Please Explain Existentialism to Me

[Dr. Oza]

Also in regard to being "authentic" etc... Refer as you may to Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, etc..

Also, is this a valid philosophy in your opinion.

We've started covering this in school and i'm still a bit confused and i'm not sure if i understand it or if i believe it is valid


Thanks!

Rep will be passed around generously!

[Ancient Aliens]

Also in regard to being "authentic" etc... Refer as you may to Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, etc..

Also, is this a valid philosophy in your opinion.

We've started covering this in school and i'm still a bit confused and i'm not sure if i understand it or if i believe it is valid


Thanks!

Rep will be passed around generously!

First off, Kierkegaard and Nietzche themselves were not neccesarily existentialists, they were more like the forebearers of it. Whether or not they would support the modern concept of existentialism is up to speculation. They did propose existential questions.

In essence, it is a subjective look at the human condition. It deals with themes such as the meaning of life, the concept of human existence, the meaning of human emotion and thought, etc. There are a very wide variety of existentialists with many different philosophies on the matter. For example, Kierkegaard suggested the notion that the individual should give artificial meaning to his own life, and that the individual should also provide the neccesary reason for living his life to its fullest potential. Nietzche had a similar philosophy. The true difference between the two was Nietzche's lack of belief in the divine.

Is it valid? That is an interesting question to ask an existentialist, indeed. Are any philosophical questions valid?

[NEPTUNO]

Existence is before being anyone, it means that as you exist you are 'free' to choose to be what ever you want to be. So living is an addition of projects you design. Then you have the social limits and so.

For me it is an optimistic philosophy, but to be used with moderation or you can get mad.

[Marechal Ney]

I recently read Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism", so its still fresh in my mind (its not too long, and you can find a pretty good translation here). I will use it as a guide (even usually going in the order it does), as said work is the best explanation I have found.

The most important point to begin with is that Existentialism requires the belief that "Existence precedes Essence". Sartre's example isn't very good (at least in my eyes), so I will try to clarify. Imagine a little metal screw (like the sort used in carpentry). It will be produced, sit in a warehouse for a while, and THEN be sent off to be a part of a desk, or a chair, or a house; however, it existed before its "essence", what it would be in the world, was known. Likewise, Existentialism claims that man is born into existence before his essence is set; in other words, that man has free will. In the words of Sartre: "Man is condemned to be free." While it cannot be known if man is free, or if he is controlled in a deterministic universe, I imagine that man should cautiously assume his own freedom; if the world is deterministic, than thinking anything is good because it was your destiny, and if the man truly does have free will, he should embrace that. This may originally sound like a happy, optimistic doctrine; it is, after more contemplation, but there is a bit of a darker side.

After all, Existentialism, thus, pits responsibility for all the choices in your life on you. Not only that, but it states that by interacting in the world, you act as a "legislator for humanity". Sartre explains this very well, so I will leave it to him.

When we say that man chooses himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not one which is not creative, at the same time, of an image of man which as he believes he ought to be... If, moreover, existence precedes essence and we will to exist at the same time as we fashion our image, that image is valid for all and for the entire epoch in which we find ourselves. Our responsibility is thus much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. If I am a worker, for instance, I may choose to join a Christian rather than a Communist trade union. And if, by that membership, I choose to signify that resignation is, after all, the attitude that best becomes a man, that man’s kingdom is not upon this earth, I do not commit myself alone to that view. Resignation is my will for everyone, and my action is, in consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind. Or if, to take a more personal case, I decide to marry and to have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation, from my passion or my desire, I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.

Sartre also proposes three kind of angst that result from man's freedom: Anguish, Abandonment, and Despair. Anguish, he says, is the terrifying emotion man feels when he realizes that his choices are by his own will, are his responsibility, and realizes the implications of this (that is to say, that he is the one who, invevitably must choose the course of his life; if you roll a die to make a decision, you are still choosing to accept what comes out); Abandonment refers to the realization that there is no higher power (though this is where the schism occurs between the Atheistic existentialists and the Christain ones) to blame one's problems upon; and, finally, despair, which refers to how man learns to only desire things within his wills. I know, this is a very short explanation, but I don't think it needs much and I am getting bored of writing this.

Man also, and perhaps most importantly, has the responsibility to choose his moral system that he will follow, and secondly he has the responsibility to find meaning in life, as there is none pre-set objectively, but it must be found in the subjective (again, this is a point of schism, with Nietzsche going off on his track to claim that there simply isn't any meaning of life at all; I don't consider Nietzsche as a true existentialist). Many have criticized this by claiming that existentialism thus promotes anarchy. However, this is not true; the justice system should be based on pragmatism, according to existentialism, not morality, as morality is merely manufactured by man. In this regard, existentialism is optimistic; after a person learns to cope with the realization of their responsibility, they can embrace the fact that they are free, and can enjoy living an authentic, original existence by finding their own meaning for life by their own independent thought.

I know this is not a perfect explanation, and it is mostly just a summary of "Existentialism is a Humanism", which I recommend you read if you want to know more. As to its validity...well, that would depend on what you mean by "valid" . In my opinion, it is just as valid as any other ethical philosophy, perhaps more so than most others because Existentialism assumes rather few things.