/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4382137]

/lit/, I need to know I'm understanding this correctly

Existentialists seek to reconcile the lack of a purpose in the world (nihilism) with the inherent human desire to have purpose in our lives (the combination of which is absurdism)

Existentialists then devote their lives to some purpose that they themselves give to an aspect of their lives or beliefs. Is this not, in essence, telling yourself a comforting lie?

[William the Conqueror !/VswXizUZ2 No.4382154]

I think you misunderstand the nature of existentialism. From my understanding, what you're trying to conjecture is that existentialists follow their lives in accordance to a sense of purpose derived from personal perspective; to my understanding, however, existentialism is a form of thought derived specifically from the ontological state of one's mind, therefore excluding perspectives introduced through the bias of individual conjecture. Does this hold with your own perspective on the matter?

[Anonymous No.4382153]

>>4382137
No, existentialists argue that all moral structures from the past have been comfortable lies. The universal is a very seductive aspect for a concept to have.

Existentialists dont argue that there isnt any purpose in the world, they argue that there is no universal, objective, or whatever else purpose, their is only the purpose you make.

Existentialists just point out that the goal post humanity has been aiming at for a long time, universal truths or something like that, is an illusion. People freak out about this, but if you were raised to think otherwise, this wouldnt be anything new to you.

[Anonymous No.4382175]

>>4382154
I dont think hes referring to Heidegger, but youre more or less right. As a Dasein, death is a universal aspect, and dealing with death in a certain way will make you authentic

[Anonymous No.4382200]

>>4382137
In laymen terms, they follow no social contract.
>Also know as I don't care about anyone except for myself.

[Anonymous No.4382201]

>>4382200
Wrong

[Anonymous No.4382207]

>>4382153
So its not that they think purpose doesn't exist, its that they believe it exists where you believe it does?

should this not still be sounding like a comforting lie to me?

[Anonymous No.4382221]

>>4382207
No.

Philosophy has been aiming for a long while to fine universal truths and values.

Existentialists argue that those values they are looking for are not there. What they DONT argue is that there are no values period. People value things, so there must be values, its just now they are subjective.

So its not, where you believe it does, its that you must value things since you are alive and human. Thats what Sartre means by doomed to be free.

And what exactly do you mean by a comforting lie? How is it a lie to accept that values are subjective and we cant help but value things so we go on putting meaning into things, knowing the meaning isnt universal?

[Anonymous No.4382242]

>>4382221
I think I understand it now.

By comforting lie I mean, say, and individual who solves his existential crisis by turning to religion, which to themselves, has purpose. Is it not a comforting lie if your subjective value you turn to espouses universal value in its own dogma? This is not strictly limited to those that turn to religion.

[Anonymous No.4382270]

>the world in itself has no purpose
>i give myself a purpose in life
>these are incompatible, i am lying to myself

not a good argument m8. when you see a flower just sitting there it has no purpose. you could say "its purpose is to reproduce" and give it some biological/evolutionary teleology, but this only ever tells you WHAT/HOW it is, not WHY it is. there is no why, it just is. but then to pick it and arrange it beautifully in some ikebana piece or to paint it imbues it with meaning you have given it. the raw, unreflective objectivity of the world has been gathered and enchanted by your subjectivity. now to look at the ikebana piece and say "that this is beautiful is a lie" is absurd. indeed, the existence of the raw flower to begin with is absurd, but we wade through this absurdity and give structure to our existences as we see fit. yes, they are constructions but how does this undermine their validity? to look at a painting and say "oh someone painted that therefore it is a lie" is nonsensical. think of a life the same way.

[Anonymous No.4382271]

>>4382242
Thats what Sartre calls Bad Faith. I dont know if I agree with it, but yes, Existentialists pulled a sucker punch on a lot of moral philosophy and told most of them that they were in bad faith, since most adhered to some objective or universal philosophy.

It gets fishy though. You look at someone like Kierkegaard and you want to hit yourself for arguing that he acts in bad faith. Mother fucker suffered like hell to try and get things right.

[Anonymous No.4382285]

>>4382242
It's a comforting lie only if you believe what you value and what beliefs you operate on to be universally true and valuable, or if you hold them to be true or to be valuable in this limited, provisional sense if they are obviously false. These last two are what Sarte calls bad faith.

For example, somebody who loves baseball and who plays it might believe they are a great player because they are a good sportsman, because they practice diligently, because they have certain staistics, etc; as long as they don't hold this to be writ large in eternity, they're fine. However, if they assume everyone ought to always think they are a great player, they're in bad faith; likewise if they believe, for example, their relatively low batting average, at the age of thirty, could be improved enough to make them a statistically excellent player -- it's nearly impossible, thus, bad faith.

The atheistic existentialists considered religion to be bad faith in both of these senses depending on who we're talking about. The theistic existentialists hold that faith can be used to transcend the provisional nature of worldly truth, as long as we understand it is faith and faith alone.

[Uncle A No.4382591]

>>4382137

My nigga as crakas have addressed your straight up misreading of existentialism I'll keep this brief.

What you are describing up in dat post is the key tenant of DANDYISM:

"If the world lacks any fundamental meaning, then why not be fabulous?"

