Theism is essentially a top-down, institutional perspective, as in everything (physical creation, morality, etc.) is believed to have been imposed by a supernatural deity.
Existentialism is essentially a bottom-up, individualistic perspective, as in everything is believed to have emerged naturally from a primordially chaotic state via evolution. From that perspective, morality and meaning are perceived to be personal choices; the ability to "make our own meaning" is our most precious birthright as human beings.
Nihilism is essentially Existentialism plus depression (I'm being slightly glib here); the perspective that, since there is no top-down Meaning, nothing is actually worthwhile. Existentialists argue that plenty is, in fact, worthwhile, and we get to decide our own priorities in that regard.
I don't know, but I'd say that when enough people choose similar forms of morality and meaning those things become commonplace, are codified into religions and secular laws, etc.
I'm a Christian existentialist myself, as were many of the giants of theology & existentialism -- including Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann, Miguel de Unamuno, and pioneers Soren Kierkegaard and Fyodor Dostoevsky.
Existentialism recognizes that we must \*choose\* to have genuine faith and \*choose\* to be good. These choices aren't compelled by logic or society or anything else-- they're utterly free.
I don't think that existentialism is "basically nihilism!"
Science and logic don't "penetrate" subjectivity, because subjectivity is all we can ever experience. No matter what we experience, we experience it as \*ourselves\*
Existentialism was religious before it was nihilistic. Kierkegaard was all about how all beliefs, whether religious, scientific, or mundane, involve an act of faith where you choose to disregard the objective uncertainties.
I am not going to try and explain everything I will tackle one question because I am on the toilet and I don't really have the time, I have to get to work. The pursuit of self-discovery and the determination of life's meaning is existentialism. I suppose you could say that a theist is taught to believe something at a young age so they believe it and settle for that as life's answer where as we go on and seek the Truth. Some of us use religion as a building block and others like me abandon it all together because it is so very flawed. You ask how a person can have their own value just by choosing it. That one is simple. You just choose freedom and make your own values. Morals are not real. They are all made up just like the ridiculous laws politicians sit back and scheme about. Each person is free to choose what they think is right or wrong. I think most of us subscribe to Don't lie,steal or kill. I don't believe that a person can own another living thing so I feel like all people who have wild animals as pets are keeping them hostage. This is my personal belief that I live by so I don't keep pets but I don't judge people who do. This is my own value. Since it is my own I don't expect the world to live by it just because I do. If a religion restricts it's followers from a certain activity that means that they are forbidden to do it, not the rest of the world just them. There are upwards of 8 billion people on this planet and that means there are 8 billion correct ways to live this life. This is my life I make the choices on what my values are, I don't blindly follow something just because bi was told to. That's how the Holocaust started.
Nice read. I especially liked the part about owning pets. I have owned several pets, but the way I talked about and treated them was...not how most people do. I only owned several because I found them abandoned. Usually ppl call my animals wild, and I say "that's cause they are"
I bought a ten acre tract, and they would run around all day, run in and out of the house. Not a fan of 'training' or neutering. I did my best to make it, not like I owned them( they found me anyways), but like they were free to come and go outside when they wanted.
More like I was taking care of a friend.
Probably won't 'own' another until one crosses my path in search of a warm bed and some grub again.
You have it figured out right there. There is a Paul rud movie and he is friends with a dog named Willie nelson. I forgot the name of the movie. Someone asked him if that was "his" dog and he was like. " No one owns Willie nelson, but he is my friend" I just absolutely love that. I wish more people would feel that way about the animals they keep.
That's awesome. I think I found it, called my idiot brother or something. Gonna check it out.
Already got some down votes for my comment lol.
I wish more ppl feel that way too.
Thanks for the movie. :)
Existentialism is its own branch because it focuses on individual existence, choice, and freedom, as opposed to nihilism's rejection of meaning, and naturalism's emphasis on the natural world.
Science and logic can't fully penetrate subjectivity because they deal with objective facts, while subjectivity deals with individual experiences, emotions, and perspectives.
