Questions on existentialism

[ataraxia]

I am trying to understand existentialism, and so have been trying to understand some of the founders of the movement. So I have some questions on it:


1) Two of the big founders of this school of thought, I think most would agree, are Heidegger and Sartre.

There is a story about someone visiting Heidegger in his country home late in his life, and he saw a copy of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" on his desk. Sartre had written the book after having read Heidegger's "Being and Time", was very inspired by it, and very consciously chose his title to show the influence of Heidegger's book on his own thought. But apparently Heidegger had not been impressed, and called it something like "dreck" when the visitor asked about it.

My understanding of the difference between the two is that Heidegger thought humans could never escape their "throwenness" into the world. We were all born into a culture, a historical period, certain circumstances, certain possibilities, which always limited our freedom. Sartre, on the other hand, believed in radical freedom, that we were completely free to choose at any given time, and any attempt to appeal to our background, or culture, or history, etc... were evidence of "bad faith"- excuses we made to try to avoid the overwhelming freedom that we really have in choosing our essence.

Is this an accurate understanding of the main difference between the two? Are there other big differences between the two? If so, what?

2) I have heard Heidegger described as the "father of modern existentialism". But I have also heard that a much earlier thinker, Soren Kierkegaard. What is "modern existentialism", and why is that different than that of Kierkegaard?

How does Nietzsche fit into all this?

 

[ataraxia]

I have even heard heard St. Augustine referred to as an existentialist. How is that?

 

[Angel]

...
2) I have heard Heidegger described as the "father of modern existentialism". But I have also heard that a much earlier thinker, Soren Kierkegaard. What is "modern existentialism", and why is that different than that of Kierkegaard?

How does Nietzsche fit into all this?

Sartre and Heidegger were systematic in their existentialism. Kierkegaard and Nietszche were temperamentally existentialist in their writing, but did not offer a system.

 

[Cynical]

I am trying to understand existentialism, and so have been trying to understand some of the founders of the movement. So I have some questions on it:


1) Two of the big founders of this school of thought, I think most would agree, are Heidegger and Sartre.

There is a story about someone visiting Heidegger in his country home late in his life, and he saw a copy of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" on his desk. Sartre had written the book after having read Heidegger's "Being and Time", was very inspired by it, and very consciously chose his title to show the influence of Heidegger's book on his own thought. But apparently Heidegger had not been impressed, and called it something like "dreck" when the visitor asked about it.

My understanding of the difference between the two is that Heidegger thought humans could never escape their "throwenness" into the world. We were all born into a culture, a historical period, certain circumstances, certain possibilities, which always limited our freedom. Sartre, on the other hand, believed in radical freedom, that we were completely free to choose at any given time, and any attempt to appeal to our background, or culture, or history, etc... were evidence of "bad faith"- excuses we made to try to avoid the overwhelming freedom that we really have in choosing our essence.

Is this an accurate understanding of the main difference between the two? Are there other big differences between the two? If so, what?

2) I have heard Heidegger described as the "father of modern existentialism". But I have also heard that a much earlier thinker, Soren Kierkegaard. What is "modern existentialism", and why is that different than that of Kierkegaard?

How does Nietzsche fit into all this?

During my studies in philosophy Kierkegaard was consider the father of existentialism in philosophical thought. Here is quote regarding that:

"Although existential attitude can be seen in past thinkers like Saint Augustine and Blaise Pascal, Kierkegaard is almost undisputedly accepted as the founder of the movement."

Here is the link:
An Amateur's History of Modern Philosophy: Existentialism and Jean-Paul Sartre

Existentialism has played a prominent role in my philosophical thinking in that elevates the notions of the human experience that we hold most dear: love, hate, good, evil, justice, forgiveness, etc. My personal beliefs have been more influenced by watching documentaries on people like Ted Bundy, and Mother Teresa, along with watching movies like A Walk to Remember than all the logical and scientific arguments I've studied and considered.

 

[FinnFox]

How does Nietzsche fit into all this?

Nietzsche wasn't exactly existentialist, more like full blown nihilist with some macho twist. In nut shell: whole idea of existentialism is to solve nihilism, get over it - without jumping into dark hole and screaming like a fool. You didn't include Camus (a bit weird?) as he's one of those main existentialists (1913-1960). Because I'm not expert on this subject I can't tell how he differ from Sartre - but as far as I know, there's differences how they saw existentialism.

Soren's existentialism come with some religious twist - if I remember right.

Sartre's first novel (Nausea, published 1938) is golden, must read if you're interested in existentialism.

