Existential Book Club discussion

Existentialism is the view that existence precedes essence, that your existence is not preordained with some essential purpose or meaning. Do you identify as an existentialist? What's life like for you as an existentialist?

J wrote: "I would say I am. I find myself being bored by others in terms of debate in regards to philosophy or critical analysis. I don't hold ideas or traditions as things that are sacred or above discussio..."

Hi J

Thanks for sharing. It's inspiring to see the philosophical tradition of existentialism serving as a basis for your self-expression. Certainly, to live by someone else's prescriptions is to live in "bad faith," as J. P. Sartre said. How do you find the notion of life itself being inherently meaningless?

I would say that to critique ideas, such as politics and religion, is not existentialist as such. That's just doing philosophy. It seems to me that you have strong philosophical inclinations. Keep on keeping on.

Best wishes,
Alain

The imagery of meaninglessness being the water upon which one's ships of personal fulfilment sail is evocative. It follows that it is a lack of meanings and for that matter values 'out there' that makes it possible for us to subjectively choose meanings and values for ourselves. The burden I feel on occasion is what to choose - deciding on the direction in which to set sail.

As to the second point, I don't deny that one can critique through an existentialist lens. What I meant is that critique itself is a characteristic of philosophy more broadly, whether existentialist, Marxist, post-structuralist, etc. etc.

Alain wrote: "Existentialism is the view that existence precedes essence, that your existence is not preordained with some essential purpose or meaning. Do you identify as an existentialist? What's life like for..."

I intuitively identify as an existentialist because I value personal responsibility so much. I find it difficult to understand how people could ever be held responsible for their actions under determinism. Existentialism is freeing to me because it puts the onus on the individual to make his own destiny, there being no preordained "plan." Having said all that, there are many great modern philosophers that present compelling arguments for determinism that I cannot absolutely refute. I am still weighing the evidence on both sides of the debate, either of my own free will or because it is written the stars ; )

Blake wrote: "Alain wrote: "Existentialism is the view that existence precedes essence, that your existence is not preordained with some essential purpose or meaning. Do you identify as an existentialist? What's..."

Hi Blake

Thanks for engaging with the topic. I find the contrast of existentialism to determinism compelling. However, being an existentialist is not the only way to be a non-determinist. When taken from the view of ethics, for example, an existentialist would be of the view that there are no objective ethical facts, so we must invent our own ethical systems. A 'cognitivist', however, is of the view that ethics are objective facts that we can get at. That being said, not all cognitivists are determinists. I hope this example makes clear how the 'opposite' of determinism is not existentialism; it is simply non-determinism, of which existentialism is an excellent flavour!

If the problem of determinism interests you, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory, is worth checking out! In it, Chalmers makes a strong case for a different kind of dualism (to Descartes) that calls for something non-physical and non-psychological to exist once all the physical and psychological mechanisms have been accounted for. He calls it the phenomenal.

I myself have vacillated between determinism and non-determinism throughout my life, and I am currently of the view that non-determinism is the case. I argue for it by evoking the concept of a driver. Imagine you're playing a racing game on a gaming console. You are the driver. Everything about the race is determined, because it is all embodied in the computer code, which is certainly deterministic, even if probabilistic. However, you as the driver reside outside of the confines of the code. It is you as driver who brings non-determinism (i.e. free will) into the gaming environment. To extend the analogy, whatever is 'outside' your physical/psychological mechanism 'is' your free will.

Thanks for bringing up determinism and its relationship to existentialism. It's fascinating stuff!

Alain

Armando wrote: "Hi, Everyone,
I was reading the interesting comments above and felt compelled to offer some suggestions and food for thought regarding the implications of Sartre's proclamation of "existence prece..."

Armando

Thank you! You bring to the conversation a plethora of concepts that I feel we must treat individually and carefully. In a somewhat anti-literary spirit, let me produce a list:
1. the absolute freedom of pre-reflective consciousness
2. bad faith
3. preconditions (which Sartre called facticity)
4. Hume: emotions vs reason
5. disciplined introspection/Theravada Buddhism
6. disinhibition
7. moral relativism
8. ethics as the nature of existence
Wow!

1, 2 & 3) Yes, I would agree that our facticities have a significant bearing on our thoughts and actions so as to make it virtually impossible to practice freedom to the extent that the pre-reflective consciousness is free, so consequently we fall into bad faith.

4) While Hume may have concluded that we act more out of emotion than reason, it does not follow that to act out of reason is to act freely. For example, computers and robots always act out of reason, yet they are not free. One example of how reason fails to yield freedom is insufficient to claim that all acts of reason are deterministic, but we need to consider the possibility.

