Existentialism

[Alan V]

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.

Actually, I gave you an example of how an intellectual interpretation changes an emotional response as a kind of joking aside.  To paraphrase, "I'm emotionally distressed by emotionalism because of my rationalistic perspectives, though I usually don't say so."  That is accurate to my experiences.

Another example is when I decide to fall asleep at night.  That changes my brain chemistry rather radically.  So in my model of how the brain works, there is both bottom-up and top-down causation.  The conscious and unconscious minds work together.

This means that our emotional responses are largely dependent on how we frame what we experience.  For this reason, a bit more information can completely change our emotional response to a situation.  That's not to say that our emotions don't run away with us sometimes.  They are quicker than our intellect and jump to simple-minded conclusions -- which is why I don't trust them to work properly on their own.

[Alan V]

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.

I seem to be slipping away from humanism and toward philosophical misanthropy of a quietist variety, primarily due to the failure of the information-deficit model of human behavior. 

I'm not sure where I'll end up.

Various misanthropic stances are discussed in this short Philosophy Now article.

[jerry mcmasters]

"Crank Tank." That's pretty good, I gotta remember that one!

[GenesisNemesis]

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

Bo staff?

[Dānu]

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.

I seem to be slipping away from humanism and toward philosophical misanthropy of a quietist variety, primarily due to the failure of the information-deficit model of human behavior. 

I'm not sure where I'll end up.

Various misanthropic stances are discussed in this short Philosophy Now article.

I'm not a misanthrope and I doubt that I could be one as I don't believe in the concept of human failings. Such, to me, requires a norm without a norm-giver.

[Dom]

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.

Actually, I gave you an example of how an intellectual interpretation changes an emotional response as a kind of joking aside.  To paraphrase, "I'm emotionally distressed by emotionalism because of my rationalistic perspectives, though I usually don't say so."  That is accurate to my experiences.

Another example is when I decide to fall asleep at night.  That changes my brain chemistry rather radically.  So in my model of how the brain works, there is both bottom-up and top-down causation.  The conscious and unconscious minds work together.

This means that our emotional responses are largely dependent on how we frame what we experience.  For this reason, a bit more information can completely change our emotional response to a situation.  That's not to say that our emotions don't run away with us sometimes.  They are quicker than our intellect and jump to simple-minded conclusions -- which is why I don't trust them to work properly on their own.

I cannot agree. Your body creating chemical balance for itself cannot be stopped, and if it was, you would not be functional. Just look at menopause - depending on what the specific woman's current chemical balance is, there can be totally irrational bouts of crying, or laughing, that cannot be controlled. The same applies when you remove a long term, daily and current factor in someone's life. The resulting grief can vary wildly between individuals, but it cannot be controlled. Both of these things leave people thinking they have gone nuts - because they cannot control these emotions.

Those are extreme examples, but smaller chemical changes happen all the time, and most of the time you don't even know it. Or you may feel temporary irritation or hilarity. That is your body at work, not your mind.

The conscious and unconscious minds may work together, but that does not mean you can control your physical body's chemical composition. If you cut yourself, you bleed, no matter what your mind thinks about that. And if your chemical balance is off, your body fixes it, like it or not.

[Alan V]

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.

I seem to be slipping away from humanism and toward philosophical misanthropy of a quietist variety, primarily due to the failure of the information-deficit model of human behavior. 

I'm not sure where I'll end up.

Various misanthropic stances are discussed in this short Philosophy Now article.

I'm not a misanthrope and I doubt that I could be one as I don't believe in the concept of human failings.  Such, to me, requires a norm without a norm-giver.

I would be interested to hear your critique of humanism and the details of what you think is better or more accurate.

[Alan V]

Your body creating chemical balance for itself cannot be stopped, and if it was, you would not be functional. Just look at menopause - depending on what the specific woman's current chemical balance is, there can be totally irrational bouts of crying, or laughing, that cannot be controlled. The same applies when you remove a long term, daily and current factor in someone's life. The resulting grief can vary wildly between individuals, but it cannot be controlled. Both of these things leave people thinking they have gone nuts - because they cannot control these emotions.

Those are extreme examples, but smaller chemical changes happen all the time, and most of the time you don't even know it. Or you may feel temporary irritation or hilarity. That is your body at work, not your mind.