 

[Omniscient]

learning what dead men said is not philosophy, its history.

philosophy is thinking more deeply about reality, not memorizing who said what.

technically you could solve all of philosophy without ever knowing a single thing anyone else ever thought or said

 

[ataraxia]

learning what dead men said is not philosophy, its history.

philosophy is thinking more deeply about reality, not memorizing who said what.

technically you could solve all of philosophy without ever knowing a single thing anyone else ever thought or said

yeah sure, but it’s good not to have to reinvent the wheel. It helps to know what some pretty smart people have said in the past, and what the counter arguments were, and what the consequences were. You can then try to build on it for yourself from there. It helps to learn from history. It can save time.

 

[Omniscient]

yeah sure, but it’s good not to have to reinvent the wheel. It helps to know what some pretty smart people have said in the past, and what the counter arguments were, and what the consequences were. You can then try to build on it for yourself from there. It helps to learn from history. It can save time.

sure, but dont read too much, otherwise you will fall into memorizing instead of thinking for yourself

touch on things as you need to, in order to assist or kick start your own mind in desired directions

 

[craig]

sure, but dont read too much, otherwise you will fall into memorizing instead of thinking for yourself

touch on things as you need to, in order to assist or kick start your own mind in desired directions

I agree. Early work is often the best. Later work may be better structured but is just a rehash. Too much knowledge will lead you down established paths, not to new ground.

 

[gooseneck]

I am trying to understand existentialism, and so have been trying to understand some of the founders of the movement. So I have some questions on it:


1) Two of the big founders of this school of thought, I think most would agree, are Heidegger and Sartre.

There is a story about someone visiting Heidegger in his country home late in his life, and he saw a copy of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" on his desk. Sartre had written the book after having read Heidegger's "Being and Time", was very inspired by it, and very consciously chose his title to show the influence of Heidegger's book on his own thought. But apparently Heidegger had not been impressed, and called it something like "dreck" when the visitor asked about it.

My understanding of the difference between the two is that Heidegger thought humans could never escape their "throwenness" into the world. We were all born into a culture, a historical period, certain circumstances, certain possibilities, which always limited our freedom. Sartre, on the other hand, believed in radical freedom, that we were completely free to choose at any given time, and any attempt to appeal to our background, or culture, or history, etc... were evidence of "bad faith"- excuses we made to try to avoid the overwhelming freedom that we really have in choosing our essence.

Is this an accurate understanding of the main difference between the two? Are there other big differences between the two? If so, what?

2) I have heard Heidegger described as the "father of modern existentialism". But I have also heard that a much earlier thinker, Soren Kierkegaard. What is "modern existentialism", and why is that different than that of Kierkegaard?

How does Nietzsche fit into all this?

I religiously and fanatically avoid existentialism to the fullest of my being. I assert existentialism as a deadly philosophy that yields too many cases of suicidal thought. Be very careful I warn you. Alcohol does not destroy every life but it destroys many. Heroine does not destroy every life but it does destroy many. Existentialism does not destroy every life but it does destroy many. Surely you can decipher the logical end of such a mindset and reject it as not fit for human consumption.

Man can live 40 days without food, 3 days without water, 8 minutes without air, but cannot live one second without hope.

 

[ataraxia]

I religiously and fanatically avoid existentialism to the fullest of my being. I assert existentialism as a deadly philosophy that yields too many cases of suicidal thought. Be very careful I warn you. Alcohol does not destroy every life but it destroys many. Heroine does not destroy every life but it does destroy many. Existentialism does not destroy every life but it does destroy many. Surely you can decipher the logical end of such a mindset and reject it as not fit for human consumption.

Actually from what I understand, it can sometimes be therapeutic- "existential therapy".

Existential Psychotherapy

Existential psychotherapy looks at the whole human condition and is based on the belief internal conflict results from inherent human experiences called givens.

www.goodtherapy.org

This is not entirely new. Even ancient stoic philosophy can be thought of a sort of existential therapy.

Compare these Stoic and existentialist quotes:

Marcus Aurelius: “External thinks are not the problem. It’s your assessment of them. Which you can erase right now.”
Sartre: “The world is, of course, nothing but our conception of it.” “Life has no meaning a priori… It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.”

Marcus Aurelius: “It’s time you realized that you have something in you more powerful and miraculous than the things that affect you and make you dance like a puppet.”
Heidegger: "We make a space inside ourselves, so that being can speak."

Marcus Aurelius: “It never ceases to amaze me: we all love ourselves more than other people, but care more about their opinion than our own.”
Sartre: "Hell is- other people!"

Marcus Aurelius: “You could leave life right now. Let that determine what you do and say and think.”
Heidegger: "If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself. ”
Sartre: “Do you think that I count the days? There is only one day left, always starting over: it is given to us at dawn and taken away from us at dusk.”

