Talk:Existentialism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Existentialism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Dumb down

do not dumb down, we have enough stupid information out there.

by "dumb down" i dont mean make it dumb per se, just a little less 1st century BC philosopher style —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.159.176 (talk • contribs) .

I don't think dumb is the target here, but perhaps it could use a revision. This article also seems to be lacking an indepth description of the 'absurd'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.4.237.170 (talk • contribs) .

Um hey im studyin for a high school english test and you could try to dumb down oyur opening summary of existentialsm...it cna be said a lot simpler like "the belief that what is right for you may not exactly be right for me." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.159.176 (talk • contribs) .

That's not existentialism, that's relativism, and goes back to Protagoras in the 5th century BC. Existentialism is a 20th century AD phenomenon. Jeremy J. Shapiro 23:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor change...I took out Garden State as an existentialist film (by that logic, any film about a detatched teen angst male character could be an "existentialist film") and that stupid bit about a band called Straylight Run naming an album "Existentialism on Prom Night...," because who cares? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.170.194.107 (talk • contribs) .

Shouldnt Donnie Darko be considered an existential film?

I care. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Butterhead (talk • contribs) .

The section on criticisms of existentialism is far from encyclopedic in tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.120.212 (talk • contribs) .

In fact it is a load of spam and should be seriously rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.167.45.222 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, it should be dumbed down. I barely understand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.199.246.84 (talk • contribs) .

Christian existentialism

I think the current version has a big problem in that it does not recognize christian-existentialist like Jaspers and Marcel. It seems too Sartre-centric too me. (Tomos, Dec15)

However, isn't "Existentialism & Humanism" considered one of the defining works of existentialism? (hif, dec 24)

SARTRE WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO FREELY ACCEPTED THE MONIKER OF 'EXISTENTIALIST', WHO CALLED HIMSELF AN EXISTENTIALIST, WHO DEFINED IN RETROSPECT THE SCHOOL AS WE KNOW IT, MORE OR LESS STANDARDIZING THE TERM IN THE SENSE IN WHICH IT IS UNDERSTOOD. AND SO AN ARTICLE ON EXISTENTIALISM PROBABLY SHOULD BE SARTRE-CENTRIC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.46.248.71 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-08 00:20:37 (UTC)

Thanks for the caps. Sartre was not the only person who "freely accepted the moniker of 'existentialist'", though he is by far the most influential, as you rightly point out. "Christian Existentialism" was also a strong movement featuring many other self-declared "Existentialists", most notable among these being Marcel and Tillich. It certainly does deserve a mention, even though the Sartrian expression of Existentialism has dominated current thought. Ig0774 02:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Existentialism is absurd. It makes me nauseous (and gives me gas too).

Apologies if it makes you too aware of the choices you face in life. And no, you're a coward (by not signing your name) by your own design, not nature's. -UK-Logician-2006

Existentialism/Old

Prior contents moved to Talk Old.

I changed the main page, because I think it will be a valuable exercise to re-write this article with more emphasis on defining existentialism, cataloging it's proponents, and explaining what they have in common. The information on the Old version of this page could be useful on various pages about Sartre, but it doesn't apply to all of the existentialists, and some of it covered peripheral issues, which are interesting and perhaps important, but should not receive the prominent billing they did on the prior version of this page.

I want to be clear: I don't mean to say that the old page isn't good or valuable, I just think we can do better.MRC

I agree... --LMS

I'm doing some disambiguation and changed "German" to link to Germany. Then I thought on it a bit. Is this completely accurate in this context? "...the German philosophers Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger..." They all seem to be schooled in Germany, but were they all actually German? Husserl in particular appears to have been Czech. I don't know. I'm not a philosophy major, and I realize I may be splitting hairs. That's why I'm asking. —LarryGilbert 22:43, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

This is the old page, previously at /Old:

Existentialism is a philosophical movement primarily interested in examination of the human being from an emotional standpoint. In the aftermath of the first world war, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and others were distressed by the progressive dehumanization that they saw as a direct result of the rational and scientific thought which impelled the Industrial Revolution.

I think that under the proposed "History of Existentialism" subheading Augustine should be given more attention as an early version of existentialism.

Even in Augustine “Existential” elements are obvious, especially in the non-dialectical method of the Confessions. He looks on the stuff on his own life as food for probing reflection, and finds it not untypical of what the mass of mankind has known. So, he prods our minds to ponder a series of his own life experiences. Augustine appeals to an experience of our mind, body, and will as being both distinct and one inseparable life. He does so without imposing a priori rational demands on even our own living being. His insights and contributions far exceed acknowledgements such as those that are only minimally noted in Kaufmann’s commentary: “If we look for anything remotely similar in the long past of European literature on existentialism, we do not find it in philosophy but…in such Christian writers as Augustine.”

While I would argue that Augustine has some of the characteristics of existentialism, he is clearly not existential in the Nitzschean or Sartean understanding.

The thinking of the Existential thinker is based on his immediate personal and inner experience. It is rooted in an interpretation of Being or Reality which does not identify Reality with “objective being”. Here, we see the effects of secularization, which, at the same time that it abolishes the sacred vision of the world, must also find a new way to channel expectations of a better life. In this mode of interrogation, one purpose of dialogue is to enable the subject to become an active producer of meaning rather than object of the project meanings. The world ceases to be a predetermined system that we must submit to and becomes the object of human will.

Yet it is not actually the position that Augustine propounds; indeed this position is quite radically opposed to this vision. The mind does not construct mental representations and then attempt to paste them into reality.

Just my two cents worth. -TRF

Introduction

Existentialism does away with Rene Descartes' famous argument, summarized as I think, therefore I am. On the face of it, an existentialist would argue, Descartes' argument is erroneous: thoughts are distinct from us. We may have thoughts, but others may also have them, or they may exist independently of us. Thought is not a good argument for existence. You exist because of what you feel; it is your emotions that are undeniably you.

The existential philosophers make all of their arguments as emotional rather than logical imperatives. Existentialists are more concerned with the nature of happiness than with things.

Existentialism recognizes the conscience as a transcendent to reality, and in order for it to be that, it must be reasoning, or else it cannot disearn nature/reality which operates by causality. In existentialism one can use logic, but just can't be governed by it, or else the conscience is not a transcendent but is confined to causality like nature —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raskolnikov The Penguin (talk • contribs) .

Some of the better known existential arguments include:

Hell is other people
Pain is conciousness

Pain is conciousness

Existentialism divides the world into two categories. One category are called en-soi, things that can be analyzed rationally, like a rock. The second category are pour-soi, things that emote; beings. A thing cannot feel unhappy about being a thing, it has no emotions; a rock is perfectly satisfied being a rock. A being must always therefore compare itself with the thing, and be envious of its ability to just be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Stevens (talk • contribs) .

First of all, this distinction isn't one made by existentialism in general, it's specifically a Sartrean one. Second, "en-soi" doesn't have to do with being able to be analyzed rationally but with the lack of consciousness and intentionality, both of which can be analyzed rationally. Third, "pour-soi" isn't about emotions, it's about self-consciousness. These terms go back to Kant and Hegel. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hell is other people

In order to fill that void, the emptiness of knowing that as beings we must do more than just exist, we fill our minds with other things.

One path is that of avarice, a being can collect things around himself to distract him from the pain of his conciousness. Things don't fit well into the gap though, as they continually remind us of the difference between being, and thing; a being who follows avarice must continually renew the set of things that distract him from the pain.

The second path is that of love, a being may find another pour-soi to distract her from her conciousness. The match between pour-soi and pour-soi is better; the being doesn't continually notice that the thing that she is concious of is not herself by its nature. But pour-soi resist being used in this way -- the person she loves is not willing to invest himself solely in filling her conciousness, he must assert himself, and his own emotions.

This paradox, that the only thing that can save you from the pain of conciousness is another being, but that being will rebel at being used solely in that way, is what the existentialists mean when they say 'Hell is other people.'

Expansion

The above is of course an over simplification. The key to Sartre's theory is that the "existential I" is not a "transcendental I". The problem with the Cogito is not that it assumes or infers existence from thought, but that that it goes farther than it should by affirming the existence of an I, which is a "thinking thing." To put it in more clear english: A thought I experience proves its own existence, but it does not prove my existence as the "one who has the thought". Though earlier philosophers postulated a "transcendental ego" as thing which thinks, Sartre argues that the transcendental ego is not necessary since thought needs no "pole" to hang on, since as Husserl says, consciousness is always consciousness -- of something else -- and that something else can explain thought's existence without postulating an unperceived transcendental ego. However, it is right to point out that attraction and repulsion are understood by Sartre as objects of consciousness, and therefore are one poles on which consciousness hangs.

Now, on to the use of "emotional" -- certainly the existentialists were concerned that philosophy not lose touch with the basic passions of human existence. Human beings do not just think about the world around them, they become passionately involved in all kinds of relationships. Emotional is not the right word to use, passion is. But even then passion is not opposed to reason (usually) it is simply admitted that Blasé Pascal was correct to say "the heart has reasons know not of." And though this takes Pascal's statement out of context it is very illustrative of the existential position that the world cannot be understood by reason alone. Passionate involvement is necessary if you wish to "really" understand the world around you.