The conscious and unconscious minds may work together, but that does not mean you can control your physical body's chemical composition. If you cut yourself, you bleed, no matter what your mind thinks about that. And if your chemical balance is off, your body fixes it, like it or not.

I understand that some people, or many people on certain occasions, experience emotions which they can't control.  But to me the norm of chemical balance is a state without one emotion or another, but a potential to react with emotions in accordance with one's interpretations.

It's like the way I define mental illness as the loss of free will.  Our ordinary state allows us to adapt by tailoring our responses to circumstances.

Do you agree with the existentialist critique that people are irrational at heart?  I understand that you still disagree with me.

[airportkid]

My argument against misanthropism is that it isn't the vector humankind has been following since the dawn of civilization.  Overall, humanity consistently makes existence better in numerous dimensions:  security, nourishment, health and longevity, and in making life experience mostly enjoyable, not merely tolerable, or only less unspeakably miserable.  Obviously at the individual level life can be so horrible suicide is taken as the only remedy, but such cases are not indicative of common experience.  And, of course, everyone gets scraped, cut, bruised or abused from time to time as our diverse levels of emotional immaturity get the upper hand, but overall, most of us get through more or less 7 whole decades thankful for the experience.  Were humanity to have truly adopted quietist misanthropy across our entire species, I'm not sure we'd have gotten much further than living in caves in small tribes huddled around campfires.

[Dānu]

I seem to be slipping away from humanism and toward philosophical misanthropy of a quietist variety, primarily due to the failure of the information-deficit model of human behavior. 

I'm not sure where I'll end up.

Various misanthropic stances are discussed in this short Philosophy Now article.

I'm not a misanthrope and I doubt that I could be one as I don't believe in the concept of human failings.  Such, to me, requires a norm without a norm-giver.

I would be interested to hear your critique of humanism and the details of what you think is better or more accurate.

It's a short analysis, I just don't think there is an objective basis for putting humans at the center. That leaves irrational impulses based on biology.

I don't know that I think any worldview of that sort has the potential to be 'accurate'. As to better, well one man's fish is another man's poisson.

[Dom]

Your body creating chemical balance for itself cannot be stopped, and if it was, you would not be functional. Just look at menopause - depending on what the specific woman's current chemical balance is, there can be totally irrational bouts of crying, or laughing, that cannot be controlled. The same applies when you remove a long term, daily and current factor in someone's life. The resulting grief can vary wildly between individuals, but it cannot be controlled. Both of these things leave people thinking they have gone nuts - because they cannot control these emotions.

Those are extreme examples, but smaller chemical changes happen all the time, and most of the time you don't even know it. Or you may feel temporary irritation or hilarity. That is your body at work, not your mind.

The conscious and unconscious minds may work together, but that does not mean you can control your physical body's chemical composition. If you cut yourself, you bleed, no matter what your mind thinks about that. And if your chemical balance is off, your body fixes it, like it or not.

I understand that some people, or many people on certain occasions, experience emotions which they can't control.  But to me the norm of chemical balance is a state without one emotion or another, but a potential to react with emotions in accordance with one's interpretations.

It's like the way I define mental illness as the loss of free will.  Our ordinary state allows us to adapt by tailoring our responses to circumstances.

But I guess you agree with the existentialist critique that people are irrational at heart.  So I understand that you still disagree with me.

I agree that mental illness is a loss of free will.

I don't think that people are basically irrational. All you need to do is look at a toddler trying to make sense of it all and you see the pursuit of rationality.

Yes, if your chemical balance is perfect, there is nothing for your body to adjust and it will not dispense any chemicals that manifest themselves in emotion. If that wasn't so, we'd all be basket cases.

What you don't seem to take into account is that bodily functions can only be controlled to a point. How long can you hold your pee? You can hold it, but you will have to let go sooner or later. Emotions are manifestations of bodily functions that are essential to maintaining exactly what you are looking for - rational control. Emotions are a warning sign that something in your body is out of whack and there is an attempt to fix it going on. That is all they are.

You may be able to control your behavior to some point (not all people can, some people have uncontrollable fits of rage for instance), but you cannot control the underlying malfunction that caused an emotion to manifest. Only your body can restore chemical balance. An exception is medical treatments, some of our meds are pretty good at replacing what is missing.

[Kim]

I am atheist.
I'm generally amused by people who presume more. There is a period at the end of that sentence.



