[ 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: 33 KB, 400x534, existentialism-life-meaning.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3414918 No.3414918 [Reply] [Original]

Existentialist thread

>> No.3414921

Is there anyone who can't identify with Meursault from The Stranger? I feel the effort Camus went to to describe the 'nakedness' of man was just so universal to interpretation.

>> No.3414946

Babby's first philosophy

>> No.3414992

>>3414946
I think we should give the thread a chance. If it starts to drift off into some pseudo-philosophic discussion of random things, we will just hide it and never see it again.

>> No.3415014

>>3414946
nein

*babby's 27th existential crisis* more like

>> No.3415035

>>3414946
I don't think you understand. You don't understand so you think it's babby, not worth your time to even consider because you're afraid

>> No.3415047

Your picture is so dumb OP.

Everyone fucking knows that, ugh.

>> No.3415058
File: 11 KB, 378x387, 1356740043363.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3415058

>>3415035
>>3415047

This thread is officially 2edgy4me

>> No.3415060

>>3415058
it jsut started though...and those posts werent even that deep or edgy....

much to learn young grasshopper

>> No.3415074

what are we supposed to post in an existentialist thread? what is the meaning of this thread?

>> No.3415075
File: 41 KB, 500x771, 1357882334327.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3415075

>>3415060
>Existentialist thread
>"shitting pleb get outta here"
>"everyone who trolls is just scared of the truth etc."

Instead of crying about how much of a pleb OP is, let's actually have a discussion about existentialist authors.

>> No.3415082

I'm not sure if I like Camus or if he complains too much

>> No.3415086

>>3415075

yeah, agreed.

Not to get all meta but OP, what exactly did you wish to discuss in regards to existentialism?

>> No.3415087

>>3414918
ITT First world problems.

>waaaaaa mom won't buy me an ipod! life is meaningless!!

>> No.3415091

>>3415087
what? where are you getting that

>> No.3415092

>>3415075
Where do I buy that book?

Now onto the thread.

Would you agree, say, that existentialism theory is moot in the sense that any thought or action is an expression of the theory and therefor is too broad in scheme to isolate in critical analysis?

>> No.3415096

>>3415075
>>3415086

>being this guy
He wasn't a troll he was saying how it's babby's first philosophy and I bet he hasn't even gotten into existentialism because he probably is afraid

>> No.3415097

What's the best way to escape existential fear?

I'm finally being forced to take a philosophy course and I really don't even want to deal with the subject. Usually I just avoid thinking about it philosophy in general.

>> No.3415098

>>3415092

No, of course not - the problem is that none of the answers given to answer existentialist problems are unsatisfying because of the underpinning issue they're trying to deal with (at least in Atheistic Existentialism).

>> No.3415103

>>3415097

Existentialism isn't usually taught in philosophy classes - you'll probably deal with other subjects like Epistemology, metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, ethics, value theory etc.

>> No.3415104

Existentialism is stupid because pain and pleasure have intrinsic value.

>> No.3415105

>>3414918
Reading European existentialists is a recipe for a shitty life. They'll make you realise you were living a meaningless life already, and offer no real solutions.

>> No.3415107

>>3415097
experience

>> No.3415109

>>3415098
What's the issue?

>> No.3415110

>>3415104

Nope, utilitarianism is babby's first philosophy.

>> No.3415111

>>3415103
>>3415097
This guy's right. At my university existentialism was taught in the french faculty, not philosophy.

Just download the teaching company lectures called "Existentialism and the meaning of life"

>> No.3415113

>>3415105
At very least they're worth reading so you can get past the, and move on to better things.

>> No.3415114

>>3415105

It's only as shitty as you make it. Don't project your own failure onto Sartre et al.

>> No.3415115

>mfw Foucault rightly diagnosed existentialism as "transcendental narcissism".

You know you have a shitty philosophy when you can be TOLD by a gay French dude.

>> No.3415127

>>3415109

The issue is that nothing has value. Depending on the author/school, existentialism is essentially dealing with a world without God (except Kiekegaard and to some extent Dostoevsky).