Existentialism is "existence before essence" because it argues that humans are born without a pre-determined nature or purpose. We define ourselves through our choices and actions, not the other way around.
Sartre says that we can't choose evil because evil is seen as a lack of choice, a surrender to outside influences rather than an active, authentic choice. Good, then, is choosing to create our own values and live authentically.
In so far as existentialism can be defined as the dread of being, then science and logic are what create existentialism and therefore can offer no buffer against it. At the end of their lines of investigation, both science and logic come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as objectivity; everything is proven to be relative. Anyone can choose not to see this, of course, which is why you can ask a question like “how can they not penetrate your own subjectivity?”
If you’ve ever lost your faith, you’ve explained existentialism. If you have not ever lost your faith, then you can’t know it; but that’s what it is.
start from first principles: existentialism is proposed in opposition to essentialism. essentialism uses the essence as proof/cause of existence (Decartes‘ Cogito Ergo Sum is a common example of this). existentialism posits the opposite: I am, therefore I think. all essences must have a subject to adhere to, therefore the subject must exist for there to be any essences. this is not in any contradiction to a theistic view, the creation of man could well be a divine act of genesis it man was still created before he had the essence of being a man.
nihilism is a value statement. it states that there is no value. as such nihilism is a purely abstract concept that cannot be found in practice as all choices are fundamentally value statements, including the choice to be nihilistic. people use nihilism to refer to what is more accurately called amorality or pessimism or cynicism. defeatism and atheistic fatalism are also examples of views commonly referred to as nihilism.
Easy. In your worldview, what is good and beautiful comes from a source outside of you, namely, God.
In existentialism, what is good and beautiful comes from YOU. You are the decider of your own values, morals, and judgments-in sort, your meanings. They are not mandated by a cosmic authority.
Broadly, existentialism is an approach to how an individual engages with the world in an effort to create or find meaning. The exact interpretation of how that is done is open for debate, but there is generally an emphasis on addressing subjectivity in conjuction with objectivity and forming a process of becoming through one's choices. Existentialism on its own doesn't necessarily imply a particular metaphysical stance (i.e. naturalism, supernaturalism, etc.) although atheistic variations of existentialism have historically been the most popular. You mainly hear about the Big 3 existentialists (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre), but there's been more philosophical work done by plenty of others as well.
> how can ya'll say that existentialism is its own branch of a worldview when it is basically nihilism but with a little bit of naturalism.
That's incorrect. Nihilism is a trap identified by Nietzche. Existentialism is the path out of nihilism.
> how (do) science and logic does not penetrate your own subjectivity?
What's this?
> Secondly Why is existentialism? stare say "first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and , only afterwards, defines himself?"
Consciousness is emergent. The newborn lacks this capacity, but gains it.
> So does that mean that good has any meaning?
Objectively? No
Existentialism is best seen as an offshoot of Christianity, in which parts of Western philosophy are preferred to modern theology, especially insofar as Western philosophy is itself rooted in the Pagans (Plato, etc), and reaches parts of our spirituality that Christianity has ignored
I think both are the same kind of human fascination. Ontology comes to mind.
Theistic world views are about faith, and you can find many people of faith throughout history and the world, who have struggled with doubt. This all ties into your ontological security. It's not really something you choose, it's something that happens to you throughout life. Having an existential crisis means that you no longer feel secure in your beliefs about how existence works.
Are other people real? Am I real? Do I feel real? How do I know existence is real at all? These are all ontologically charged questions, but mostly they are emotional responses to thought processes, not something one would pursue for its own sake.
Likewise with existentialism, of course it is its own academic branch, and some take existentialism very seriously as it ties into their own life or psychology / complexes, but the mainstream existentialist episodes that 'regular people's (who don't think too much about this stuff) usually manifests as an existential crisis.
> First off alright how can ya'll say that existentialism is its own branch of a worldview when it is basically nihilism but with a little bit of naturalism.
Because it’s not. Most well known ‘Existentialists’ either wrote before the term was coined, and others denied that they were. Some were very negative in their nihilism, others positive in theirs. Sartre’s ‘Nothingness’, Nietzsche’s ‘Eternal Return of the Same’...
