Were the existentialists on to something?

[kitaristi0]

When you think about it, human existence is completely absurd. That the zillion and one things necessary for life on Earth happened to happen, i'm just saying, what are the odds? Funnily enough though, at the same time human existence is pretty futile. Whether i raise or call my 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif preflop is very meaningless in the infinite span of everythingness. Which leads me to my question, were the existentialists actually on to something?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

were the existentialists actually on to something?


[/ QUOTE ]

Existentialism is the logical conclusion of all non-theistic thought. I've always considered the Book of Ecclesiastes to be God's foreshadowing of this absurdity. "All is vanity, and striving after wind."

Most people can't stand this much lack of hope, so they crawfish into some form of pragmatism.

[toss]

Well you can either choose to lie there and die or GAMBOOOOL!!@2@ it up and raise 77 UTG. I think the answer is clear.

[drudman]

For there to be inquisitive, egotistical minds to ponder the question, it couldn't have happened any other way. The odds are 1-1.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people can't stand this much lack of hope, so they crawfish into some form of delusionary system of beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

delusionary system of beliefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Synonym for pragmatism.

[Aytumious]

I thoroughly enjoy the absurdity of existence. It baffles me that some people consider the absurdity of it all to somehow be negative or disagreable.

[kitaristi0]

[ QUOTE ]
It baffles me that some people consider the absurdity of it all to somehow be negative or disagreable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that's not the impression i gave off in my original post because i definitely agree with you. The vagueness of it all gives you some room for personal interpretation and movement.

[NotReady]

If existence itself is absurd and without meaning, you can never take anything seriously, correct? Including tsunamis, genocide, cancer and religious fanaticism.

Nor benevolence, charity, Shakespeare, Mozart and Einstein.

There's no evil, and there's no good. Nothing is ugly, nothing is beautiful.

[kitaristi0]

Even if there is no meaning to anything, you can still take things seriously.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Even if there is no meaning to anything, you can still take things seriously.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or not. Doesn't matter.

[kitaristi0]

True, the whole existentialist gig is all very "well i don't really care cause life is pointless and everything", but still, IMO they do present a valid point of view, and one that i personally tend to agree with.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

but still, IMO they do present a valid point of view,


[/ QUOTE ]

You should try hard to erase the word valid from your vocabulary. There is no validity in an irrational universe.

Come to think of it, there's really no vocabulary either.

[kitaristi0]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no validity in an irrational universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fair enough, but leaving the realm of the existentialist view of the world for a bit and returning to a more deterministic viewpoint, the universe isn't necessarily irrational. Despite the random nature of everything, as proven by quantum mechanics, somehow the universe is still rational. Even though things occur at random they do so with a high level of consistency and thus you can say that something is valid.

To respond to your second point, there is a vocabulary. Why wouldn't there be a vocabulary? Going along with your statement that the universe is irrational, what is to say that there can't be a vocabulary existing in an irrational universe?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

Quit masterbating already, you fools, and put your efforts toward something worthwhile.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Quite masterbating already, you fools, and put your efforts toward something worthwhile.


[/ QUOTE ]

Determining whether ANYTHING is worthwhile is worthwhile if anything is.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

the universe isn't necessarily irrational. Despite the random nature of everything,


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like to laugh to make fun of people, but really, this is funny.

As to vocabulary, since everything is meaningless in an irrational universe, the idea of giving meaning to words is as meaningless as everything else.

I should make myself clear, not sure I have to this point. I'm not an existentialist, but a Bible believing Christian theist. I simply am illustrating what non-theistic thought produces and asking for those who reject Christianity to be consistent in their unbelief.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
If existence itself is absurd and without meaning, you can never take anything seriously, correct? Including tsunamis, genocide, cancer and religious fanaticism.

Nor benevolence, charity, Shakespeare, Mozart and Einstein.

There's no evil, and there's no good. Nothing is ugly, nothing is beautiful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking things seriously and the absurdity of the existence are not mutually exclusive. I find genocide and the slaughter of innocents to be quite repugnant. What does that have to do with whether the universe comports to the human faculty of rationality?

