|
| Thread: Existentialism |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted December 19, 2004 07:01 PM |
|
|
Yup Svarog, I havent forgotten the 2 threads I promised to contribute too. But Im just swamped at the moment. My fiancee is starting her "Turnus" (1 1/2 year of medical training to complete her degree, it is required to practice medicine here in Denmark. Thats after 6 1/2 year at the university) This requires her to move to another part of Denmark. At the same time I have been obliged to take a full time job, besides my studies because I have run out of funds 
Actually the concept of a transcendental self, is originally from Husserl. Sarte uses it in "Being and nothingness" as the springboard for his existensialism. You might say it is his philosophical foundation.
Still regarding Dostoievsky and Kafka, you must remember that they are pre Sartre, so it is very misleading to classify them as existensialist. Kind of like calling Democrits theory about atoms, for a scientific theory 
Kierkegaard is boring I read him when I was a teenager (Same time I read Sartre and Camus aswell) and it is obvious that Sartre knew of Kierkegaard, not just because of the use of "Anguish", but also how he uses choise and individualism. But if people are interested in him, I can recommend starting with "Either-Or" which many sees as the centerpiece in his writings. Much more difficult and philosophical relevant is his "Sygdomme til døden" which Im sorry to say I dont know its translated title.
If I dont have time to come to the forum before the new year. To quote Eddie Murphy
"Happy Christmas...
And merry New Year..."
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted December 19, 2004 08:53 PM |
|
|
Camus can do, but Sartre is smartre.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted December 21, 2004 01:52 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 20 Dec 2004
|
Quote:
Actually the concept of a transcendental self, is originally from Husserl. Sarte uses it in "Being and nothingness" as the springboard for his existensialism. You might say it is his philosophical foundation.
Could be, could be. Although I repeat, I think they got the man in the wrong context. According to my knowledge, "transcendental" relates to somthing surpassing natural borders, existing outside of common experience, i.e. often divine and supernatural. Surely Sartre didnt bother at all with the thought of the divine, or for that matter, the supernatural. Maybe when he used those words he meant of some higher state of self-discovering, out of the ordinary, but imo that word is misleading, since existentialism doesnt burden the individual with higher meanings, but rahter makes us deviod of of them. Or maybe I'm off track here, and that word stands for its literal meaning?
I should read that book, most definately. (hope its not too big) i'll try to find it.
Quote:
Kind of like calling Democrits theory about atoms, for a scientific theory
Why wouldnt you, as a matter of fact? He observed nature, he reasoned what he observed, made a hypothesis, which under our current understanding proves to be correct. Isnt that what all think-tanks do? (this leads to, u know which thread )
btw, happy holidays you too. hope u'll have loads of fun for the new years eve.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted December 21, 2004 02:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Camus can do, but Sartre is smartre.
Not only Sartre is smartre, but compared to Camus, he's also more famus. 
Lame, I know, but I was in a poetic mood.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 21, 2004 02:31 AM |
|
|
Could be, could be. Although I repeat, I think they got the man in the wrong context. According to my knowledge, "transcendental" relates to somthing surpassing natural borders, existing outside of common experience, i.e. often divine and supernatural. Surely Sartre didnt bother at all with the thought of the divine, or for that matter, the supernatural. Maybe when he used those words he meant of some higher state of self-discovering, out of the ordinary, but imo that word is misleading, since existentialism doesnt burden the individual with higher meanings, but rahter makes us deviod of of them. Or maybe I'm off track here, and that word stands for its literal meaning?
Well yeah, its devoid of anything higher than the rather screwed up, neurotic human mind, which is precisely why it is so bleak and negative in its approach. Call it the missing link of the psyche. Without the mind linking to its higher nature, it remains a poor reflection of its true potential.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted December 21, 2004 02:45 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 20 Dec 2004
|
Unfortunately the "screwed up, neurotic human mind" is the only thing we humans have, and imo every attempt to rise above that is just a futile arrogant try to ignore man's own deficiencies by imagining we're more important and godlike than what nature has made us to be.
A bit subjective touch in this thread didnt mind, i think.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Leo_Lion
Honorable
Supreme Hero
The 5th Element & 6th Sense!
|
posted December 21, 2004 07:39 AM |
|
|
This Thread has just confirmed it for me...
By being so completely the opposite of who & what I am; I have realised that Svarog's purpose in life is to make me fully appreciate my Spirituality. I thought that there might be a small possibility of getting through to his Soul in our discussions, but now I realise there wasn't supposed to be any "breakthrough".