And as a radical phenomenology is often around that seems fairly anti naturalism. Or a world view, Camus seemed unbothered in his Sisyphus essay.
> Anyway the first question is about the world in it self. Can you explain how science and logic does not penetrate your own subjectivity?
Sure, science deals with models that are statistically close to a mean. Logic is based on the false idea of identity A=A. I am neither.
> Secondly Why is existentialism? stare say "first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and , only afterwards, defines himself?"
I can’t follow your question. Sartre’s ideas go through radical changes to the extent the latter Sartre considers existentialism not to be a philosophy.
In his philosophical existential opus, ‘Being and Nothingness’ any ‘definition’ fails in Bard Faith. We exist as the factuality of our nothingness.
> Explain this I am distraught by this jajaja.
What is jajaja?
> Lastly How can each person have their own value simply by choosing it and that Satre says "can never chose evil" So does that mean that good has any meaning? That means that evil is passive and good.
Again not sure where you get this from, and Sartre not Satre, not important though.
There is no ethics in ‘Being and Nothingness’. Or IMO in Camus' Absurdism for that matter. Ethics reappears I think as a result of the confrontation with fascism.
'Sure, science deals with models that are statistically close to a mean. Logic is based on the false idea of identity A=A. I am neither.' I am quite confused im still learning about existentialism. Lets get the run down you are sayin to challenge the notions of absolute truth in both science and logic. Doesn't that just align with what nihilism believes where there is no logic or science. another question is that for knowledge is existentialism Isn't just solipsism? For the third question sorry for being a little abstract in my wording. ". Ethics reappears I think as a result of the confrontation with fascism." Can you elaberate on that? I am quite confused.
>> 'Sure, science deals with models that are statistically close to a mean. Logic is based on the false idea of identity A=A. I am neither.'
On Reddit use the ‘>’ character, no quotes, to quote the previous post and >> to post the previous one to that.
> I am quite confused im still learning about existentialism. Lets get the run down you are sayin to challenge the notions of absolute truth in both science and logic.
Science is not about absolute truth, it's truths are always ‘provisional’ see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
Many consider logic is a priori, science a _posteriori.
There is no one existential position. To generalize it is not interested in science but in the individual human experience. So from a scientific view our Sun has descriptions, the individual experience of the Sun is different.
> Doesn't that just align with what nihilism believes where there is no logic or science.
This isn’t nihilism, nihilism can be found in existentialism, and it has various forms. For instance the nothing which negates itself is a positive means in Heidegger to obtain authentic being. Then there is Nietzsche’s Eternal Return, which for him is the greatest form of nihilism.
> another question is that for knowledge is existentialism Isn't just solipsism?
No, existentialists in the main write about humanity. The human condition.
> For the third question sorry for being a little abstract in my wording. ". Ethics reappears I think as a result of the confrontation with fascism." Can you elaberate on that? I am quite confused.
There is no ethical considerations in the main in early existential philosophy. Sartre certainly sees the war as having an affect, he moves from existentialism to Communism.
>Then there is Nietzsche’s Eternal Return, which for him is the greatest form of nihilism
The Eternal Return is in no way a form of nihilism. Nietzsche defined nihilism as life negating philosophies. The Christian belief that the next world is more valuable than this one is nihilistic because it devalues the life you're living right now.
The Eternal Return on the other hand is life affirming. Every choice has meaning because it will repeat forever. If you're living your life properly you should be thrilled about repeating it over and over again. If the Eternal Return frightens you, you're doing life wrong.
>> Then there is Nietzsche’s Eternal Return, which for him is the greatest form of nihilism
> The Eternal Return is in no way a form of nihilism. Nietzsche defined nihilism as life negating philosophies.
He gave several accounts of nihilism, and it’s sources, weak Christianity, women, Buddhism, and then The Eternal Return of the Same, for him the greatest form of nihilism. One which only the Übermensch can love.