Incidentally, let me add this quote to the last set here, about this idea of what Heidegger calls "being-unto-death"- from a thinker from a very different age yet, the early Renaissance:
"The premeditation of death is the premeditation of liberty; he who has learned to die has unlearned to serve. ... I am in my own nature not melancholic, but meditative; and there is nothing I have more continually entertained myself withal than imaginations of death, even in the most wanton time of my age."
-Michel de Montaigne

 

[j brown's body]

I religiously and fanatically avoid existentialism to the fullest of my being. I assert existentialism as a deadly philosophy that yields too many cases of suicidal thought. Be very careful I warn you. Alcohol does not destroy every life but it destroys many. Heroine does not destroy every life but it does destroy many. Existentialism does not destroy every life but it does destroy many. Surely you can decipher the logical end of such a mindset and reject it as not fit for human consumption.

Interesting because Camus rejected suicide and Nietzsche respected alcohol.

 

[j brown's body]

Actually from what I understand, it can sometimes be therapeutic- "existential therapy".

Existential Psychotherapy

Existential psychotherapy looks at the whole human condition and is based on the belief internal conflict results from inherent human experiences called givens.

www.goodtherapy.org

This is not entirely new. Even ancient stoic philosophy can be thought of a sort of existential therapy.

Compare these Stoic and existentialist quotes:

Marcus Aurelius: “External thinks are not the problem. It’s your assessment of them. Which you can erase right now.”
Sartre: “The world is, of course, nothing but our conception of it.” “Life has no meaning a priori… It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.”

Marcus Aurelius: “It’s time you realized that you have something in you more powerful and miraculous than the things that affect you and make you dance like a puppet.”
Heidegger: "We make a space inside ourselves, so that being can speak."

Marcus Aurelius: “It never ceases to amaze me: we all love ourselves more than other people, but care more about their opinion than our own.”
Sartre: "Hell is- other people!"

Marcus Aurelius: “You could leave life right now. Let that determine what you do and say and think.”
Heidegger: "If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself. ”
Sartre: “Do you think that I count the days? There is only one day left, always starting over: it is given to us at dawn and taken away from us at dusk.”

Incidentally, let me add this quote to the last set here, about this idea of what Heidegger calls "being-unto-death"- from a thinker from a very different age yet, the early Renaissance:
"The premeditation of death is the premeditation of liberty; he who has learned to die has unlearned to serve. ... I am in my own nature not melancholic, but meditative; and there is nothing I have more continually entertained myself withal than imaginations of death, even in the most wanton time of my age."
-Michel de Montaigne

I am inclined to believe that existentialism us the way to go. It really is on the individual to find ones way. One can rely on others, but they are no more qualified. The key, it seems to me, is understanding that its all about the journey. Live it. For we all know the destination, and that is death. No sense dwelling on that.

 

[j brown's body]

learning what dead men said is not philosophy, its history.

philosophy is thinking more deeply about reality, not memorizing who said what.

technically you could solve all of philosophy without ever knowing a single thing anyone else ever thought or said

Seems like most of whatever one thinks, one has thought it before. And paying attention to their insight on it has value, if only to know that you are not entirely alone.

 

[watsup]

I am trying to understand existentialism, and so have been trying to understand some of the founders of the movement. So I have some questions on it:


1) Two of the big founders of this school of thought, I think most would agree, are Heidegger and Sartre.

There is a story about someone visiting Heidegger in his country home late in his life, and he saw a copy of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" on his desk. Sartre had written the book after having read Heidegger's "Being and Time", was very inspired by it, and very consciously chose his title to show the influence of Heidegger's book on his own thought. But apparently Heidegger had not been impressed, and called it something like "dreck" when the visitor asked about it.

My understanding of the difference between the two is that Heidegger thought humans could never escape their "throwenness" into the world. We were all born into a culture, a historical period, certain circumstances, certain possibilities, which always limited our freedom. Sartre, on the other hand, believed in radical freedom, that we were completely free to choose at any given time, and any attempt to appeal to our background, or culture, or history, etc... were evidence of "bad faith"- excuses we made to try to avoid the overwhelming freedom that we really have in choosing our essence.

Is this an accurate understanding of the main difference between the two? Are there other big differences between the two? If so, what?

2) I have heard Heidegger described as the "father of modern existentialism". But I have also heard that a much earlier thinker, Soren Kierkegaard. What is "modern existentialism", and why is that different than that of Kierkegaard?

How does Nietzsche fit into all this?

I am a Humanist. I wouldn't know.

 

[ataraxia]

I am a Humanist. I wouldn't know.

I am not sure that humanism and existentialism are mutually exclusive. Nietzsche was probably not a humanist, but there’s no reason why you can’t be both. I actually see them as somewhat complementary. Humanism is, at least to me, more of a philosophy of the public sphere- something that can help inform how we think about social policy and how we treat each other. Existentialism seems more a philosophy of personal growth and private projects- like a young person asking what should I do with my life.