Existentialism is the Most Satisfying Philosophy

With the proper definitions, Pros arguments fail because existentialism is too narrow a philosophical belief to comprise a system of thought, and it offers a single value that leaves many important questions unanswered. Pro made no rebuttal to these arguments, so they stand. With regard to existentialism being "satisfying" I argued that that because existentialism left so much unanswered, that most people, including dedicated existentialists, sought additional philosophical beliefs to achieve a satisfying resolution of life's questions. Those alternatives include religion, communist ideology, and modern secular spirituality. Pro rebutted, "In response to my opponent's argument that Existentialism is not satisfying, many of the claims he made were completely false. " It would then seem important to know which of my claims he thought "were completely false" and why they he thought they were false, but Pro gives only a single example. Pro asserts, "it does free from doubt and meet need and want through ending worry about the purpose of everything and the origins of the universe. " I did not disagree with the assertion about "the purpose of everything. " That is true and satisfying in the same sense that 2 + 2 = 4 is true and satisfying. If you want to know what 2 + 2 is equal to, the answer satisfies. The problem, as with existentialism, is that a single answer, even if true, is not enough to constitute a philosophy. As to the origins of the universe, that may remain an important question for some, independent of existentialist beliefs. Existentialism denies evolutionary programming of social instincts and a moral framework. It asserts that the individual necessarily lives in isolation. Consequently, the origin of the universe and the origin and evolution of life bears heavily upon existentialist beliefs. One might argue that an existentialist believer has resolved such questions, but a believer still has to make choices for which existentialism offers no guidance. Therefore inborn traits may be important. Pro continues, "Based off the average lifespan, if a person went to church every Sunday for example, they would waste 4072 hours of their life. Instead of doing such things, people could be traveling, spending time with their families, and whatever makes them happy. " In that assertion, Pro assumes that existentialists do not go to church, and (b) the people who do go to church do not enjoy it. I previously refuted (a), "Existentialists are not generally atheists . . . most writers and philosophers embracing existentialism hold to at least some form of faith. " op cit. Pro offered no evidence that churchgoers do not enjoy their experience or that existentialists are in general a more joyous lot. I think churchgoers enjoy their experience. As an atheist, I don't think they are talking to God. Nonetheless, the church provides a time of contemplation that probably has positive effects for those who enjoy community experience. Quite contrary to being a joyous lot, it strikes me that those who believe in existentialism disclaim it being "the most satisfying philosophy": "An existentialist could either be a religious moralist, agnostic relativist, or an amoral atheist. Kierkegaard, a religious philosopher, Nietzsche, an anti-Christian, Sartre, an atheist, and Camus an atheist, are credited for their works and writings about existentialism. . . . Each basically agrees that human life is in no way complete and fully satisfying because of suffering and losses that occur when considering the lack of perfection, power, and control one has over their life. " . http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org... To arrive at a satisfying philosophy, existentialism must be supplemented with something much broader. Therefore existentialism is not the most satisfying philosophy. The resolution is negated.