Understanding existentialism

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

I wonder if someone with everyday language using words in common order suitable to the Average Clod (me), without reference to Webster or OneLook, might define "existentialism"

Why not?
Concerning our essence as humans:
From where does it originate?
Do we define our own essence?
Or,
Is our essence defined by virtue of our existence?

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

I wrote:

Well, the soul does not continue to live after death. The Bible makes that clear.

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

No offence mate but are you reading the Bible or 'The Mary Poppins Handbook'?
Here's a question for you from the lips of Jesus himself, how would you answer him?
"..whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:26)

But you believe that those who do not believe also live forever, right? In eternal torture? Does it not seem more reasonable that the gift of eternal life promised by Jesus is in contrast to death?

Quote:

Do not put your trust in princes
Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.
4 His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground;
On that very day his thoughts perish.(Psalm 146: 3,4 )

0 Replies

Quote:

Romeo said: Here's a question for you from the lips of Jesus himself, how would you answer him?
"..whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:26)
Neologist replied: But you believe that those who do not believe also live forever, right? In eternal torture? Does it not seem more reasonable that the gift of eternal life promised by Jesus is in contrast to death?

Jesus was quite clear- “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matt 25:46)
Remember, human scum like the one who threw half a brick through my elderly mothers window to grab a cheap ornament DESERVE to burn in hell, as do murderers, thieves, con men, rapists, terrorists, perverts, peedos, corrupt politicians etc, God is not some wishy-washy mush-brained lefty social worker!
If they want to save themselves, all they have to do is give up their nasty ways and they'll be alright, it's not rocket science.. Smile

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

I wonder if someone ... without reference to Webster or OneLook, might define "existentialism"

     'I wonder if someone ... without reference to the Planck time unit (quantum mechanics) can measure the time properly'.Perhaps yes, but why should you do that? The people are using Webster's Dictionary in order to synchronize their watches, their definitions and their understanding of the world. (BTW I am using the Concise Oxford, so without using Webster' and OneLook I can find a definition of existentialism which would be valid to your statement).
     Using one and the same term with unique interpretation in personal context that nobody has any idea of what it might be, is the basics of the 'cross-cultural' misunderstanding. Besides that, this term in particular is highly popular one, and you don't need any personal definition, but if you persist on that you can compile one from different dictionaries: Related to existence, concerning the autonomous existence of the human, his degrees of freedom and expression of free will,
     from where automatically follows What is the purpose of life - why are we here?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Related to existence, concerning the autonomous existence of the human, his degrees of freedom and expression of free will,
from where automatically follows What is the purpose of life - why are we here?

Does that work for you, Dale?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Quote:
What is the purpose of life - why are we here?
Does that work for you, Dale?

Yes, and I have no problems with the interpretation of existentialism - sooner my problems start with the interpretation of Dale. Does it mean 'valley' (abyss of ignorance), or a mock at a given name (of notable people) that obviously I never will be; or perhaps somebody of the fictional characters.
You see, sometimes a casual 'explanation' may rise more questions than it answers.

2 Replies

@Herald,

I believe that neo meant to address that post to dalehileman, not to you, Herald.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

I believe that neo meant to address that post to dalehileman, not to you, Herald.

Onviously, but first Neo is not the titular of the post, and second what is the problem for someone else to give an alternative answer to a given question. This is a discussion ... or at least I was thinking it is such. If I want monologues I would better go watching Hamlet.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Related to existence, concerning the autonomous existence of the human, his degrees of freedom and expression of free will,

Well thanks, H, thats pretty good

But they're a gloomy bunch aren't they

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

the interpretation of Dale. Does it mean 'valley' (abyss of ignorance), or a mock at a given name

Oh H, the former I'm sure

0 Replies

Quote:

Somebody asked: What is the purpose of life - why are we here?

Jesus spelt it out simply-
"I didn’t come to judge the world but to save it...
the work God requires is to believe in the one he has sent" (John 12:47, John 6:28 )

In other words we have to lock onto/connect with/ assimilate with/ mindmeld with Jesus so that when our bodies die, our souls automatically fly to him.
"On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you" (John 14:20)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/jesus-meld_zps86861c7d.jpg~original

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Jesus spelt it out simply-"I didn’t come to judge the world but to save it...

I doubt that anyone can save us ... from ourselves - from our greed and stupidity, vicious practices of money-changing and usury, and the mania to cheat and to judge the others - all that lies and misrepresentations for personal gain ... and the abyss of ignorance we are slowly getting into, as if sucked in by a Black Hole - even Jesus could hardly save us from oursleves.

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

In other words we have to lock onto/connect with/ assimilate with/ mindmeld with Jesus ...

