Existentialism

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm more sympathetic to Absurdism these days. It makes more sense to me. 

[Alan V]

I'm more sympathetic to Absurdism these days. It makes more sense to me. 

Among other things, "meaning" means "importance or value."  So what you wrote makes perfect sense.  "Absurdism" is "the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe." 

Of course, the universe may not have a purpose, but we humans certainly have plenty of purposes.  And we have languages to express our meanings quite specifically.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We apply meaning to our own lives. Whether we fetch that meaning from religion, or some philosophy, or our own lives -- or whether we decide we don't need a meaning at all -- who cares? Why does my meaning of life, or lack thereof, matter to anyone else?

I know what my life means to me, and it's nunya fuckin' bidness. Mow your own back-yard and stay the hell out of mine.

[Dancefortwo]

Hello folks! I wanted to know whether anyone else here came to atheism through the Existentialists.  

Existental-who-what's-ists?  

Existentalism and philosophy are a lot of hot air and long winded discussions by people who really like to talk.  Until someone provides incontrovertible, unbiased proof a god exists then it's atheism all the way, baby! 



  <-------I have no idea what this emoji is but I've always wanted to use it....so apropo of nothing, here it is.

[Dom]

I remember contemplating "the meaning of life" in my early teens, not long after I realized I didn't believe in religion. Firstly, what life? my own? My moms? My dogs? The bird's in that tree? Secondly, to whom? To me? To others? To the world?

I decided back then that it was a futile endeavor to look for the meaning of life, and that it doesn't matter. I'm alive whether it means anything or not. That bird is going to sing whether it has meaning or not. And I doubt anyone gives a shit whether my life has a meaning or not.

And neither do I.

[Istvan66]

[quote="Istvan66" pid='348116' dateline='1647630904']

Existental-who-what's-ists?  

Um yeah, I think I'll leave you and the rest of the Crank Tank here to your brilliant banter.

It's been real.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I don't care about the meaning of life, but I do want purpose. The purpose of our genes seems to be reproduction, so the purpose of life must be fucking.

Works for me!

[TheGentlemanBastard]

[quote="Istvan66" pid='348116' dateline='1647630904']

Existental-who-what's-ists?  

Um yeah, I think I'll leave you and the rest of the Crank Tank here to your brilliant banter.

It's been real.

Caught out on your real purpose in coming here or just too damned thin skinned? 

If you must go, don't let it hit ya...

[Alan V]

Tough crowd.

[Alan V]

Okay, I looked it up since my own acquaintance with existentialism is rather slight:

Wikipedia:

Existentialism is a form of philosophical inquiry that explores the problem of human existence and centers on the experience of thinking, feeling, and acting. In the view of the existentialist, the individual's starting point has been called "the existential angst", a sense of dread, disorientation, confusion, or anxiety in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world. Existentialist thinkers frequently explore issues related to the meaning, purpose, and value of human existence.

Existentialism is associated with several 19th- and 20th-century European philosophers who shared an emphasis on the human subject, despite often profound differences in thought. Among the earliest figures associated with existentialism are philosophers Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche and novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, all of whom critiqued rationalism and concerned themselves with the problem of meaning. In the 20th century, prominent existentialist thinkers included Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Martin Heidegger, Simone de Beauvoir, Karl Jaspers, Gabriel Marcel, and Paul Tillich.

Many existentialists considered traditional systematic or academic philosophies, in style and content, to be too abstract and removed from concrete human experience. A primary virtue in existentialist thought is authenticity. Existentialism would influence many disciplines outside of philosophy, including theology, drama, art, literature, and psychology.

The "notion of the absurd" seems central to existentialism:

The notion of the absurd contains the idea that there is no meaning in the world beyond what meaning we give it. This meaninglessness also encompasses the amorality or "unfairness" of the world. This can be highlighted in the way it opposes the traditional Abrahamic religious perspective, which establishes that life's purpose is the fulfillment of God's commandments.