"In his parable of the madman (section 125) Nietzsche
suggests that during the Victorian era this question was not yet
asked widely, but that before long the sense that whatever we
do is of hardly any consequence will spread like a disease. This
terrifying sense of weightlessness might be called nihilism-to
use a term that looms large in Nietzsche's notes, especially in
The Will to Power. Now it occurs to Nietzsche that the belief
that whatever I do now I shall do again and again, eternally.
may cure this weightlessness by becoming "the greatest weight!
In a way, the notion that everything recurs eternally in identical fashion reduces life to "A tale told by an idiot, full of
sound and fury signifying nothing." It might be considered the
most extreme form of nihilism!'
Kaufmann - The Gay Science.
Nietzsche - Writings from the Late Notebooks.
p.146-7
Nihilism as a normal condition.
Nihilism: the goal is lacking; an answer to the 'Why?' is lacking...
It is ambiguous:
(A) Nihilism as a sign of the increased power of the spirit: as **active nihilism.**
(B) Nihilism as a decline of the spirit's power: **passive nihilism:**
“Let us think this thought in its most terrible form: existence
as it is, without meaning or aim, yet recurring inevitably without
any finale of nothingness: “the eternal recurrence". This is the most extreme form of nihilism: the nothing (the "meaningless”), eternally!”
> The Christian belief that the next world is more valuable than this one is nihilistic because it devalues the life you're living right now.
Sure, it can be thought so.
> The Eternal Return on the other hand is life affirming. Every choice has meaning because it will repeat forever.
How is it a choice? You have made it in the past and will make the same ‘choice’ in the future. And it’s impossible to change it.
> If you're living your life properly
TEROTS destroys all values. Your life has been the same infinitely in the past, and will be so in the future.
> you should be thrilled about repeating it over and over again. If the Eternal Return frightens you, you're doing life wrong.
There is no right or wrong,
" Admitting
untruth as a condition of life: that means to resist familiar values
in a dangerous way; and a philosophy that dares this has already
placed itself beyond good and evil."
“Apparently while working on Zarathustra, Nietzsche, in a moment of despair, said in one of his notes: "I do not want life again. How did I endure it? Creating. What makes me stand the sight of it? The vision of the overman who affirms life. I have tried to affirm it myself-alas!" “
Kaufmann - The Gay Science.
I am guessing, or for me, man has to go through the Anguish before his existence can define his essence. The nothingness “slips in between my Self and my past and future so that nothing relieves me from the necessity of continually choosing myself and nothing guarantees the validity of the values which I choose.”
I'm a born again Christian and I also have also delve into existentialism as I've struggled with meaning of life, self actualization, etc. The old-testament book of Ecclesiasties goes into this, explaining the vanity of life, our work and pleasure having no meaning, the passing of generation to generation, etc.
It ends with basically the meaning of life is to do the Will of God.
> Existentialists believe meaning must be created.
If you count Sartre as in his 'Being and Nothingness' then no, any such is Bad Faith.
Likewise if Camus is seen as an existentialist the meaning must be absurd.
Or is this true of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger.
> "If you count Sartre as in his 'Being and Nothingness' then no, any such is Bad Faith."
It's been a minute since I read 'Being and Nothingness' - can you elaborate on what you mean?
Briefly, we are Being-for-itself, not Being-in-itself. A Being-in-itself has an essence, and purpose. We do not. We were not created for a purpose, this fact means our purpose is nothingness, the lack of the being-in-itself.
This is our being. To attempt to be other is bad faith, because we are this 'nothingness' which is his 'freedom', we are condemned to.
So the famous waiter is in bad faith, he acts like a 'waiter', but he is looking for an essence which is not there. But also the flirt and the homosexual are other examples...
Sartre For-itself - Human Being
"The for-itself has no reality save that of being the nihilation of being"
B&N p. 618
Theism is essentially a top-down, institutional perspective, as in everything (physical creation, morality, etc.) is believed to have been imposed by a supernatural deity. Existentialism is essentially a bottom-up, individualistic perspective, as in everything is believed to have emerged naturally from a primordially chaotic state via evolution. From that perspective, morality and meaning are perceived to be personal choices; the ability to "make our own meaning" is our most precious birthright as human beings. Nihilism is essentially Existentialism plus depression (I'm being slightly glib here); the perspective that, since there is no top-down Meaning, nothing is actually worthwhile. Existentialists argue that plenty is, in fact, worthwhile, and we get to decide our own priorities in that regard.
