existentialism is the preferred philosophy of life

----------- --For religious people, the meaning of life is simple and objective: God's command. But since it seems like there isn't a God, you might as well be deluding yourself, so what is the difference between having God choose your meaning and being high on heroin all the time? --Nihlism would say there is no objective meaning to life. There is no god and we are just irrational fragments trying to make sense in an unrelenting black cosmos that has no direction. This seems to rest on the fallacy of division--just because the universe as a whole has no meaning, doesn't mean that we can't find meaning in our individual lives. ---Existetialism would say, there is no inherent meaning to life, but that isn't a problem, because you get to "roll your own meaning." You get to choose whatever meaning you want. You choose the rules. --virtue ethics leaves the door wide open for creative possibility in exercising virtue. But there are limits. And existentialists can't accept this position. So, what then is so wrong about Adolf Hitler? If his purpose in life was to eliminate the jews, why would that be wrong if no meanings to life are any better than other meanings of life? Some existentialists would try to get out of this by claiming it might be preferable if other people look at your M.O.L "collage" and gave approval. But then this itself is conceding that we can establish some criterion for what makes one meaning of life view better than the other. ------ I think ultimately the professor, or my opening post, would not disagree with you per se that those ethics are okay. what we'd disagree with you on is that existentialism means hitler is justified. existentialism wouldn't allow you to deny your own nature. ethics are inherently party of your nature. this appears objective, without any outside forces asking us to say otherwise. now, i'm not saying your philophsy says outside forces are necessary... but for you to say existentialism would permit hitler situatios is like saying your system requires dogma and such rhetoric. if you notice, in the opening statement, i posted that what you do mkaes a difference, and it sets an example. these are things that an existentiiast would agree with as a matter of objective appearing nature. objective appearing is all we have to go on... and you couldn't go on lless, lest you run into being controlled by dogma, which would be lobbed at the ethics system you espouse more than anything. the peeing man in the following hypothetical is rationalizing, in the tone of existnetialsm, but he's denying treating others the same. "Once I saw a man peeing in a bus station. When I confronted him about it, he turned to me, without stopping, and said: "Since the world is in constant flux, nothing that occurs has any relevance to anything else. What you believe, feel, or think is based on the assumption that truth exists. Thus, you're free to do anything that brings you pleasure. That humanity feels constrained by morals is one of the funniest jokes I've ever heard." So I beat the sh*t out of him and took his wallet." that man gives existentialism a bad name, but is not representative of true existentialism. he's denying to do unto others what you'd expect them to do to you... logically something you have to not be bad if you expect others not to, and objectively not somethig you want to do ie hurt your own species. what ultimately is driving an ehtics person then? it's not God. if it's not some sort of dogma to avoid that criticism, what is it? a consensus? so while i think you can be a free thinking ethics person, if anything should be criticized for its stereotype, it's the ethics thing you propose. at hte least, given the array of existentialism, and ethics ness, ta the very least, existentialsim should be defined as i posted in the beginning, and if i agreed ethics makes a diference, you can't use a lack of ethics as hurting my case. but at per the definitions broadly, we can talk about an ethical existentialist, or a free thinking creative ethic-person.... but we shouldn't have to qualify the name of the philosophy. if existentialists ahve to, then you'd have to. both are seeking objectivity even if never getting it. so i think really we're just playing word games.