So I guess the critique against rationalism is basic to existential philosophy:

Existentialists oppose defining human beings as primarily rational, and, therefore, oppose both positivism and rationalism. Existentialism asserts that people make decisions based on subjective meaning rather than pure rationality. The rejection of reason as the source of meaning is a common theme of existentialist thought, as is the focus on the anxiety and dread that we feel in the face of our own radical free will and our awareness of death. Kierkegaard advocated rationality as a means to interact with the objective world (e.g., in the natural sciences), but when it comes to existential problems, reason is insufficient: "Human reason has boundaries".

Of course, all of this was formulated long before the remarkable scientific discoveries of more contemporary rationalists. I wonder if the existentialists could make the same kind of argument against rationalism now.

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't care about the meaning of life, but I do want purpose. The purpose of our genes seems to be reproduction, so the purpose of life must be fucking.

Works for me!

Not for me, I was born with a genetic condition I'd rather not pass on. Also I like my free time. What's my purpose?

[GenesisNemesis]

[quote="Istvan66" pid='348116' dateline='1647630904']

Existental-who-what's-ists?  

Um yeah, I think I'll leave you and the rest of the Crank Tank here to your brilliant banter.

It's been real.

Some people just can't deal with the Absurd, I suppose.

[skyking]

I don't care about the meaning of life, but I do want purpose. The purpose of our genes seems to be reproduction, so the purpose of life must be fucking.

Works for me!

Not for me, I was born with a genetic condition I'd rather not pass on. Also I like my free time. What's my purpose?

What YOU choose
Fuck the others who want to reduce us all to some category.

[Alan V]

According to Collins online dictionary, "If you describe someone as rationalist, you mean that their beliefs are based on reason and logic rather than emotion or religion." I think that describes me rather accurately at this time in my life. While I have no doubt that many people's beliefs are based on emotion or religion, I don't think it is impossible to be a rationalist as existentialists seem to assume. I also think it is much preferable that our beliefs should NOT be based on emotion or religion.

So I guess that's the point of contention with the OP. He interpreted even my rationalist critique as an emotionalistic rejection of what seems obvious to him, that I can't honestly be a rationalist. I guess existentialists were influenced by Freudianism and its idea that we are controlled by an irrational unconscious, which I also reject.

[SYZ]

Firstly, g'day mate, and welcome to the forum.    

...Did I get it right? Is anyone else here closer to an Existentialist than a New Atheist?

No, you didn't get it right.  Sorry.

It's a waste of time trying to—as you're apparently doing—conflate atheism
with the philosophical standpoint of existentialism.   Atheism has nothing to do
with philosophy;  as a matter of fact I have very little time for the tenets of
philosophy.  

At any rate, I agree with David Hume who proved, beyond any possible doubt,
that philosophy is bullshit.

Which is why I never waste my time talking about it.   I leave it to overpaid
professorial boffins in their academic ivory towers.

[Dom]

According to Collins online dictionary, "If you describe someone as rationalist, you mean that their beliefs are based on reason and logic rather than emotion or religion."  I think that describes me rather accurately at this time in my life.  While I have no doubt that many people's beliefs are based on emotion or religion, I don't think it is impossible to be a rationalist as existentialists seem to assume.  I also think it is much preferable that our beliefs should NOT be based on emotion or religion.

So I guess that's the point of contention with the OP.  He interpreted even my rationalist critique as an emotionalistic rejection of what seems obvious to him, that I can't honestly be a rationalist.  I guess existentialists were influenced by Freudianism and its idea that we are controlled by an irrational unconscious, which I also reject.

I don't think humans can escape being subjective and emotional. Emotions are physical reactions that trigger the release of chemicals in the body. Subjectivity is impossible to get rid of also, you can only base your thoughts on words and concepts you know. 

You can try to strip all that and be objective, and successfully so - to a point. But your body will always attempt to maintain an equilibrium through the release of chemicals, and your thoughts will always be limited by what you know.

