Question on existentialism.

[DarkSun]

I was wondering if I could be classed as an existentialist.

I agree that life is inherently chaotic, but I disagree that there cannot possibly be an underlying order behind the randomness. I also agree that people tend to look at this randomness and try to find some shred of order in it, some scrap of meaning, and once they've found it (real or not) they use this meaning to justify their existence. I don't think anyone really has found any legitimate order--but like I said before, I disagree that there isn't an objective, absolute meaning, because I'm more inclined to say that we can't fathom what it is.

Now, a lot of that doesn't necessarily contradict with existentialist thought, but some of my other views do. Namely, I disagree with the idea that people don't have an inherent personality at birth--I believe that our behaviours and our personalities are defined by both internal and external factors: both nature and nurture define us to varying degrees.

If I could be classed as an existentialist with these views, then would there be any authors who've expressed similar views out there? And if not, could someone explain what I am? Cheers.

 

[dust1n]

Close enough.

Since you are a deist, I would start with Kierkegaard.

 

[cynic2005]

I was wondering if I could be classed as an existentialist.

I agree that life is inherently chaotic, but I disagree that there cannot possibly be an underlying order behind the randomness. I also agree that people tend to look at this randomness and try to find some shred of order in it, some scrap of meaning, and once they've found it (real or not) they use this meaning to justify their existence. I don't think anyone really has found any legitimate order--but like I said before, I disagree that there isn't an objective, absolute meaning, because I'm more inclined to say that we can't fathom what it is.

Now, a lot of that doesn't necessarily contradict with existentialist thought, but some of my other views do. Namely, I disagree with the idea that people don't have an inherent personality at birth--I believe that our behaviours and our personalities are defined by both internal and external factors: both nature and nurture define us to varying degrees.

If I could be classed as an existentialist with these views, then would there be any authors who've expressed similar views out there? And if not, could someone explain what I am? Cheers.

The nature versus nurture debate is I think an obsolete one. You have new models such as the biopsychosocial model, which recognizes that biological, psychological, and social factors are not mutually exclusive factors.
I would argue that personality is not inherent. A personality would require a self, which cannot exist without episodic memory. Episodic memory does not develop until around age 2. So whatever behavior you are seeing immediately after birth, is largely reflexive behavior, although there is evidence of things such as temperament. I would say that temperament is largely the result of heritable genes, and that temperament is inherent. Temperament does not equate to personality IMO, however.

 

[DarkSun]

Close enough.

Since you are a deist, I would start with Kierkegaard.

I've read some of Kierkegaard's work. He's not the most exciting writer lol. And I think he incorporates more monotheistic thought than I'm comfortable with.

 

[DarkSun]

The nature versus nurture debate is I think an obsolete one. You have new models such as the biopsychosocial model, which recognizes that biological, psychological, and social factors are not mutually exclusive factors.

I would argue that personality is not inherent. A personality would require a self, which cannot exist without episodic memory. Episodic memory does not develop until around age 2. So whatever behavior you are seeing immediately after birth, is largely reflexive behavior, although there is evidence of things such as temperament. I would say that temperament is largely the result of heritable genes, and that temperament is inherent. Temperament does not equate to personality IMO, however.

I would argue that our temperament can have an influence on the self, just as much as episodic memory. Who we are is multi-faceted.

 

[dust1n]

I've read some of Kierkegaard's work. He's not the most exciting writer lol. And I think he incorporates more monotheistic thought than I'm comfortable with.

Fair enough. He can be tear-jerkingly boring.

What I should address then is this:

"I don't think anyone really has found any legitimate order--but like I said before, I disagree that there isn't an objective, absolute meaning, because I'm more inclined to say that we can't fathom what it is."

In saying you are more inclined to say that we can't fathom what pure objection is, but it does exist?

 

[DarkSun]

Fair enough. He can be tear-jerkingly boring.

What I should address then is this:

"I don't think anyone really has found any legitimate order--but like I said before, I disagree that there isn't an objective, absolute meaning, because I'm more inclined to say that we can't fathom what it is."

In saying you are more inclined to say that we can't fathom what pure objection is, but it does exist?

Yes, what I was saying there is that I think there probably is an objective reality, an ultimate meaning, but we're incapable of perceiving and comprehending it. People who claim to have found order in the chaos around them have only found a subjective truth, which may or may not have parallels with a true objective reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

Interesting thread. I've found Kierkegaard a bit too wishful-thinking-like to my taste as well.

 

[dust1n]

Interesting thread. I've found Kierkegaard a bit too wishful-thinking-like to my taste as well.

