Talk:Existentialism/Archive 1

message: do not dumb down, we have enough stupid information out there.
by "dumb down" i dont mean make it dumb per se, just a little less 1st century BC philosopher style —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.159.176 (talk • contribs) .
------------------
I don't think dumb is the target here, but perhaps it could use a revision. This article also seems to be lacking an indepth description of the 'absurd'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.4.237.170 (talk • contribs) .
------------------
Um hey im studyin for a high school english test and you could try to dumb down oyur opening summary of existentialsm...it cna be said a lot simpler like "the belief that what is right for you may not exactly be right for me." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.159.176 (talk • contribs) .
:That's not existentialism, that's relativism, and goes back to Protagoras in the 5th century BC.  Existentialism is a 20th century AD phenomenon. Jeremy J. Shapiro 23:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumb down

message: Existentialism does away with Rene Descartes' famous argument, summarized as I think, therefore I am. On the face of it, an existentialist would argue, Descartes' argument is erroneous: thoughts are distinct from us. We may have thoughts, but others may also have them, or they may exist independently of us. Thought is not a good argument for existence. You exist because of what you feel; it is your emotions that are undeniably you.
The existential philosophers make all of their arguments as emotional rather than logical imperatives. Existentialists are more concerned with the nature of happiness than with things.
Existentialism recognizes the conscience as a transcendent to reality, and in order for it to be that, it must be reasoning, or else it cannot disearn nature/reality which operates by causality.  In existentialism one can use logic, but just can't be governed by it, or else the conscience is not a transcendent but is confined to causality like nature —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raskolnikov The Penguin (talk • contribs) .
Some of the better known existential arguments include:
* Hell is other people
* Pain is conciousness
====Pain is conciousness====
Existentialism divides the world into two categories. One category are called en-soi, things that can be analyzed rationally, like a rock. The second category are pour-soi, things that emote; beings. A thing cannot feel unhappy about being a thing, it has no emotions; a rock is perfectly satisfied being a rock. A being must always therefore compare itself with the thing, and be envious of its ability to just be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Stevens (talk • contribs) .
*First of all, this distinction isn't one made by existentialism in general, it's specifically a Sartrean one.  Second, "en-soi" doesn't have to do with being able to be analyzed rationally but with the lack of consciousness and intentionality, both of which can be analyzed rationally.  Third, "pour-soi" isn't about emotions, it's about self-consciousness.  These terms go back to Kant and Hegel.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Existentialism divides the world into two categories. One category are called en-soi, things that can be analyzed rationally, like a rock. The second category are pour-soi, things that emote; beings. A thing cannot feel unhappy about being a thing, it has no emotions; a rock is perfectly satisfied being a rock. A being must always therefore compare itself with the thing, and be envious of its ability to just be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Stevens (talk • contribs) .
*First of all, this distinction isn't one made by existentialism in general, it's specifically a Sartrean one.  Second, "en-soi" doesn't have to do with being able to be analyzed rationally but with the lack of consciousness and intentionality, both of which can be analyzed rationally.  Third, "pour-soi" isn't about emotions, it's about self-consciousness.  These terms go back to Kant and Hegel.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pain is conciousness

message: I added Peter Wessel Zapffe (1899-1990) to existentialistic philosophers. Allthough nihilistic from my point of view, I read this description of him on the cover of a book summing up his life. Sigg3.net 14:48 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I am very surprised by the mention of Henri Bergson and Emmanuel Lévinas as existentialists. Blaise Pascal has indeed been mentioned as a precursor, although this is too me far from obvious. I cannot say anything about Berdyaev, Stirner and Zapffe. Marc Girod 16:58, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a question: Are there clear criterias for being an existentialist which could rule out (or in) people? I mean, what is the definition of existentialist? A person with existentialistic views? It's a circledefinition. - Sigg3.net 21:26, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Existentialism is a sort of dialectical synthesis on top of (thesis) the idealism of Plato, and (antithesis) the realism of Aristotle. There exists something, but it is meaningless, as all meaning comes from discrimination and is free --can be placed anywhere, is subjective, or negociated (inter-subjective), and thus engages our responsibility. I think this excludes Lévinas and probably Bergson (I am less sure) as idealists. Pascal sees the necessity of freedom --since he doesn't publish his wager; that's why he is a precursor. Marc Girod 14:53, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, today's existentialism is based on the words of Jean-Paul Sartre and Søren Kierkegaard. At least on ethics, allthough they are quite different on this matter - Kierkegaard with emphasis on the Religious Level while Sartre clearly states that God is not. But you're right on the radical freedom. Angst is a definite keyword in this -ism. Sigg3.net 22:35, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: What Sartre and Kierkegaard have in common is the freedom and the responsibility of choice (leap of faith for Kierkegaard). I still wait for a justification of the mention of Bergson as existentalist. I think Bergson is not easily classified (and I read this also from von Wright). Marc Girod 15:18, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of people as existentialists 