Also, I have personal motivations as to what I want to accomplish, and I also have opinions as to what is a proper mode of living or what is beautiful. The underlying absurdity of existence doesn't make those beliefs any less valid in my opinion. In short, I don't need a higher level being to validate my experience of life but I know that you do. I also do not think it is a requirement that the universe be bound by the human concept of rationality. Rationality is human tool of understanding. It is not a necessity that the universe be completely understood or bound by that tool.

[NotReady]

When I say taking something seriously I don't mean your attitude toward it. I mean whether or not anything ought to be taken seriously. If the universe is irrational and absurd, there can be no ought. Then taking something serious or not is of no more significance than your preference for a certain flavor of ice cream.

[ QUOTE ]

The underlying absurdity of existence doesn't make those beliefs any less valid in my opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what you mean by valid. Relative validity is of no importance if the universe is irrational.

[ QUOTE ]

In short, I don't need a higher level being to validate my experience of life but I know that you do


[/ QUOTE ]

I base nothing on my "need". Pure rabbit trail. The issue is the objective truth or not of a position.

[ QUOTE ]

I also do not think it is a requirement that the universe be bound by the human concept of rationality.


[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do I. I'm speaking of ultimate rationality, God's rationality. We have a smidgen of that because we're created by Him in His image.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say taking something seriously I don't mean your attitude toward it. I mean whether or not anything ought to be taken seriously. If the universe is irrational and absurd, there can be no ought. Then taking something serious or not is of no more significance than your preference for a certain flavor of ice cream.

[ QUOTE ]

The underlying absurdity of existence doesn't make those beliefs any less valid in my opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what you mean by valid. Relative validity is of no importance if the universe is irrational.

[ QUOTE ]

In short, I don't need a higher level being to validate my experience of life but I know that you do


[/ QUOTE ]

I base nothing on my "need". Pure rabbit trail. The issue is the objective truth or not of a position.

[ QUOTE ]

I also do not think it is a requirement that the universe be bound by the human concept of rationality.


[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do I. I'm speaking of ultimate rationality, God's rationality. We have a smidgen of that because we're created by Him in His image.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't want to get into a long debate on this, NotReady. You have a need for truth in the ideal Platonic sense and I am quite content in my belief that the knowledge man obtains through his rational faculty is only a shadow on the wall and that objective truth is an impossibility. Hence, my belief that if the universe is indeed absurd it really has no bearing on my sense of truth, ethics, aesthetics, or any other aspects of human existence. Something can be true or false in the context of what we share as human experience without being true according to some Platonic ideal of "truth" or in your Judeo-Christian view of God as ultimate truth.

And just to reiterate, you do indeed have a personal need for objective truth. The existence of objective truth is not a prerequisite for philosophical or everday knowledge, and, likewise, truth as a Platonic ideal is not a prerequisite of the universe; there is no reason to think the universe must comport to man's rational faculty.

The ability to think rationally is a tool, nothing more, and the universe is not bound by our peculiar form of obtaining knowledge. For example, I would think you would agree with me when I say that it is true that the leaves on the tree outside my home are green. In our everyday human mode of conceptualizing and communicating our experience of existence, that statement is indeed true. However, we really have no idea whether that statement is true in any type of ultimate or Platonic sense. In fact, we don't even know if truth or falsity in the way we are debating now even exists outside of human conceptualization. Perhaps our understanding is so crude we need to compartmentalize things into true or false when in fact those two ideas don't exist outside of our own very human form of understanding our experience.

In short, I think you are allowing a personal belief -- the idea that truth and falsity must exist in the form of a Platonic Ideal -- to cloud your perspective on this matter. The concept of knowledge itself may only be the vanity of human understanding.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Determining whether ANYTHING is worthwhile is worthwhile if anything is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who knew you could make a 10 word sentence using only 6 words?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Who knew you could make a 10 word sentence using only 6 words?

