hiredgun

I was wondering if there was anyone here who subscribes to or has been greatly influenced by Existentialism. I've been struggling with Sartre's Nausea and I was wondering if anyone could offer a few general insights into Existentialism as a system of thought that might help me make sense of what he's trying to say.

I know I've seen a Camus quote in a sig or something, so there's got to be at least one of you .

Just to broaden the topic a little, do you have any suggestions for further reading? Websites that help explain the major works? Favorite authors? What about your take on existentialist philosophy?

I wish I had more to contribute myself, but this is my first real exposure to these ideas. As I continue to read, I'll try to give my own ideas about them.

wilbjammin

I have way too much to say.

Major points:

Existence is absurd.

Existence comes before essence (we are born before having a real identity or soul).

Choice is very important because our choices determine what our essence is. Within the facticity of existence, what is left to us is our ability to identify situations where we can make choices and then to choose.

The idea of being your own "god" - you are given great power to create your own existence.

Existentialism is ironic, because on one hand we see the absurdity of existing at all, but we place a huge amount of value on ourselves and choices in spite recognizing the absurdity. Kierkegaard takes this to the highest level because he recognizes the absurdity of Christianity (being the most absurd religion, in his eyes) and embraces it because of its absurdity. Despite how I'm making this sound, existentialists aren't crazy, we just see that there is only so much that we know and it leaves us with dilemmas about how to live. Camus says that there is a fundamental question of suicide that we must deal with before we can go on in his "An Absurd Reasoning". If existence is absurd, then why do we live? His answer is that suicide doesn't answer the problem of absurdity. He outlines Sisyphus as the perfect example of someone who recognizes the absurdity of existence and through rebellion and defiance finds meaning (see my lesson plan on absurdity for more on Sisyphus).

The Absurdism thread starting at Taliendo's quote defining what the absurd is also good to look at.

The Stranger by Camus is a classic existentialism read that I would suggest as a good starting point.

I could write a lot more, but I'll stop. You might want to get other's perspectives on existentialism, or ask questions because I don't want to hijack this thread as "Will's ultimate take on existentialism and what is good about it and which authors you should read".

__________________
Innominate.

ARTelevision

I'm basically an existentialist.
I read all the stuff in college.
A simple Google search will turn up all the references you need.

I don't have much to say about it.
That's the beauty of existentialism...

__________________
create evolution

asaris

I've been fairly influenced by existentialism myself, though most of that is from Kierkegaard, who is not really an existentialist. If you're really interested, you should first read "Being and Time" by Heidegger and "Cartesian Meditations" by Husserl. Neither of these are existentialists, but both had a profound influence on Sartre. The key work of Sartre's is "Being and Nothingness", which explicates the philosophy underlying his novels. Also, if you find these thinkers interesting, you might also like Merleau-Ponty, whose major work is "Phenomenology of Perception".

Will's statement on the major points of 'existentialism' is largely correct, but I'd like to add two main points. First of all, it's important to keep in mind the emphasis on freedom. For Sartre, at least, man is totally free. Even the facts are variable, depending on the choices made by human beings. The obstacles we encounter are all obstacles of our own making. Secondly, there's not really any such thing as existentialism, in the way there's Platonism or Phenomenology. The thinkers generally considered existentialists (primarily Sartre and Camus, but also Jaspers and Andersch) have much more widely diverging philosophies than is normally seen within a single school. And, IIRC, Camus never accepted the title, Heidegger rejected it vehemently, and Sartre rejected it later in life.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

wilbjammin

Yes, I should have been more explicit. The reason that choice is so important is due to how free we are. We are responsible for determining for ourselves what our existence is because of our freedom.

__________________
Innominate.

Grothendieck

I consider myself an Existentialist also (among other things, and not exclusively). But probably in a somewhat naive way. It is true that you wake up every day, and have the ressources to change yourself, even if not everything, and not all at once. But I couldn't give you a round-up on the philosophy -- for me there are just some truths and wisdoms in Existentialism which I've added to my intellectual formation.