message: Does this sentence mean anything: A person can only defined by his actions?
I changed it to ..be defined. - Sigg3.net 17:59, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There is supposedly an Apache quote, (or saying), (that may be revealing).  I have no reference for it, TV, or a movie from 1970's ( ? ). quote: "I am what I do", or..."You are what you do". (i.e. If you are on Wikipedia, doing this stuff, here... it is part of, "I am what I do." )--MichaelMcAnnisYuma,AZ.Mmcannis 05:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Note, I call myself an "existentialist", but none of this page definition stuff applies: I do Deductive reasoning, except when my brain is clouded, misled, or focussed and thus blocked.  I think some set theory would best define, ...how to explain things. I am thinking of some articles to create (relating to this((and what humans are up to)) ), (either well formed, or just a small bud, to grow bigger.)...If, or when I make them, I will reference them from here, also.--M-McAnnisMmcannis 05:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining people by actions 

message: Can anybody justify the inclusion of Dashiell Hammett in the list of "Major thinkers and authors associated with existentialism"? I certainly can't. I'll give it a few days and then delete the link, if no one objects. R Lowry 19:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dashiell Hammett]] 

message: To the regular contibutors: I only wanted to alert you to this and politely ask you that someone knowledged should either merge this with this article, Jean-Paul Sartre or simply turn into a redirect if you feel that's more appropriate. All the best, Lady Tenar 23:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Existentialism and Human Emotions]] 

message: I've added a  template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernism template 

message: I've removed the following section because it is laced with spam inserted by ?. I'm not sure what, if any of it, is real. This is the second time I've removed his spam (articles about him and his book have been recently vfd'd and speedied). --LeeHunter 13:11, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear ?, Please stop spamming this article! 

message: I seem to remember Kerouac being critical of existentialists in his fiction.  Is there evidence that he promoted existentialism?--Golden Eternity 01:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerouac an Existentialist? 

message: "Another view is simply that existentialists are insane, which, many existentialists would reply, is correct, but, they would retort, only if you considered a lack of desire to live the traditional office life as reducible to insanity." - this is not a criticism, more a sensational and opinionated statement. It bears no philosophical worth and I am having trouble seeing why it was included in the first place? Importantly, "insanity" is nothing - it is typically a popular term for a broad spectrum of mental illnesses, which makes no sense here. Thus it is only here as conjecture as to how abnormal wider society percieve existentialists, it is thus POV. I am removing it, if anyone can justify its presence feel free to reinstate it. --Oldak Quill 23:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically its about a point of view, not a point of view in and of itself.  I haven't seen that sort of thing in any of the traditional existentialist works though, so I can't defend it.  Pity, it was amusing if nothing else.166.70.6.113 07:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal.Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing policy proposal of general interest 