Well yea, I figured you would. Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus and de Beauvoir would be more down your alley I would imagine.

 

[dust1n]

Yes, what I was saying there is that I think there probably is an objective reality, an ultimate meaning, but we're incapable of perceiving and comprehending it. People who claim to have found order in the chaos around them have only found a subjective truth, which may or may not have parallels with a true objective reality.

Well then you are basically in touch with Sartre regarding the subject, at least in that regards.

 

[DarkSun]

Well then you are basically in touch with Sartre regarding the subject, at least in that regards.

Thanks so much for that! I haven't read much by Sartre.

Just one more thing though, would my views on the self conflict with existentialist thought? I don't exactly agree that existence precedes essence.

 

[dust1n]

Thanks so much for that! I haven't read much by Sartre.

Just one more thing though, would my views on the self conflict with existentialist thought? I don't exactly agree that existence precedes essence.

To answer your question, yes. I'm not even really familiar with any writer who has particular stated that essence preceded existence and I think that kinda dwells into phenomenological territory.


As far as Sartre, I'll let him explain that, I've only read his plays and a couple essays. :foot:

"The Sartrean claim is best understood in contrast to an established principle of metaphysics that essence precedes existence, i.e. that there is such a thing as human nature, determined by the cosmic order (or a god), laid down by religious tradition, or legislated by political or social authority. A typical claim for this traditional thesis would be that man is essentially selfish, or that he is a rational being.

To Sartre, the idea that "existence precedes essence" means that a personality is not built over a previous designed model or a precise purpose, because that's the human being who chooses to engage in such entreprise. While not denying the constraining conditions of human existence, he answers to Spinoza who affirmed that man is determined by what surrounds him. Therefore, to Sartre an oppressive situation is not intolerable in itself, but once regarded as such by those who feel oppressed the situation becomes intolerable. So by projecting my intentions on my present condition, “it’s me that freely transform it in action”. When he said that “the world is a mirror of my freedom”, he meant that the world obliged me to react, to overtake myself. That’s this overtaking of a present constraining situation by a project to come that Sartre names transcendence. He added that “we are condemned to be free”[14].


When it is said that man defines himself, it is often perceived as stating that man can "wish" to be something - anything, a bird, for instance - and then be it. According to Sartre's account, however, this would be a kind of bad faith. What is meant by the statement is that man is (1) defined only insofar as he acts and (2) that he is responsible for his actions. To clarify, it can be said that a man who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel man and in that same instance, he (as opposed to his genes, for instance) is defined as being responsible for being this cruel man. Of course, the more positive therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: You can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since man can choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things essentially.[15]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sartre

 

[DarkSun]

When it is said that man defines himself, it is often perceived as stating that man can "wish" to be something - anything, a bird, for instance - and then be it. According to Sartre's account, however, this would be a kind of bad faith. What is meant by the statement is that man is (1) defined only insofar as he acts and (2) that he is responsible for his actions. To clarify, it can be said that a man who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel man and in that same instance, he (as opposed to his genes, for instance) is defined as being responsible for being this cruel man. Of course, the more positive therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: You can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since man can choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things essentially.[15]"

Jean-Paul Sartre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I disagree... Sartre is actually starting to sound like an optimist. Personally, I think we can choose what we want to do, but not will as we want to. So I don't get why people seem to think existentialism is a cynical view--my view on freedom is so much worse.

But thank you so much for your help. I'll read a bit more on Sartre. Btw, I owe you more frubals, don't let me forget!

 

[cynic2005]

I would argue that our temperament can have an influence on the self, just as much as episodic memory. Who we are is multi-faceted.

Temperament has influence of course. But episodic memory is more than influential. Without it, there would be no self.

 

[dust1n]

I disagree... Sartre is actually starting to sound like an optimist. Personally, I think we can choose what we want to do, but not will as we want to. So I don't get why people seem to think existentialism is a cynical view--my view on freedom is so much worse.

But thank you so much for your help. I'll read a bit more on Sartre. Btw, I owe you more frubals, don't let me forget!

Don't worry about the frubals.

I agree with you in that sense. I never very much liked this ultimate free will that accompanies Sartre; I pretty hard determinist myself.

 

[DarkSun]

Don't worry about the frubals.

I agree with you in that sense. I never very much liked this ultimate free will that accompanies Sartre; I pretty hard determinist myself.

You're right, I'm not actually worth that much. But I did it anyway.
I suppose I'd be classed as a determinist as well. :sarcastic