[/ QUOTE ]

Takes practice.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

objective truth is an impossibility

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this an objective truth?

I don't know why you want to saddle me with Plato. He was an atheist and his system is diametrically opposed to everything Biblical at its most fundamental level.

I also think you are plenty smart enough to see the falsity of bringing in my "need". Whether I need truth or not is irrelevant to the question. It's really a subtle from of ad hominem in which you are trying to undermine the argument by introducing motive.

But I don't understand how you can even question Christianity since you claim you don't know anything concerning ultimate reality. To say the Bible is false is to acknowledge some standard of truth while you deny it at the same time. Thus the schizophrenia of all non-theistic thought.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

objective truth is an impossibility

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this an objective truth?

I don't know why you want to saddle me with Plato. He was an atheist and his system is diametrically opposed to everything Biblical at its most fundamental level.

I also think you are plenty smart enough to see the falsity of bringing in my "need". Whether I need truth or not is irrelevant to the question. It's really a subtle from of ad hominem in which you are trying to undermine the argument by introducing motive.

But I don't understand how you can even question Christianity since you claim you don't know anything concerning ultimate reality. To say the Bible is false is to acknowledge some standard of truth while you deny it at the same time. Thus the schizophrenia of all non-theistic thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, I use the word Platonic since it is a common philosophical term that connotes something in its ideal form and has nothing to do with your theism or his atheism.

What does my position that humans cannot have an understanding of ultimate truth have to do with me thinking the bible is simply a moralistic book written by other humans? My position on that is not overly philosophical; it's common sense.

You think Platonic truth is a necessity for human knowledge when I argue that the human conception of truthhood cannot be verified other than within our own limited human form of understanding. Again, I can truthfully state that the leaves on the tree outside are green, but we cannot verify that statement in any ultimate sense. However, within the framework of what we call human understanding, my statement is indeed true. Do you disagree?

Why must existence be bound by the human laws of logic? Why do you think that an outside verification of truth -- truth in its ultimate form -- is necessary for humanity to function or make sense of the world? Is the truthfulness of my statement about the tree any less true if we do not have a god to verify that it is true in an ultimate sense? Is science impossible if ultimate truth does not exist? Is life bereft of meaning if ultimate knowledge does not exist? These questions get to the heart of the matter and I hope you take an honest look at them and your reasons for answering them the way that you do.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What does my position that humans cannot have an understanding of ultimate truth have to do with me thinking the bible is simply a moralistic book written by other humans? My position on that is not overly philosophical; it's common sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

The statement "humans cannot have an understanding of ultimate truth" is itself an assertion of ultimate truth. Yet you said in an earlier post "we don't even know if truth or falsity in the way we are debating now even exists outside of human conceptualization". If we don't know if truth exists, how can you know we cannot have an understanding of truth, if you are claiming it's true that we don't know? And if that's true, then you can't know the Bible isn't the word of God, because that would mean you know truth, which you say we can't know.

[ QUOTE ]

I'll say it again: you have a personal need for ultimate truth


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll say it again: so what? I have a personal need for food, but that doesn't prove food doesn't exist. I have this need because God created me that way. I have the need to know because God created me that way. That hardly proves truth doesn't exist.

[ QUOTE ]

I use the word Platonic since it is a common philosophical term that c onnotes something in its ideal form and has nothing to do wi! th your theism or his atheism.


[/ QUOTE ]

It has everything to do with it because Plato conceived of the Ideal as an abstract ultimate existing inexplicably and independently. This is one of the purest forms of blasphemy possible, as it totally denies the possibility of God and subjects all being to the abstract Ideal.

[ QUOTE ]

Why must existence be bound by the human laws of logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

It is the atheist who insists on this. I deny it. Existence is bound by the Creator, not the creature.

[ QUOTE ]

Why do people feel that an outside verification of truth -- truth in its ultimate form -- is necessary for humanity to function or make sense of the world?


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't necessary to function. Animals and plants function. Human philosophy leads to existentialism, which is an unbearable position. As I said earlier, people back into pragmatism.