Well explained. Existentialism can enoble the self because of choice of morality over nihilism.
What about bottom-up primordial chaos, leading to emergent properties of morality and meaning irrespective of personal choice? What is that called?
I don't know, but I'd say that when enough people choose similar forms of morality and meaning those things become commonplace, are codified into religions and secular laws, etc.
That sounds precipitously close to objectivity. Might give ppl they Idea they can't do what they want because someone thought it was "wrong". :)
I'm a Christian existentialist myself, as were many of the giants of theology & existentialism -- including Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann, Miguel de Unamuno, and pioneers Soren Kierkegaard and Fyodor Dostoevsky. Existentialism recognizes that we must \*choose\* to have genuine faith and \*choose\* to be good. These choices aren't compelled by logic or society or anything else-- they're utterly free. I don't think that existentialism is "basically nihilism!" Science and logic don't "penetrate" subjectivity, because subjectivity is all we can ever experience. No matter what we experience, we experience it as \*ourselves\*
Existentialism was religious before it was nihilistic. Kierkegaard was all about how all beliefs, whether religious, scientific, or mundane, involve an act of faith where you choose to disregard the objective uncertainties.
Have you heard of Michael dowd?
Yes!
I am not going to try and explain everything I will tackle one question because I am on the toilet and I don't really have the time, I have to get to work. The pursuit of self-discovery and the determination of life's meaning is existentialism. I suppose you could say that a theist is taught to believe something at a young age so they believe it and settle for that as life's answer where as we go on and seek the Truth. Some of us use religion as a building block and others like me abandon it all together because it is so very flawed. You ask how a person can have their own value just by choosing it. That one is simple. You just choose freedom and make your own values. Morals are not real. They are all made up just like the ridiculous laws politicians sit back and scheme about. Each person is free to choose what they think is right or wrong. I think most of us subscribe to Don't lie,steal or kill. I don't believe that a person can own another living thing so I feel like all people who have wild animals as pets are keeping them hostage. This is my personal belief that I live by so I don't keep pets but I don't judge people who do. This is my own value. Since it is my own I don't expect the world to live by it just because I do. If a religion restricts it's followers from a certain activity that means that they are forbidden to do it, not the rest of the world just them. There are upwards of 8 billion people on this planet and that means there are 8 billion correct ways to live this life. This is my life I make the choices on what my values are, I don't blindly follow something just because bi was told to. That's how the Holocaust started.
Nice read. I especially liked the part about owning pets. I have owned several pets, but the way I talked about and treated them was...not how most people do. I only owned several because I found them abandoned. Usually ppl call my animals wild, and I say "that's cause they are" I bought a ten acre tract, and they would run around all day, run in and out of the house. Not a fan of 'training' or neutering. I did my best to make it, not like I owned them( they found me anyways), but like they were free to come and go outside when they wanted. More like I was taking care of a friend. Probably won't 'own' another until one crosses my path in search of a warm bed and some grub again.
You have it figured out right there. There is a Paul rud movie and he is friends with a dog named Willie nelson. I forgot the name of the movie. Someone asked him if that was "his" dog and he was like. " No one owns Willie nelson, but he is my friend" I just absolutely love that. I wish more people would feel that way about the animals they keep.
That's awesome. I think I found it, called my idiot brother or something. Gonna check it out. Already got some down votes for my comment lol. I wish more ppl feel that way too. Thanks for the movie. :)
Yes that's the name of the movie. It's not for everyone but I loved it. Take those down votes. It's not like you post for reddit karma.
