• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Existentialism - pro/against

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Existentialism - Wikipedia

I'm curious about what you think of existentialism. Do you agree with its main ideas? I see it as great for individualism, but lacking when it comes to social cohesion and possibly empathy. I mean, like - how do you balance your own choices with the needs of others in it? It takes work.

I'm an existentialist anyway, though, and have found the ideas useful.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't believe in free will, nor have I encountered any definition of it that I have found coherent in the first place. While I'm not very familiar with existentialism, I suspect that this view may be incompatible with the philosophy.
 
Last edited:

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I don't believe in free will, nor have I encountered any definition of it that I have found coherent in the first place. While I'm not very familiar with existentialism, I suspect that this view may be incombatible with the philosophy.

The beliefs surrounding existentialism get a little complex at times (for example, the idea that life is without meaning, but that you create meaning through your consciousness and choices), but I'd say that existentialists believe in free will, but not necessarily always in an absolute sense. So, you're probably right that your view may be incompatible with the philosophy.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
The beliefs surrounding existentialism get a little complex at times (for example, the idea that life is without meaning, but that you create meaning through your consciousness and choices), but I'd say that existentialists believe in free will, but not necessarily in an absolute sense. So, you're probably right that your view may be incompatible with the philosophy.

I could see room for "free" choice only in highly limited contexts, such as a choice of which movie to watch on the couch or whether to have tea or coffee in the morning. Even then, I currently see no evidence to conclude that such choices are free.

For more significant matters such as our beliefs about the world, who we love, and which careers we pursue, I think free will is both nonexistent and lacking a coherent definition.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I could see room for "free" choice only in highly limited contexts, such as a choice of which movie to watch on the couch or whether to have tea or coffee in the morning. Even then, I currently see no evidence to conclude that such choices are free.

For more significant matters such as our beliefs about the world, who we love, and which careers we pursue, I think free will is both nonexistent and lacking a coherent definition.

In my own model of existentialism in my mind (some philosophers would have disagreed with me on some points), what I see is kind of a very role-play like world where people paint their identity while being shaped by it and by their own choices (ie, also being the canvases), and I see there as being no objective truth and multiple subjective truths. That's about the closest I get to free will. Existentialism doesn't really seem to have a lot of beliefs on how to treat others outside of the "I" though, so I've also had to develop better ways to respect personal autonomy (ie, respect the other "canvases"). One way I'm trying to do that is rather than just try to respect boundaries, to take it further into personal autonomy. Which is something I felt I actually needed to do. It also may be evident that I'm kind of new to accepting existentialism still, so I'm working through it all in my mind and trying to put it to practice. But honestly, it beats the slight sense of nihilism I was feeling for awhile (even if I didn't go full-on nihilist).
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Existentialism - Wikipedia

I'm curious about what you think of existentialism. Do you agree with its main ideas? I see it as great for individualism, but lacking when it comes to social cohesion and possibly empathy. I mean, like - how do you balance your own choices with the needs of others in it? It takes work.

I'm an existentialist anyway, though, and have found the ideas useful.
I'm a Humanist, but I lean strongly towards many of the ideas of Existentialism. And as Jean Paul Sartre said (to his regret, I must add) "Existentialism is a Humanism." Nothing in Existentialism, so far as I have found, mitigates against social cohesion or empathy. The third principle, "authenticity," is a guide to how to be a real human being with all the freedom espoused in the second principle.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Nothing in Existentialism, so far as I have found, mitigates against social cohesion or empathy.

Since we're in a debate forum, I'd contest that, and say that existentialism promotes individualism, but as for social cohesion and empathy, is nothing on the scale of an ethical philosophy like utilitarianism, and that more so, the emphasis on individualism can cause people a nearsightedness.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Since we're in a debate forum, I'd contest that, and say that existentialism promotes individualism, but as for social cohesion and empathy, is nothing on the scale of an ethical philosophy like utilitarianism, and that more so, the emphasis on individualism can cause people a nearsightedness.
My principle issue with utilitarianism is the notion that it appears, philosophically, to accept the notion of sacrifice -- and sometimes involuntary sacrifice.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Existentialism - Wikipedia

I'm curious about what you think of existentialism. Do you agree with its main ideas? I see it as great for individualism, but lacking when it comes to social cohesion and possibly empathy. I mean, like - how do you balance your own choices with the needs of others in it? It takes work.

I'm an existentialist anyway, though, and have found the ideas useful.
I tried to read Sartre when I was younger and it made zero sense to me. I genuinely stuggled to parse the sentences.

I read some Camus and it wasn't much easier but I did get something from the discussion of the absurd and whether life is worth living.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I tried to read Sartre when I was younger and it made zero sense to me. I genuinely stuggled to parse the sentences.

I read some Camus and it wasn't much easier but I did get something from the discussion of the absurd and whether life is worth living.

I'd say there are actually some similarities between existentialism and the absurdism that people are sometimes connecting Camus with, but that existentialism is the harder to learn of the two.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Existentialism - Wikipedia

I'm curious about what you think of existentialism. Do you agree with its main ideas? I see it as great for individualism, but lacking when it comes to social cohesion and possibly empathy. I mean, like - how do you balance your own choices with the needs of others in it? It takes work.

I'm an existentialist anyway, though, and have found the ideas useful.
From Wikipedia; Existentialist philosophy encompasses a range of perspectives, but it shares certain underlying concepts. Among these, a central tenet of existentialism is that personal freedom, individual responsibility, and deliberate choice are essential to the pursuit of self-discovery and the determination of life's meaning.

The US Constitution was written based on the ideals of personal freedom, individual responsibility, and deliberate choice; pursuit of happiness. In the beginning of the USA, only landowners could vote; mini House of Lords. Owning land is work and requires a deliberate choice to put in the effort and learn along the way.

In many ways, this makes each person, like a scientist gathering the data of life. A good scientist learns from others; tradition, but they also need to avoid total group think; expert in their own right, so their conclusions are not funneled for them, into collective expectations.

Forcing children to memorize pronouns is an existential threat since it limits individual freedom in favor of group think via peer pressure, thereby clouding the meaning of their own unique life. The welfare state is also an existential threat since it does not encourage self reliance, but quid pro quo. Such people are often not happy just getting by. What kind of life meaning can you get from being so limited and dependent?

The idea of a consensus of science, is an existential threat, since consensus is like polling people whether Pepsi or Coke is better. Consensus is connected to black box thinking. and not individuals pursuing and making deliberate choices in terms of their own nuance. How can one be self reliant if you are force to carry water or be lashed with the denier whip. That is not how science is supposed to work. This is an existential threat to science.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Forcing children to memorize pronouns is an existential threat since it limits individual freedom in favor of group think via peer pressure, thereby clouding the meaning of their own unique life.

I'm actually starting to see there as being too much focus on gender, even if I might not agree about some of the rest of the statement. At this point, I wish there was one word used for all genders, and people are just treated like people.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Dostoevsky is immortal, Sartre was a bore, Camus wrote one good novel (which inspired a great song by The Doors). Together with Nietzsche, they provide convincing evidence that overthinking is often harmful, and seldom productive.
 

Secret Chief

Very strong language
I'm not exactly well read on Western philosophy, but I do recall reading that Heidegger seems to have had read quite a bit of Eastern philosophy, particularly Zen (his "dasein" seems very similar to Dogen's idea of "uji"). My brief reading of the concerns of existentialism (authenticity, meaning, existence, purpose...) are the concerns of Buddhism, so I guess that puts me in the pro camp.
 
Top