Existentialism is the Most Satisfying Philosophy

Pro has asserted the wrong definition of "philosophy." He asserted the definition of "philosophy" as the general field of inquiry. As a field of inquiry, philosophy may be satisfying in the same sense that flower arranging or plumbing is satisfying -- as an activity that accomplishes something that seems worthwhile to the practitioner. However, "a philosophy" is either "A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume." or "A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Existentialism is not a "system of thought," because it is a single philosophical belief and hence not a system. Pro asserts it is "the philosophical belief that for humanity existence comes before essence." There are many philosophical beliefs that are not systems of thought. For example, there is the Kantian philosophical belief that "the human mind organizes existence" or the religious philosophical belief that "the divine is evident in the harmony of nature." We can tell that these beliefs are not systems of thought because they conflict with few broad systems of thought. A characteristic of systems of thought is that they enable resolving a large variety of life situations. Existentialism is not a "a system of values" because it asserts few values. One existentialist value is "authenticity," but that asserts very little. It equates to being honest and truthful, but it says nothing about what is bad or good, so long as one is truthful about it. The famous story is of a young man who sought out Sartre for advice on whether to take care of his aged mother or go to fight a war of liberation he believed in. This is asking which activity to value more highly. Sartre's reply: "You are free, therefore choose." Clearly there is no system of values in that reply that helps determine which duty is greater. Since existentialism is neither a system of thought or a system of values, it is compatible with religious values: "Existentialists are not generally atheists, though Jean-Paul Sartre proclaimed he was. In fact, most writers and philosophers embracing existentialism hold to at least some form of faith. Holding to a faith dictates following, if one is to be authentic, the ethical system of the religion accepted. Likewise, accepting a political theory demands accepting that theory's ethical constructs. Existentialists did not develop ethical systems or constructs in a vacuum — philosophy is an evolution of theories. "Different writers who united in stressing the importance of these themes nevertheless developed very different ethical and metaphysical systems as a consequence. - Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy; Blackburn (ed), p. 130" http://www.tameri.com... The resolution fails because it fails to meet the definition of "a philosophy." However, for the purposes of debate, let us assume that it meets some definition of "a philosophy." Under that assumption, the question remains as to whether it is the "most satisfying." In answering that question we must first decide how satisfaction is measured. One possibility is that "most satisfying" means that it provides answers that satisfy the most people. That is the sort of question that could be potentially answered by a poll. As we have seen, even existentialists do not find it thus satisfying, because they seek religion and other philosophical supplements. If it answered all the questions that people wanted answered, they would not want to seek additional satisfaction from other philosophies. Another possible interpretation is that it is "most satisfying" in the sense that it provides the most satisfying answer to the question of the meaning of existence. Adopting that meaning negates the resolution, because posing the question so narrowly is consistent only with existentialism not being "a system" of anything. an answer to a question is not a system. The question of what philosophy is most satisfying also plays with definition the of "satisfying." Pro offered the definition "free from doubt," but Pro asserted, "it shows that life is an end in itself, i.e. the only real purpose is to shape what you want to be and what you think humanity should be." Pro's assertion better matches the second definition from his source, not the third definition that he selected. It means "To fulfill (a need or desire)." Any answer to the question of "What is the meaning of life?" satisfies the person's need to know the answer. In that sense existentialism is no better than any other philosophy that answers the question. They all give answers, and the satisfaction derives from having the answer defined. the philosophical belief that the question is meaningless is also satisfying in that sense; it resolves the question as being meaningless. Ultimately, people are not broadly satisfied with a philosophy unless it provides many answers. Recent there has been a rise in what has been called "secular spirituality." Pollster George Gallup has written a book, "The next American spirituality" http://books.google.com... citing "From two polls we find that eight out of ten Americans, not just "religious" Americans, find a need for spiritual growth." That means that relatively few people find existentialism satisfying in the sense of being fulfilling. In this debate, I have not questioned the belief that the question of the meaning of life is meaningless question. I think that assertion is true. My argument is that the assertion is merely a fact, devoid of satisfaction in any philosophical sense. It is like 2 + 2 = 4, a fact that is useful, but not a "most satisfying philosophy." The resolution is negated.