message: I don't think that 'Groundhog Day' is existentialist. I always thought that the movie was about happiness through caring about other people. When he gave in to his natural reactions, he was always forced to repeat the day again. ---*nondescript* 22:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ... yes, but he did remake himself into the person either he or Andi McDowell wanted him to be. Sfahey 02:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This may be true, but this is precisely the kind of interpretation as original research that several of us are proposing should not be in this article.  There may be dozens and dozens of such films, and the article is not supposed to be an IMDB of possibly existentialist films.  Seems to me that if the director and writer did not explicitly state that they were trying to convey existentialist ideas through their film or did not define themselves as existentialists then it shouldn't be in the article.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that this: "...if the director and writer did not explicitly state that they were trying to convey existentialist ideas [...] or did not define themselves as existentialists then it shouldn't be in the article.".  If that is true and accepted, then wikipedia's workload just got alot heavier. --ДрakюлaTalk 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, if the writer/director not classifying their work as existentialist is grounds for removal, then you'd need to remove half the existentialist writers from the article on the grounds that they either refused the label or died before the term came into existence.166.70.6.113 07:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: However, as to whether or not this article should mention Groundhog Day, I don't think it is a big concern.  I can see an existentialist point through the movie, for the same reason Jeremy J. Shapiro does. Perhaps someone will recognize that movie, and finally "get" existentialism. Do you think that it could be a bad influence, or bad information? I do not. --ДрakюлaTalk 06:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Although there is some debate about scope of Wikipedia's no original research policy, categorizing movies as "existentialist" definitely qualifies as original research. Without sources, it's not at all clear that the directors or screenplay writers approached the movie with that intent. It would be different if one of the movie's actors, its director, a producer, or some outside publication ever said that the movie was existentialist, but that doesn't appear to have happened. I'll wait awhile for a reply, but then it's time to strike the movies without documentation of "existential" intent. The Rod 19:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Movies are now removed. Note that the movie pages themselves are better places to describe existentialist themes, if applicable. The Rod 07:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groundhog Day? 

message: I moved the following two paragraphs here from the previous version of the article, for reasons explained below:
<<<<<
Existentialism is a philosophical movement that views the individual person, the self, his experience--and the uniqueness therein--as the basis for understanding the nature of  human existence. Generally, this philosophy reflects belief in freedom, and accepts the consequences of action, while acknowledging the personal responsibility attendant to choice. Existentialists prefer subjectivity, and view human beings as subjects in an indifferent, often ambiguous universe.
This conception derives from Nietzsche's concept of eternal return--the idea that "things lose value because they cease to exist". If all things existed continuously, they then would burden us with their tremendous level of importance, but, because things come to pass and cease existing, they lose their value. The concept 'existence precedes essence' is paramount, as it describes the only conceivable reality that judges good and evil. If things simply "are"--without directive, purpose, or overall truth--then truth--'essence'--is only the projection of that which is product of existence, or of collective experience. For truth to exist, existence must exist before truth; it is not only the predecessor, but the 'ruler' of its own objectivity.
>>>>>
Reasons:
*The definition of existentialism in terms of the individual person as the basis for understanding existence not accurate because a) the same could be said of Romanticism, and b) Heidegger's existential philosphy is not focused on the idea of the individual person or self -- indeed the notion of "being-in-the-world" removes the concept of self, the individual, and subjectivity from the definition of existence.  The individualist emphasis is more characteristic of French existentialists.  Personal responsibility also doesn't play the central role in Heidegger that it does in Sartre.
*This link of existentialism to the concept of eternal return is an interesting idea, but is a bit of Original Research and would not be found in every interpretation of existentialism.  Also, the following section quite vague and hard to understand: "is only the projection of that which is product of existence, or of collective experience. For truth to exist, existence must exist before truth; it is not only the predecessor, but the 'ruler' of its own objectivity".
     Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraphs moved here from article

message: Currently, in my view, the actual philosophical content of the article is weak, because it really only discusses the Sartrean idea of existence being prior to essence, which is a narrow definition of just one aspect of existentialism.  I believe that we need to have a section, under core concepts and principles, that distinguishes among at least the ontological, psychological, and ethical dimensions of existentialism, more on Heidegger, who, in the long term, has been much more influential than Sartre within philosophy, and on existential psychoanalysis and psychology (e.g. Binswanger), which in many ways gives a more concrete sense of the nature of existentialism than merely laying out the most abstract philosophical concepts, although they're very important.  I won't be able to work on any of this for a while, but hope to sometime in the future.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding philosophical content

message: As for the future, so long as there are people who live, there will be people who die, and, so long as this remains so, there will be existentialism for those who think, ponder, and become nauseated by that unfortunate, if not liberating, fact.
Its a vague statement which, depending on the definition of existentialism used, is either false or tautologic. It doesn't sound very encyclopedic either. 
--80.99.248.74 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely.  It's preaching.  Let's take it out.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this belong? 