Inclusion of people as existentialists

I added Peter Wessel Zapffe (1899-1990) to existentialistic philosophers. Allthough nihilistic from my point of view, I read this description of him on the cover of a book summing up his life. Sigg3.net 14:48 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am very surprised by the mention of Henri Bergson and Emmanuel Lévinas as existentialists. Blaise Pascal has indeed been mentioned as a precursor, although this is too me far from obvious. I cannot say anything about Berdyaev, Stirner and Zapffe. Marc Girod 16:58, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just a question: Are there clear criterias for being an existentialist which could rule out (or in) people? I mean, what is the definition of existentialist? A person with existentialistic views? It's a circledefinition. - Sigg3.net 21:26, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think so. Existentialism is a sort of dialectical synthesis on top of (thesis) the idealism of Plato, and (antithesis) the realism of Aristotle. There exists something, but it is meaningless, as all meaning comes from discrimination and is free --can be placed anywhere, is subjective, or negociated (inter-subjective), and thus engages our responsibility. I think this excludes Lévinas and probably Bergson (I am less sure) as idealists. Pascal sees the necessity of freedom --since he doesn't publish his wager; that's why he is a precursor. Marc Girod 14:53, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, today's existentialism is based on the words of Jean-Paul Sartre and Søren Kierkegaard. At least on ethics, allthough they are quite different on this matter - Kierkegaard with emphasis on the Religious Level while Sartre clearly states that God is not. But you're right on the radical freedom. Angst is a definite keyword in this -ism. Sigg3.net 22:35, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What Sartre and Kierkegaard have in common is the freedom and the responsibility of choice (leap of faith for Kierkegaard). I still wait for a justification of the mention of Bergson as existentalist. I think Bergson is not easily classified (and I read this also from von Wright). Marc Girod 15:18, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please tell me, why is Boris Vian listed? I know that he was linked to severel existentialists in Paris, but that doesn't mean, that he is an existentialist. Everyone who adds an existentialist writer/director should make a contribution here (if it's not declared obviously in the writer's own article). I'll remove Vian tomorrow if nobody replies. Remember, no original research. --anonymous 21:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Defining people by actions

Does this sentence mean anything: A person can only defined by his actions? I changed it to ..be defined. - Sigg3.net 17:59, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is supposedly an Apache quote, (or saying), (that may be revealing). I have no reference for it, TV, or a movie from 1970's ( ? ). quote: "I am what I do", or..."You are what you do". (i.e. If you are on Wikipedia, doing this stuff, here... it is part of, "I am what I do." )--MichaelMcAnnisYuma,AZ.Mmcannis 05:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Note, I call myself an "existentialist", but none of this page definition stuff applies: I do Deductive reasoning, except when my brain is clouded, misled, or focussed and thus blocked. I think some set theory would best define, ...how to explain things. I am thinking of some articles to create (relating to this((and what humans are up to)) ), (either well formed, or just a small bud, to grow bigger.)...If, or when I make them, I will reference them from here, also.--M-McAnnisMmcannis 05:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a clear need for a major revision

I really dont want to insult anyone and I appreciate the work that has gone into this entry. But after reading I think that a major revision or full rewrite may be necessary for this topic. There isn't nearly enough analysis of the actual ideas of the major existentialist thinkers; I think the entry could easily be much longer, considering the length of other articles about major philosophical movements. There needs to be separate sections regarding German and French existentialism in the 20th century; a separate section for the literary existentialist tradition (with emphasis in both articles about the intertwined literary and philosophical movements); and just lots of basic information, such as existential incompleteness (why existentialism isn't a philosophy in the same sense as a Kantian or Aristotilean philosophy.)

Seeing as this is being revised, I explained what throwness is, unless anyone disagress.

'(Throwness) is part of the meaning of the assertion of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the founders of existentialism, "existence is prior to essence". Existentialism conceives of Being itself as something that can only be understood through and in relation to these basic characteristics of human existence.' I'm not sure if throwness is the most important meaning of "existence is prior to essence" - more that we do not have existence, we are existence. But I don't want tochange anything else at the moment.

I'd be willing to try and put together the article myself-- I'm currently pursuing my PhD, and a large part of my interest is existentialism in connection with anti-black racism-- but I'm a little overwhelmed... I don't quite feel qualified, I guess. It's one thing to change grammar or correct a few facts but I feel a little presumptuos doing a major revision. I'll talk to my advisor and several other professors about contributions. Freddie deBoer 04:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end. As for a revision or rewrite, by all means, go for it. The idea has been thrown around for quite a while now, and no one seems to be motivated enough to do it. If you've got the time and energy and interest, you can claim the task! -Seth Mahoney 03:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi sorry for not posting my name before, I'm new to all this. Just added my username. I'll make some edits this weekend. Thanks for the advice! Freddie deBoer 04:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I call myself an existentialist, and live as such, I didn't read the entire article. However the historical aspect of this is important, and the people of the "Works" mentioned probably are a way at getting at what 'Existentialism'–is. Certainly there have always been such types, long before our City-civilizatins got established, and "literature" produced the concept. Maybe an article [Existentialism (History)] gets to the topic. I offer no other suggestions but about movies:

Since movies evoke images (as well as a Book(on topic, or accidentally Existential)), the Black–and–white movie The Last Picture Show(1971/Bogdanovich), I consider existential, but maybe it is just me. I'd have to see it a couple more times. (When the sun is gone, all the colors leave; that's why the movie means something existential, besides the theme) (whatever it may be or is intended)// As for the God part [of Existentialism]-I'm not sure the majority of existentialists bother to address a god–definition (I don't)(I have been a translator of The flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Koolest ideas of all are the "Council–of–the–Gods", which have various names, or wiki names. As an aside, since I have read some of the better translations(Maureen Kovacs) of the entire Epic of Gilgamesh, besides working on some of the actual parts, I would suggest that major Epic is a far better example of Existentialism. Its entire story, a snake eating the Plant of Life in two sentences, it is all Existential(The plant gets eaten at the end of his adventuring.)(And to Freddie deBoer, Wikipedia has altered peoples abilities for existentialism(to Create), to me the Existentialism (history) isn't totally important, but to an Article, it is of utmost importance.)--MMcAnnisMmcannis 06:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I need to call myself Existing-Human (being).

Here's the breakdown on the 1st paragraph of this article:

1–Consciousness of existing

2–Freedom, I am almost certain what is supposed to be referred to is: Humans have Free will, freedom of choice, and thus Daily decisions (that either have to be made, or chosen to be delayed, again)

3–Anxiety +Dread

4–Awareness of death (I am not sure the average existentialist worries about this, or about the "god" question.}

- As an " existentialist " or "[Existing-Human (being)] ", anxiety, dread, awareness of death are not the focus of today's life choices (Sunday Morning, Feb 19)
  ( I)–Outlook on life, or Perspective on life: the mesning of life and the meaning of existence, do not have to be the reasons for this Existential outlook or perspective on life.

For me (I just read about half the article), a rethought. Most of these guys did not get to read the Epic of Gilgamesh. I am assured that if they had, the religiously-ruled world they lived in would have made more sense, (but would have saddened them.)... The Epic of Gilgamesh as I discussed days earlier, is the same addressing of Existentialism. All these authors never had the opportunity, to read, or to retranslate it. (At least these authors Great Works were left in posterity, as was the Epic, and was their way of dealing with daily life. Just imagine sitting down in two days and reading about 20-30 clay tablets(2- or 3-column), sipping tea, and eating bread (and peanut butter)–and just existing.--.....MMcAnnis,YumaArizonaMmcannis 18:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm just a visitor here, but I agree that this page needs a total re-write.

Existentialism is impossible to define rigorously, since most of the philosophers who are considered "existentialist" actively rejected the label, and many of them disagreed on very basic issues. Because of this, I would recommend a historical approach - start with Nietsche, Dostoevsky, and Kierkegaard (i.e. "pre-existentialism"); move on to Kafka, Camus, Heidegger, and Sartre; and finish with an overview of exsitentialism after Satre.

I also think that the author has inserted many things into the article that have only a tangental relationship (if any) to existentialism. The section on authors needs to be trimmed considerably (Georges Bataille, Philip K. Dick, Neil Gaiman, Chuck Palahniuk, and the Marquis de Sade should all be removed - and those are just the ones I'm familiar with). The inclusion of postmodernism should be either downplayed, or removed entirely (the article seems to suggest that postmodernism grew directly out of existentialism, which is not true). The same goes for the Beat Poets - they may have been influenced by existentialism (and other things), but they were hardly existentialists themselves.

The entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is much better, and would probably provide a good model for an entry here.

Anyway, this is just my two cents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.179 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-26 15:46:29 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the existentialism page is in need of massive revision, but, then again, when it comes to philosophy, such a great degree of bias and unsubstantiated claims that it seems moot to even attempt to have anything but purely basic philosophy pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.173.78.42 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-04 20:49:55 (UTC)

Mention more Nietzsche?

