33 replies to this topic

[Kia ora]

I lurve existentialism. It's had a big influence on my life and how I live. Does anyone else feel the same way?

[Laudate_Dominum]

it's pretty good. yah.

[Papist]

Not a fan.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Not a fan.

How DARE someone on the internet disagree with ME! I will not rest until you recant and affirm MY opinion. Raarr!!


jk. understandable.

[Kia ora]

No wonder. I half suspect the only self-proclaimed existentialists are young, disaffected university students.

[Papist]

How DARE someone on the internet disagree with ME! I will not rest until you recant and affirm MY opinion. Raarr!!


jk. understandable.

Of course, I was speaking subjectively. I don't see how anyone can objectively disagree with you b/c your mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't mind Kierkegaard, but most existentialism tends to depress me or something. Nietszche was a pompous jerk, although I don't regret studying him because I can now see his influence in a lot of contemporary strains of thought. His ubermensch theory was interesting.
I've got a kind of big initial interest in phenomenology, although I don't know if that would hold if I studied it in greater depth.

[Amppax]

It's definitely interesting... I need to study it more though, I recall becoming fairly frustrated reading Camus.

[Ice_nine]

It literally made me want to kill myself.

Now I'm on some meds and I'm a little more balanced.

Holla

[missionseeker]

Sarte stinks.

that's all.

[BigJon16]

Nerds...

[Kia ora]

Sarte stinks.

that's all.

Sartre x de Beauvoir 4eva.

[Kia ora]

I don't mind Kierkegaard, but most existentialism tends to depress me or something. Nietszche was a pompous jerk, although I don't regret studying him because I can now see his influence in a lot of contemporary strains of thought. His ubermensch theory was interesting.
I've got a kind of big initial interest in phenomenology, although I don't know if that would hold if I studied it in greater depth.

It's totally interesting you say that. I think it's the opposite way. The idea of existentialism really inspires me, although I grant that the existentialist authors do get heavy sometimes, and at times I think they play up the grimdarkness of the whole thing. Camus and Sartre for example. But the fact that they don't shy away from death and all those other dark themes is good. Life isn't pleasant and sunshine and roses.

Even in their darkest themed works, like The Plague, I see hope. Sartre is big on responsibility, to the extent that he says even emotions are purposeful strategems employed by us, and that we are accuountable for them. He says that we own every bit of our life. All our failures and faults lie at our feet and no one else. I know that brings me to despair and regret sometimes. But the idea that I am the captain of my own ship has also been my first, joyful thought of more than a few days, what gets me out of bed with a smile on my face.

[Nihil Obstat]

It's totally interesting you say that. I think it's the opposite way. The idea of existentialism really inspires me, although I grant that the existentialist authors do get heavy sometimes, and at times I think they play up the grimdarkness of the whole thing. Camus and Sartre for example. But the fact that they don't shy away from death and all those other dark themes is good. Life isn't pleasant and sunshine and roses.

Even in their darkest themed works, like The Plague, I see hope. Sartre is big on responsibility, to the extent that he says even emotions are purposeful strategems employed by us, and that we are accuountable for them. He says that we own every bit of our life. All our failures and faults lie at our feet and no one else. I know that brings me to despair and regret sometimes. But the idea that I am the captain of my own ship has also been my first, joyful thought of more than a few days, what gets me out of bed with a smile on my face.

I wrote about Nietzsche last year, particularly about the ubermensch. The thing that struck me the most, and what I wrote about, is how profoundly and radically alone the ubsermensch is. The impression I got from reading him is that, for the overman, there might as well be nobody else in the entire world, because nothing else is even relevant. I said it better last year, but that was the main point of what I was saying.
Anyway, I found that part to be very depressing. A lonely existence, to be an overman.

[ThePenciledOne]

I'm heavily influenced by this school of thought, I love them! Philosophy is one of my majors at FUS, and I'm planning on going doctoral with it, hoping to teach Continental, with these guys of course included. What they have to say is vital, since personalism was outgrown of this movement as well. And most of the religious existentialists Kierkegaard and Buber are two of the most brilliant men. Though don't get me wrong, I love Nietzsche a ton as well. And since its an off shoot of phenomenology, I love the fact that Scheler has his stamp on it in a sense as well.

I wrote about Nietzsche last year, particularly about the ubermensch. The thing that struck me the most, and what I wrote about, is how profoundly and radically alone the ubsermensch is. The impression I got from reading him is that, for the overman, there might as well be nobody else in the entire world, because nothing else is even relevant. I said it better last year, but that was the main point of what I was saying.
Anyway, I found that part to be very depressing. A lonely existence, to be an overman.

I did a paper on his and Kierkegaard's version of the individual, focusing on their ultimate ends. Summed up: Nietzsche's Overman is a constant moving, becoming individual that becomes frustrated with existence, since there is no 'true' end. Kierkegaard's believer I found, was an individual that strove against the established order in order to have a closer relationship with God and the Divine. I loved writing the paper, and I think it's one of my best. : )

But you are right the Overman concept of his is unique to a degree, but you can find it all over movies and other media.

It's totally interesting you say that. I think it's the opposite way. The idea of existentialism really inspires me, although I grant that the existentialist authors do get heavy sometimes, and at times I think they play up the grimdarkness of the whole thing. Camus and Sartre for example. But the fact that they don't shy away from death and all those other dark themes is good. Life isn't pleasant and sunshine and roses.

Even in their darkest themed works, like The Plague, I see hope. Sartre is big on responsibility, to the extent that he says even emotions are purposeful strategems employed by us, and that we are accuountable for them. He says that we own every bit of our life. All our failures and faults lie at our feet and no one else. I know that brings me to despair and regret sometimes. But the idea that I am the captain of my own ship has also been my first, joyful thought of more than a few days, what gets me out of bed with a smile on my face.