Perhaps at first we should start listening to what He is saying ... and why, what is the general idea of all that? Then, with or without the Bible, we have to get the math, to see where we are going ... and how far will that go. All of us are passengers on this world, and sooner or later we will have to go, and to leave it to our successors ... and what we are going to leave to our children and grandchildren: encroaching deserts, rainstorms out of control, Ebola out of control, mosquitos and insects out of control, CO2 along exponent, over-populated areas, financial system out of control, tapping the phones out of control, mercury and arsenic in the soil, dead sea waters, acid rivers and dams, burning 'potable water' from the springs ... is that what we intend to leave to our heirs? We are complete and absolute failure as species (with or without the Evolution theory) - it is obvious. We cannot even use wisely the available resources ... and we don't even know whether that resources are ours or not ... and also whether the Earth is ours (as we are used to call it).

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

... so that when our bodies die, our souls automatically fly to him.

Our souls will not fly anywhere. All we have is what we are doing here and now and experiencing here down on the Earth. The Hell will be here ... and the Paradise could have been here as well.

0 Replies

Quote:

Romeo said: when our bodies die, our souls automatically fly to him.
Herald said: Our souls will not fly anywhere. All we have is what we are doing here and now and experiencing here down on the Earth. The Hell will be here ... and the Paradise could have been here as well.

Wow mate, in another post you're arguing with Hawking and Einstein about spacetime, and now you're arguing with Jesus.. Smile

Jesus said "Whoever lives and believes in me will never die" (John 11:26)

Think "Jesus Stargate" which our souls automatically fly through when our bodies die IF we've locked onto him-
Jesus said - "Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it, but small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."(Matt 7:13)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/stargate-search_zps3e54b809.jpg~original

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/Stargate-jungle_zps730b39dd.jpg~original

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/stargate_world_zps75f6a7d8.jpg~original

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Wow mate, in another post you're arguing with Hawking and Einstein about spacetime, and now you're arguing with Jesus..

I am agnostic - what is the problem. Besides that all that disputes Jesus-the Big Bang is a logical fallacy of class Excluded Middle (or false dishtonomy) - considering only the extremes in their absolute truth value.
What I think on the issue is that it is neither about Jesus, nor about the Big Bang - it's all about money and power - who is going to control the society, to brainwash it always, as soon as, when and if he finds that appropriate. It is all about who is going to dominate in the spiritual world ... and has nothing to do with any search of the truth and intentions to find it.

0 Replies

@outofthecave,

Doesn't the main complication arise if we say we 'have to' have meaning for ourselves in the sense of almost like a moral obligation to forge our own purpose, rather than 'have to' as it is a necessary part of being human. Humans make choices, consciously and subconsciously, all the time - and according to existentialists (particularly Sartre) self-chosen action inevitably entails responsibility. As every action then (according to this thinking) involves a choice by the agent whenever we act we have to do so with meaning as this motive to make a choice - it cannot be otherwise.
So if 'we have to create meaning for ourselves' is interpreted as an inevitability rather than an obligation, then it COULD be seen to follow that this is rather describing how humans go through life rather than living in conflict in terms of struggling to achieve a single overall purpose for an individual's life.
Apologies if I've misunderstood you at all outofthecave!
Phil (philosophersbligofideas.blog.com)

2 Replies

@PhilipOSopher,

PhilipOSopher wrote:

self-chosen action inevitably entails responsibility

It is not exactly so. If the choices are made on the grounds of incomplete, incorrect, or untrue information part of the responsibility of these choices should be vested to the ones, who present such informartion.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Surely the choice is ultimately down to the individual - the ones who present the information do not make the choice themselves. The individual is the only one who makes that choice, they are not forced to choose by those who present that information rather they are heavily influenced to choose.
Then again, I'm defining responsibility here as making the ultimate choice without which the following action could not be carried out - I'm not sure how adequate this definition is though.

0 Replies

@PhilipOSopher,

PhilipOSopher wrote:

So if 'we have to create meaning for ourselves' is interpreted as an inevitability rather than an obligation

IMV the existentialism treats the common goal of the human species, rather than the individual interpretation and perspective. What is the meaning of life to the whole species? As individuals we have ready made answers: career, love, children, money and power, greed for whatever without limits ... but none of these is applicable to the whole species. Love is not exactly a goal of the species - it is an objective necessity for its continuation.
The only plausible goal that I could find at top level is the immortality of the human species ... or at least continuation of its survival to a maximum. This goal is almost orthogonal to the exhaustion of the resources of the planet to ground zero, as fast as possible - the way we are doing it at present.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

The only plausible goal that I could find at top level is the immortality of the human species ... or at least continuation of its survival to a maximum. This goal is almost orthogonal to the exhaustion of the resources of the planet to ground zero, as fast as possible - the way we are doing it at present.

Yet there have been any number of human societies and cultures and sub-cultures that advocated non-procreation and hence an extinction of the human species. From the Essenes of ancient Judea to the Shakers and similar groups of contemporary times, there have always been minorities that promoted this concept. It makes me wonder just how hard-wired this drive to species preservation actually is.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Which is a reason why it might make sense to see existentialism as more of an individualistic set of ideas rather than one applied to humanity for example as collective individuals? It seems easier to apply in that case

1 Reply

Understanding existentialism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know