This was a great article, and the last thing I would want to do is critisize it. I thought it was very well structured and well delivered. I think that a little more could be mentioned about Nietzsche, considering he was quite an influential figure of Existentialism. How about it? ~apokryphos

Go ahead! Be bold!- Sigg3.net 15:18, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand at all why Nietzsche gets called an existentialist. The biggest thing about Sartre's ideas seems to be freedom, yet Nietzsche was against free will. He didn't believe in a moral world order, but then neither did Spinoza or Hume and no-one calls them existentialists. ~Ed

Explain to me what the supreme goal of existentialism is. It often speaks about self definition. Creating oneself without using other individual ideals. Nietzsche, with his disdain for the herd, for famous philosophers (he wrote about that in Thus spoke Zarathustra), and his advocacy of the Superman. The Superman is the ultimate individual. An artistic, philosophical and poetic being that, in itself, will cause a rebirth in individuality. In his book, Thus spoke Zarathustra, he writes that individuals have no meaning, that the goal to life does not exist (probably a critque of teleology) and that individuals create their own values. So much of that resembles existentialism. The later existentialists, such as Karl Jaspers, realized that Nietzsche was very much existential.

For what it's worth, Camus was considered an existential writer, and he calls free will into question a few times. Nietzche was probably considered existential because of his call for people to live without morals as previously defined, which some have probably interpreted as promoting free will. Just my two cents. CriminalSaint 06:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nietzsche is classified as existentialist, or at least pre-existentialist, I think, because of his preoccupation with ascribing meaning to life in the absence of a religious justification. His sympathy with Schopenhauer but determination to turn Schopenhauer's "saying 'no' to life" into a "saying 'yes' to life" without appealing to religion is very existentialist in flavor. His explicit demand that we find some middle path between religion and nihilism is very much existential angst. --Delirium 20:31, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Nietzsche is undeniably an existentialist, as the death of God is essentially the bedrock of existentialism itself. He also does not reject free will, his entire philosophy is based around the idea of overcoming, of becoming more than human - a central tenet of this is in overcoming your bonds and asserting your ideals. Any rejection of free will in his writing is a chalenge to deny the statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.228.102 (talk • contribs) .

It should be: Before and after NIETZSCHE. The title of his greatest writing was "Also Sprach Zarathustra: A BOOK FOR ALL AND NONE". Also, you would really have to be pretty dense to believe Nietzsche was 'against' free will. He was probably 'against' self-destruction, but certainly not free will. What is Nietzsche's 'Will to Power'? Po-mo existentialism exists ONLY because of Nietzsche's writing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.132.225.47 (talk • contribs) .

Don't speak to me like that! Read the begining of "Twilight of the Idols" and you will see quite clearly that he is against free will. To say that this is just a challenge to deny the statement is somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps, his statement that "God is dead" can be interpreted in the same light and he was secretly a strong Christian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.37.150 (talk • contribs) .

Twilight of the Idols speaks of free will in a very specific context. The title of the book you reference is: "Twilight of the Idols". Read the whole book and when you're done read some of his other books. "Free will" in this book is referring to how it is defined by religion. "Free will" is not free will; it is essentially religious morality, like Protestant work ethics. THAT'S WHY IT'S IN QUOTES! P.S. I wrote the 2nd paragraph you are responding to... someone else wrote the first one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.177.4.172 (talk • contribs) .

I don't think that's true at all. "Wherever responsibilities are sought, it is usually the instinct of wanting to judge and punish which is at work." Religion is used as an example, but the arguments all seem to be part of clensing mankind of guilt and punishment; in "Ecco Homo", he said that his anti-Christian rhetoric was really all just part of ridding mankind of revenge, guilt, etc. "Free will" does have different definitions, but the way that Sartre defines it clearly involves responsibility, guilt, etc. and Nietzsche would not approve of this. Which other works are you thinking of? I know that Nietzsche talked about embracing guilty in "The Birth of Tragedy", but that work was something of a one-off. User:epa101

I think Nietzsche is against free will, in the sense that he believes that human beings are only free as far as their values and beliefs enable them to be free. And, as you know about values and beliefs in Nietzsche, these are products both of the culture of a people and their physical makeup (because Nietzsche has a kind of holistic view of human beings and society). Christians are not free to have the "master morality" because Christianity as a cultural element, makes them pathetic and slavish. However, if you do understand Nietzsche, then you'll know that how people are constituted biologically, also affects what kinds of values, beliefs and other cultural elements they pick for themselves. It's basically like this, sick people do not have the power to make healthy choices. They're free to choose anything within that state, but from the eyes of a higher, healthier human being, all those choices he makes are degenerate, toxic. Moonwalkerwiz 06:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dashiell Hammett

Can anybody justify the inclusion of Dashiell Hammett in the list of "Major thinkers and authors associated with existentialism"? I certainly can't. I'll give it a few days and then delete the link, if no one objects. R Lowry 19:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Line about fascism in the criticisms of existentialism

I moved this line to the talk page, until someone comes up with a list of who these critics are:

Existentialism's critics have suggested that these ideas helped foster the growth of fascism.

Considering the amount of time Simone de Beauvoir and Sartre, as well, write against fascism, overt or otherwise, and for ever-increasing human freedom, my immediate thought is that this line is nonsense. However, if the contributor who added this line would mention who these critics are, and maybe their arguments, I'd be more than happy to see it returned to the article page. -Seth Mahoney 17:29, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Sartre was pretty late in the game, part of being anti-fascist is that you have to have been around after fascism started.

Line about Nietzsche in the criticisms of existentialism

Moved the following section here pending clarification:

This in turn led writers like Friedrich Nietzsche and Leo Strauss to suggest that concepts of "right and wrong" or "good and evil" were entirely arbitrary and subjective; that only through the assertion of the individual will, can a human being express his individual essence.

The sentence as it is now written seems to suggest that existentialism led Nietzsche to suggest that concepts of good and evil were entirely arbitrary, which is absurd considering that Nietzsche died before the existentialist movement began. I'm not familiar with Leo Strauss' work, but I figured the sentence at least needs to be rephrased before it can be moved back, so I took the whole thing. -Seth Mahoney 20:59, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not extremely familiar with Strauss, but he's definately not Existentialist.

There is a relation, but I think it's getting things mixed up in terms of cause and effect. In essence, Nietzsche starts by rejecting the commonly held absolute justifications for absolute truths, which are either religion (which he pretty strongly attacks as not only wrong but harmful) or some sort of Platonic idealistic metaphysics (which he dismisses as useless). This rejection leads both to rejecting absolute morality (since it's based on absolute truth), and to his existential angst, since without absolute truth things begin to look dangerously nihilistic. So the two are related through a common cause (the twin rejection of religion and Platonism), not through his existentialist views causing his amoralistic views. --Delirium 20:39, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Camus

By no means do I know all of his work, but the impression I got from what I have read is that Camus does more than Satre in relating what it actually means to every day life to hold an existentialist worldview. The main point of The Outsider, I think, was that we never feel so alive as when we are close to death (non-existence) and therefore we need to continually remind ourselves that death is inevitable and could occur at any point. If you can manage this then your taste for life will be enhanced and you will have the fullest experiences.

I think you could point out some of the positive aspects of existentialism that can follow after the initial dispair and fear of facing the world alone. True freedom may be a terrible thing but it has advantages.

(I haven't got an account yet, but will soon) - Adam

Existentialism and Human Emotions

To the regular contibutors: I only wanted to alert you to this and politely ask you that someone knowledged should either merge this with this article, Jean-Paul Sartre or simply turn into a redirect if you feel that's more appropriate. All the best, Lady Tenar 23:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bold, emphasized paragraphs?

What's the deal with the big bold paragraphs? I find it distracting. Otherwise, nice article :).

Modernism template

I've added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear ?, Please stop spamming this article!

I've removed the following section because it is laced with spam inserted by ?. I'm not sure what, if any of it, is real. This is the second time I've removed his spam (articles about him and his book have been recently vfd'd and speedied). --LeeHunter 13:11, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The annual meeting of The Commitee for Existentialism in 2004, which brings together some of the top philosophers, thinkers and writers from around the world to discuss the current state of Existentialism, declared that in 2004 Existentialism had evolved into what the philosopher Michael Szymczyk called "Neo-Existentialism". The commitee published a paper of its annual conference that stated that Post-Modernism in no way hindered or conflicted with the ideas of Existentialism. In fact, they said, books such as Fight Club and Toilet: The Novel, which combined a dreary and confused sense of time and identity along with a consciousness of individuality and death, served to promote Existentialism, in that, it taught people to question, think and above all, live extraordinarily. But, they said, the avant garde in Existentialism should never replace such impeccable gems like "Crime and Punishment" or the film Dead Poets Society, that never stray far from the existential dictum "Carpe Diem". After all, as the committee's paper said in conclusion, "...if one thinks too much, one may find that when all is said and done, one has lived too little."

Kurt Vonnegut

Was Kurt Vonnegut really an existentialist? I would argue that he was not; I'll leave this for someone else to back me up on without making a deletion, just in case I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that if anything, Vonnegut was a post-modernist/post-structuralist. Considering the nature of free will as core necessity in existentialism, and Vonnegut's toying with the ideas of solipsism and CONSTANT free-will-as-illusion (see: Breakfast of Champions, for example). CriminalSaint 07:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree that Vonnegut was not an existentialist. It would take some serious argumentation to get me to accept that. I'd also agree that his novels not only don't deal with existential themes, they're decidedly anti-existentialist. Maybe we're missing something? -Seth Mahoney 07:46, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take Vonnegut off the novelists list for now, but I'm not above being proven wrong; it's just that of all the Vonneguts I've read, none have done anything that I've been able to identify as existential. CriminalSaint 22:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with him not being existentialist, but I wouldn't go so far as to call him post-anythingist. Toying with solipsism and free-will-as-illusion predates postmodernism and poststructuralism by centuries. --Delirium 11:17, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree.