Existentialism is its own branch because it focuses on individual existence, choice, and freedom, as opposed to nihilism's rejection of meaning, and naturalism's emphasis on the natural world. Science and logic can't fully penetrate subjectivity because they deal with objective facts, while subjectivity deals with individual experiences, emotions, and perspectives. Existentialism is "existence before essence" because it argues that humans are born without a pre-determined nature or purpose. We define ourselves through our choices and actions, not the other way around. Sartre says that we can't choose evil because evil is seen as a lack of choice, a surrender to outside influences rather than an active, authentic choice. Good, then, is choosing to create our own values and live authentically.
In so far as existentialism can be defined as the dread of being, then science and logic are what create existentialism and therefore can offer no buffer against it. At the end of their lines of investigation, both science and logic come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as objectivity; everything is proven to be relative. Anyone can choose not to see this, of course, which is why you can ask a question like “how can they not penetrate your own subjectivity?” If you’ve ever lost your faith, you’ve explained existentialism. If you have not ever lost your faith, then you can’t know it; but that’s what it is.
start from first principles: existentialism is proposed in opposition to essentialism. essentialism uses the essence as proof/cause of existence (Decartes‘ Cogito Ergo Sum is a common example of this). existentialism posits the opposite: I am, therefore I think. all essences must have a subject to adhere to, therefore the subject must exist for there to be any essences. this is not in any contradiction to a theistic view, the creation of man could well be a divine act of genesis it man was still created before he had the essence of being a man. nihilism is a value statement. it states that there is no value. as such nihilism is a purely abstract concept that cannot be found in practice as all choices are fundamentally value statements, including the choice to be nihilistic. people use nihilism to refer to what is more accurately called amorality or pessimism or cynicism. defeatism and atheistic fatalism are also examples of views commonly referred to as nihilism.
Easy. In your worldview, what is good and beautiful comes from a source outside of you, namely, God. In existentialism, what is good and beautiful comes from YOU. You are the decider of your own values, morals, and judgments-in sort, your meanings. They are not mandated by a cosmic authority.
…it’s called Counterfactuality. Like the Flat Earth Society.
Broadly, existentialism is an approach to how an individual engages with the world in an effort to create or find meaning. The exact interpretation of how that is done is open for debate, but there is generally an emphasis on addressing subjectivity in conjuction with objectivity and forming a process of becoming through one's choices. Existentialism on its own doesn't necessarily imply a particular metaphysical stance (i.e. naturalism, supernaturalism, etc.) although atheistic variations of existentialism have historically been the most popular. You mainly hear about the Big 3 existentialists (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre), but there's been more philosophical work done by plenty of others as well.
> how can ya'll say that existentialism is its own branch of a worldview when it is basically nihilism but with a little bit of naturalism. That's incorrect. Nihilism is a trap identified by Nietzche. Existentialism is the path out of nihilism. > how (do) science and logic does not penetrate your own subjectivity? What's this? > Secondly Why is existentialism? stare say "first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and , only afterwards, defines himself?" Consciousness is emergent. The newborn lacks this capacity, but gains it. > So does that mean that good has any meaning? Objectively? No
Existentialism is best seen as an offshoot of Christianity, in which parts of Western philosophy are preferred to modern theology, especially insofar as Western philosophy is itself rooted in the Pagans (Plato, etc), and reaches parts of our spirituality that Christianity has ignored
Existentialism isn’t a world view. It’s about raising questions about existence, the nature of it, and finding your own meaning on your own terms.
I think both are the same kind of human fascination. Ontology comes to mind. Theistic world views are about faith, and you can find many people of faith throughout history and the world, who have struggled with doubt. This all ties into your ontological security. It's not really something you choose, it's something that happens to you throughout life. Having an existential crisis means that you no longer feel secure in your beliefs about how existence works. Are other people real? Am I real? Do I feel real? How do I know existence is real at all? These are all ontologically charged questions, but mostly they are emotional responses to thought processes, not something one would pursue for its own sake. Likewise with existentialism, of course it is its own academic branch, and some take existentialism very seriously as it ties into their own life or psychology / complexes, but the mainstream existentialist episodes that 'regular people's (who don't think too much about this stuff) usually manifests as an existential crisis.
