Pema Chödrön, in her The Wisdom of No Escape: How to Love Yourself and Your World describes it as a story of a woman running away from tigers. She runs and runs and the tigers are getting closer and closer. When she comes to the edge of a cliff, she sees some vines there, so she climbs down and holds on to the vines. Looking down, she sees that there are tigers below her as well. She then notices that a mouse is gnawing away at the vine to which she is clinging. She also sees a beautiful little bunch of strawberries close to her, growing out of a clump of grass. She looks up and she looks down. She looks at the mouse. Then she just takes a strawberry, puts it in her mouth, and enjoys it thoroughly.
Hear! Here!↪Rob J Kennedy
I think that it is problematic to try to describe oneself as being or not being an existentialist. Having read the ideas of some of the writings, such as Camus, Nietzsche and Sartre, I embrace some aspects of the philosophy, possibly the nature of existentialist anxiety, but I wouldn't go as far as to define myself as an existentialist, anymore than I embrace aspects of Buddhism but don't call myself a Buddhist.
Labels of philosophical thinking are useful for navigating ideas but not in a boxed way. I am often left perplexed by equal opportunities parts of forms, asking about religion. I often end up ticking the 'other' box and thinking that an essay would be more appropriate. It may be that the spirit of existentialism is opposed to boxes and labels, in the pursuit of freedom itself. — Jack Cummins
He's been called the Grandfather of existentialism. He drew attention away from grand project building (like Hegel) to the experience of being alive: to that 'quality of being that comes to rest in the sanctuary of the form.' — frank
He had all the symptoms. His primary concern was on the existence of the individual. Anxiety, dread, authenticity. . . . He was a significant influence on Heidegger. — Arne
I mean, what is the difference to you? I am not specifically ... after ... you, on that point, more curious. But the thing is, can just being be wrong?Yet it seems to me that Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzsche are saying that existence is our essence, i.e., being-in-the-world is our essence, freedom is our essence, will to power is our essence.
— Arne
I've always thought existence – how one actively exists – creates (one's) essence – becomes who one is. They (usually) reject the notion of "our essence" which is why (most) "existentialists" also deny the (non-subjective) designation. In any case, "being-in-the-world", "freedom" and "will-to-power" do not seem to me, according to primary sources, either synonymous with each other or equivalent to "existence". — 180 Proof
K. seem to have had close connection to Christianity and God in many of his writings. How does his concept of God fit into existentialism? — Corvus
Even being in the world, physically present, can be a tragic thing, because you can be a corpse. If you then say, that is not you, then you lose. Because that is what being-in-the-world must mean right? Alive? Or does it? With my model all particles are alive. — Chet Hawkins
So, to me, there is no particle in the entire metaverse that does not partake of this same math, this same model, choice. Free will and choice are the only essence in existence. We make far too much of some things. But it is true that evolution drives the formation, the integration, of entities with more and more moral agency.
That moral agency though is an absolute value +- the effect number. It means the great moral possibility ONLY comes with the risk of equal evil. — Chet Hawkins
The undead then, a being, yet sans the curriculum vitae! En soi! La mort c'est tout!For Heidegger, a corpse cannot be "in" the world. The only entity that can be "in" the world is Dasein. Any entity not having the characteristics of Dasein (such as a corpse) are "within" the world that Dasein is "in". — Arne
Sadly, and apparently it is not evident that I have read quite a bit of it. And gleaned much over the years when I was forced to look up his own words rather than accept others' interpretations. Thankfully, that process left me convinced I was not as deluded as some suspect. But you know, I've always had a penchant for maladroit grandiosity.Nietzsche might be a good fit. And I recommend reading his books in the order in which they were published. There is a consistency in the development of his thought from the first book to the last. — Arne
His view of the condition of truth being found outside of what 'belonged' to oneself was brought together with needing to make decisions that shaped what life will be. Our ability is directly involved with those choices. — Paine
He considered as absurd the philosophical and theological attempts to prove/disprove the existence/nonexistence of God. Instead, the commitment to live an authentic Christian life must be rooted in a "leap of faith." And so one who lives an authentic Christian life is the Knight of Faith. — Arne
One definition said: "The existentialists argued that our purpose and meaning in life came not from external forces such as God, government or teachers, but instead is entirely determined by ourselves." — BC
The definition that I am working off of is this:
a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will. — Chet Hawkins
Has any existentialist ever existed? — Corvus
Thanks. I'm sightly familiar with nihilism. Not enough to have ever heard of positive nihilism. — Patterner
As it is for just sitting, in Soto Zen, the reward is in the doing. — ENOAH
(Wiki)The meditator strives to be aware of the stream of thoughts, allowing them to arise and pass away without interference.