There was some mention of post 9/11 atheist something-or-other?
So, do pre 9/11 atheists not count? Do we have no purpose?

Meh. I'm cool with that.

[Free]

Hello folks! I wanted to know whether anyone else here came to atheism through the Existentialists. It might seem like a distinction without a difference, but I see a lot of differences between my viewpoint and the one espoused by an atheist who quotes Hitchens and touts the value of reason and science. The Existentialists, after all, were reacting against the Enlightenment project that atheist nabobs like Steve Pinker celebrate. Standing in the rubble of WWII, the Existentialists realized that rationality, technological progress and modern society's dedication to abstract reasoning and scientific precision led to exploitation, totalitarianism and slaughter.

The conventional online atheist seems to believe that religion is the source of all evil in the world and that reason is our greatest tool for creating fair and just societies. The Existentialists understood that reason is embedded in the cultural context and social order the same way as institutionalized religion; they're both useful but they can both end up legitimizing those in power. The central fact about the human condition is its irrationality and resistance to systematization.

The conventional atheist also sees science and abstract knowledge as constituting the truth about the universe. The Existentialists asserted that science studies the realm of the It, merely the natural background of our lives and choices. How we disclose and interpret Being and create meaning, isn't a scientific matter.

Art and literature were important to the Existentialists since they articulated the spontaneous, primal and irrational experience that scientific inquiry and modernity's discourse couldn't address or accommodate. To the atheist, science explains everything about human endeavor and art is just a pleasant but pointless distraction from reality.

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

I am an atheist for the very simple reason that I lack any beliefs in gods.

That's it. That's all. No rocket science required.

[GenesisNemesis]

 To the atheist, science explains everything about human endeavor and art is just a pleasant but pointless distraction from reality.

 

Wait, so if I enjoy art I'm not a true atheist? 

Not sure how having an imagination and being an atheist are opposed to each other. Besides, if we get overly restrictive about what things we can and can't enjoy as atheists, we're just as dull as the religious fundamentalists, who suck the fun out of life at every opportunity.

[Thumpalumpacus]

 To the atheist, science explains everything about human endeavor and art is just a pleasant but pointless distraction from reality.

 

Wait, so if I enjoy art I'm not a true atheist? 

Not sure how having an imagination and being an atheist are opposed to each other. Besides, if we get overly restrictive about what things we can and can't enjoy as atheists, we're just as dull as the religious fundamentalists, who suck the fun out of life at every opportunity.

I missed that little nugget, but boy, it is wrong. Aesthetic appreciation and religious beliefs have no appreciable connection, in my own personal experience as well as observations.

This seems to be a confusion of atheism being material rationalism, when in fact it only means someone doesn't believe in god(s). Many of us love art, and many aren't intrigued by it; many religionistas love art, and many aren't intrigued by it.

[Alan V]

Only your body can restore chemical balance. 

I am my body.

All of the functions of human bodies are chemical and electrical -- digestion, emotions, thoughts.  Some people consider the problem of volition so difficult that they consider it an illusion.  To them, only bottom-up control makes any sense.  This is one reason why consciousness studies are so fascinating.

My rule of thumb is that anything evolution could safely make automatic, it did.  However, other varieties of adaptations require adjustments to circumstances to be the most effective.  In many animals, such behaviors are instinctual.  They are automatically triggered by responses to light, motion, temperature, sound, and smell.  The very complex behaviors of insects are largely controlled by chemistry.

In higher animals, consciousness is the adaptive strategy.  That includes tailoring responses to circumstances by awareness of those circumstances.  In the case of humans that entails selecting among a repertoire of possible responses, since we are so complex.  Our awareness of situations suggests a certain number of possible reactions, and we choose between them.  I consider those choices driven by both thoughts and emotions, because thoughts and emotions interact.  They are highly connected systems in the brain.  I see this as especially true among social animals like humans, where the display of emotions has become such a large part of our interactions with others.  In a word, we use emotional displays to manipulate each other for our own benefit.

Of course thoughts and emotions can be automatic.  That really isn't my disagreement.  The question is, are emotional reactions always automatic, without exception?  I personally think we would be more poorly adapted to our circumstances if they were.

[mordant]

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.

The other way to express this is whether meaning is externally bestowed or inherent in some way, which seems to be the question existentialism is asking, or whether it is individually determined.

