Existentialism - help please.

wikipedia links for definition
See the following link for info on Existentialism:

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

Information for humanism:

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

Humanism has more ethical implications than Existentialism - that seems to me to be the clearest difference between them.

Thankyou for that Wikipedia link and for your shrewd comment, agrote.

According to my dictionary Existentialism is "the philosophical theory emphasising the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining his or her own development" but Humanism is "an outlook or system of thought concerned with human rather than divine or supernatural matters" 2. "a belief or outlook emphasising common human needs and seeking solely rational ways of solving human problems, and concerned with mankind as responsible and progressive intellectual beings".

Can you spot the difference?

Yes...

It could be,

For the first: drop dead, I have enough problems myself.
For the second: I do care about you.

Francis is right. So is Agrote. One of the slogans of Existentialism is -- or, at least, used to be when Jean-Paul Sartre was still alive -- "existence precedes essence." If that sounds obscure, it was meant to convey the very pragmatic idea that before any philosopher can discuss such lofty subjects as metaphysics or ethics, the needs of daily living must be considered. The humanist wouldn't disagree with this, but would add, perhaps, John Donne's dictum that "no man is an island."

Seems to me like a case of a philosophy adapting itself to real life rather than a philosophy that tries to impose itself on life, which quite impresses me, all in all.

I think Cumulus hit the button. Existentialism is about our lives, not Truth and Reality as theoretical problems. And it would seem that "existence" (ours and the world's) just is, and all the "essence" (or meanings) we ascribe to it amounts to the humanistic dimension. The world "in itself" does not come with meaning; the world "as we understand it" is our construction. We are both free to make our lives and responsible for what we make.

Right you are, JL. Das Welt ist meine Vorstellung, as Schopenhauer famously observed.

Yes, most existentialists agree with Schopenhauer that the world is our idea. What I do not understand is why Schopenhauer is not included with Nietzsche and Kirkegaard as a forerunner of existentialism.

In an undergraduate course I took at Boston University more than 40 years ago, JL, Schopenhauer was, indeed, included in such a course. Fuchte, too, if I remember correctly.

In an undergraduate course I took at Boston University more than 40 years ago, JL, Schopenhauer was, indeed, included in such a course. Fichte, too, if I remember correctly.

Was that Fichte? Schopenhauer is always included in surveys of western philosophy, but was he acknowledged as a forerunner of existentialism.

Was that Fichte? Schopenhauer is always included in surveys of western philosophy, but was he acknowledged as a forerunner of existentialism.

I didn't do that on purpose. Duplication seems to be part of the program right now. Let's see if THIS is duplicated.

I didn't mean to duplicate either. I thought I was correcting a typo, but both versions posted. I meant Fichte, of course. No, the course, as I remember it, was entitled something like "Elements of Idealism in Existentialism." The BU Philosophy Department, at the time, was heavily oriented toward the Cartesian brand of Idealism. The chairmanship was endowed and the chairman bore the title of Borden Parker Bowne Professor of Philosophy. That gives you an idea of the trend.

I've already posted about the book I have just finished but not because I'm duplicating just because it's the life of Jean Paul-Sartre, the great existentialist.

Except that the author of the biog, one Annie Cohen-Solal, does not make an analysis of existentialism that is easy to understand at all.

For example, Albert Camus features in the tome because he was Sartre's friend and Albert Camus is somebody whose short novel - The Outsider - I read twice in an effort to understand what Existentialism was, except that in real life both Sartre and Camus flatly denied that Camus was an existentialist. No wonder I couldn't make any connection!

Nice to know I wasted my time there then.

Cohen-Solal then describes how existentialism became the absolute fashion in France when it was at it's zenith to a point where any new and relatively young idea was automatically bracketed as existentialist for many years, which of course explains nothing at all.

And so I've finished reading a not inconsiderable work on Sartre's life and ideas without ending up any the wiser about existentialism.

Read it again?

Sorry, I don't have as much time to waste as I used to [seem] to have...

May I make a suggestion, Tino? Instead of reading another bio of Sartre or re-reading the book you just finished, why not read some of Sartre's own writing?

Hi Andrew.

Of Sartre's own works I've read Nausea, The age of reason, The Reprieve and Iron in the soul.

No they didn't help me to understand how his philosophy works, that's why I read the biog; although I was also fascinated by what I'd heard about his membership of the French resistance [although this turned out to be quite a dull, largely intellectual involvement].

Thanx for your advice.

Well, the problem with reading Sartre is that not only you get Nausea but also Dirty Hands...