Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Existence

Expand Messages
  • josemanuel corleone
    Thats precisely it! One must not forget the existentialism is a part of phenomenology. In other words it is a perspective. What makes it any better than the
    Message 1 of 32 , Feb 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Thats precisely it! One must not forget the existentialism is a part of phenomenology. In other words it is a perspective. What makes it any better than the upanishads? the buddhists? Responsibility and freedom and choice one might say - to believe in the absence of any entity upon which we are to base our actions and thoughts. Nihilism. Doesn't anyone feel that the Sartrian way of viewing the world is lacking? Don't get me wrong guys, i know this is an invitation for a myriad of misinterpretations. But think about it, consulted or not, we are here. We are alive in a world where we must endure suffering and pain. And yet we remain. Why? because we know that the burden we bear is worth it, that it does not offset the pleasure we get out off life. Either that, or we are just cowards who refuse to put an end to it all. Having stated that point, we have to live on. And what experience would one get out of a life that is devoid of purpose or meaning? something to make it
      worth the while. Yes, life is meaningless and absurd I give you that. But then what? What utility is there in whining? Having realized that we are lost.. then what? That does not do us much good. We're just back in square one. We still have to go to work, pay our bills, eat, have sex, drink, play sports and at the end of the day, be much, much more miserable. I'm not sure if this is just a phase or the result of lack of understanding, but are there others like me who think there is something else we can value more than ourselves? Im just as confused about life as any regular bloke.

      can one be an existentialist and be a spinozist at the same time?
      -Jim


      w_i_n_g_sofdesire <diana_alexandrova@...> wrote: I find myself struck at the end of another relationship. And i realize
      again the same existential dilemma. There is no institution or
      representative of wisdom that i could consult for a definitive answer
      as to what was wrong, and what was my fault and what and how i could
      change in my ways of living to make it satisfying and meaningful.

      I find myself in this existence without having asked for it
      in the first place. I just find myself to be a living being with some
      needs and desires and attitudes, but never quite at home here.

      I can continue to struggle to understand the world, to be of help
      since i am already here, but no answer and guidance whatsoever as to
      the purpose why i should continue this living, and struggling and
      seekng with no end.






      " by convention there is color, by convention sweetness, by convention bitterness,
      but in reality there are only atoms and space " -democritus


      ---------------------------------
      Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
      Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Exist List Moderator
      ... On my shelf is a 1950s text from the IWP Existentialism versus Marxism that seems to have the same concerns about incompatibility. Sartre saw this, as
      Message 32 of 32 , Feb 13, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Feb 11, 2007, at 20:21, whitneyadam wrote:

        > Actually, I do understand Sartre's work as an attempt to synthesize
        > both phenomenology and existentialism into one philosophy. It is
        > interesting to speculate on how one can juggle the many different
        > philosophies of Sartre. His interest in Marxism, for one, seems to
        > be incompatible with nature of existentialism as he gives it to
        > us. But it is certain that Sartre's phenomenology is
        > indistinguishable from his existentialism.

        On my shelf is a 1950s text from the IWP "Existentialism versus
        Marxism" that seems to have the same concerns about incompatibility.
        Sartre saw this, as well, and suggested he had "left existentialism
        behind" as part of his personal growth.

        Western Marxism is not the communism of Marx, nor is it the Communism
        of any government. Hard to keep the players straight, as well as
        their shifting definitions of terms.

        The harshest forms of communism reject "art for arts sake" and demand
        all things be revolutionary. This was something Sartre hinted at in
        his "Existentialism is a Humanism" and which he later recanted. Then
        again, he also wrote that he regretted that one work alone, and no
        others.

        He said it revealed to him how it would require paradoxical
        statements to make existentialism anything other than radical
        individualism. Camus saw this, which is why he called existentialism
        intellectual suicide.

        I argue that Sartre tried to take his inherent morality and then
        apply a system to it. We are all guilty of this. That is how we can
        generally agree on an ethical choice and then develop hundreds of
        explanations for why this is reasonable. The attempts to create
        ethical systems are always complicated by the fact we seem to have
        values long before we create artificial philosophical systems.

        I don't think Sartre can be understood apart from his time and the
        European experience. Other than the American Civil War, we have never
        suffered as great a loss of life, ag, and industry. Europeans, of all
        political bents, saw the need for a welfare state. People were
        suffering following two wars in a way Americans were not.

        So, while I see a disconnect between Sartre's politics and his
        earliest philosophical writings, I also can't imagine the situation
        of a decimated continent. For Sartre, Western Marxism was a necessary
        safety net, not from capitalism alone, but from all suffering he
        witnessed.

        I'm a capitalist and libertarian, but I'd never claim we should go
        completely backwards and not care for the ill, the disabled, or the
        needy in general. The question today is where on spectrums people
        rest. In Sartre's time, the debate was far more pronounced with sides
        taking up arms.

        Somewhere I've read critiques of Sartre by poets and thinkers from
        Hungary and Poland. Again, I think their perspectives make it
        difficult for them to be arguing from "theory" -- they are stuck with
        practical experiences outside the realm of philosophy.

        - C. S. Wyatt
        I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
        that I shall be.
        http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
        http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.