[Aytumious]

Why don't we get back to basics. Is the statement "the tree outside is green" true in an ultimate sense or is it only true according to the shared human experiential definition of truth? If you think it is true in an ultimate sense, how do you know that? Why does it even matter?

For a more interesting take on this than my own, why don't you take 10 minutes and read this (http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/tls.htm) .

[NotReady]

I spent a minute with it, about the most I could ever stand to bother with Little Freddy.

If something is true, it is true, given all the defining circumstances. Strictly speaking, the greeness of the leaf is a perception, so it wouldn't be true to a blind man or someone color blind. But what causes the greeness for us is true, whether we perceive it or not.

But if you reject truth, why do you bother with this kind of discussion? You can't know whether what you say is true, or even more, you "know" it isn't true in any ultimate sense.

Many claim they believe this, almost no one acts on it consistently. How could they? Thus pragmatism.

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

[ QUOTE ]
That the zillion and one things necessary for life on Earth happened to happen, i'm just saying, what are the odds?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can presume existence of (approaching infinite) universe, likely a probability of 1.

[ QUOTE ]
Which leads me to my question, were the existentialists actually on to something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a coctail of barbituates and hard liquor.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
I spent a minute with it, about the most I could ever stand to bother with Little Freddy.

If something is true, it is true, given all the defining circumstances. Strictly speaking, the greeness of the leaf is a perception, so it wouldn't be true to a blind man or someone color blind. But what causes the greeness for us is true, whether we perceive it or not.

But if you reject truth, why do you bother with this kind of discussion? You can't know whether what you say is true, or even more, you "know" it isn't true in any ultimate sense.

Many claim they believe this, almost no one acts on it consistently. How could they? Thus pragmatism.

[/ QUOTE ]

My whole point is that truth does exist, NotReady, but we have no idea of knowing whether it is truth in an ultimate sense or simply truth filtered through our mode of understanding the universe. We clearly aren't getting very far in this discussion, but my point is that there is a form of truth that exists, that what we normally call "truth" is simply part of our very human mode of understanding the universe; truth as the creation of the human intellect.

We are coming from very different backgrounds here since epistemology and metaphysics was my main area of interest in college, but my position is not all that uncommon. There is plain, everyday human intellectual truth, then there is Truth, the ultimate Truth, which I deny exists, or at least deny exists in any way that we can comprehend or even approach. Following me to that point, you will see why the idea that the universe is irrational doesn't bother me since truth still exists -- but not Truth -- and that we can still gather knowledge and converse about the world around us.

My main point is that the world that we perceive is filtered through the human intellect and that during that process very human things are added that may not actually exist in the world in itself. Our concept of reality is a very human conceptualization and I'm arguing that what we normally consider truth may simply be, in a way, a human construct. Not only that, but we can never know whether we are indeed interpreting the world as it is or whether we are only perceiving a small part, limited by our tool of understanding, the intellect.

[AthenianStranger]

[ QUOTE ]
You have a need for truth in the ideal Platonic sense and I am quite content in my belief that the knowledge man obtains through his rational faculty is only a shadow on the wall and that objective truth is an impossibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting that you say this, considering that Plato's doctrine in the Republic is that all human perception is shadows on a cave wall.

I also disagree with NotReady's understanding of Plato's Ideal, his God, if you will. It is The Form of the Good, not Aristotle's metaphysical Prime Mover, the first mover moving itself, or being thinking itself. The Good is something that belongs to humanity; the form of the Good is the mold in which we've been cast.

Whatever. This discussion is pointless. Obviously truth exists. Hume doesn't get us anywhere.

[NotReady]

Neither Aristotle nor Plato came anywhere near the God of Christian theism. Aristotle's God was little more than an abstraction, certainly not a Creator God. Plato never managed to get past a plurality of Ideal forms, but had no explanation for creation, nor did he have a god who was sovereign and the Creator of the universe. He never even stated a unifying principle that would encompass all of the Forms.