(Sidenote before arguementation: I discovered this discussion after adding Vonnegut to the list, again - apparently.)

Vonnegut is clearly a existentialist writer, he just has his own perhaps bizarre style and way of writing the novel, so it can easily be missed. For one, I cannot recall that any "atheist existentialist" has used humour and satire in the sense he has in his novels, thus that unique "thing" for him might cause people to overlook his existentialist ideas. Another problem why Vonnegut might be considered not a clear existentialist writer is the fact that his books at first glance (or at superficial reading) certainly to not emphasise their existentialist essence. The salient, noticable part of Vonnegut's text definitely does not look existentialist, I agree on that, *however*!, when looking at the underlined tones and the general meanings/ideas (or such - I'm lacking a good word right now...) what he "sets" in his characters and storylines, the existentialism becomes a whole lot more visible as basic existentialist thoughts appear to pressurise many of his characters.

Before I get to specific examples I'll also note how important absurdity (Camus!), predetermination and humour (which comes out of desperation) are for his works. Notice that the first and the last are very heavily related in Vonnegut's works and the second seems to have a lot to do with causing the first. For Vonnegut, it seems to me, humour (or simply satire) seems to be among the few "weapons" we got against the hopelessness and absurdity (if not existentialist, then what are these?!) of this life and world. His absurd-humour can even go as far as ridiculating his own widely-spoken-about atheism. In one of his non-fiction texts (sorry, I don't recall from top of my head which, right now...) he wrote something like this (I remember it so clearly because it staggered me for the level of absurdity Vonnegut is capable of in his humour): "I certainly don't think there is a God. Even God knows that".

Now, in my opinion the definitely best example is the Harold Ryan character in his play Happy Birthday, Wanda June. I'm not sure if we should go as far as claiming the character a "somewhat ridiculating criticism of Nietzsche's "ümbermench"", however it's definitely a valid case of the Camus' "absurd man" which he so emphasises in his works. Wikipedia's article on Camus has the line: "Camus develops the idea of the "absurd man", the man who is perpetually conscious of the ultimate futility of life." in it. That's the very idea Vonnegut's Harold Ryan is after too. Just notice the ending of the play when Ryan reaches the point where he hesitates whether his ideas and understandings of the world really have much of value. As usual for Vonnegut, he even takes that a step further and has the character view his own development from aside. That makes the character even more tragic, he's not just "sensing his absurdity", his "sensing his sense of absurdity"! Also, notice the helpless ending Vonnegut offers to the play! Harold Ryan wants to commit suicide, but can't! Why - because he misses the shot at oneself! That's existentialism in Vonnegut. Even the very absurdity that a professional soldier and hunter is after "the shift to absurdity" so hopelessly prssurised by himself that he is capable of missing a shot at himself with a gun shows the true existentialist tragic of the story.

I guess I could go on for long with many examples, but to not overwhelm you all (or - if any readers at all...) with my arguementation I'll just add a couple of more ideas in shorter form. In his Cat's Cradle in my opinion Vonnegut deals with "the absurdity of belief" (yet - he does NOT ONCE ridiculate the believers, he doesn't really consider them "dumber" or "inferior" on any absolutistic scale - something what one might expect from an atheist!). As Wikipedia puts it: "It is based on living by the untruths that make one happy, called foma." Also, "All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies." — Bokonon. The very absurdity even goes so far that - and I'm again quoting the wikipedia article because it has put the very idea so elegantly into just one line - the essence of Vonnegut's term "karass" should be enlightening: "karass - a group of people who, unknown to them, are working together to do God's will. The people can be thought of as fingers in a Cat's Cradle."

Also, perhaps the hardest to "catch", but still intriguing is the leading character of Slaughterhouse 5 - Billy Pilgrim. His journey (pilgrimage!?) through the time (which, I'm emphasising, is apparently out of his control, again - predetestination!) and wastelands of the world question the very basic beliefs and show the hopeless absurdity of many things. Just notice the "So it goes" - all that one can ever bother to say about death, as it seems from the novel. Also, the striking essence of the birds in the very end of the novel - absurdity? (Just offering an idea here.)

Some have also claimed that Hocus Pocus is a existentialistic book and probably a similar case could be built on the Breakfast of Champions (Kilgore Trout being the key figure), but I'm not going to drag this arguementation so long that I'd deal with all of them. This has been a pretty abstract short version of my thoughts anyhow, but I think the existentialist undertones and basic ideas with which Vonnegut is "trying to cope" can be seen from the examples I brought too. Especcially from Harold Ryan.

Before I finish, unfortunately I don't yet have a wikipedia-account, but I'm really thinking of creating one because I appear to argue over the substance of articles in many places on wikipedia already... also, about Vonnegut, as you might notice I've dealed with his ideas and thoughts a lot. For school I've also written a 20-page paper (it's a few years since that already, in fact) mainly dealing with the Biblical symbolism combined with the Iliad symbolism in Vonnegut's works, the paper concentrated mainly on three novels - Slaughterhouse 5, Cat's Cradle and Bluebeard.

-- Androg.

Ok, I made myself an account now too! :) Androg 17:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey "unknown" who you removed Vonnegut from the list! At least bring forth your arguements as I said in support of Vonnegut. Otherwise your actions of removing Vonnegut from the list have no point. Androg 23:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my mistake. I didn't notice your contribution. Now, that I've read it, you've persuaded me. I removed it because I thought that you're another of those, who spam the article without research (but now I realized, that you're OK :)). --anonymous 21:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

androg, you're dissecting his books as though they were pure philosophy, I think you need to reconsider your literary analysis. Proeliator Sancti 19:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that in order for an author to be listed as an existentialist, they need to show more clear connections to the philosophy. The fact that a reader can interpret a book as containing existentialist themes is not a sufficient qualification, in my opinion. What if I spot existentialist themes in "Snow White"? Is Walt Disney now an existentialist too? If someone can provide any quotations by Vonnegut claiming an affiliation or agreement with existentialism, then I would be willing to reconsider. However, seeing that he lacks any clear connections to that philosophy, I would be more comfortable listing Vonnegut as an atheist or a humanist, which are both labels that he has claimed for himself on numerous occasions. O nate 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I need to do some research to answer that, meaning - I don't have a link to Vonnegut saying that "from top of my head" and I'm busy with exams right now. However, anyone who studies Vonnegut deeper will see that his humanism and atheism are both very strictly related to existentialism.

Also, the problem with your claim that the person himself needs to say that he relates to the existentialist school of thought is simple - Camus refused to call himself existentialist! Yet he is listed and never disputed. Androg 17:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And also, to - Proeliator Sancti 19:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC). As this is an article about existentialism I brought out the philosophical parts and tendencies in Vonnegut's writings. Clearly, if I had been at an article about satire I would have concentrated on different aspects and probably if I had been at an article about humanism I would have written almost only about Vonnegut's short stories. But as it is I'm at the article of a philosophical school of thought and therefore I concentrated on the philosophy of Vonnegut. Androg 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kerouac an Existentialist?

I seem to remember Kerouac being critical of existentialists in his fiction. Is there evidence that he promoted existentialism?--Golden Eternity 01:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Missing body

I may have missed some of the discussion earlier, but I'm wondering why exactly all of the key terms listed after the block titled "existence preceedes essence"

I don't know if it was just my browser cache that screwed up, but earlier today everything was fine, and I hit the back button after viewing a bit of Satre's works, and the page's size has decreased dramatically.

Criticism

"Another view is simply that existentialists are insane, which, many existentialists would reply, is correct, but, they would retort, only if you considered a lack of desire to live the traditional office life as reducible to insanity." - this is not a criticism, more a sensational and opinionated statement. It bears no philosophical worth and I am having trouble seeing why it was included in the first place? Importantly, "insanity" is nothing - it is typically a popular term for a broad spectrum of mental illnesses, which makes no sense here. Thus it is only here as conjecture as to how abnormal wider society percieve existentialists, it is thus POV. I am removing it, if anyone can justify its presence feel free to reinstate it. --Oldak Quill 23:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Technically its about a point of view, not a point of view in and of itself. I haven't seen that sort of thing in any of the traditional existentialist works though, so I can't defend it. Pity, it was amusing if nothing else.166.70.6.113 07:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"I think the current version has a big problem in that it does not recognize christian-existentialist like Jaspers and Marcel. It seems too Sartre-centric too me. (Tomos, Dec15)" I'd like to revive Tomos comment for anyone who feels inclined to make the page less Sartre-centric and describe the differences in views between theistic and atheistic existentialism. The claim made in the article about most existentialists being atheistic seems to be creeping over the POV mark. I'd also like to see Paul Tillich added to the list of existentialist philosphers at the end of the article. --Randolph 16:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--- Took out spurious "existentialists" (Hemingway? Conrad? Kosinski????? ridiculous citations etc.) and put in Robbe-Grillet, Celine, Bataille, etc.; cleaned up some other small things. Identified film noir as a major influence (delayed because of WW2), identified who the existentialists saw as being precursors, and analogues. Still a messy article with no centre, and basically wrong. Needs a lot of work. Is the French article better?