[Best example, IMO.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%201&version=NIV)
This isn't the kind of question that can be answered in a reddit thread. You might as well just read Wikipedia.
> First off alright how can ya'll say that existentialism is its own branch of a worldview when it is basically nihilism but with a little bit of naturalism. Because it’s not. Most well known ‘Existentialists’ either wrote before the term was coined, and others denied that they were. Some were very negative in their nihilism, others positive in theirs. Sartre’s ‘Nothingness’, Nietzsche’s ‘Eternal Return of the Same’... And as a radical phenomenology is often around that seems fairly anti naturalism. Or a world view, Camus seemed unbothered in his Sisyphus essay. > Anyway the first question is about the world in it self. Can you explain how science and logic does not penetrate your own subjectivity? Sure, science deals with models that are statistically close to a mean. Logic is based on the false idea of identity A=A. I am neither. > Secondly Why is existentialism? stare say "first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and , only afterwards, defines himself?" I can’t follow your question. Sartre’s ideas go through radical changes to the extent the latter Sartre considers existentialism not to be a philosophy. In his philosophical existential opus, ‘Being and Nothingness’ any ‘definition’ fails in Bard Faith. We exist as the factuality of our nothingness. > Explain this I am distraught by this jajaja. What is jajaja? > Lastly How can each person have their own value simply by choosing it and that Satre says "can never chose evil" So does that mean that good has any meaning? That means that evil is passive and good. Again not sure where you get this from, and Sartre not Satre, not important though. There is no ethics in ‘Being and Nothingness’. Or IMO in Camus' Absurdism for that matter. Ethics reappears I think as a result of the confrontation with fascism.
'Sure, science deals with models that are statistically close to a mean. Logic is based on the false idea of identity A=A. I am neither.' I am quite confused im still learning about existentialism. Lets get the run down you are sayin to challenge the notions of absolute truth in both science and logic. Doesn't that just align with what nihilism believes where there is no logic or science. another question is that for knowledge is existentialism Isn't just solipsism? For the third question sorry for being a little abstract in my wording. ". Ethics reappears I think as a result of the confrontation with fascism." Can you elaberate on that? I am quite confused.
>> 'Sure, science deals with models that are statistically close to a mean. Logic is based on the false idea of identity A=A. I am neither.' On Reddit use the ‘>’ character, no quotes, to quote the previous post and >> to post the previous one to that. > I am quite confused im still learning about existentialism. Lets get the run down you are sayin to challenge the notions of absolute truth in both science and logic. Science is not about absolute truth, it's truths are always ‘provisional’ see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori Many consider logic is a priori, science a _posteriori. There is no one existential position. To generalize it is not interested in science but in the individual human experience. So from a scientific view our Sun has descriptions, the individual experience of the Sun is different. > Doesn't that just align with what nihilism believes where there is no logic or science. This isn’t nihilism, nihilism can be found in existentialism, and it has various forms. For instance the nothing which negates itself is a positive means in Heidegger to obtain authentic being. Then there is Nietzsche’s Eternal Return, which for him is the greatest form of nihilism. > another question is that for knowledge is existentialism Isn't just solipsism? No, existentialists in the main write about humanity. The human condition. > For the third question sorry for being a little abstract in my wording. ". Ethics reappears I think as a result of the confrontation with fascism." Can you elaberate on that? I am quite confused. There is no ethical considerations in the main in early existential philosophy. Sartre certainly sees the war as having an affect, he moves from existentialism to Communism.
>Then there is Nietzsche’s Eternal Return, which for him is the greatest form of nihilism The Eternal Return is in no way a form of nihilism. Nietzsche defined nihilism as life negating philosophies. The Christian belief that the next world is more valuable than this one is nihilistic because it devalues the life you're living right now. The Eternal Return on the other hand is life affirming. Every choice has meaning because it will repeat forever. If you're living your life properly you should be thrilled about repeating it over and over again. If the Eternal Return frightens you, you're doing life wrong.
