Comments on: Existentialism: An Introduction

By: BarB

BarB — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:04:39 +0000

I thought that this idea of existentialism was new to me until
I realized that, that it is exactly how I have lived my life all along.
I have always tried to be happy in life even though I know “shit happens” (it always will !).But I still think the basic “rules” from religion are what makes living and working (“existing?”) in a society possible. I may not believe in a “virgin birth” but I do know that it feels”better to give than receive” and to treat people the way you expect to be treated (aka “do unto others…”)
I’m really enjoying your blog as well as some others(Mystery of Iniquity) I’ve been out of University for over 25 years…I would like to go back I miss that honest challenge!

By: Katrina

Katrina — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:02:06 +0000

Everyone seems to forget that our “Psyche”/ “Ego” thinks and rationalizes, we can only retain so much in our minds. It is the soul that remembers everything through the experience of life, good, or bad which triggers how we respond to situations we encounter. Much of how we respond to any given situation, or thought is credited to what we are taught by other’s outside of ourselves. We are each born with a spiritual gift, independent from each other. How and if we use those gifts determine the success of our happiness.
I have found in my life and Roman Catholic faith, as well as guidance from my parents and relationships with others, that the mind cannot fathom the enormity of existence, we are all limited. Therefore, everyone has their own opinion. We will never know the fullness of the truth in this life. We can debate this until we are blue in the face. We all agree that we do exist and everything in life has an influence on us, but at the center of our being we will find the truth, not through rationalization of the mind. My life is not about me, it is about my relationships with others. Without them my life has no meaning. See if you can figure out the source of this meaning. Why do we exist?

By: Fundamentalism: An Existentialist Critique « de-conversion

Fundamentalism: An Existentialist Critique « de-conversion — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:08:27 +0000

[...] Existentialism: An Introduction [...]

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:08:14 +0000

Youre still equivocating. You put forward “language” as an alleged example of a system I supposedly accept, while denying systems. But my response was, and remains, that language is not a system in this much-larger sense that I was originally referring to.

Sounds to me like you just want to reject the systems you don’t like and pretend you’ve discovered some great truth. Truth is that systems are necessary for human civilisation. To reject them is to reject society entirely.

No, I reject systems that are illogical and unsupported and psychologically destructive. To see through their illusions, especially when they have be conditioned into us over centuries, is indeed a great truth.

Smaller “systems” are indeed necessary for civilization. But, again, equivocation — that is not what I referred to in my article. Existentialism was talking about overarching systems, “Ultimate” systems — “metanarratives” is another word — that claim to have all the answers . Its an imprecise word in this context, and that was why I put it in quotes.

But again, nothing I wrote suggested existentialists rejected any and all systems of every kind.

By: Grant Dexter

Grant Dexter — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:26:54 +0000

Here’s what you wrote:

Existentialism grew out of such questions and, in effect, responded by rejecting not only the Christian system (this included Christian existentialists! ), it rejected all such “systems”. It explicitly rejected the view that life can be “systematized” according to some predetermined meaning, be it religious or secular. Existentialists believed that life was too messy, complicated, grey, and uncertain to ever fit into any tidy, pre-made intellectual or cultural scheme. Existentialists believed that all such systems attempted to provide easy answers, which were really evasions, for the often painful truths about human life. These truths must be faced if life is to be experienced as worthwhile.

Sounds to me like you just want to reject the systems you don’t like and pretend you’ve discovered some great truth. Truth is that systems are necessary for human civilisation. To reject them is to reject society entirely.

By: RIchard

RIchard — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:21:11 +0000

You’re equicovating. As I used the word “system” in my post, I think it is reasonably clear that language is not what I was talking about. The medieval Christian “system” included far more things than just language.

By: Grant Dexter

Grant Dexter — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:15:05 +0000

I think the assertion is enough.

Do you think you could express yourself in this, or any other, format without the systems we use to convey language?

By: RIchard

RIchard — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:08:51 +0000

Grant-
> The fact is that life is organised and is utterly dependent upon categories, systems and regulations.

I think youre going to need an argument for that, not simply an assertion.

By: Grant Dexter

Grant Dexter — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:52:48 +0000

And this, incidentally, is why existentialism resists easy summary – to summarize the existentialist “prescription”, so to speak, would be to create just that very system it says can’t work.

It sounds like existentialism denies one of the bare face truths that we all must face up to no matter how hard they might be. The fact is that life is organised and is utterly dependent upon categories, systems and regulations.

By: the chaplain

the chaplain — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:58:17 +0000

Richard:

Thanks for a clear post that sets out the basics of an existentialist understanding of life. As you pointed out, it wouldn’t be quite right to call existentialism a world view.

I’m looking forward to reading the series, as I usually find your posts very illuminating.