There is the issue as well that most existentialist writers and philosophers were jewish, isolated during the 1930s and 1940s by the Nazis and the Vichy regime, some of whom were in prison camps (Sartre), and took an anti-Catholic, anti-western approach to culture, and existentialism is thus a reflection of jewish ethics under massive pressure and conflict by western fascism - at least they thought so at the time - overlapping this article with the one on jewish ethical tradition might be useful. Hyperlinks as well to the communist, socialist, Maoist, atheistic elements of European existentialism might explain it better as well to new readers to get a larger context of how a small community felt isolated and alienated in the Greco-Roman traditions of 1930s-1940s Europe. And could only express this alienation in the 1950s and 1960s through philosophical and literary works, without political power til 1968. So the political endpoint of existentialism, Paris 1968, and the riots as well as Algerian independence would be a useful addition as well. Victorthecleaner 02:22, 23 April 2005 (UTC)

Camus

Moved the following section here until someone can find an appropriate place for it:

Albert Camus emphasizes the idea of being present in the moment to make choices in his novel The Stranger, when Meursault exclaims, "We are all privileged.".

-Seth Mahoney 18:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should write it in the place reserved for Camus. I would have loved to know this. I even read the outsider (in French) and I never read something like that. I probably didnt give it much importance.

announcing policy proposal of general interest

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal.Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The Catcher in the Rye

Who thinks that Holden Caulfield from The Catcher in the Rye is an existential hero and why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Existentialists Unite (talk • contribs) .

in the way that he thinks that nothing matters, o.k., if you want to really stretch it, if you have proof please submit it, I don't want to reread the book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raskolnikov The Penguin (talk • contribs) .

Quotes: a)“If I were a piano player, I’d play it in the goddam closet” (84). b)“I didn’t want a bunch of stupid rubbernecks looking at me when I was all gory” (94). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.20.123.158 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-19 21:41:41 (UTC)

future of existentialism

QUOTE: As for the future state of existentialism, it is sure that so long as there are people that live, there will be people that die, and so long as this remains, there will be existentialism for those who think, ponder and become nauseated over that unfortunate, if not liberating, fact. /QUOTE

Somehow I'm not inclined to believe that living nesseccitates death, nor vice versa. Will existentialism die out if people live but do not die? Additionally, is this really even relevent? I don't seem to recall a "future state" line on any of the other philosophically oriented articles I read here (granted, I've read very few of them). Future state does not seem to be a part of history yet . . .

-andy hight akh32ATdrexelDOTedu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ang3lboy2001 (talk • contribs) .

Opponents?

I'm moving this section here until someone can show us who these opponents are, preferrably with references to their work:

The opponents of existentialism assert that it fosters the particularization of human beings, stripping them of a universal sense of identity, which is entirely consistent with the claims of existentialists that the only universal allowed for human beings is their fundamental freedom.

Unnamed ghost opponents are a good way to hide original research and POVs, but a bad way to write a highly interlinked encyclopedia. -Seth Mahoney July 8, 2005 20:58 (UTC)

wrong link. the groundhog day link goes to the holiday, not the movie. the movie is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_%28movie%29 not sure how to edit the front page code. thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Choz Cunningham (talk • contribs) .

Opponents to Existentialism certainly do exist, such as the Preferentialists, see for example http://www.geocities.com/preferentialisme —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

Groundhog Day?

I don't think that 'Groundhog Day' is existentialist. I always thought that the movie was about happiness through caring about other people. When he gave in to his natural reactions, he was always forced to repeat the day again. ---*nondescript* 22:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

... yes, but he did remake himself into the person either he or Andi McDowell wanted him to be. Sfahey 02:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Groundhog Day is certainly an existentialist film, as it is a re-writing of the Myth of Sisyphus - a key existentialist text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.228.102 (talk • contribs) .

This may be true, but this is precisely the kind of interpretation as original research that several of us are proposing should not be in this article. There may be dozens and dozens of such films, and the article is not supposed to be an IMDB of possibly existentialist films. Seems to me that if the director and writer did not explicitly state that they were trying to convey existentialist ideas through their film or did not define themselves as existentialists then it shouldn't be in the article. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that this: "...if the director and writer did not explicitly state that they were trying to convey existentialist ideas [...] or did not define themselves as existentialists then it shouldn't be in the article.". If that is true and accepted, then wikipedia's workload just got alot heavier. --Дрakюлa ^Talk 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the writer/director not classifying their work as existentialist is grounds for removal, then you'd need to remove half the existentialist writers from the article on the grounds that they either refused the label or died before the term came into existence.166.70.6.113 07:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

However, as to whether or not this article should mention Groundhog Day, I don't think it is a big concern. I can see an existentialist point through the movie, for the same reason Jeremy J. Shapiro does. Perhaps someone will recognize that movie, and finally "get" existentialism. Do you think that it could be a bad influence, or bad information? I do not. --Дрakюлa ^Talk 06:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Although there is some debate about scope of Wikipedia's no original research policy, categorizing movies as "existentialist" definitely qualifies as original research. Without sources, it's not at all clear that the directors or screenplay writers approached the movie with that intent. It would be different if one of the movie's actors, its director, a producer, or some outside publication ever said that the movie was existentialist, but that doesn't appear to have happened. I'll wait awhile for a reply, but then it's time to strike the movies without documentation of "existential" intent. The Rod 19:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Movies are now removed. Note that the movie pages themselves are better places to describe existentialist themes, if applicable. The Rod 07:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs moved here from article

I moved the following two paragraphs here from the previous version of the article, for reasons explained below:

<<<<< Existentialism is a philosophical movement that views the individual person, the self, his experience--and the uniqueness therein--as the basis for understanding the nature of human existence. Generally, this philosophy reflects belief in freedom, and accepts the consequences of action, while acknowledging the personal responsibility attendant to choice. Existentialists prefer subjectivity, and view human beings as subjects in an indifferent, often ambiguous universe.

This conception derives from Nietzsche's concept of eternal return--the idea that "things lose value because they cease to exist". If all things existed continuously, they then would burden us with their tremendous level of importance, but, because things come to pass and cease existing, they lose their value. The concept 'existence precedes essence' is paramount, as it describes the only conceivable reality that judges good and evil. If things simply "are"--without directive, purpose, or overall truth--then truth--'essence'--is only the projection of that which is product of existence, or of collective experience. For truth to exist, existence must exist before truth; it is not only the predecessor, but the 'ruler' of its own objectivity. >>>>>

Reasons:

The definition of existentialism in terms of the individual person as the basis for understanding existence not accurate because a) the same could be said of Romanticism, and b) Heidegger's existential philosphy is not focused on the idea of the individual person or self -- indeed the notion of "being-in-the-world" removes the concept of self, the individual, and subjectivity from the definition of existence. The individualist emphasis is more characteristic of French existentialists. Personal responsibility also doesn't play the central role in Heidegger that it does in Sartre.

This link of existentialism to the concept of eternal return is an interesting idea, but is a bit of Original Research and would not be found in every interpretation of existentialism. Also, the following section quite vague and hard to understand: "is only the projection of that which is product of existence, or of collective experience. For truth to exist, existence must exist before truth; it is not only the predecessor, but the 'ruler' of its own objectivity".

    Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Expanding philosophical content

Currently, in my view, the actual philosophical content of the article is weak, because it really only discusses the Sartrean idea of existence being prior to essence, which is a narrow definition of just one aspect of existentialism. I believe that we need to have a section, under core concepts and principles, that distinguishes among at least the ontological, psychological, and ethical dimensions of existentialism, more on Heidegger, who, in the long term, has been much more influential than Sartre within philosophy, and on existential psychoanalysis and psychology (e.g. Binswanger), which in many ways gives a more concrete sense of the nature of existentialism than merely laying out the most abstract philosophical concepts, although they're very important. I won't be able to work on any of this for a while, but hope to sometime in the future. Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Does this belong?

As for the future, so long as there are people who live, there will be people who die, and, so long as this remains so, there will be existentialism for those who think, ponder, and become nauseated by that unfortunate, if not liberating, fact.

Its a vague statement which, depending on the definition of existentialism used, is either false or tautologic. It doesn't sound very encyclopedic either.

--80.99.248.74 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's preaching. Let's take it out. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Kierkegaard?