So you have authors (ie Sartre, Camus, Nietzsche) acknowledging the problem of No God = no value and trying to find a way out of it.

The problem, of course, is that regardless of their answer, it's undercut by the fact that it doesn't have any value anyway.

>> No.3415128

>>3415114
My life is fine. Nietzsche's and Sartre's advice leads to a cul de sac, where no progress is really possible.

>> No.3415133

>>3415103
>>3415111
I know this but it all leads down the same road.

I guess I'm too sensitive to it for whatever reason but it always puts me in a slump when I start thinking too much and then I can't get anything done.

>> No.3415132
File: 833 KB, 200x150, 1353085848392.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3415132

>>3415097

>Usually I just avoid thinking about it philosophy in general.

what's the point to live if you don't even dare to think? You effectively deny the gift that differs us from animals. We have enough philosophical-zombies around, face your existence pleb

>> No.3415138

>>3415132
Well, it seems better to enjoy life than waste endless hours on unanswerable questions.

>> No.3415139

>>3415086
>Not to get all meta but OP, what exactly did you wish to discuss in regards to existentialism?
i wanted the discussion to flow naturally actually

i am going through the umpteenth existential crisis of my life, so i figured i would get your guys' opinions on it, or favorite authors/books, or whatever you guys want to talk about really

>> No.3415140

>>3415087
>question meaning of life
>a first world problem

nigga that is a HUMAN problem, not a 1st world problem

>> No.3415144

>>3415133
>>3415139

I got the same personality - which is why I study philosophy at post-grad level.

If I'm gonna be an overthinking, pessamistic shlub who freaks out over this kinda shit I might as well try and get a doctorate out of it.

>> No.3415145

>>3415138

Better? Compared to what?

>> No.3415155

>>3415144
>If I'm gonna be an overthinking, pessamistic shlub who freaks out over this kinda shit I might as well try and get a doctorate out of it.
a good a path as any

im planning on doing anthropology for now, perhaps to get a thesis on what makes culture and humanity tick or something...maybe something more specific i guess but who knows

hopefully this will end up being a masters or doctorate eventually

>> No.3415162

wtf does 'meaning' even mean?

If you don't know the meaning of "life", look it up in a fucking dictionary retard.

plebs everywhere

>> No.3415168

>>3415162

Oh yes, well if the dictionary says it, then it MUST be the truth.

Fuckwit - do you even epistemology?

>> No.3415172

>>3415145
Better than a life with less joy. I've taken an enthusiastic approach. I'll blindly charge forward and do what I can to enjoy my life, and enjoy it for as long as possible. It was working pretty good up until my first class, after which I could not sleep.

If it ends in shambles I can always return to the unsettling cry of philosophy.

>> No.3415217

>>3415162
Purpose.

>> No.3415240

>>3415127

What do you mean nothing has value? To whom? For me (for my ego, identity, brain, consciousness call it whatever you like,) my life and existence has value. Value defined in it's most usual sense. ("The regard that something is held to deserve; the importance or preciousness of something.").

It's valuable as far as I can 'know' (I cannot 'know' otherwise or for certain at this point) reason being that this is the only life I'll live. 'Only life' meaning I'm going to die to my 'knowing'(as far as I can 'know' - best estimate, guess w/e) and I will never experience life, and this moment, again. Is this not the definition of importance and preciousness? This quality of having something and having a chance of losing it?

Now my is guess you're trying to base your 'thesis' "nothing has value" from reference frame from the Universe. Where do you ge tthe idea that there's a reference frame other than (to our knowing) that of conscious humans? You cannot know if there is one, or isn't. In a case there is, you cannot know if "the universe" has set group of molecules to have value or not. You have no basis to make any guesses on it whatsoever.

1) from human perspective human life has
2) you cannot 'know' in the slightest if there is or is not an universal perspective (universe' refrence frame, god,) and if there is, what it deems of value and not.

>> No.3415303

If you're an existentialist, does that mean you don't believe in anything having any inherent meaning? Are there religious existentialists? Like a Christian existentialist?