Actually, Hume gets us a long way, proving that non-Christian philosophy can contribute. No one has ever answered Hume effectively, something which Russell admits. Hume was another mile marker on the road from Plato to Nietzche, et al.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever. This discussion is pointless. Obviously truth exists. Hume doesn't get us anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, as is nearly always the case when I am thinking about metaphysics or epistemology, I had Kant and Nietzsche on the brain. The link I posted earlier on this topic always makes me crack a smile.

[AthenianStranger]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither Aristotle nor Plato came anywhere near the God of Christian theism. Aristotle's God was little more than an abstraction, certainly not a Creator God. Plato never managed to get past a plurality of Ideal forms, but had no explanation for creation, nor did he have a god who was sovereign and the Creator of the universe. He never even stated a unifying principle that would encompass all of the Forms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, slow down. In The Republic, Socrates implies that The Form of the Good is the unifying principle for the forms. And in the Timaeus, we have a Creator: The Demiurge,,, of course, I don't know how serious Plato was about any of this, but an entire half of the Timaeus is basically just a creation myth.

I think ultimately, for Plato, the sovereign is a sort of divine Intelligence that informs all things, for instance 'the heavenly bodies,' but also our own intellects. He was clearly an atheist but saw the value of religion and gods as images of the truth. But nevertheless, truth...

I don't know where I'm going with this.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither Aristotle nor Plato came anywhere near the God of Christian theism. Aristotle's God was little more than an abstraction, certainly not a Creator God. Plato never managed to get past a plurality of Ideal forms, but had no explanation for creation, nor did he have a god who was sovereign and the Creator of the universe. He never even stated a unifying principle that would encompass all of the Forms.

Actually, Hume gets us a long way, proving that non-Christian philosophy can contribute. No one has ever answered Hume effectively, something which Russell admits. Hume was another mile marker on the road from Plato to Nietzche, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]

One important thing to point out about what Christianity and Plato have in common is the very idea we have been debating: God as ultimate truth, and the Platonic Idea of truth. Both systems elevate truth into an ideal whereas other metaphysical views differ on the wisdom of that position, which I have attempted -- apparently not very successfully -- to point out. One of the effects of Kantian metaphysics is the attempt at a reconciliation of ultimate truth and the limits of human understanding.

[David Sklansky]

" simply am illustrating what non-theistic thought produces and asking for those who reject Christianity to be consistent in their unbelief."

It would be nice if you stop bouncing back and forth between three categories of belief.

1. A general single God that many religions believe in.

2. A general belief in Jesus that all Christians share.

3. Your specific Christian beliefs.

Since you think that those who believe only number one, or even maybe one and two, have completely unacceptable ideas, you shouldn't be arguing theistic versus non theistic as if merely theistic is in any way good enough for you.

[NotReady]

What you list are not three categories but three objects of belief.

1. The word God must be defined before this statement has any meaning. If you asked George Lucas he might tell you he believes in God because he might identify the force with God.

2. Not all who call themselves Christians believe in the same Jesus in the same way. There are even some who say they are Christians who believe Jesus is a myth.

[ QUOTE ]

Since you think that those who believe only number one, or even maybe one and two, have completely unacceptable ideas


[/ QUOTE ]

Way overbroad. Plato, Kant and even Nietchze have some acceptable ideas.

I use the word theism to distinguish from deism and pantheism. I almost always mean Christian, Bible based theism, but my fingers get tired of typing out the entire phrase. A short definition of Christian, Bible based theism is it states that God is a Person(Father, Son and Holy Spirit), sovereign and absolute, creator of heaven and earth. This separates Christian, Bible based theism from pantheism which doesn't believe in the Personhood of God, and it separates Christian, Bible based theism from deism, which either rejects the creation doctrine, or providence, or both. It separates Christian, Bible based theism from other forms of theism, such as Islam, which doesn't belive in the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the Fall of man or the forgiveness of sins. It also separates Christian, Bible based theism from other forms of theism which aren't Bible based.

[NotReady]

This is a response to two of your last posts.

[ QUOTE ]

My whole point is that truth does exist, NotReady, but we have no idea of knowing whether it is truth in an ultimate sense or simply truth filtered through our mode of understanding the universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense. Truth doesn't become untrue because of some filter we have. We may change the content, but then we aren't talking about the same thing. You must distinguish between what is and what we think is. You are so steeped in Kantian noumenal and phenomenal categories you no longer see the difference. Kant dogmatically asserted that humans construct reality for themselves and no one can know the thing in itself. There is a certain truth to this as a practical matter, as a description of how our minds function. The individual must think his own thoughts, no one else can think for him. And human thought is susceptible to error.

[ QUOTE ]

what we normally call "truth" is simply part of our very human mode of understanding the universe; truth as the creation of the human intellect.


[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't what I normally call truth. I'm neither Platonic nor Kantian. The human intellect does not create truth. It creates statements about truth which may or may not be accurate.

[ QUOTE ]

There is plain, everyday human intellectual truth, then there is Truth, the ultimate Truth, which I deny exists, or at least deny exists in any way that we can comprehend or even approach.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can divide truth into parts. If by human intellectual truth you mean human knowledge, I have indicated many times that human knowledge is flawed. But then it is no longer truth, but error. Furthermore, to deny that truth exists or can be comprehended is itself an assertion that makes a claim of ultimate truth.

[ QUOTE ]

My main point is that the world that we perceive is filtered through the human intellect and that during that process very human things are added that may not actually exist in the world in itself


[/ QUOTE ]

Eureka, we agree.

[ QUOTE ]

Our concept of reality is a very human conceptualization and I'm arguing that what we normally consider truth may simply be, in a way, a human construct.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can sort of agree with this, except I would not use the word truth in an unqualifed way about anything purely human. Truth is not a human construct, but our knowledge and expression of truth is, and so is subject to error.

[ QUOTE ]

Not only that, but we can never know whether we are indeed interpreting the world as it is or whether we are only perceiving a small part, limited by our tool of understanding, the intellect.


[/ QUOTE ]


This is certainly true of our knowledge of the world through unaided human reason. I believe that we can know truth, however, first because God created us with that ability and second because He reveals truth to us in His Word.

[ QUOTE ]

One important thing to point out about what Christianity and Plato have in common is the very idea we have been debating: God as ultimate truth, and the Platonic Idea of truth.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing in common here. God is a Person, not an abstract concept of truth. Plato never took a final position on what he considered absolute or ultimate. The forms represent a pluralism that isn't really any different from the pluralism of the material world since he never articulated a unifying principle that would make sense of the ideal world. Kant is really no different, since the phenomenal world exists independently of both God and man, has no unifying principle, and is essentially unknown by either God or man. For Plato and Kant, the irrational remained a real force, and that by definition excludes any comprehensive, rational system. Chance is at least co-equal with God, and thus there really is no God.

[snowden719]

It seems that it has to be possible for us to make reference to the fact that there is no truth in the world without falling into a semanic paradox. Wht if we take a Wittgensteinian route and say that language is not concerend with truth conditions but rather with assertability conditions. Having said that the statement that there is no objective truth is not necesarrily true, but is assertable within the linguistic framework we share. This allows me to make substantive claims about whther or not truth exists without committing me to a semingly true statement.

[BadBoyBenny]

So then should existentialism always lead to nihlism or is it logically consistent for an existentialist to create some kind of hope and fit it into their world view?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So then should existentialism always lead to nihlism


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It provides no basis for hope. The alternative is living without hope.

It isn't Christians who make a blind leap of faith in the dark.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
So then should existentialism always lead to nihlism or is it logically consistent for an existentialist to create some kind of hope and fit it into their world view?

[/ QUOTE ]

For religiously minded people, hope comes from without, from religious texts and from faith in god. They are sadly incapable of imagining that a sense of hope or a sense of meaning can come from anywhere but god.

For a true existentialist, hope can come from within, from creating your own path and living according to your own ethos.