[Alan V]

According to Collins online dictionary, "If you describe someone as rationalist, you mean that their beliefs are based on reason and logic rather than emotion or religion."  I think that describes me rather accurately at this time in my life.  While I have no doubt that many people's beliefs are based on emotion or religion, I don't think it is impossible to be a rationalist as existentialists seem to assume.  I also think it is much preferable that our beliefs should NOT be based on emotion or religion.

So I guess that's the point of contention with the OP.  He interpreted even my rationalist critique as an emotionalistic rejection of what seems obvious to him, that I can't honestly be a rationalist.  I guess existentialists were influenced by Freudianism and its idea that we are controlled by an irrational unconscious, which I also reject.

I don't think humans can escape being subjective and emotional. Emotions are physical reactions that trigger the release of chemicals in the body. Subjectivity is impossible to get rid of also, you can only base your thoughts on words and concepts you know. 

You can try to strip all that and be objective, and successfully so - to a point. But your body will always attempt to maintain an equilibrium through the release of chemicals, and your thoughts will always be limited by what you know.

So are you saying that people simply cannot have beliefs based on reason and logic?  That's what a rationalist is, not someone who experiences no emotions but someone who can put them aside when assessing ideas and information.

This is not to say I'm not distressed by the emotionalism I see on display in this forum on a daily basis.  

[Dānu]

According to Collins online dictionary, "If you describe someone as rationalist, you mean that their beliefs are based on reason and logic rather than emotion or religion."  I think that describes me rather accurately at this time in my life.  While I have no doubt that many people's beliefs are based on emotion or religion, I don't think it is impossible to be a rationalist as existentialists seem to assume.  I also think it is much preferable that our beliefs should NOT be based on emotion or religion.

So I guess that's the point of contention with the OP.  He interpreted even my rationalist critique as an emotionalistic rejection of what seems obvious to him, that I can't honestly be a rationalist.  I guess existentialists were influenced by Freudianism and its idea that we are controlled by an irrational unconscious, which I also reject.

I don't think humans can escape being subjective and emotional. Emotions are physical reactions that trigger the release of chemicals in the body. Subjectivity is impossible to get rid of also, you can only base your thoughts on words and concepts you know. 

You can try to strip all that and be objective, and successfully so - to a point. But your body will always attempt to maintain an equilibrium through the release of chemicals, and your thoughts will always be limited by what you know.

So are you saying that people simply cannot have beliefs based on reason and logic?  That's what a rationalist is, not someone who experiences no emotions but someone who can put them aside when assessing ideas and information.

This is not to say I'm not distressed by the emotionalism I see on display in this forum on a daily basis.  

This is why I'm not a humanist. Having a human-centered worldview is all fine and dandy, but IMHO, it cannot at bottom be rationally justified. It's emotional or political, not rational.

[adey67]

Hello and welcome to the forum. All atheism means to me is as a descriptor for "one who lacks a belief in god/s". Nothing more, nothing less and I see no point in anyone tieing themselves in knots trying to make it anymore complicated than it needs to be because it's not really like a religion that has different sects such as Catholicism/ Protestantism Sunni/Shia etc etc although I'm sure there are plenty of religious folks who would find it convenient for one reason or another to pigeon hole non believers in that vein. 

I would still be interested to hear what you think is most positive about existentialism, as long as it isn't framed in a way which knocks other ways of thinking unfairly.

Since you haven't made even the slightest effort to engage with what I'm saying here, I'll return the favor.

 He engaged with you at length, twice, he just disagrees with some of your points. Alan is a thoughtful, eloquent, extremely polite and well respected established member of the forum, I do not believe he deserved the response quoted above.

[adey67]

[quote="Istvan66" pid='348116' dateline='1647630904']

Existental-who-what's-ists?  

Um yeah, I think I'll leave you and the rest of the Crank Tank here to your brilliant banter.