>> No.3415311

>>3415303

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=christian+exientialism

>> No.3415350

>>3415127
>>3415240

I'd go further as to say anything that exerts energy, that expends time and effort has immediate intrinsic value based solely on the time and consciousness produced from the action.

Concisely, life has value because life is work. This is immediately ratified by the reactions the work causes.

>> No.3415353

there is no meaning of life ya dummy

>> No.3415366

>>3415353

It's a word that is used an awful lot for one that has "no meaning", don't you think?

>> No.3415370

>>3415366
Is that supposed to be an argument?
There is no meaning of life because it's all subjective. The meaning people might have in life is not a part of what they claim it to be a meaning of, it's just an idea in your head.

>> No.3415374

>>3415370

It's not an argument, it's just a (relatively) simple question, in plain English.

If "life" had no meaning and was just a concept in my head, it would be hard to explain how it became such a widely used word, wouldn't it?

>> No.3415375

>>3415374
Does the fact that God is a widely used word prove his existence?

>> No.3415376

>>3415375

No, and that isn't the type of thing I'm suggesting about the concept of "life" (existence isn't equivalent to meaning).

It does suggest that the concept of "God" has a conventionally agreed meaning, though.

>> No.3415378

>>3415376
The word life has a meaning in the sense that it translates into a concept.
But life doesn't have a meaning in the sense of "what is the meaning of life?"

>> No.3415380

>>3415378

Yeah, you're going to have to elaborate further on how these are meant to be different.

(If you mean "purpose of life" in the second line, well then we can talk)

>> No.3415384

>>3415380
Stop arguing about semantics, this thread is obviously about the purpose of life as you put it and not about the linguistics of the word.

>> No.3415386

>>3415384

I'm sorry, but there's no other way to do this. We can't have a substantial philosophical discussion if we can't even get past defining our terms.

>> No.3415387

>>3415386
You started it.
I said there's no meaning to life, which is pretty obvious what I mean by in the context of the thread. You started arguing about the meaning of the word instead of what I was actually saying.

>> No.3415388

>>3415240
>>3415350

Already you've failed to understand the weight of what's going on here.

When it is said that "nothing has value" it is meant "that nothing has objective value".

That is:

"There is no ontological entity/action/thing etc. in existence that has instrinsic or instrumental value seperate from our own subjective thoughts and beliefs. When you make a claim such as 'life has value' you have not said anything that can be judged or thought of as having a truth or falsity"

What this means is that everything you've just said boils down to a "it's just like, your opinion maaaaan" and I could very well say the complete opposite and we would be just as correct/incorrect as eachother.

Consider the following:

Person A says "life has value and being the best you can be has value". Person B says "all I want to do is destroy everything and everyone around me, doing that has value".

Who is right? Who is wrong? Neither. What they have said is equally meaningless. Now, person A might say "but why do you want to do that?" and person B might say "no reason" to which person A retorts "but don't you wanna be happy?" - even if B says yes, his value and choices of destroying all life is as equally an acceptable choice as florishing; regardless of his personal opinions.

So existentialism (particularly the french variety; thank Sartre for that) deals with this understanding -NOTHING has any OBJECTIVE FACTUAL VALUE.

The problem becomes thus: how does one deal with the anguish of the value problem when one already knows that any attempt to answer it is going to fail?

>> No.3415391

>>3415388
>The problem becomes thus: how does one deal with the anguish of the value problem when one already knows that any attempt to answer it is going to fail?
That's easy, when everything is meaningless, and every answer is wrong, then that means every answer is right. So whatever value you decide upon is right for you, because there is no objective answer.

>> No.3415398

>>3415391

Unfortunately limits on our language have us commit to concepts of right and wrong.

Sure, you can decide that "my family and love has value" but the guy who smashes down your door, rapes your daughter with his nigger dick and then beats you to death "just coz dat how he rolls" is just as legit as you are.

Once again, it's a problem regarding anguish towards knowledge - some people don't seem to have the issue, and they just go along in their pragmatic ways - but some people do.

>> No.3415400

>>3415398
>Sure, you can decide that "my family and love has value" but the guy who smashes down your door, rapes your daughter with his nigger dick and then beats you to death "just coz dat how he rolls" is just as legit as you are.
Yeah, but that was kinda my point. No matter what you decide, it will be correct, but just for you.