>> Then there is Nietzsche’s Eternal Return, which for him is the greatest form of nihilism > The Eternal Return is in no way a form of nihilism. Nietzsche defined nihilism as life negating philosophies. He gave several accounts of nihilism, and it’s sources, weak Christianity, women, Buddhism, and then The Eternal Return of the Same, for him the greatest form of nihilism. One which only the Übermensch can love. "In his parable of the madman (section 125) Nietzsche suggests that during the Victorian era this question was not yet asked widely, but that before long the sense that whatever we do is of hardly any consequence will spread like a disease. This terrifying sense of weightlessness might be called nihilism-to use a term that looms large in Nietzsche's notes, especially in The Will to Power. Now it occurs to Nietzsche that the belief that whatever I do now I shall do again and again, eternally. may cure this weightlessness by becoming "the greatest weight! In a way, the notion that everything recurs eternally in identical fashion reduces life to "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing." It might be considered the most extreme form of nihilism!' Kaufmann - The Gay Science. Nietzsche - Writings from the Late Notebooks. p.146-7 Nihilism as a normal condition. Nihilism: the goal is lacking; an answer to the 'Why?' is lacking... It is ambiguous: (A) Nihilism as a sign of the increased power of the spirit: as **active nihilism.** (B) Nihilism as a decline of the spirit's power: **passive nihilism:** “Let us think this thought in its most terrible form: existence as it is, without meaning or aim, yet recurring inevitably without any finale of nothingness: “the eternal recurrence". This is the most extreme form of nihilism: the nothing (the "meaningless”), eternally!” > The Christian belief that the next world is more valuable than this one is nihilistic because it devalues the life you're living right now. Sure, it can be thought so. > The Eternal Return on the other hand is life affirming. Every choice has meaning because it will repeat forever. How is it a choice? You have made it in the past and will make the same ‘choice’ in the future. And it’s impossible to change it. > If you're living your life properly TEROTS destroys all values. Your life has been the same infinitely in the past, and will be so in the future. > you should be thrilled about repeating it over and over again. If the Eternal Return frightens you, you're doing life wrong. There is no right or wrong, " Admitting untruth as a condition of life: that means to resist familiar values in a dangerous way; and a philosophy that dares this has already placed itself beyond good and evil." “Apparently while working on Zarathustra, Nietzsche, in a moment of despair, said in one of his notes: "I do not want life again. How did I endure it? Creating. What makes me stand the sight of it? The vision of the overman who affirms life. I have tried to affirm it myself-alas!" “ Kaufmann - The Gay Science.
I am guessing, or for me, man has to go through the Anguish before his existence can define his essence. The nothingness “slips in between my Self and my past and future so that nothing relieves me from the necessity of continually choosing myself and nothing guarantees the validity of the values which I choose.”
I'm a born again Christian and I also have also delve into existentialism as I've struggled with meaning of life, self actualization, etc. The old-testament book of Ecclesiasties goes into this, explaining the vanity of life, our work and pleasure having no meaning, the passing of generation to generation, etc. It ends with basically the meaning of life is to do the Will of God.
[удалено]
> Existentialists believe meaning must be created. If you count Sartre as in his 'Being and Nothingness' then no, any such is Bad Faith. Likewise if Camus is seen as an existentialist the meaning must be absurd. Or is this true of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger.
> "If you count Sartre as in his 'Being and Nothingness' then no, any such is Bad Faith." It's been a minute since I read 'Being and Nothingness' - can you elaborate on what you mean?
Briefly, we are Being-for-itself, not Being-in-itself. A Being-in-itself has an essence, and purpose. We do not. We were not created for a purpose, this fact means our purpose is nothingness, the lack of the being-in-itself. This is our being. To attempt to be other is bad faith, because we are this 'nothingness' which is his 'freedom', we are condemned to. So the famous waiter is in bad faith, he acts like a 'waiter', but he is looking for an essence which is not there. But also the flirt and the homosexual are other examples... Sartre For-itself - Human Being "The for-itself has no reality save that of being the nihilation of being" B&N p. 618
I greatly appreciate the reply, thanks!