Existentialism - pro/against

[RestlessSoul]

immoral?

Immortal;

“You're not Dostoevsky,' said the citizeness, who was getting muddled by Koroviev. Well, who knows, who knows,' he replied.
'Dostoevsky's dead,' said the citizeness, but somehow not very confidently.
'I protest!' Behemoth exclaimed hotly. 'Dostoevsky is immortal!”
― Mikhail Bulgakov, The Master and Margarita

 

[Whateverist]

Dostoevsky at least place a high value on authenticity, as do I. Yes I am an existentialist among many other things. I have a plain speech grasp of 'free will' = the absence of external restraint. The fact that one may be estranged from their truer self doesn't prevent them from seeking to learn it. As with so much in life and in the evolution of life itself, some trial and error is often needed. Authenticity is demanding but what could possibly be more worthwhile? Well assuming you are working on first world problems. If you have been enslaved or made deranged by horrible circumstances, it may be a bridge too far. Free will isn't always possible and neither is authenticity. But if it is, carpe yourself some and be not afraid of making mistakes. As Dostoevsky said in Crime and Punishment:

“What do you think?" shouted Razumihin, louder than ever, "you think I am attacking them for talking nonsense? Not a bit! I like them to talk nonsense. That's man's one privilege over all creation. Through error you come to the truth! I am a man because I err! You never reach any truth without making fourteen mistakes and very likely a hundred and fourteen. And a fine thing, too, in its way; but we can't even make mistakes on our own account! Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. In the first case you are a man, in the second you're no better than a bird. Truth won't escape you, but life can be cramped. There have been examples. And what are we doing now? In science, development, thought, invention, ideals, aims, liberalism, judgment, experience and everything, everything, everything, we are still in the preparatory class at school. We prefer to live on other people's ideas, it's what we are used to! Am I right, am I right?" cried Razumihin, pressing and shaking the two ladies' hands.”
― Fyodor Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment

There are many more quotes from his books that mark him as a true existentialist, and he doesn't seem to have led a first world sort of life like so many Russian writers.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

You do sometimes appear to be a carpenter, roaming the world with your hammer, seeking out nails.

 

[Echogem222]

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.

Consider the elements that constitute what we perceive as our individuality: memories, personality traits, our physical body, and the workings of our mind. While these aspects certainly contribute to our sense of self, it's worth asking whether they are truly the core essence of who we are or if they're more akin to 'personal belongings' we accumulate as we navigate life.

Memories, for instance, shape our understanding of our past experiences, yet they can be malleable and subject to distortion. Our personality traits might evolve over time or be influenced by external factors, suggesting that they might not be as intrinsic to our identity as we assume. Even our body, which is undeniably connected to our sense of self, undergoes constant change and renewal at a cellular level.

If we explore the notion that these elements are acquired rather than inherent, it raises significant questions about the nature of our individuality. How can we be sure that these attributes truly define us, especially when they can be shaped by external circumstances beyond our control?

This introspection has implications for the existentialist notions of freedom and the creation of meaning. If our 'true selves' are primarily passive recipients of these attributes, it challenges the idea that we possess genuine freedom to shape our existence. After all, how can we claim to be architects of our lives if our core identity is contingent on external factors?

Likewise, the concept of creating our own meaning becomes complex. If the components that we consider as 'ourselves' are products of circumstance, then does the responsibility for creating meaning truly lie within our control? It's as if we're asked to paint on a canvas that's already been pre-drawn.

This introspection doesn't necessarily negate the existentialist perspective, but it invites a more nuanced exploration of what it means to be an individual. It urges us to look beyond the surface attributes that we often associate with identity and consider the deeper, more elusive essence that might lie beneath the layers of acquired traits. It also challenges us to reevaluate the relationship between our 'true selves' and our capacity for autonomous choice in a world that sometimes feels more deterministic than we'd like to admit.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Consider the elements that constitute what we perceive as our individuality: memories, personality traits, our physical body, and the workings of our mind. While these aspects certainly contribute to our sense of self, it's worth asking whether they are truly the core essence of who we are or if they're more akin to 'personal belongings' we accumulate as we navigate life.