I think that existentialism asks the wrong question: "what is the meaning of life?"

The correct question is "what meaning do each of us bring to our lives?"

[airportkid]

The question is, are emotional reactions always automatic, without exception?  I personally think we would be more poorly adapted to our circumstances if they were.

No, because we often, perhaps most often, do not act where our raw emotions would otherwise take us.  We cannot prevent the upwelling of loathsomeness every time we see a Trump image, for example, but we don't take concrete actions because we can consciously inhibit what we consciously recognize would make things much worse.

[mordant]

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

It's been real.

Project much?

[Minimalist]

I smell a dirty sock.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I smell a dirty sock.

He's already taken himself to the laundry, so no big deal.

[julep]

Only your body can restore chemical balance. 

I am my body.

All of the functions of human bodies are chemical and electrical -- digestion, emotions, thoughts.  Some people consider the problem of volition so difficult that they consider it an illusion.  To them, only bottom-up control makes any sense.  This is one reason why consciousness studies are so fascinating.

My rule of thumb is that anything evolution could safely make automatic, it did.  However, other varieties of adaptations require adjustments to circumstances to be the most effective.  In many animals, such behaviors are instinctual.  They are automatically triggered by responses to light, motion, temperature, sound, and smell.  The very complex behaviors of insects are largely controlled by chemistry.

In higher animals, consciousness is the adaptive strategy.  That includes tailoring responses to circumstances by awareness of those circumstances.  In the case of humans that entails selecting among a repertoire of possible responses, since we are so complex.  Our awareness of situations suggests a certain number of possible reactions, and we choose between them.  I consider those choices driven by both thoughts and emotions, because thoughts and emotions interact.  They are highly connected systems in the brain.  I see this as especially true among social animals like humans, where the display of emotions has become such a large part of our interactions with others.  In a word, we use emotional displays to manipulate each other for our own benefit.

Of course thoughts and emotions can be automatic.  That really isn't my disagreement.  The question is, are emotional reactions always automatic, without exception?  I personally think we would be more poorly adapted to our circumstances if they were.

I don't think I agree completely with you or Dom, but I appreciate your perspective and the thought you've given to it.  I'm neurodivergent and don't necessarily trust my emotions or my reason. The way I experience emotions and cognition may just be too different to contribute to this discussion.  However, I do envy people who can feel comfortable with their conclusions. 

Personally when I'm not sure about competing rationales is to research as best I can and then ask someone's else's opinion to figure out what I feel about the answer, then go by that. It's not particularly philosophical. (so I'll excuse myself from this discussion...probably not a good contribution to the thread,sorry)

[TinyDave]

Hello folks! I wanted to know whether anyone else here came to atheism through the Existentialists. It might seem like a distinction without a difference, but I see a lot of differences between my viewpoint and the one espoused by an atheist who quotes Hitchens and touts the value of reason and science. The Existentialists, after all, were reacting against the Enlightenment project that atheist nabobs like Steve Pinker celebrate. Standing in the rubble of WWII, the Existentialists realized that rationality, technological progress and modern society's dedication to abstract reasoning and scientific precision led to exploitation, totalitarianism and slaughter.

The conventional online atheist seems to believe that religion is the source of all evil in the world and that reason is our greatest tool for creating fair and just societies. The Existentialists understood that reason is embedded in the cultural context and social order the same way as institutionalized religion; they're both useful but they can both end up legitimizing those in power. The central fact about the human condition is its irrationality and resistance to systematization.

The conventional atheist also sees science and abstract knowledge as constituting the truth about the universe. The Existentialists asserted that science studies the realm of the It, merely the natural background of our lives and choices. How we disclose and interpret Being and create meaning, isn't a scientific matter.

Art and literature were important to the Existentialists since they articulated the spontaneous, primal and irrational experience that scientific inquiry and modernity's discourse couldn't address or accommodate. To the atheist, science explains everything about human endeavor and art is just a pleasant but pointless distraction from reality.

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

You seem to conflate atheist with existentialist. 
Whilst there are similarities in world views, both world views aren't the same.

I really don't like the term "new atheist" 
There is nothing new about atheism, rejection of specific theism is advocated by most religions.

Art and literature are important, this distraction from science gives us a sense of meaning and purpose.
Science is a tool that humans use.

[Dom]

Only your body can restore chemical balance. 