There are no such things as coincidences, so all of our disagreements and misunderstandings were meant to occur. I was meant to read Savrog's depressing Posts...I was meant to feel my heart sink as I thought of poor Svarog, who has convinced himself that "existentialism" is really all that there is in our reality.
Dude, give your Soul a chance! Just because you cannot see it, does not mean it does not exist, right?!
In my humorous opinion, existentialism is a concept of existence that was invented by depressed people who chose to justify their feelings by saying: It isn't my fault that I feel this way; it's because the universe doesn't care, it's because there is no God, etc. It couldn't be me...nah!
Instead of pointing the finger at themselves, and taking responsibility for their own feelings, they blamed someone/something else. Kind of a funny thing to do for people who believe that they are ultimately responsible for their own actions, don't you think?!
Svarog, I know the extinction of aardwarks has derpressed you, but I think Homer Simpson said it best: "Getting teenagers to feel depressed is like shooting fish in a barrel." Well, I say: "Getting an existentialist to feel depressed is like shooting a fish in a barrel full of fishes!" Hahaha!
____________
*The end to no beginning...
*Take care, Leo
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted December 21, 2004 05:49 PM |
|
|
Granted! My poor soul is doomed to burn in the deepest circles of Hell. You cant save it. But guess what? I dont care a bit. I feel just fine without a soul. 
Quote:
In my humorous opinion, existentialism is a concept of existence that was invented by depressed people who chose to justify their feelings by saying: It isn't my fault that I feel this way; it's because the universe doesn't care, it's because there is no God, etc. It couldn't be me...nah!
Now, does that really make sense?
If so, then the opposite stance (the "salvational" one) would be that when you feel unhappy, the universe does care and God cares too, but they still cant help you, can they. And thats when depression strikes.
On the contrary, if I knew nobody cares, and nobody interferes, then how can I blame depression on anyone else but myself?! Existentialists take responsibility for their actions and the consequences that arise from them, and its all about taking personal fault/credit for all of that.
Good luck nourishing your soul and searching for your purpose in life. Meanwhile I guess I'll be enjoying the short time I have on this world before taking the express elevator to hell. My one purpose in life you just attributed to me (to strengthen your resolvance on your path to heaven) is juuuust enough. Maybe even too much.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Leo_Lion
Honorable
Supreme Hero
The 5th Element & 6th Sense!
|
posted June 22, 2005 07:35 AM |
|
|
I thought about you when I saw this, Svarog. I'm not sure if you might be interested in reading the article or not, or even if you've already heard about it; but here it is anyways:
After 100 years, Sartre drifts closer to nothingness
EDIT: I must admit that this article taught me what time-period Sartre lived in. I always thought that he was from the "age of enlightenment". I really didn't know that he was alive in the 20th century. 
Next thing you know, I'll be finding out that Descartes wasn't from the "enlightenment" period, but that he is actually still alive & kicking!
____________
*The end to no beginning...
*Take care, Leo
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 25, 2005 03:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I thought about you when I saw this, Svarog. I'm not sure if you might be interested in reading the article or not, or even if you've already heard about it; but here it is anyways:
After 100 years, Sartre drifts closer to nothingness
EDIT: I must admit that this article taught me what time-period Sartre lived in. I always thought that he was from the "age of enlightenment". I really didn't know that he was alive in the 20th century.
Next thing you know, I'll be finding out that Descartes wasn't from the "enlightenment" period, but that he is actually still alive & kicking!
No, Descartes isnt alive and kicking, but he is neither from the age of enlightenment. Descartes (1596-1650) is 50 years earlier than the period your describing, which in normal terms start around 1700, but some takes the publication of Newton`s "Principia Mathematica" in 1687 as the starting point. But anyways
I was going to post a longer reply about spiritualism contra rational thinking about emotions, existentialism contra evangelism etc. But frankly it just doesnt seem as important.
Rather I would just point to the fact that Kierkegaard which has been dubbed by many as the "father" of existentialism (Which is a contentious point of view imho, but many survey works state it as a fact) was deeply devout christian, and very spiritual in yur sense of the word.
As regard to your statement Leo, that existentialism is just a pazifier for depressed people. Well isnt spirituality just a pazifier for almost everybody?
Especially depressed people?
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Leo_Lion
Honorable
Supreme Hero
The 5th Element & 6th Sense!
|
posted June 26, 2005 12:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well isnt spirituality just a pazifier for almost everybody?
Especially depressed people?
Good point! Although I don't agree with your statement (or mine for that matter ), I still know when I am beat.
Game-set-match, Defreni!
____________
*The end to no beginning...
*Take care, Leo
|
| |
|
|