It's been real.

Says the newcomer who seems to lack the emotional intelligence to cope with those who don't share his views. Don't let the door hit you as you go out.

[Cavebear]

Firstly, g'day mate, and welcome to the forum.    

...Did I get it right? Is anyone else here closer to an Existentialist than a New Atheist?

No, you didn't get it right.  Sorry.

It's a waste of time trying to—as you're apparently doing—conflate atheism
with the philosophical standpoint of existentialism.   Atheism has nothing to do
with philosophy;  as a matter of fact I have very little time for the tenets of
philosophy.  

At any rate, I agree with David Hume who proved, beyond any possible doubt,
that philosophy is bullshit.

Which is why I never waste my time talking about it.   I leave it to overpaid
professorial boffins in their academic ivory towers.

I agree about the BS conclusion. Philosophy is a bag of gas. Most are either obvious or laughable. But I took an online "who do you agree with" quiz and came out 75% Hume and 100% Kant. Well, at least now I understand why Philosophy 001 in college (all Plato and Aristotle) made no sense to me.

Joke: What do Phds (piled high and deeper) in history and philosophy have in common?

They earn minimum wage at the fast food place.

[Dom]

According to Collins online dictionary, "If you describe someone as rationalist, you mean that their beliefs are based on reason and logic rather than emotion or religion."  I think that describes me rather accurately at this time in my life.  While I have no doubt that many people's beliefs are based on emotion or religion, I don't think it is impossible to be a rationalist as existentialists seem to assume.  I also think it is much preferable that our beliefs should NOT be based on emotion or religion.

So I guess that's the point of contention with the OP.  He interpreted even my rationalist critique as an emotionalistic rejection of what seems obvious to him, that I can't honestly be a rationalist.  I guess existentialists were influenced by Freudianism and its idea that we are controlled by an irrational unconscious, which I also reject.

I don't think humans can escape being subjective and emotional. Emotions are physical reactions that trigger the release of chemicals in the body. Subjectivity is impossible to get rid of also, you can only base your thoughts on words and concepts you know. 

You can try to strip all that and be objective, and successfully so - to a point. But your body will always attempt to maintain an equilibrium through the release of chemicals, and your thoughts will always be limited by what you know.

So are you saying that people simply cannot have beliefs based on reason and logic?  That's what a rationalist is, not someone who experiences no emotions but someone who can put them aside when assessing ideas and information.

This is not to say I'm not distressed by the emotionalism I see on display in this forum on a daily basis.  

Sure, you can have beliefs based on reason and logic, within the limits of what you know. But you can't put emotions away. How strongly they affect you is determined by your body, not your mind. Emotions are physical reactions to specific stimuli. Depending on your very personal chemical balance (which can vary as time goes), you will experience emotions strongly, slightly, or not at all.

As much as you would like to think so, your mind cannot control your body chemistry.

[Thumpalumpacus]

  <-------I have no idea what this emoji is but I've always wanted to use it....so apropo of nothing,  here it is.

[skyking]

[quote="Istvan66" pid='348116' dateline='1647630904']

Existental-who-what's-ists?  

Um yeah, I think I'll leave you and the rest of the Crank Tank here to your brilliant banter.

It's been real.

Says the newcomer who seems to lack the emotional intelligence to cope with those who don't share his views. Don't let the door hit you as you go out.

Drive by shitposters come in all shapes and sizes. Thin skinned, no intention of engaging in a conversation. Dump and run.
No post in the introductions?
Check.
Go straight to insults when someone disagrees?
Check.
Come back and prove us wrong, @Istvan66

[Thumpalumpacus]

Um yeah, I think I'll leave you and the rest of the Crank Tank here to your brilliant banter.

It's been real.

So you got a lot of people who don't agree with you. Why does that matter? What's the big deal?

If your ideas can't suffer scrutiny, they're probably not worth holding.