free. Let go of these ideas of the absolute, and you'll be the wiser for it. ![]() ![]() ![]() |