/lit/ - Literature

>>19950011
coleslaw.com doesn't exist :(

>>19950011
Read Emmanuel Mounier.

>>19950020
fuck...

>>19950029
>theologian
get fucked pedo

>>19950011
Existentialism in the modern sense was refuted by Aquinas and Heidegger acknowledged it, that's why the important Christians existentialists like Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard were Orthodox and Protestant Christians respectly, instead of Catholics.

>>19950011
Despite reading existentialist literature I still dont know what Existentialism means

>>19950011
The nature of existence is very interesting, Monks.
Consciousness is illusory
Only synthetic judgements ahead of time wielded by someone with a noble foresight and mindful resolve can overcome the defacto as is shit show of natural history that has no purpose set out for you and the de jure as Jewed political shit show that everyone else's purposes have conspired against you.

Even the Buddha himself was a dispensation with an expiration date where he tells you everything he can teach you is so you can stand on your own. Meanwhile Jesus wants you insulting your confession a huevo self into the ground like a groveling beggar. An interestingly conniving heuristic but thoughtless and needlessly humiliating.

If you don't ponder the nature of existence and yourself in relation to it you are in need of a dogmatist to grind you up against the wall and mutilate your geniatalia while he straps you in for decades of A Clockwork Orange brainwashing.

Don't mind me I'm just fishin

>>19950588
I am curious, how did Aquinas refute existentialism? I’m a Catholic who’s trying to learn more and more about his faith and also kind of going through an existential crisis.

>>19950011
>best existentialist literature
Plato

>>19950638
He proved that the world doesn't exist.

>>19950588
>Christians
aka retards
>>19950638
retard

>>19950020
Why am I here

>>19950588
Will you zoomers stop with the Aquinas circlejerking

>>19950020
Not very existential of it

>>19950617
would unironically buy this hat.

>>19950011
any frenchanons have read the new Houellebecq? how is it?

>>19950011
'Why am I here' isn't existentialism, it's more metaphysics. Existentialism as an explicit idea came about closer to the 1930s.

>>19950692
>Christians
>aka retards
We have the best scientists in history and no other group of people in the world have as many scientists and intellectuals as us.

>>19953605
>>19951087

>>19950617
You’re dark night of the soul must have been really fun.

>>19950617
>Jesus wants you insulting your confession a huevo self
Talmbout eggs? Scrambled or fried?

>>19952417
I don’t get it, what do anteaters have to do with philosophy?

>>19953605
>what are jewish scientists

>>19950011
To start, the idea of existentialism as an "ism" for its own sake is fairly limited to Sarte and his immediate circle. Unfortunately, they had a tremendous amount of influence and now all these broadly related figures are bound together under a Sartrean mantle. The existentialism of Sarte and Camus is a meme, but the questions it touches upon are important ones.

Its a real thing to the extent that it recognizes that concepts, ideas, choices, ultimately need some sort of application and uptake in the lives of existent people. When we ask what the structure and nature of this existence is, and notice the fact that nowhere do we seem to find any sort of fixed "essences" against which to measure ourselves with any finality, then the real core of existentialism shines through. Dostoevsky is called existentialist for good reason, because his books typically deal with the various indecisions, committments, and self-interpretations of characters in a world which never seems to offer them the certainty they are looking for. Even the Nietzschean move of pegging their identity to their own unique will is shown to be its own brand of Nihilism, as in Crime and Punishment. Camus noted the extremes of nihilism present in Demons. Kierkegaard is also existentialist, in the sense that he recognized Christian faith not as a series of intellectual assents or rational declarations, but as something that needed to be taken up and lived to its absurd conclusions. For him, the closer you got to understanding your nature as a human being (to the extent that we can talk about such a thing) and the nature of God (with the same caveat), the more you realize that our nature is an ever-widening abyss which gives us the space to develop ourselves into the type of individual who can bear the burden of standing alone before God without any recourse to "isms" or other more mundane justifications. Heidegger was not an existentialist by his own admission, but his particular phenomenology did draw heavily upon the existentialist tradition. Unlike Sarte though, his existentialism was supposed to be a way of opening up the right questions for a type of thinker who in all likelihood hadn't even been born yet. Heidegger wanted to ask questions which would get us prior to the particular manifestation of self and world which has been operative since the appearance of Greek metaphysics carved out space for western thought. He was asking the same questions but for wildly different reasons, I think one of the main downsides of Sartrean existentialism becoming the common flavor in most discourse is that it obscures just how radical Heidegger actually was.

>>19953735
Noticed some misspellings of Sartre's name in my post, I'm getting used to a new keyboard before anyone jumps on this.