See my boss niggas Sebastian Horsley and Quentin Crisp for further guidance.

One love.

[Anonymous No.4382603]

>>4382270
Wow, that's an excellent explanation. Thank you

[Anonymous No.4382689]

Official Prerequisites to Speaking Coherently About Existentialism:

0. Train yourself in history of philosophy (this is a big step)

1. Read Nietzsche's genealogical critiques of modernity (Genealogy of Morality, Beyond Good and Evil, Thus Spake Zarathustra, On the Use and Abuse of History for Life, Ecce Homo, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense)
2. Read "Being and Time" by Heidegger
3. Read "Introduction to Metaphysics" by Heidegger
4. Lean to think like an existential phenomenologist
5. For the love of God never regress into Cartesian thinking
6. Do not read Sartre

[Anonymous No.4382746]

I think I'm just going to leave this board forever

Almost every post I read is someone completely misinterpreting philosophy that is obviously far out of reach for them

The amount of misinformation and overconfidence I read here is nauseating

[Anonymous No.4382767]

>>4382137

No. It's generating sense in the world from the standpoint of your self conscience. Effectively sharing that sense, generates a universe for mankind.

[Anonymous No.4382796]

>>4382689

>MUH RULES FOR THINGS

This is why academics is gay.

Everyone thinks you need to read all these big ass snooze-cruise tomes of dead faggots to have an opinion on anything.

If you want to speak coherently about existentialism, use small words. Everyone has the ability to talk about existence.

Fucking pedantic aspies.

[Anonymous No.4382837]

>>4382796

[Anonymous No.4382844]

>>4382796
>dat autism

[Anonymous No.4382863]

>>4382844
>>4382837

Your replies only confirm my suspicions that I'm right.

The emperor has no clothes.

[Anonymous No.4382868]

>>4382137
Why should I give a shit what they "seek"?

[Anonymous No.4383259]

>>4382868
I don't give a shit about what you give a shit about, I'm asking a question to further my knowledge so either read, contribute, or fuck off. I never asked if you thought you would ever ask a question like this. I asked for an answer. If you don't have one, no one cares.

[Anonymous No.4383269]

>>4382863
The problem with your approach is that people who like to ask questions about existentialism (or any other field of philosophical inquiry) and don't READ THE ACTUAL TEXTS are basing their questions off of misconceptions, assumptions, and pop-interpretations. At best, they'll realize the answers are IN THE FUCKING TEXTS and at worst, they'll contribute to misconceptions, assumptions, and pop-interpretations.

Seriously. Just READ THE ACTUAL FUCKING TEXTS.

[Anonymous No.4383276]

>>4382796

>big ass snooze-cruise tomes

laughed pretty hard

[Anonymous No.4383277]

>>4382689
In some ways, I'd recommend read a good "simple," but comprehensive analysis of Being and Time and then reading Heidi's Kehre stuff. His writings on thought, poetry, technology, and such are much more immediately illuminating and graspable. Then I'd go back and read Being and Time itself.

[Anonymous No.4383289]

>>4383269

very well put.

>mfw people make a thread with what they think is a 'gotcha' argument to a heavily debated issue
>mfw a two minute read on wikipedia would answer their question/show why that isn't the case

[Anonymous No.4383300]

Nihilism and absurdism are both results of existentialists. They're different ways to solve the same problem. All three are different ideas.

As far as absurdism being a comforting lie, the whole point of existentialism is that there is nothing to lie about. Whether there is a purpose or not is just an inhibitor to how one acts. Seeking a true purpose won't change it.

[Anonymous No.4383302]

>>4383289

...but philosophical argument is just an evolutionary trait that evolved to show off genetic quality by ability to craft an argument.

Empiricism has destroyed philosophy and showed it for what it is...verbal drivel fit to attract women and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.4383326]

>>4382796
How is it an arbitrary rule to want someone to actually read the most influential or important works dealing with existentialism to discuss existentialism?

>want to discuss 20th century lit
>"You should read Hemingway and Conrad"
>MUH RULES FOR THINGS ACADEMICS IS GAY
nope, you can't talk about this sort of thing knowledgeably if you haven't read about it or don't know about.

[Anonymous No.4383330]

>>4383302
>make it really obvious that I'm reading Being and Time on the BART
>audibly gasp at points, mutter to myself, jot down notes loudly
>glance at the qt in the black jean shorts and road bike every 20 seconds
>imagine her coming up to me and striking up a conversation about being-towards-death

Such is the life of the lonely phenomenologist.

[Anonymous No.4383349]

>>4383330

>implying this isn't exactly how it works

Too perfect.

[Anonymous No.4383355]

>>4382137
This exactly what Camus says in Myth of Sisyphus

[Anonymous No.4383361]

>>4383302

That also neatly explains art. Why we spend more money on fiction than non.

[Clerisy !!JAFrZ3sTBcQ No.4383417]

existentialism is retarded and at its roots incoherent
anybody who is a self proclaimed 'existentialist' is a disenfranchised teenager who cant think for itself

[Anonymous No.4383474]

1) existentialism doesnt exist
2) in case it existed french existentialism (ie sartre and camus) is a joke