>> No.3415404

>>3415400

Like I said; some people just don't see the problem - you're one of them.

>> No.3415411

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

>> No.3415410

>NOTHING has any OBJECTIVE FACTUAL VALUE.

What do you mean by "objective" in this context?


For I am kind I'll not touch your use of the word 'factual'.

>> No.3415424

>>3415400
Heres a different way to put it that might resonate with you more

You want to be an artist just as much as you want to be a writer. You want to specialize in what you do, and commit all your time to it. This leads you to be paralyzed and you have no way of knowing which will lead to regret, or if both will.

Essentially, an existential crisis is when ever this fork in the road is met in whatever context, especially when you look far down both roads, and only see an abyss.

>>3415410
im guessing he means universal, absolute, an object that can be defined, proven, and justified irrefutably regardless of the subject.

>> No.3415427

>>3415424
The point he's making that having a notion of this concept invalidates the statement, brah. It was clever, you (don't) see.

>> No.3415433

>>3415427
I dont think thats true. Definitions are consistent and objective even when value becomes subjective (a bachelor will always be a man who is unmarried), and because of this there is no invalidation.

>> No.3415440

>>3415433
Why don't you use good and bad as examples next after bachelor.

>> No.3415442

>>3415440
Good (I like)
Bad (I dont like)

>> No.3415451

>>3415442
So it's completely arbitrary. Good job.

>> No.3415453

>>3415433
To argue that nothing has objective value there must exist the premise of objective value, which is a comparative trait. It's impossible. It's like saying words don't mean anything...with words.

>> No.3415457

>>3415451
Its not arbitrary, people will have reasons for what they value. However those reasons are not grounded in any kind of objective something, which is why it brings about a crisis. However the statement that anon made is not ivalid

>> No.3415467

>>3415457
>Its not arbitrary
>reasons are not grounded in any kind of objective something
lol

>> No.3415476

>>3415467
Why so funny

>> No.3415478

>>3415457
What the fuck am I reading. Maybe I'm conveying this wrong...but you're not making any sense. You can't make the claim that everything lacks an objective basis without some intimation of what is an objective basis - which is impossible if that statement applied. It's literally anon arguing you're wrong because there's no such thing as wrong or right. I think that latter bit properly articulates what I'm trying to get across...

>> No.3415480

>>3415476
You don't know what arbitrary means yet are compelled to volunteer your thoughts on said edifice.

>> No.3415485
File: 1.48 MB, 230x290, 1350613025537.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3415485

>>3415476
Surely you see the contradiction.

>> No.3415490

>>3415388

Friend you missed my point entirely. You're using a premise of "objective, factual" value as a means of quantifying a decision or perception. What I'm saying is that any experience/action has intrinsic value because it creates work and causes a reaction. Force was spent therefor there is value in the method of exertion. Nothing is free. If this is a well observed fact, (by free I mean that anything gained or lost has consumed something to produce the effect,) that everything has value. So the question of existentialism isn't about life being meaningless, but about what work correlates to what effect.

>> No.3415492

>>3415311
was trying to get a conversation going...
you know, like the whole purpose of this thread
you know
you know

>> No.3415495

>>3415410 here

So nothing has any objective value. If we remove the humans, molecules are molecules and that's that. If we add humans, molecules still don't have inherent value in themselves.

I don't get why would this be a depressive realization tho. What would you want the world to be like if not like this? Every atom having "value" (set by God)? What does that even mean? It seems value/meaning can only be assigned (in relation to or) by a conscious being.

What are we arguing about exactly?

>> No.3415496

Everything is choices.

>> No.3415497

>>3415490
>Friend you missed my point entirely. You're using a premise of "objective, factual" value as a means of quantifying a decision or perception.

No, I'm not. How the fuck do you quantify a decision? What does that even mean? Are you retarded? You're retarded.

>> No.3415499

>>3415495
What do you mean by objective value? lol.

>> No.3415500

>>3415490
You disappoint.

>> No.3415504

>>3415497

I quantified your mother last night.