I am my body.

All of the functions of human bodies are chemical and electrical -- digestion, emotions, thoughts.  Some people consider the problem of volition so difficult that they consider it an illusion.  To them, only bottom-up control makes any sense.  This is one reason why consciousness studies are so fascinating.

My rule of thumb is that anything evolution could safely make automatic, it did.  However, other varieties of adaptations require adjustments to circumstances to be the most effective.  In many animals, such behaviors are instinctual.  They are automatically triggered by responses to light, motion, temperature, sound, and smell.  The very complex behaviors of insects are largely controlled by chemistry.

In higher animals, consciousness is the adaptive strategy.  That includes tailoring responses to circumstances by awareness of those circumstances.  In the case of humans that entails selecting among a repertoire of possible responses, since we are so complex.  Our awareness of situations suggests a certain number of possible reactions, and we choose between them.  I consider those choices driven by both thoughts and emotions, because thoughts and emotions interact.  They are highly connected systems in the brain.  I see this as especially true among social animals like humans, where the display of emotions has become such a large part of our interactions with others.  In a word, we use emotional displays to manipulate each other for our own benefit.

Of course thoughts and emotions can be automatic.  That really isn't my disagreement.  The question is, are emotional reactions always automatic, without exception?  I personally think we would be more poorly adapted to our circumstances if they were.

I don't disagree with any of that.

Insofar as emotions are symptoms of chemical imbalances and physical attempts to fix this - yes, it's automatic. Emotions are not the problem, they are merely a physical signal to you, same as physical pain. They simply tell you that something is off. As such, yes, you can distance yourself to a degree merely by knowing this. Emotion is not something your consciousness produces or controls, and you can't really turn it off. You can recognize it though for what it is and, much of the time, control your reaction to this emotion. 

Behavioral psychology is based on this - it teaches you to recognize the first signal or trigger that elicits a specific behavior. Then you can avoid reacting in a given manner - you feel the anger, but you don't have to act on it. You have tears running down your cheeks, but you don't get sad or depressed. In that sense, there is control - but not of the emotion or the chemical processes in your body, instead of your behavioral reaction to it. 

And I stress again - we don't all experience emotions to the same degree. For instance, I am stoic - I hardly ever feel anger or fear. That doesn't mean I expect other people, who feel anger easily and strongly, to be able to handle it the same way I do. That needs to be either learned or controlled with drugs - drugs that restore chemical balance. 

Ever watch a movie and it makes you cry? Or laugh out loud? You know damn well you have nothing to cry or laugh about, and you are not actually happier or sadder, your life hasn't changed. It's a simple physical reaction. Society approves of laughter, so laughing at a movie doesn't cause any struggle, you can just let her rip. However, crying is not approved, especially if you are male. So you fight the impulse, and you question why you react in such a way. In reality, there is no difference other than the type of chemical released.

[Peebothuhlu]

Hello.

Hello folks! I wanted to know whether anyone else here came to atheism through the Existentialists. It might seem like a distinction without a difference, but I see a lot of differences between my viewpoint and the one espoused by an atheist who quotes Hitchens and touts the value of reason and science. The Existentialists, after all, were reacting against the Enlightenment project that atheist nabobs like Steve Pinker celebrate. Standing in the rubble of WWII, the Existentialists realized that rationality, technological progress and modern society's dedication to abstract reasoning and scientific precision led to exploitation, totalitarianism and slaughter.

The conventional online atheist seems to believe that religion is the source of all evil in the world and that reason is our greatest tool for creating fair and just societies. The Existentialists understood that reason is embedded in the cultural context and social order the same way as institutionalized religion; they're both useful but they can both end up legitimizing those in power. The central fact about the human condition is its irrationality and resistance to systematization.

The conventional atheist also sees science and abstract knowledge as constituting the truth about the universe. The Existentialists asserted that science studies the realm of the It, merely the natural background of our lives and choices. How we disclose and interpret Being and create meaning, isn't a scientific matter.

Art and literature were important to the Existentialists since they articulated the spontaneous, primal and irrational experience that scientific inquiry and modernity's discourse couldn't address or accommodate. To the atheist, science explains everything about human endeavor and art is just a pleasant but pointless distraction from reality.

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

No.

I never 'Came' to atheism.

My non-theism is pretty much the opinion I've held for my entire existance.

Cheers.