He's barely mentioned in here, and he is uncontroversially the first of the modern existentialists. Amicuspublilius 04:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Upon regarding the article a second time, I find a lengthy slice of bologna explaining why Kierkegaard has been neglected. I will change this article when I have the time, because this is a laughable, intentional (though I have no idea why), historical error. Amicuspublilius 04:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to eliminated most films

To me the film section is weakening the entire article, because it is very easy to interpret a film and other aspects of popular culture as existentialist, and many of the film listings and descriptions here are "original research", i.e. editors' personal interpretations of the films as existentialist. It seems to me that the only films that should be listed here as existentialist are ones whose directors or screenwriters were well-known existentialist writers or thinkers or who explicitly declared that they thought of the film as existentialist. I can think of plenty of other films that are not listed here that I could add to the list with a brief explanation of why they're existentialist, but it would be more original research contributing to what I perceive as the article moving in a sloppy and weak direction. The opening statement to the film section says that films are existentialist if they " deal with the concepts of existentialism that are familiar to the average person, such as free will, personal identity, individualism, responsibility, mind vs reality, and what really matters." But a huge percentage of all films and novels of the past century deal with precisely these themes, so by that definition we could put over 100 films and 100 novels in this article. I think that if we are going to leave in a section on existentialism in popular culture, it should consist only of such things on this list as the film version of Camus's The Stranger, because that's an "official" existentialist work, and we should get rid of the rest, especially because many of them also fall into that Wikipedia "weasel word", "arguably"; yes, they're "arguably" exisentialist, and that speaks against them. I should add that this same issue has come up with some other Wikipedia philosophy articles (e.g. Immanuel Kant) and we (those working on the articles) ended up removing the entire popular culture section, since it seemed to be catering more to editors' personal predilections about popular culture than contributing to understanding of the philosophy or intellectual movement concerned (and Kant's philosophy also has direct implications for how one lives one's life). Jeremy J. Shapiro 09:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I am guilty of starting this 'Existentialism in popular culture' section and I still think that it is important to discuss the relationship between the substance of the movement and the reaction that the word invokes at large owing to the way that it has been refracted in popular culture. I agree that the extensive listing of films here, based on highly subjective interpretations both of the film and of existentialism is sloppy. I would leave The Rebel as it was the reason for starting the section - it is illustrative of the cultural point - but I would say that wouldn't I. Cutler 19:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the "X philosophy in popular culture" idea can be legitimate and valuable, especially because it's true that not only is there a cultural impact of philosophical ideas and movements, but because often the philosophy itself is an expression of a larger Zeitgeist that the culture is also manifesting. This is true not only for existentialism but also for e.g. Romanticism, the Enlightenment, etc. But the problem is how to specify criteria to keep the popular culture part from being open to subjective or arbitrary interpretations and associations. It's easier to do with thought of the past, because then one can draw on intellectual or cultural histories (e.g. of the 18th or 19th centuries for the Enlightenment or Romanicism) to pick works of popular culture that were influenced by or exemplify them. And it's easier to do with things other than film or TV (e.g. easier probably with novels, classical music, theatre) because film or TV seem to generate such personal identification, projections, and cult followings. Anyway, I think it would be valuable if we could articulate some criteria, or find some kind of article by a cultural historian that discussed existentialism in film or something like that. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm disappointed you changed your mind! The same thing is continually happening on nihilism (and elsewhere, I'd wager - although you never see, say, "empiricism in popular culture", unfortunately), where every anon editor's favorite depressed teenage band or metal band (and now gangsta rap) is being added to an already questionable "nihilism in music" section. I agree with the general idea that these sections are valuable, but it seems there should be some way to say which get included and which don't without overwhelming the article with our own POV. Maybe just sticking with the "no original research" rule of thumb and the requirement on the philosophy wikiproject page that philosophy articles be heavily sourced would give us a good rule of thumb: Pop-culture related stuff gets included when it has been written about, and sources are included. Since pop culture studies are fairly common now, it shouldn't be a problem to find people publishing papers on "X in popular culture"... Any thoughts? (I'll also start up a discussion on the philosophy wikiproject talk page, to see what they think.) -Seth Mahoney 18:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I did NOT change my mind. Rather, on December 6, an anonymous user from 216.124.230.4 went in and altered my comments, adding to them the statement "Never mind. Scratch all that I just said. Keep all the films." I just went back to my original comment, which I stand by, and took out these illegimately inserted sentences. I would like to continue this discussion to help develop criteria for the "X in popular culture" sections. I think that your suggestion about sources is valuable. For example, if some major film critic or theorist or historian has identified X as an existentialist (or post-modern or positivistic or whatever) film, then that could be a ground for inclusion (even though of course then we have the problem that some other critic might disagree). Another would be if the filmmaker her or himself identified the film as an X film. Another would be if a philosopher or theorist identified with X had declared that such-and-such a film was the perfect representation of her/his theory. Another would be if a cultural historian who had written about X identified certain films (or songs or whatever) with the X movement or philosophy. Those are all of the criteria I can think of, but there might be more. Indeed I would make a strong argument that any such attribution that didn't meet these criteria is in fact original research. Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Glad to see I was mistaken about your intentions here. -Seth Mahoney 17:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole pop culture section should be severely trimmed because it's essentially irrelevant. These sections are always too big because people tend to have more knowledge of pop culture than of philosophy or science, etc. So we shouldn't reward ignorance by overemphasizing bad movies that have no direct relationship to the topic. Keep films like The Stranger as obviously related, but shit like Garden State? Please. --Tothebarricades 01:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree (per #Groundhog Day? above). Let's strike most movies. The Rod 19:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. The Rod 07:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree in general, especially for existentialism, which has always been prominent in literature, and what was left of it made a fairly smooth transition into film. (Groundhog Day is a prime example of this on multiple levels of existentialism), but i do think that there needs to be a source for anything claimed, and nobody has provided this. If anybody can find a source concerning philisophical themes in movies to work from, it would be greatly apreciated. (All I've been able to find concerns specific films/TV shows)166.70.6.113 07:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Added the filmlist as a reference here, in case someone wants to find a list of movies to watch. This will be here until this talk page is archived, then it will be in the archive.

The 2004 film I ♥ Huckabees (directed by David O. Russell) prominently features existentialism in its storyline. Though the philosophical conflict is between the so-called existential detectives (Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin) and the French nihilist detective (Isabelle Huppert), the film's resolution, focusing on the interplay between different aspects of existence, resembles the existentialism described by Sartre and others. - - Richard Kelly's 2001 film Donnie Darko displays an existential tone throughout, beginning with the search for meaning in a teenager's life after learning that his days are numbered. - - Paul Schrader's films deal with various existential issues, most of which including loneliness. The theme of alienation is greatly expressed, along with other themes, in Schrader's loose trilogy of "lonely nightworkers", including Taxi Driver, American Gigolo, and Light Sleeper. Throughout the trilogy, the character evolves from being angry, to being narcissistic, and to being anxious. The trilogy, according to Schrader, will eventually be completed with a fourth film. - - Richard Linklater's Waking Life (2001) is a surreal exploration of existential questions. The protagonist wanders through levels of his subconscious, searching for meaning within Life, Death and dreams, collecting along his way many different perspectives. Existential Philosophy is explicitly addressed, and is connected with scientific fields such as quantum physics, psychology, and evolutionary theory. The film includes a substantial dialog between the main character and University of Texas Philosophy professor Robert Solomon, an expert on Existentialism. - - The 1999 film American Beauty contains the primary themes of existentialism. Kevin Spacey's protagonist experiences the heightened anxiety and alienation consequent to sudden self-awareness. Spacey begins following his passions, instead of the morality and duties of the herd. The film concludes violently, an example of Camus's "Absurd". - - Mamoru Oshii's animated film Ghost in the Shell (1995) and subsequent sequel Ghost in the Shell: Innocence (2004) deal with an existentialist theme and a search for meaning, comparing robots to humans and questioning the line to be drawn where humans end and robots begin. - - The movie City Slickers (1991) has a profound existential moment: Jack Palance's character, Curly, says "Life is about this: One Thing. This is Kierkegaard's idea that I could live and die for, in a simple leather-gloved finger. It's for each of us to find our passion, our One Thing." Billy Crystal's character, Mitch, finds his as he nearly drowns in a rain-swollen river. He is saved, returns to his family, and embarks on a more meaningful, purposeful life. - - The 1990 film directed and based on a play written by Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead explores the meaning of life through two bumbling, oblivious heroes. - - Tony Hancock's 1961 film The Rebel mocks Parisian intellectual society in general and the pretensions of the English lower middle class in particular. - - Groundhog Day, starring Bill Murray, depicts an existentialist way of perceiving our daily lives in a clever and humorous way, cf. Camus's essay The Myth of Sisyphus. - - Harold and Maude (1971), with Bud Cort and Ruth Gordon. - - The Graduate (1967), with Dustin Hoffman, Anne Bancroft, and Katharine Ross. - - Grosse Pointe Blank (1997), with John Cusack and Minnie Driver, is a black comedy that depicts a killer who experiences an existentialist transformation. - - Cube, Vincenzo Natali's 1997 independent film sets its cast in a mysterious cube, which goes unaccounted in its genesis, and their subsequent placement therein. - - Suna no onna, Hiroshi Teshigahara's 1964 film in which a couple lives in a sand dune, which is perpetually caving in, as they continue to expel the loose grains. - - John Patrick Shanley's Joe Versus the Volcano (1990) starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, is a story about a man waking up from a sleepy dogmatic life (absurd) whereby he slowly comes to take control of his actions and ultimately reinvents himself (though you could argue that his 'leap of faith' at the end is somewhat religously apologetic). Classic theme of reducing (stripping away) ones self and rebuilding identity. - - The Stranger, by Luchino Visconti is an adaptation of the Albert Camus novel of the same name. - - The Matrix starring Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Laurence Fishburne, The Matrix explores the concept of reality, truth, and technology (as Heidegger discusses in The Question Concerning Technology). - - eXistenZ actors of which include Jude Law and Jennifer Jason Leigh. - - The Thirteenth Floor (1999) directed by Josef Rusnak with Craig Bierko and Gretchen Mol. - - Dark City (1998) written and directed by Alex Proyas, and starring roles include Rufus Sewell, Jennifer Connelly, John Hurt, and Kiefer Sutherland. - - Vanilla Sky (2001) directed by Cameron Crowe, and starring Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz. - - The Truman Show (1998) with Jim Carrey and Laura Linney. - - Office Space (1999) - - The Pledge (2001) - - Garden State (2004) - - I Stand Alone(France) (1998)