message: He's barely mentioned in here, and he is uncontroversially the first of the modern existentialists.  Amicuspublilius 04:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon regarding the article a second time, I find a lengthy slice of bologna explaining why Kierkegaard has been neglected.  I will change this article when I have the time, because this is a laughable, intentional (though I have no idea why), historical error. Amicuspublilius 04:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kierkegaard?

message: Id say Existentialism is like not excepted that there is such a thing as fate. You make your own decisions for your own life, and no one else.  However, I also belive that there is also such thing as a (for lack of a better term) "fate based existentialism" or "open fate".  This is when you have the choice of how to get to what you fate is.  
ex) I may be "pre-ordained" to become a nurse, but I no matter which college I go to, I will still end as a nurse. (The time, credits, honors, and or people may change, but I will still be a nurse.) I choose where I go to college, the people I want to spend most of my time with, how hard I want to work, etc. 66.99.59.195 13:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscelanious 

message: Something doesn't sound right about this common threads thing.
If someone doesn't defend it I think it should go.TerryA 02:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, "something doesn't sound right about X" isn't really a complaint.  What sounds wrong about it?  -Seth Mahoney 19:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Threads Questions

message: I really don't think that "Fight Club" is the best example of an existentialist film in pop culture, so I changed it to "The Man Who Wasn't There," which is clearly inspired by "Crime and Punishment," "The Stranger" and "Nausea." Huple scat 13:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existentialism in Film 

message: I think part of the difficulty with this entry is that existential has been used in very broad and vague meanings for a long time. When someone says that a movie like Fight Club is existential, they are in many sense correct, because it concerns how man should be, and the journey to find meaning in ones life. However, I feel that for an encyclopedia article, we should be careful to distinguish (and focus on) the specific philosophical/literary tradition, as opposed to more general uses of the word existential. Of course there is going to be grey areas; a book like Sartre's the Wall, or Camus's the Stranger, are obviously existential novels, even though they don't contain actual philosophical explication.
What I'm suggesting is an explanation of the difference between the general use of the word existential (that is, man's desire/undertaking of finding meaning in his or her own life); and the specific philosophical tradition. This list is by no means exhaustive or perfect, but just as an idea:
# The idea of subjectivity, and the purpose of philosophy as a tool for mankind to confront real human questions (not relativism)
# The recognition of man's considering himself, man's capacity to consider his own understanding (the Heideggerian dasein)
# The necessity of man's finding meaning in his own life (I think this is a factor shared by different strains of existenialism, but I don't know much about theistic/Christian existentialism. Any input?)
# The idea of bad faith-- the ways in which man denies his own freedom/responsibility.
I'm sure that list is probably inadequate and overly Sartrean/French existential; if someone with a German/Heideggerian background can fix it that would be great.
While I certainly think there should be room to consider various movies/books/etc. as existential works, I think bringing too many vaguely existential works could complicated the issue.
Another little addition: I think Nietzsche needs a significant explication because although he made extremely important additions to existential thought, his own philosophy was very different from the existential tradition (and is itself appropriated by many philosophies which are very different from existentialism, most notably Randian objectivism. Freddie deBoer 20:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific (historic?) meanings of existential vs. broader meanings 

message: Out of curiousity why isn't Max Stirner figured more prominently when it comes to existential roots. Ans what about some of the Greek thinkers(Protagoras) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.91.72 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-08 23:22:35  (UTC)
:As far as I know, Stirner's "influence" on existentialism is a later realization of affinities between his ideas and existentialism. Do you know of any existentialist writers who cite Stirner? Ig0774 05:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not Stirner? 