5) I would agree that through some practice of deep introspection we can free ourselves from the mechanisms of our physical and psychological components that operate deterministically in accordance with the conditions imposed upon them.

6) Agreed. To treat existentialism as a philosophy that advocates that one can just do whatever one wants without consequence is to misuse and misunderstand existentialism.

7) Relativism is the view that everyone is entitled to "their truth." While existentialism allows for every individual to shape their own values, it is somewhat silent on whether the values we choose for ourselves are 'true'. It would seem that before we can invoke relativism, we must first invoke truth as a value:
i) I hold truth as a value and believe that propositions must either be true or false;
ii) People hold ethical views which can be expressed as propositions;
iii) Therefore, people's ethical views must either be true and false. And if they're all true, then we have relativism.
The conclusion (iii) is contingent on premise (i). We need to be very careful when we subscribe to truth as a value not to externalise it in such a way that it must then hold as a universal. The very point of existentialism is the opposite.

8) Ethics is the nature of existence. That's a bold claim. I'd love to hear more of your reasoning toward this conclusion.

Many thanks,
Alain

I started as an existentialist, but I have recently felt more like an absurdist.

I really like to way Camus present Sisyphus, and that is exactly how I feel sometimes.

Just doing what I have to do, the inevitable and try to enjoy the little moments that I have.

Like Sisyphus, I always hope for the best but expect the worst.

Isaac wrote: "I started as an existentialist, but I have recently felt more like an absurdist..."

Hi Isaac

Thanks for sharing. I empathise.

Alain

Hi there (:
I think I'm an existentialist in terms of thinking a lot about the meaning of life (in general) and all the small occurrences it's made of.
I'm trying to make sense of it all as I struggle with the (probably very fundamental) question :"why are we here?"

I can really relate to Viktor Frankl who said that each person should make their own meaning of life and set their own purpose to live by.

I believe that there is no one true meaning.
i think that throughout life each individual is offered one or more meanings (provided by external sources like: our culture or internal sources like: our experiences and interpretations)
That he/she can then choose to follow and make their own, if they find it to be relevant or contributing to their life.

the problem I personally encountered is: finding meaning that isn't that strong (for example when your faith gets weak) so it doesn't last (and then you're in search again).

Great insights, Armando. Thanks for sharing.

Sivan wrote: "Hi there (:
I think I'm an existentialist in terms of thinking a lot about the meaning of life (in general) and all the small occurrences it's made of.
I'm trying to make sense of it all as I str..."

Thanks for your input, Sivan. I am currently undertaking research in the phenomenon of existential frustration. I find it to be an interesting concept in that frustration is usually related to having some goal/purpose/objective thwarted. What then does it mean to be existentially frustrated? Does it mean to look for meaning, but not find it?

I can relate to your quest for meaning, often futile, and I can attest to experiencing joy in letting go of the enterprise and revelling in life in a immanent way.

Armando wrote: "Hi, Sivan,

You bring up several interesting points which I, as an existentialist, find intriguing. First, you are an existentialist if you question, or are concerned with, the nature of existence-..."

Thank you, Armando.

you mentioned Sartre's concern about the "meaninglessness of our nothingness" and I think it truly is both beautiful and sad - the fact that we can't ever know for sure IF we have a meaning (and, even more so, WHAT it is and therefor, we're bound to make one up and be at peace with the fact that (as you say, and I agree) it's baseless.
BUT: is the fact that we create our own meaning and we are aware of it, makes that meaning less important or dulls that meaning's ability to comfort and motivate us?
Now, this is where I get contemplative…
On a bad day I would say – "yes it does ruin the magic", but sometimes when I get inspired or in need of some sense of order to the world I'm tempted to believe my own made up meaning… and yet, I find it very hard each time my belief is failing

Thank you, Alain.

I think the subject of "existential frustration" which you are talking about, captures in a quite accurate way; the "dark side" of the search for meaning. That is, when you fail to find it – you get frustrated.

I think your choice of letting go of this search and just live your life with joy is very interesting, and I wonder if this qualifies as sort of a meaning? (like having the purpose of "enjoyment" / "celebrating life")?

Camus writes a lot about the mystical (without God) - one of the things I like about him. Sartre was so dry he couldn't even appreciate the countryside. What I like about them is you create your own meaning. And the main ethical preoccupations (dont ever let anyone tell you they are not ethical!) is freedom and authenticity.