Sillybilly 19:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? Rather than eliminate the entire section on existentialist films, why not just figure out right here which ones are truly existentialist, then post them on the main article. In the future, when non-existential films or ones that are arguably not existentialist pop up on the article simply remove them, and leave the rest of the list intact. Here is, off the top of my head, films that I would say are undoubtedly existentialist in nature and/or are dominated by themes that would be labeled existential (i.e. death, creativity, free will, identity crises/shaping of personal identity, the problem of authority, the richness of life, the apathetic universe, the absence of God, the meaning of life or lack thereof, seeking out one's own happiness, the problem of the Other, defiance of societal norms, the possibility of murder/suicide, etc.) :

I ♥ Huckabees Crimes and Misdemeanors The Seventh Seal Dead Poets Society Persona The Big Sleep Pleasantville The Graduate Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead American Beauty Garden State

I would also suggest adding A Clockwork Orange and Spartacus to the movie list, and adding Stanley Kubrick to the director's list, but I could see them being controversial.

-Guest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.177.254 (talk • contribs) .

You are probably right, but as posts above note, so classifying a film is original research unless, for example, its director explicitly declares it existentialist in a published interview. The Rod 04:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the same could be said for books or virtually any other form of artistic expression, as well as for the artists who do the expressing. The aforementioned films deal explicitly with existential themes (and do not offer conclusions that conflict with such ideas in any way) are recognized as existential by the existentialist community (yes, such a thing exists; they have conventions every once in a while), and some, such as I ♥ Huckabees, Crimes and Misdemeanors, and the Ingmar Bergman films, refer openly to existentialism or are declared to be existentialist by those involved with them. Films like the Matrix and Existenz, on the other hand, are obviously postmodernist, and although they deal with some existential themes, they contradict existentialism in general in their denial of any form of authenticity. The fact is, that if there is to be a list of existentialist films, there should be some examples, accompanied with an explanation. --Guest

The same should be said for books, music, art, etc. The fact is that too much unrelated, original research trash gets added to these articles in the "related X" sections. Film, and pop music, are just two of the worst and most obvious. There's plenty of film crit, lit crit, music crit, art crit, and pop culture crit out there to be able to source all sorts of films and books and music as existentialist or postmodernist or whatever according to so-and-so. Not doing so is just laziness (that's an indictment of me, too, for the record). -Seth Mahoney

In the original post it was said: "It seems to me that the only films that should be listed here as existentialist are ones whose directors or screenwriters were well-known existentialist writers or thinkers or who explicitly declared that they thought of the film as existentialist."

But that's clearly a way you CANNOT take. Why? A simple example - Camus refused to call himself an existentialist! Does that mean we should not mention Camus in the existentialist article? Obviously not. For the same reasons we cannot judge the movies that easily.

Idea - perhaps the pop culture side could be divided to two: 1. Existentialist movies 2. Movies affected by existentialism.

The second one could cover all those movies which aren't "directly existentialist", but do touch the subject(s).

PS. Another very existentialist movie - Mar Adentro. The movie is all about "whether life is worth living?" and "What kind of life is worth living?"Androg 11:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, this line:

"More recent existentialist films such as the Wachowski Brothers' The Matrix, Kurt Wimmers' Equilibrium and Steven Spielberg's Minority Report have introduced existentialist philosophies to the modern general public, and created legions of fans devoted to these ideas."

Can Matrix, Equilibrium and Minority report (I've seen them all - just for the record) really be called "existentialist"? I mean - existentialist mainly discussed the human being, it's centered on the human and human's life. Instead Matrix touched the subject of "whether world really is what it looks like?" if I am to put into a question. That's not existentialist question for me. The main existentialist question seems to be "whether (or - what kind of) life is worth living?" It deals with the quality of life, not with what the surrounds (and life itself) seem to be. So I'd say they rather go under the "philosophical views of reality" subject, not under existentialism. I won't remove them yet though. Comments?

PS. Another idea, addition to the last PS in previous post: There's a special article as a list of existentialist authors. Why not have a special list for movies too? Androg 11:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, none of those films can properly be called existentialist. And on that note, I'm moving the entire section here until every film on the list is sourced. So here it is:

Existentialist films deal with the concepts of existentialness that are familiar to the average person, such as free will, personal identity, individuality, responsibility, mind versus reality, and what "really matters". The Coen Brothers' The Man Who Wasn't There, Linklater's Waking Life, Vincenzo Natali's Cube, Bergman's The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries are good examples of existential films. Woody Allen films tend to touch the subject, most in a humorous manner; whereas his Match Point (2005) provides a more serious consideration of some Existentialist themes. More recent existentialist films such as the Wachowski Brothers' The Matrix, Kurt Wimmers' Equilibrium and Steven Spielberg's Minority Report have introduced existentialist philosophies to the modern general public, and created legions of fans devoted to these ideas. In addition to those the 2004 film Mar Adentro by Alejandro Amenábar discussed thoroughly the existentialist subjects of whether life is worth living or not.

From the humor section:

It was also themed in the 2004 film, I ♥ Huckabees.

And, for good measure, here's the fiction section:

In Simon R. Green's book Something From the Nightside, and its sequels. The word "existentalist" is used to describe a character by the name of Tommy Oblivion who can believe something and force it into reality. In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the existentialist view points are discussed on many occasions, along with other philosophical ideologies.

Here's another one, from the "since 1970" section:

Thematically postmodern films such as The Matrix posit the idea of simulacrum, dealing with reality and appearance, and of how the latter renders the former indistinguishable, if the artificial can sufficiently mimic the real (see Jean Baudrillard, the philosopher whose work was a primary influence on the film).

-Smahoney 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Add another Existential Writer

Recently, I was reading something or other that claimed that Neil Gaiman, of The Sandman fame, as one the top 10 existential writers today. Anyone else know what I'm talking about? I'll keep looking. In short, i'm going to add Niel Gaiman as a existential writer, feel free to argue.

Zidel333 08:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You have a specific source? We sort of need that to justify pretty much anything modern.

I could not find this quote, but if anyone did say that, they probably have a very bad grasp of what Existentialism actually is. I have not read Gaiman's novels, but I do know that the Sandman comic is not Existentialist in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.119.179 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-26 14:47:10 (UTC)

Miscelanious

Id say Existentialism is like not excepted that there is such a thing as fate. You make your own decisions for your own life, and no one else. However, I also belive that there is also such thing as a (for lack of a better term) "fate based existentialism" or "open fate". This is when you have the choice of how to get to what you fate is.

ex) I may be "pre-ordained" to become a nurse, but I no matter which college I go to, I will still end as a nurse. (The time, credits, honors, and or people may change, but I will still be a nurse.) I choose where I go to college, the people I want to spend most of my time with, how hard I want to work, etc. 66.99.59.195 13:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Common Threads Questions

Something doesn't sound right about this common threads thing. If someone doesn't defend it I think it should go.TerryA 02:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, "something doesn't sound right about X" isn't really a complaint. What sounds wrong about it? -Seth Mahoney 19:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

This is meant to deal with the rather large gaps in what existentialism contains and the way the article presents what it does have. I do not intend to edit any of the lists concerning specific writers/books/films or anything like that.

Existentialism's rejection of a classical western worldview.

Existentialism's views on worldviews.

Denial of the view that there is an inherent intelligability structure to the world.

Discovering of natural laws and mathematics etc.

The dehumanisiation caused by the classical worldview.

The concept that there is a meaning to existence. IE, people asking 'What is the meaning of life?' without ever stopping to consider if there actually is an answer to that.

Rearange the subcategories of Existentialism to what Raymond has. (right now its Athiestic Existentialism and Christian Existentialism.

Existential Theism

This replaces Christian Existentialism, its what is used in the writings I'm familiar with, and frankly fits better. While the Existential Theists where largely christian, Existential Theism itself has nothing to do with christianity per se, and is compatable with any religion that holds a positive view of the afterlife.

Existential Nihlism

Will have ot go get my copy of Raymond to figure this one out, but basically, its the heavily depressing form of existentialism. I'll also have to take a look at the Nihlism article and see if they're talking about the same thing over there.

Death fixation of Heidegger? I'm not entirely sure if that falls under this and I don't want to make the judgment myself, at least not while writing a wikipedia article. It needs to be somewhere though.

I would make sure to separate real nihilists from other who have been accused of nihilism in the past; nihilism is a pretty standard accusation against any existentialists by those who disagree with them. Freddie deBoer 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Existential Revolt

This one is dealing with meaningless and hopelessness and finding a solution other than false hope or despair. Myth of Sysiphus, Sartre's stuff on making your own meaning of life and all that good stuff.