message: I added a hyperlink to the word 'predicate' to the section entitled "Criticisms of Existentialism" because I felt that some readers may not be familiar the word's usage in this context. As such, the link might be helpful to those who are not students of philosophy. --24.255.15.170 02:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sort of edit doesn't usually require a comment, but since you've added it, the use of 'predicate' there seems to be the ordinary English-language use of the word and not a particularly specialized philosophical concept. Ig0774 06:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predicates: Hyperlink added 

message: I've heard seemingly contradictory definitions of what existentialism.  Reading this article fails to clarify.  Could someone please tell me:
*What are the basic tenets of existentialism?
:::See .
*Does existentialism include an absolute reality (do things exist)?
:::Existentialism isn't generally concerned with questions like that, though Sartre touches on it in Being and Nothingness.
*Does existentialism include an absolute morality (is there a universal right and wrong)?
:::No. Nietzsche worked most on destroying, or at least analysing all forms of morality.
*Does existentialism include a variant of the liar paradox?
:::I'm not sure what you're asking.
Thanks.Loodog 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  -Smahoney 16:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existentialism: What is it? 

message: I've read the opening paragraph four times, and the first two sentences contradict themselves.  I found this on another site and it's incredibly clear, especially 4) and 5)
Bob Corbett
"However, I can define certain characterists that most Existentialists (and precursors to Existentialism) seem to share:
1) they are obsessed with how to live one's life and believe that philosophical and psychological inquiry can help. 
2) they believe there are certain questions that everyone must deal with (if they are to take human life seriously), and that these are special -- existential -- questions. Questions such as death, the meaning of human existence, the place of God in human existence, the meaning of value, interpersonal relationship, the place of self-reflective conscious knowledge of one's self in existing.
Note that the existentialists on this characterization don't pay much attention to "social" questions such as the politics of life and what "social" responsibility the society or state has. They focus almost exclusively on the individual. 
3) By and large Existentialists believe that life is very difficult and that it doesn't have an "objective" or universally known value, but that the individual must create value by affiriming it and living it, not by talking about it. 
4) Existential choices and values are primarily demonstrated in ACT not in words. 
Given that one is focusing on individual existence and the "existential" struggles (that is, in making decisions that are meaningful in everyday life), they often find that literary characterizations rather than more abstract philosophical thinking, are the best ways to elucidate existential struggles. 
5) They tend to take freedom of the will, the human power to do or not do, as absolutely obvious. Now and again there are arguments for free will in Existentialist literature, but even in these arguments, one gets the distinct sense that the arguments are not for themselves, but for "outsiders." Inside the movement, free will is axiomatic, it is intuitively obvious, it is the backdrop of all else that goes on."
I'd be happy to re-write this, but others seem more fluent (or is this alleged "fluency" the problem?)  Wiki-reputation's at stake here, for if you Google EXISTENTIALISM, this confusing article has the coveted #1 position. " --Robertkeller 00:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes much sense.  Please incorporate this into the article if people agree on its correctness.Loodog 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph Needs Elucidation 

message: All the Linguistics, Historians, or pseudo-Psycholinguistics are not going to turn this 'existentialist', a homo sapiens, human being into this "fear" responding 'thing' defined in a box of either "Christian" vs 'Agnostic'.  I will repeat what I have previously stated:  .... No 'historical' authors of existentialism (since 1500 AD, or pick a time), had access to the greatest, existential work still extant: The Epic of Gilgamesh.  Either no one cares, cannot bother to learn the words they used, Like the Pornographic-ally used word "rain", as in the flood story, but also used elsewhere as in pornography, (if you knew the story, then you would know why it is elsewhere used in a separate sense).  
This existentialist, finds it hard to believe that there is a discussion of agnostic vs christian.  Historical or Linguistic Existentialism might be a better title for this.  Confer all the previous writings, in original languages: Bible, in Greek, and Hebrew, the Amarna letters, in Akkadian, (Cuneiform), and Sumerian, the Sumerograms, and the other 5,6, or 7 Text corpus -es that, are not only real historical documents, but could certainly provide better Pre-Religious defined Existential analysis-(xxx).  End of Speech (an existential speech, incidentally)   ////Michael, in YumaAZ,earlyExistentialSaturdayDarknesson- WestCoastUSA--Mmcannis 11:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historical Existentialism" vs "Existentialism" 

message: I've attempted to overhaul the design, by centralizing the history section and elaborating on the most popular existentialism: Sartrean existentialism.  Additions are welcome, as I'm not that much an expert on Heidegger or some other existentialists.  Personally, I think the design makes the page more accessible.  Poor Yorick 12:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I'll add something on Simone de beauvoir when I have the time.  ArcherOne 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design change