Existentialism, from the quiz

[imported_luckyme]

yukoncpa asks-
[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone explain this philosophy in a manner that a fifth grader can understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It's a very broad term. It can contain theist beliefs and non-theist approachs for example. Some elements that run through it are free will and accepting responsibility. One of Sartre's spins was the that we live in a relative universe and we create meaning by the choices we make and that there is no excape from making choices. ( it's been years since I read any Sartre). "condemmed to be free" sticks in my mind.

DS has raised sartrian issues with his "acts of ommission/commission questions), the 'not making a choice is a choice' stuff.

Not that I consider the quize accurate, it's too simplistic.

Anybody more up on Sartre may be able to expand.

luckyme

[Aytumious]

Existentialism is a Humanism by Sartre

Hi Aytumius
This was a great link. Straight from the source - Sarte - it becomes much easier to comprehend than all the gibberish from the folks who tried to interpret Sarte, et al. I especially liked the part where the young French man was caught between staying in France and helping is aging mother, who was married to a Nazi collaborator or joining the resistance which necessitated moving to England and possibly doing nothing but shuffle paper work. He couldn't turn to priests because some were collaborators and others were not. So ultimately he was free to choose the path that felt right to him. No rule of general morality was there to tell him what to do: no signs are vouchsafed in this world. Catholics will reply: Oh, but they are! Very well; still, it is man in every case who must interpret those signs.

[RJT]

Yukon,

I was just doing some browsing for the Book Club (see Book Club I and II posts by Scotch78) here. I just found this: “ The branch of philosophy…to which Kierkegaard gave birth has come to be known as existentialism”. (I hadn't realized - or forgot, really - the time frame on this thought.)

Why don’t you (and you others) join the reading/discussion when we get going?

RJT

Hi Rjt,
Sounds fun to me.

[Peter666]

The problem with Sarte is that he gives equal credence to the choices that people make, even though some choices are superior to others due to rationality. He concludes that all choices define mankind so there is not really a right or a wrong.

His is an ultimate laissez faire society that does not value the end results of one's actions. Both the Communists and Christians see choices as means to an end, which makes sense if we are to look at the world objectively. Sarte does not do this. His means are the end.

And if I were an atheist, I would definitely be a Nietszchian. It is the only atheistic philosophy that makes sense.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with Sarte is that he gives equal credence to the choices that people make, even though some choices are superior to others due to rationality. He concludes that all choices define mankind so there is not really a right or a wrong.

His is an ultimate laissez faire society that does not value the end results of one's actions. Both the Communists and Christians see choices as means to an end, which makes sense if we are to look at the world objectively. Sarte does not do this. His means are the end.

And if I were an atheist, I would definitely be a Nietszchian. It is the only atheistic philosophy that makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

For once I actually agree with you. Did someone hijack Peter's account?

For once I actually agree with you. Did someone hijack Peter's account?
Aytumious

This is hilarious. On Bigsoonerfan's quiz, I did score an 82% on Nietzche ( second to Sarte ). Now, based on Peter666's erudite analysis, I can see I now need to bone up on Nietzche, (probably beginning with his spelling).

"The problem with Sarte is that he gives equal credence to the choices that people make, even though some choices are superior to others due to rationality. He concludes that all choices define mankind so there is not really a right or a wrong.

"His is an ultimate laissez faire society that does not value the end results of one's actions. Both the Communists and Christians see choices as means to an end, which makes sense if we are to look at the world objectively. Sarte does not do this. His means are the end."

Peter,

I think this is a good analysis, but wouldn't Nietzsche also place irrationality on the same level as rationality? He talks a lot about Dionysian values, which are altogether irrational and animalistic.

I've read one essay by him entitled "On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life," in which he basically critiques the life that is overly rational. An interesting theme is that man should "learn how to forget," so as to always be creating anew.

EvF