Is Existentialism too individualistic a philosophy?

Ross

The existentialist philosophers such as Kierkegaard, Nietszche and Sartre always emphasize the individual above society. They seem to be concerned only with the plight of the individual and his/her inner conflicts, angst etc. But if a philosopher is reflecting on the human condition, and especially the darker side as the existentialists are concerned with, is it sufficient to treat the individual as a separate entity apart from society. The ideas about freedom, responsibility, authenticity, angst, meaning etc that they are concerned with how can they be satisfactorily grappled with except in the context of the individuals relationship with society. Does the notions of freedom and choice really make sense by considering only the situation of the individual. Aristotle said "Man is a social animal" and he always treated the person as part of a community , not as as isolated entity. That's why his ethics lays a heavy emphasis on this social aspect of the person. I think up until the existentialists in the 20th century western thought has normally treated the individual in this social context. Plato, Aristotle, Hume , Kant, Marx all treat the individual as a part of society.

javi2541997

↪Ross Campbell

Good question. I think existentialism is pretty individualistic because the main objective is explain our behaviour when we are not part of the society. I mean, these authors want to contradict the "social" principle of Aristotle (Man is a social animal as you wrote above). Probably, we can consider that existentialism has as a base the person itself and how is the role without being affected by the mass. It is interesting to emphasise that most of the theories and essays about existentialism tend to be pessimistic. Most of them want to explain that life is not worth living at all and when you look deeply at the person it doesn't seem to have motivations to keep living. Even, some of them develop this thoughts explaining the absurdity of life and the anxiety when you try to interact with others.
Kierkegaard:

is an Existentialist because he accepts, as fully as Sartre or Camus, the absurdity of the world. But he does not begin with the postulate of the non-existence of God, but with the principle that nothing in the world, nothing available to sense or reason, provides any knowledge or reason to believe in God. While traditional Christian theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas, saw the world as providing evidence of God's existence, and also thought that rational arguments a priori could establish the existence of God, Kierkegaard does not think that this is the case. But Kierkegaard's conclusion about this could just as easily be derived from Sartre's premises. After all, if the world is absurd, and everything we do is absurd anyway, why not do the most absurd thing imaginable? And what could be more absurd than to believe in God? So why not? The atheists don't have any reason to believe in anything else, or really even to disbelieve in that, so we may as well go for it!

Probably you would like to read: Existentialism

NOS4A2

↪Ross Campbell

Society is composed of individuals; it isn’t itself an individual. So until one regards the individual, the human being, as the only unit worthy of concern, he isn’t much concerned with society at all.

Ross

↪javi2541997

The article on Existentialism you mention at the end, who is it by? I wonder how good a philosopher is Woody Allen. Is he really exploring the genuine themes of Existentialist philosophy or is it just pseudo philosophy?

Tom Storm

I wonder how good a philosopher is Woody Allen. Is he really exploring the genuine themes of Existentialist philosophy or is it just pseudo philosophy? — Ross Campbell

Allen tells stories, he drops in cultural comment and ideas from a range of sources, often coalescing around his rather untheorized brand of atheism. He was often accused of being a pseudo-intellectual, which I think misses the point. Like a lot of people of his time and place he was influenced by existentialist ideas but he is no theorist. And thank God. I'm sure a film critic could retro fit a range of philosophical and cultural thinking to Allen's work without Allen even knowing those things were present.

Joshs

↪Ross Campbell

The existentialist philosophers such as Kierkegaard, Nietszche and Sartre always emphasize the individual above society — Ross Campbell

Hi there. As I mentioned in your previous OP, the ‘existentialist’ reading of Nietzsche is only one interpretation of his work, and I think it’s way off the mark. If you’re looking for readings of Nietzsche as fundamentally intersubjectively grounded, you have a lot to choose from among the postmodernist philosophers. Enjoy!

Valentinus

↪Ross Campbell

In regards to Kierkegaard, his emphasis upon the life of the Single Individual should be seen together with his commitment to love his neighbor as commanded by Jesus Christ. See the Works of Love for details.

Also, in The Concept of Anxiety, the problem of guilt and responsibility happens because of our interactions with other people but requires choices we can only make for ourselves. From that perspective, the agency of a person is the most difficult pursuit, not an account for what is experienced.

javi2541997

is it just pseudo philosophy? — Ross Campbell

To be honest, I guess it is just pseudo philosophy... Probably sometimes he thinks and talks about this kind of philosophical thought but as a basic thinker. It seems he does not has a deeply knowledge on philosophy.

Fine Doubter

↪Ross Campbell

I think all philosophy, within and across the oeuvres of all writers / thinkers, is in spectrums / continuums. A few have flown a flag of an "ism" - well I think that's up to them. I don't go by badges but that's just me. For example Epicurus to name a pocket-sized example is plenty alert to interplay between small and big pictures.

Is Existentialism too individualistic a philosophy?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions