Who does your ethical philosphies most match with ? (Quiz)

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi luckyme,
You and I match. I'm 100% Sarte - an existentialist. What is existentialism? I looked it up on a couple of sites and couldn't understand a word written. Can anyone explain this philosophy in a manner that a fifth grader can understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good place to look: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/

Thank you Purnell and Notready for your replies. Purnell's recommended site is actually one of the first I looked up. I was able to comprehend it better after reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I replied because I thought that your explanation was something like saying: "god exists. all is forbidden"

[/ QUOTE ]Wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so you mean to say that I didn't reply because I thought that your explanation was something like saying: "god exists. all is forbidden" to someone asking what is christianity?

In case anyone's interested, here is where my confusion stemmed. This is a cut and paste from Purnell's recommended site:
The in-itself is solid, self-identical, passive and inert. It simply "is." The for-itself is fluid, nonself-identical, and dynamic. It is the internal negation or "nihilation" of the in-itself, on which it depends. Viewed more concretely, this duality is cast as "facticity" and "transcendence."

Is it just me? Or is this stuff a bit difficult to understand?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh, so you mean to say that I didn't reply because I thought that your explanation was something like saying: "god exists. all is forbidden" to someone asking what is christianity?


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't translate this.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
In case anyone's interested, here is where my confusion stemmed. This is a cut and paste from Purnell's recommended site:
The in-itself is solid, self-identical, passive and inert. It simply "is." The for-itself is fluid, nonself-identical, and dynamic. It is the internal negation or "nihilation" of the in-itself, on which it depends. Viewed more concretely, this duality is cast as "facticity" and "transcendence."

Is it just me? Or is this stuff a bit difficult to understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Much of "existential" philosophy in the 20th century reads like nonsense. Crack open some Heidegger and you'll quickly agree with me.

[purnell]

I think this is the "bottom line" of existentialism as I understand it.

From "Existentialism Is a Humanism", which Luckyme linked to in the other thread:

"Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world — and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing — as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism."

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone else taken this?

Ethical Philosophy Selector

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have hit the wrong link.

(1) Yogi Berra (100%)
(2) Tennessee Williams (92%)
(3) Groucho Marx (80%)
(4) Dr Phil (20%)

[r3vbr]

1. John Stuart Mill (100%)
2. Kant (97%)
3. Jeremy Bentham (82%)

[bluesbassman]

Ayn Rand (100%)
Aristotle (81%)
Aquinas (74%)

I'm not surprised by this at all.