Hi Armando,
You bring up some very interesting (and quite philosophical) points.

I like your idea of "transcending the self and the world" so that we could obtain that subtle joy. Is that the joy of letting go the search for an answer and just accepting that there is no certain answer?

I think of trying to search for meaning outside the world and outside of myself and it sounds complicated because to me – everything that exists is me (us humans who are included in the physical world) and the world (which gets implemented in our awareness and constantly shapes it).

I can also relate what you said about finding meaning is "possible through faith in a God which is beyond the world "the source of all meaning" – do you mean this god is the notion of the unknown?

In that case, perhaps the method is trying to accept that some things are unknown and maybe the meaning of life as well is supposed to be hidden and thus – we can feel fine with not finding it…

Hi John,
I also like the proposal that you can create your own meaning.

The good thing about it is that we can change our perceived meaning at any point in life as we evolve; process new experiences and gain new insights.

I think the disadvantage is that it leaves us hanging in some way because we are never sure if the meaning we chose to create/adopt is a true and solid one... (so that we are always at trial and error)

"I think the disadvantage is that it leaves us hanging in some way because we are never sure if the meaning we chose to create/adopt is a true and solid one... (so that we are always at trial and error) "

Quite right, and there will always be a danger of solipsism and the suspicion that one has "taken a wrong turning". But someone like Sartre might say, "What do you mean by truth and solid?"

Madness could always be just around the corner (for some, it has been). But courage, as Camus and Nietzsche have shown, is a very useful disposition.

I both AM and am Not an existentialist - particularly as defined:
the whole question of Existence preceding Essence I find to be a bit absurd, philosophically speaking - switching terms doesn't do much when you have had a dialectical upbringing.

The idea of 'meaninglessness' is very shallow, creating meaning is much more interesting and speaking of the two in relation to one another is a way of speaking of the One and the Other >>

2 basics in Parmenides - and we can certainly interpret them as being Meaning (as in God); ONE -
and
otherness > the human conundrum - the path of mortals

which can be solved by finding Christ within oneself, OR
simply accepting the ideas of Karma & Reincarnation; OR
"you fill in the blank"

without some sort of solution patterened on the above, I'd
always put Essence first.

Hi Armando,

I agree that all we do in life is very wonderful! "our science, our tragedies, our passions…". But sometimes I just feel like all these actions and aspirations are more and more creative options for passing the time (until we cease to exist and thus cease having questions).
The beautiful thing about it is that all these things pour content into our lives and whether it is true or false (objectively) - it's meaningful to us. (At least until it loses its charm and needs to be replaced)

What you are saying about the human condition of nothingness reminds me of what Adler said about humans being born with a sense of inferiority and then struggle to overcome it by achievements… I guess if people would have been born into a superior position (or rather, born with all the answers) – then life would be kind of boring (but maybe also painless).

Exactly! So how do you live calmly and deeply with that feeling of solipsism always keeping the doubt alive?

It reminds me that a friend of mine once said he envies people who got their meaning from an outside source (like a religion or culture). |He thought that this would be a good cure against solipsism and doubt, but I think that choosing to believe what you are being told by others, is yet again – YOUR own choice (guided by your own awareness) so i guess there's no escape indeed.

Two points that may have some significance:

"Meaningfulness" is only obtainable through "the Word" -
I am the I AM is understood as solipsism by the understanding but as the infinite by true Reason....
(make that Three) > "I am not of this world, I have overcome the World"....

p.

Sorry, Phillip, but a lot of your posts dont make sense. (Grammar? Sentences?)

Try saying something meaningful without using any words....?
The Gospel of John is the key to understanding the above...

Hope that this helps -

p.

Phillip wrote: "Try saying something meaningful without using any words....?
The Gospel of John is the key to understanding the above...

Hope that this helps -

p."

Hi Philip - Just wanted to agree with your two posts above.

I'm not an existentialist because I don't know what the word means. What Sartre says about the nature of consciousness suggests to me that he is endorsing, or perhaps groping towards, the Perennial philosophy, and that this explains existentialism. Also, existentialism does not seem to be a theory but an attitude or approach.

Much like you, if I'm catching your drift, I see existentialism as a rather vague word indicating a partial endorsement or 'groping towards' the world-theory described in the Gospel of John, the sermons of Meister Eckhart. ACIM, the Buddhist sutras, the Upanishads and so forth. .

Nope. But I was a negative Nihilist in 2017. I have sibce had mystical experiences that have resulted me in adopting Hindu views on life.

Yes.