I love Camus, haven't read enough Sartre to really understand him yet, but I will. You have an excellent point on the looking at the 'underside' in a sense of life. I stand in more or less the same camp and have always held only myself accountable for many things. Though the big flaw with the existentialists is the overwhelming 'I' that can exist and therefore it becomes hard to submit, at least in the Christian sense to God. But anyways that's my little bit to say.

Glad to see I have a comrade here! : )

[Hasan]

Existentialism starts off with some excellent observations and conclusions. Like phenomenology, however, it sometimes degenerates into babbling.

Both are certainly worth studying and some of the giants of the movements are truly great. It's just that many of the disciples are vapid. In fact many of the greats descended into babbling as well. I think Sartre can be fairly accused of this.

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

I don't mind Kierkegaard, but most existentialism tends to depress me or something. Nietszche was a pompous jerk, although I don't regret studying him because I can now see his influence in a lot of contemporary strains of thought. His ubermensch theory was interesting.
I've got a kind of big initial interest in phenomenology, although I don't know if that would hold if I studied it in greater depth.

Wonderful i like that you mentioned phenomenology,coz i was going to mention it. St teresa benedicta of the cross(edith stein[stien]) started out a family jew,than became an athiest,than studied phenomenology and out of the 10 people in her class 8 became protestants and 2 catholic, i wouldn't suggest studying all phenomenology just the originator whom she studied under,i can't remember his name sorry you will have to web search it. Phenomonology under that guy whom st teresa benedicta of the cross studied may be a ok grounds to start dialogue with athiest,the guy converted 10 of his class peoples and that was like a 100% though only 2 became catholics,this may be one of the few things outside of the church that can be catholicised without even mentioning church stuff at 1st. But than i know nothing of it only the biography or bibliography i read on st teresa benedicta of the cross/edith stein(stien).

God bless you all.
Onward christian souls.

God bless you all.
Onward christian souls.

[ThePenciledOne]

Existentialism starts off with some excellent observations and conclusions. Like phenomenology, however, it sometimes degenerates into babbling.

Both are certainly worth studying and some of the giants of the movements are truly great. It's just that many of the disciples are vapid. In fact many of the greats descended into babbling as well. I think Sartre can be fairly accused of this.

Existentialism is a product of the times, so the fact that these men ended up babbling in the end could be concluded neutrally. And in my opinion most philosophy in any school ends up babbling ....

Wonderful i like that you mentioned phenomenology,coz i was going to mention it. St teresa benedicta of the cross(edith stein[stien]) started out a family jew,than became an athiest,than studied phenomenology and out of the 10 people in her class 8 became protestants and 2 catholic, i wouldn't suggest studying all phenomenology just the originator whom she studied under,i can't remember his name sorry you will have to web search it. Phenomonology under that guy whom st teresa benedicta of the cross studied may be a ok grounds to start dialogue with athiest,the guy converted 10 of his class peoples and that was like a 100% though only 2 became catholics,this may be one of the few things outside of the church that can be catholicised without even mentioning church stuff at 1st. But than i know nothing of it only the biography or bibliography i read on st teresa benedicta of the cross/edith stein(stien).

God bless you all.
Onward christian souls.

God bless you all.
Onward christian souls.

She studied under Edmund Husserl.

Scheler and Heidegger studied under him as well.

[Hasan]

Wonderful i like that you mentioned phenomenology,coz i was going to mention it. St teresa benedicta of the cross(edith stein[stien]) started out a family jew,than became an athiest,than studied phenomenology and out of the 10 people in her class 8 became protestants and 2 catholic, i wouldn't suggest studying all phenomenology just the originator whom she studied under,i can't remember his name sorry you will have to web search it. Phenomonology under that guy whom st teresa benedicta of the cross studied may be a ok grounds to start dialogue with athiest,the guy converted 10 of his class peoples and that was like a 100% though only 2 became catholics,this may be one of the few things outside of the church that can be catholicised without even mentioning church stuff at 1st. But than i know nothing of it only the biography or bibliography i read on st teresa benedicta of the cross/edith stein(stien).

God bless you all.
Onward christian souls.

God bless you all.
Onward christian souls.

That was Husserl who was also born a Jew and became a Lutheran. His ethnicity allowed his prized student Heidegger to purge him from the University. Husserl also helped convert Heidegger from Catholicism and generally viewed Catholicism as an anachronistic, vestigial ideology of the middle ages. Husserl believed in 'Enlightened' Protestantism.

I wouldn't say that Husserl's phenomenology was explicitly pro-Christian, from what I've gathered. It did have some anti-materialistic tendencies which would, in the context in which it arose, be pro-Christian by default, in that liberal Protestantism was seen as the only intellectually viable religious path at the time so any ideology that is anti-materialistic would be pro-Christian.

[Hasan]

Existentialism is a product of the times, so the fact that these men ended up babbling in the end could be concluded neutrally. And in my opinion most philosophy in any school ends up babbling ....

I sort of agree. I'm not as well versed in Continental Philosophy as I believe you are so I am somewhat biased towards Anglo-Analytic philosophy but I believe that, while AA philosophy can run into absurdities, hence men like Daniel Dennett denying that qualitative experiences exist, it is still coherent. While it seems that some Continental philosophy, like Derrida and some critical theorists, descend into real incoherence.

That's just may casual observation. But I think there is some merit to it. Hence the Sokal Affair.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Sokal_affair

Edited by Hasan, 26 December 2011 - 10:31 PM.