>> No.3415507

>>3415500

Well it's not like it means anything.

>> No.3415506

>>3415478
Couldnt it be possible to imagine what objective basis is without experiencing it? We dont experience golden mountains but we are able to conceive it. God might be a better example of simply exaggerating what we experience and creating a new concept out of it.

>>3415480
I know what arbitrary means, but im not getting across exactly what I want to say. Arbitrary means by chance or personal whim, without reason or system. However Im thinking about the correlation between personal whim and reason.

>> No.3415509

>>3415496

BRAVO JOSS

>> No.3415514

>>3415499

see >>3415424 definition

>> No.3415518

>>3415506
>Couldnt it be possible to imagine what objective basis is without experiencing it?

The concept of golden mountains exists. If objectivity isn't how can you divine such? You're referencing something that represents comparative differences and saying everything is the same. It's completely nonsensical just like your poor attempt at science-ing up an escape from your retarded position.

>>3415504
That's odd...must have been one of my dads.

>> No.3415523

>>3415514
The point was you went in a circle without actually offering a definition for objective that doesn't invalidate the aforementioned. It was clever, you (don't) see.

>> No.3415525

>>3415500
>>3415497

Your decisions are quantified in a closed spectrum of the reactions perpetuated because of them.

A and B are mutually exclusive.
A punches B.
A force shift has changed the physical realm.
I won't go into the mental stares of the two because the point is: the work exerted from A has left A and B in a changed state. Getting to this state has depleted energy from A and health from B. The choices made have value due to their use of time, space and energy.

>> No.3415529

>>3415518
What do you mean by objective represents comparative differences?

>> No.3415534

>>3415529
If something is objective it's not subjective.

>> No.3415533

The further point being Existentialism is a weak argument in philosophy since it accompts towards a self-fulfilling prophecy and unfounded sense of despair.

>> No.3415537

>>3415534
That's stupid.

>> No.3415539

>>3415534
Right, and if nothing is objective that means everything is subjective. I know that objectively.

>> No.3415541

>>3415537
That's like...what words mean, brah.

>> No.3415542

>>3415537
You're stupid.

>> No.3415545

>>3415542
I think we established that.

>> No.3415548

>>3415534
The concept of objective exists but that does not imply there is one set of values that takes priority over another set of values universally.

>> No.3415549

>>3415539
Is it possible that logic and reason are objective and universal, and can prove that values are subjective?

>> No.3415556

>>3415523

definition that doesn't invalidate what?

I haven't kept track of all the arguments going on on this thread and sort of jumped in.

>> No.3415576

serious bump

>> No.3415606

Has this whole thread seriously been: one guy says, nothing is objective, which is exaggerating since the statement nothing is objective IS an objective statement, and what might have been better to say is, values arent objective.

>> No.3415651

>>3415576

What do you want to know? I'll try to answer and gets some discussion going. I'll throw 2 ideas for a start.

I'm yet to be 'proven' that there's any reason to be deperssive about the nature of existence.

I consider nihilism the most invalid philosophy of the existentalism-absurdist-nihilist trio. On what basis do nihilists assert there's no subjective meaning or value? Are they using a different definition of 'meaning' ? Anyhow they cannot assert absolutes.

The existentalists are also ridgid in their search for the truth by being sure there's subjective meaning to create.

Absurdism on the other hand is the most true to Pyrrhonian skepticism, which in my opinon should be the basis of every philosophy and is the core of what it means to be a philosopher. It answers all the questions with a preface 'maybe' and suffix 'we cannot know for sure'.

>> No.3415656

>>3414918
I'd like to casually punch that kid in the stomach.

>> No.3415760

>>3415651

Absurdism was fucking stupid and Sartre was right to call Camus and his bs philosophy an atheistic belief system heavily influenced by Camus' Catholic background.

Congratulations, you just backed the Catholic tradition minus God.

Faggot GTFO

>> No.3415769

>>3415087
duh you are fucking dumb

>> No.3415808
File: 26 KB, 810x483, stirner47.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3415808

Existential crisis is the result of sticking to Christian spooks.