Compile a list of existentialist works that are on wikisource, if there isn't one already, and link to it here.

Compile a list of existentialist quotes that are on wikiquote if there isn't one and link to it here. Make sure that this is a /seperate/ list from quotes about existentialism by non existentialists, or at least that the list is well organized for this.

I may need a lot of help for those two. Depending on what's on wikisource and wikiquote already.

I'm probably leaving three fourths of existentialism out at this point, will add more as I go through the various books and papers on the subject. I've only half read most of what I have. Kodiak Claw 08:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I should be able to help with all of this. Freddie deBoer 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Need to add in Existential ideas of freedom and free will.

Existentialist ethics. Existential lack of ethics.

I'd like to add a need for more on Dasein in the German tradition and a definition of Bad Faith in the Sartrean tradition. Also, I think it could be beneficial to have something on the existential influence on later theories, such as existential phenomonology (Maurice Merleu-Pounty), existential race/racism theory (Lewis Gordon) and Derrida/deconstruction. Freddie deBoer 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, the articles dasein, being in itself, being, and bad faith exist (though bad faith only has a section on philosophy, and it is barely a stub). -Seth Mahoney 20:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Existentialism in Film

I really don't think that "Fight Club" is the best example of an existentialist film in pop culture, so I changed it to "The Man Who Wasn't There," which is clearly inspired by "Crime and Punishment," "The Stranger" and "Nausea." Huple scat 13:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Specific (historic?) meanings of existential vs. broader meanings

I think part of the difficulty with this entry is that existential has been used in very broad and vague meanings for a long time. When someone says that a movie like Fight Club is existential, they are in many sense correct, because it concerns how man should be, and the journey to find meaning in ones life. However, I feel that for an encyclopedia article, we should be careful to distinguish (and focus on) the specific philosophical/literary tradition, as opposed to more general uses of the word existential. Of course there is going to be grey areas; a book like Sartre's the Wall, or Camus's the Stranger, are obviously existential novels, even though they don't contain actual philosophical explication.

What I'm suggesting is an explanation of the difference between the general use of the word existential (that is, man's desire/undertaking of finding meaning in his or her own life); and the specific philosophical tradition. This list is by no means exhaustive or perfect, but just as an idea:

The idea of subjectivity, and the purpose of philosophy as a tool for mankind to confront real human questions (not relativism)
The recognition of man's considering himself, man's capacity to consider his own understanding (the Heideggerian dasein)
The necessity of man's finding meaning in his own life (I think this is a factor shared by different strains of existenialism, but I don't know much about theistic/Christian existentialism. Any input?)
The idea of bad faith-- the ways in which man denies his own freedom/responsibility.

I'm sure that list is probably inadequate and overly Sartrean/French existential; if someone with a German/Heideggerian background can fix it that would be great.

While I certainly think there should be room to consider various movies/books/etc. as existential works, I think bringing too many vaguely existential works could complicated the issue.

Another little addition: I think Nietzsche needs a significant explication because although he made extremely important additions to existential thought, his own philosophy was very different from the existential tradition (and is itself appropriated by many philosophies which are very different from existentialism, most notably Randian objectivism. Freddie deBoer 20:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Little Prince

I would suggest this book as existentialism for kids (and adults too!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.162.56.62 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-15 20:52:08 (UTC)

Why not Stirner?

Out of curiousity why isn't Max Stirner figured more prominently when it comes to existential roots. Ans what about some of the Greek thinkers(Protagoras) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.91.72 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-08 23:22:35 (UTC)

As far as I know, Stirner's "influence" on existentialism is a later realization of affinities between his ideas and existentialism. Do you know of any existentialist writers who cite Stirner? Ig0774 05:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Stirner is a much bigger influence then people realize. First of all when you compare him to all the others, he's the only person who is really vicious and relentless in his relativism in that he critiques society like non of the others. Unlike people like Sartre, Camus or Neitzsche, he was genuinly dangerous in the agency that he was proposing and it is for that reason that as Bernd A. Laska argues, there was a concious will to supress him in academic circles. He was not a very recuporatable person. Here are two interesting articles by Laska that speak to this. http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html and http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html

Wolverine

Predicates: Hyperlink added

I added a hyperlink to the word 'predicate' to the section entitled "Criticisms of Existentialism" because I felt that some readers may not be familiar the word's usage in this context. As such, the link might be helpful to those who are not students of philosophy. --24.255.15.170 02:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That sort of edit doesn't usually require a comment, but since you've added it, the use of 'predicate' there seems to be the ordinary English-language use of the word and not a particularly specialized philosophical concept. Ig0774 06:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Existentialism: What is it?

I've heard seemingly contradictory definitions of what existentialism. Reading this article fails to clarify. Could someone please tell me:

What are the basic tenets of existentialism?

See [1].

Does existentialism include an absolute reality (do things exist)?

Existentialism isn't generally concerned with questions like that, though Sartre touches on it in Being and Nothingness.

Does existentialism include an absolute morality (is there a universal right and wrong)?

No. Nietzsche worked most on destroying, or at least analysing all forms of morality.

Does existentialism include a variant of the liar paradox?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Thanks.Loodog 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -Smahoney 16:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Needs Elucidation

I've read the opening paragraph four times, and the first two sentences contradict themselves. I found this on another site and it's incredibly clear, especially 4) and 5) Bob Corbett

"However, I can define certain characterists that most Existentialists (and precursors to Existentialism) seem to share:

1) they are obsessed with how to live one's life and believe that philosophical and psychological inquiry can help.

2) they believe there are certain questions that everyone must deal with (if they are to take human life seriously), and that these are special -- existential -- questions. Questions such as death, the meaning of human existence, the place of God in human existence, the meaning of value, interpersonal relationship, the place of self-reflective conscious knowledge of one's self in existing. Note that the existentialists on this characterization don't pay much attention to "social" questions such as the politics of life and what "social" responsibility the society or state has. They focus almost exclusively on the individual.

3) By and large Existentialists believe that life is very difficult and that it doesn't have an "objective" or universally known value, but that the individual must create value by affiriming it and living it, not by talking about it.

4) Existential choices and values are primarily demonstrated in ACT not in words. Given that one is focusing on individual existence and the "existential" struggles (that is, in making decisions that are meaningful in everyday life), they often find that literary characterizations rather than more abstract philosophical thinking, are the best ways to elucidate existential struggles.

5) They tend to take freedom of the will, the human power to do or not do, as absolutely obvious. Now and again there are arguments for free will in Existentialist literature, but even in these arguments, one gets the distinct sense that the arguments are not for themselves, but for "outsiders." Inside the movement, free will is axiomatic, it is intuitively obvious, it is the backdrop of all else that goes on."

I'd be happy to re-write this, but others seem more fluent (or is this alleged "fluency" the problem?) Wiki-reputation's at stake here, for if you Google EXISTENTIALISM, this confusing article has the coveted #1 position. " --Robertkeller 00:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This makes much sense. Please incorporate this into the article if people agree on its correctness.Loodog 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Historical Existentialism" vs "Existentialism"

All the Linguistics, Historians, or pseudo-Psycholinguistics are not going to turn this 'existentialist', a homo sapiens, human being into this "fear" responding 'thing' defined in a box of either "Christian" vs 'Agnostic'. I will repeat what I have previously stated: .... No 'historical' authors of existentialism (since 1500 AD, or pick a time), had access to the greatest, existential work still extant: The Epic of Gilgamesh. Either no one cares, cannot bother to learn the words they used, Like the Pornographic-ally used word "rain", as in the flood story, but also used elsewhere as in pornography, (if you knew the story, then you would know why it is elsewhere used in a separate sense).

This existentialist, finds it hard to believe that there is a discussion of agnostic vs christian. Historical or Linguistic Existentialism might be a better title for this. Confer all the previous writings, in original languages: Bible, in Greek, and Hebrew, the Amarna letters, in Akkadian, (Cuneiform), and Sumerian, the Sumerograms, and the other 5,6, or 7 Text corpus -es that, are not only real historical documents, but could certainly provide better Pre-Religious defined Existential analysis-(xxx). End of Speech (an existential speech, incidentally) ////Michael, in YumaAZ,earlyExistentialSaturdayDarknesson- WestCoastUSA--Mmcannis 11:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In saving this messy comment, I see one fellow M/Female has it most Correct. ....Instead of the "experts" telling me what existentialism is, if ONE cannot read The Little Prince by Exupery, and "Get-it", then all hope is Lost. ...Michael in Arizona--Mmcannis 11:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Design change

I've attempted to overhaul the design, by centralizing the history section and elaborating on the most popular existentialism: Sartrean existentialism. Additions are welcome, as I'm not that much an expert on Heidegger or some other existentialists. Personally, I think the design makes the page more accessible. Poor Yorick 12:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'll add something on Simone de beauvoir when I have the time. ArcherOne 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

nobody will ever agree on this topic so just put in a broad outline and let the reader do their own research.

Hen Fap

There was a line about hen fap in the third paragraph of the page. I deleted it. Apparentely, some guy has been going around vandalizing pages by putting stuff about hen fap on them. If anyone sees anything about hen fap in any other page, please delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.196.112.44 (talk • contribs) .

Herman Melville

I think Melville should be included in the "authors" list if only for "Moby Dick," as I've not read everything he wrote.