How does his concept of God fit into existentialism? — Corvus
Without interference, perhaps, but philosophical thoughts are posted here on the Forum before they pass. — jgill
It captured and reinforced the liberation experienced by many people as WW2 ended. — Ludwig V
Though it is true that the world that I am part of and which makes me what I am is a not a matter of choice, but of chance, in a sense — Ludwig V
The complete last sentence of Hazel Barnes' quotation is "Existentialists values intensify consciousness, arouse the passions, and commit the individual to a cause of action that will engage their total energies." A promise of relief from the real pains of anxiety in a meaningless world and also a promise of trouble and fear. But perhaps that's just me — Ludwig V
Finally, looking back at the first sentence in Hazel Barnes' quotation - "The function of Existentialists values is to liberate humankind from craven fear, petty anxiety and apathy or tedium." - I notice the powerful rhetoric that she chooses to attach to "humankind", "fear" and "anxiety". This is not existentialist cool at all, is it? — Ludwig V
Well, My own perspective agrees that 'God' is a weird way to think of things. But 'Truth', 'Love', and 'All' work just fine for the same thing without the casting a deity in your own image or culture's wishes thing.I've never read anything about existentialism, but I agree with both of these.
One definition said: "The existentialists argued that our purpose and meaning in life came not from external forces such as God, government or teachers, but instead is entirely determined by ourselves."
— BC
The definition that I am working off of is this:
a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.
— Chet Hawkins — Patterner
It captured and reinforced the liberation experienced by many people as WW2 ended. — Ludwig V
But most philosophers use that word, Dasein, in a selfish way to show humans as some sort of unique entity. I claim they/we are only a natural and inevitable progression of essence from the beginning of time and natural law. — Chet Hawkins
Yes. It's an important idea, at least in Sartre. This is where the tricky ideas of bad faith and authenticity come in. (I don't know the others well enough to be sure how they deal with this. I'm sure you are aware of the difficulties about these ideas. I would have included it in my post, but, to be honest, I felt it was long enough already and I was a bit short of time.Existentialism starts with a separation between the role you're playing and some other amorphous thing: call it Being, spirit, etc. The point is that you have a choice regarding the role you invest yourself in. — frank
There's much I don't know about Nuremberg, but they did choose to concentrate on the highest officials. I don't know whether they just didn't bother with the rank and file, or felt it would have been unfair to regard them as being as much responsible for what went on as the those in command. I do know that Eichmann tried this defence when he was tried in Israel and it was rightly rejected.Part of that was the Nuremberg trials in which Nazi soldiers were asked to explain their actions. According to folklore, they said they were soldiers, and they were doing as they were told. — frank
I mean ... it's confusing that you say this. You say you agree and then disagree.I agree. But Heidegger's concern is to describe the only entity that any of us really can describe from the inside, ourselves. If it turned out that some other species had the characteristics of Dasein, Heidegger would probably find it interesting but it would make no difference to his philosophy as set out in Being and Time. If some unknown species anywhere in the universe had the characteristics of Dasein, then they would be "in" the world. — Arne
Indeed, I came upon it a bit later, in the late 1950s, and it became popular among young, adventurous men - particularly from California - looking for a path forward that was new and exciting. — jgill
I agree. But Heidegger's concern is to describe the only entity that any of us really can describe from the inside, ourselves. If it turned out that some other species had the characteristics of Dasein, Heidegger would probably find it interesting but it would make no difference to his philosophy as set out in Being and Time. If some unknown species anywhere in the universe had the characteristics of Dasein, then they would be "in" the world.
— Arne
I mean ... it's confusing that you say this. You say you agree and then disagree. — Chet Hawkins
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.