Concerning "tips". I read a lot of Camus in my teens. I always liked him better than Sartre, because he seems to be more of a writer and less of a preacher.

__________________
Didn't remember how intense love could be... Thank you B.

:::OshnSoul:::

I agree. I don't have much to say at this time, because I don't consider myself any one thing. But Existentialism has a lot of truth that I connect with.

hiredgun

Having finished Nausea now, the novel and your comments both served to clarify each other a great deal, thanks for the help!

I have a question about Sartre's atheism, though. It sort of seems that atheism is both beginning and end, both a premise and a conclusion for Sartre.

Existence is absurd because we are free and without purpose, yes? But we can only be without purpose if there is no God to give our lives purpose.

If we assume that, then yes, we are fully free to create our own lives as we see fit, but Sartre's atheism seems a matter of pure faith rather than discovery.

wilbjammin

So how do you sort through all of the belief structures that have God in it and find the one that really address the nature of a God that is silent? He writes about choosing to believe in God as a way that people give their own lives purpose. In fact, this is one of the main reasons that I have spent so much time reading existentialist books. Even if there is a God, does that really give us an intrinsic purpose? - It only would in the circumstance that you understand and embrace the meaning that you think God gave you and find it meaningful. Believing in God, for me, wouldn't be meaningful and I would only do it out of spite for being condemned to an absurd existence where I don't know why I exist and having a desire to withdraw myself from the anguish of my own decisions and greatly simplify things.

This is the same dilemma that Stephen Daedalus goes through in James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. He had to choose between being a subject of God, or his own God.

__________________
Innominate.

hiredgun

If you were created by a God for a Purpose, then that is your true purpose whether you choose to embrace it or not, and it is intrinsic. You could think that your existence is absurd, but your ignorance of the purpose doesn't really qualify as purposelessness.

My point is merely that atheism seems to be a premise or prerequisite to Sartre's thoughts, rather than their conclusion. If there is a God (in the most common sense), then your life doesn't belong solely to you to create. If you weren't already sure that there was no God, then you can't really affirm that existence is absurd.

wilbjammin

Something made for you is intrinsically yours? You can choose to accept anything given to you, but that isn't internal, that is something external that you make internal. The only way for it to be absolutely internal is if you managed to create on your own what your idea of God is (without adopting these ideas from external sources) and to hold on tightly to them in the face of all that you come across.

The idea of a "true purpose" doesn't work if you choose to reject the purpose that God gave you for your own purpose. Then your "true purpose" is the purpose you give yourself.

And if you're ignorant of the purpose that you supposedly have but don't know about - isn't that the definition of absurdity? "I have a purpose, but I don't know what it is" may be one of the most ironic statements one can make.

Quote:

My point is merely that atheism seems to be a premise or prerequisite to Sartre's thoughts, rather than their conclusion. If there is a God (in the most common sense), then your life doesn't belong solely to you to create. If you weren't already sure that there was no God, then you can't really affirm that existence is absurd.

Even if there is a God, your life is solely yours to make. Our uncertainty about the existence and the nature of God is a fact of our existence. If we knew absolutely that there was a God, and that this God wanted us to devote our lives to doing something for this God, then we are still faced with absurdity. Why did God choose to create existence like this? Why should I follow God's grand plan? What is the meaning of living in Heaven? What is the meaning of living in Hell? What is the meaning of reincarnation? What is the meaning of anything? If you accept the premises of any belief structure focused around a larger entity that has desires, then you are faced with absurdity because then you have to question why this entity chosed one sort of existence for us rather than another. The problem of suffering is exponentially expanded.

To be honest, I find the idea of there being a sentient God much more absurd that there not being one due to the infinite questions you can ask about "Why?" regarding the choices of God (which are unlimited).

To answer from Sartre's point of view to your statement - "If there is a God (in the most common sense), then your life doesn't belong solely to you to create." He would say that beyond the facticity of you being created by this being (which most certainly hasn't been proven, in the least), how you live your life is entirely up to you. That is how you become your own God (in-itself-for-itself being), you choose your existence given the circumstances you've been presented with.

__________________
Innominate.