[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 29 KB, 250x352, sartre2[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1686567 No.1686567 [Reply] [Original]

I used to think I knew what existentialism was about. Then I read some.

Is it just me, or does it seem to be predicated on complete horseshit? I'm not even trolling. It seems completely incoherent to me.

>> No.1686574

I am referring to this idea by the way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence

>> No.1686583

It's only required you know the jist of it and not every which example people make of it.It's only a word,afterall.

>> No.1686587

what's incoherent about it?
the view is that people define their own reasons for existing.

It's a romantic notion but ultimately nihilism makes more sense. Making up your own meaning doesn't really mean there is any.

>> No.1686589

Yeah, it does tend to collapse when confronted by genetics and determinism.

>> No.1686600

>>1686589

How so? Could you elaborate on that fully?

>> No.1686687

>>1686587

OP here. I was just re-reading the article from which I was basing my original post. I either mis read it the first time or something, but I seemed to have somehow mixed up the terms existence and essence in the context that they are used. In this way, what I thought he was saying was actually the opposite of what he was saying.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

The whole paper knife thing is solid, but when he continues to explain what he believes to be the implications of this idea, the logic simply does not follow. I am referring to when he says http://pages.citebite.com/j4o7c8s5xbbi

>> No.1686813

I've read the entire piece before and it's pretty coherent to me. The thing he is speaking of, I believe, is the notion that people such as Thomas Aquinas had of human nature; that is to say that man is endowed with certain elements prior to birth and things such as natural law govern us. Sartre and existentialists in general believe that you are born tabula rasa and that you define your existence. There can be no human nature because by it's definition it would have to be applicable to all humans in any time or place. The aforementioned can't be the case if we create our own essence and nature by the decisions we make. His rhetoric is verbose and vague, however, the ultimate ideals conveys are fascinating in their applications.

>> No.1686822

>never read existentialist book
>think stuff out for myself
feels good man

but did I miss anything in not reading the books?

>> No.1686839

>>1686587

>Making up your own meaning doesn't really mean there is any.

Of course it does. If you believe it then it's there, meaning-wise. There's a pointless underpinning, but on top of that we build what we want.

>> No.1686851

>>1686813

But human nature does exist. It's not handed down by some god, but it doesn't need to be. Human beings are not blank slates, that much has been proven.

>> No.1686867

>>1686587
>>1686587
But if subjectivity is ultimately the law, than how would a reason you make up invalid?

>> No.1686876

>>1686822
in other words

>never read ___
>feels good
>but i want to know what ___ is about

>> No.1686878

>>1686587
but you just created it.

it's the same principle as "I am. I exist".

>> No.1686879

>>1686878
>>1686867
I see where you guys are coming from, and I agree to some extent, but when people search for "truth" I think they are expecting something objective. Like, okay, if there's no god then what is the point of my life? If the objectives set by society are false then what is the point of my life?

"Why are we here?"
There's really no answer besides .. it just happened that way.

>> No.1686881

Simone de Beauvoir

read her

>> No.1686882

>>1686879
Every action you make has a motive, and inherently a purpose is given to you through your action.

Look up the concept of 'bad faith' by Satre too.