Memories, for instance, shape our understanding of our past experiences, yet they can be malleable and subject to distortion. Our personality traits might evolve over time or be influenced by external factors, suggesting that they might not be as intrinsic to our identity as we assume. Even our body, which is undeniably connected to our sense of self, undergoes constant change and renewal at a cellular level.

If we explore the notion that these elements are acquired rather than inherent, it raises significant questions about the nature of our individuality. How can we be sure that these attributes truly define us, especially when they can be shaped by external circumstances beyond our control?

This introspection has implications for the existentialist notions of freedom and the creation of meaning. If our 'true selves' are primarily passive recipients of these attributes, it challenges the idea that we possess genuine freedom to shape our existence. After all, how can we claim to be architects of our lives if our core identity is contingent on external factors?

Likewise, the concept of creating our own meaning becomes complex. If the components that we consider as 'ourselves' are products of circumstance, then does the responsibility for creating meaning truly lie within our control? It's as if we're asked to paint on a canvas that's already been pre-drawn.

This introspection doesn't necessarily negate the existentialist perspective, but it invites a more nuanced exploration of what it means to be an individual. It urges us to look beyond the surface attributes that we often associate with identity and consider the deeper, more elusive essence that might lie beneath the layers of acquired traits. It also challenges us to reevaluate the relationship between our 'true selves' and our capacity for autonomous choice in a world that sometimes feels more deterministic than we'd like to admit.

I appreciate your perspective.

To copy&paste something which I wrote in another thread:

From my existentialist perspective, my identity is like a canvas that emerges as an extension of my blank slate self. Much like an artist faced with a new canvas, one confronts the emptiness of their existence, devoid of much meaning. It is within this void that one like myself is compelled to paint the strokes of their choices, experiences, and relationships, and what-have-you..... each layer contributing to the intricate tapestry of something called "identity". The canvas becomes a testament to that which defines human existence. Individuals are both the artist and the subject, grappling with the dual nature of shaping their identity while being shaped by it.

 

[Echogem222]

I appreciate your perspective.

To copy&paste something which I wrote in another thread:

From my existentialist perspective, my identity is like a canvas that emerges as an extension of my blank slate self. Much like an artist faced with a new canvas, one confronts the emptiness of their existence, devoid of much meaning. It is within this void that one like myself is compelled to paint the strokes of their choices, experiences, and relationships, and what-have-you..... each layer contributing to the intricate tapestry of something called "identity". The canvas becomes a testament to that which defines human existence. Individuals are both the artist and the subject, grappling with the dual nature of shaping their identity while being shaped by it.

Based on what you said, we think the same way, but I get the feeling your perspective has more depth than that which differs from mine since I don't believe in Existentialism.

Identity is different from being an individual, in that identity comes about after you gain awareness of yourself, so identity is a "personal belonging" to me. I see my true self as just being an individual, yes, but my identity is the fact I'm connected to my body/mind, as well as other things.

Think of this world as like playing an RPG video game, when you're playing it, your identity is the character you're playing as, but when you stop playing the game, your identity is no longer the video game character.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Based on what you said, we think the same way, but I get the feeling your perspective has more depth than that which differs from mine since I don't believe in Existentialism.

That might be. I'm actually working on writing a short story which incorporates Existentialism or Existentialist views at the end. If I decide to post it later for RF to read, do you want me to @ you for it, or nah?

 

[Echogem222]

That might be. I'm actually working on writing a short story which incorporates Existentialism or Existentialist views at the end. If I decide to post it later for RF to read, do you want me to @ you for it, or nah?

Sure.

 

[1137]

I was an existentialist, then an essentialst, now I think the two are compatible. I don't think an essence is necessarily teleological.