Do you find meaning in Existentialism?

No, there's just no meaning that can be discerned objectively. Which is why we keep asking for the meaning of life since time memorial. Some say the answer is 42.

 

I thought the answer was,
"don't leave out the mayonaise".

 

According to Existentialism...

...this is not accurate....

...though this may be.

 

What your looking for is "angst," and it is non-directional--non-goal oriented--it is a state of being and it has no objective purpose, but it does fuel movement toward alleviating or explaining it (though we are never successful).

 

Not a "claim" per se, but rather a group of ideas tied together by common threads of philosophical thought in history and given a NAME: i.e.: Existentialism.

Of course we all have various perspectives--relativism makes all perspectives equally valid--I think that's hogwash.

Why muddy the waters... (get it?--maybe that's too subtle )

Certainly they do, and Theology is a sister to Philosophy (or rather a daughter). But, it's important to keep the two distinct. Philosophy is necessary to Theology, but Theology is not required for Philosophy. Objectivity is a good thing. Being able to be objective in analysis of ideas does not mean you have to lose your faith--it just means you are better able to attempt to see things from a nearer facsimile of the perspectives of others than if you don't bother to attempt objectivity at all.

 

Yes, angst as a human condition results from the realization of freedom. So how do you read Kierkegaard? Do you think as a Christian existentialist he'd say there is no objective meaning or do you think he'd say we just can't find it?

 

Which is – as you’ve pointed out – a rather broad term. And I put it to you that not everybody who’s been put in that broad category – is relativist. Depends on what you mean by ‘relativism’, of course.

So, who’s to decide which perspective is valid and which isn’t?

That’s too subtle, indeed. Sorry, I’m quite a blunt gal.

Here we arrive at the good old egg/chicken question again.

That depends. When you are talking about ‘meaning’ you inevitably end up talking about God at some point. And you can see that various existentialists have answered the God-question in various different ways.

I totally agree, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that in most cases full objectivity, while it ought to be attempted, is impossible to attain. For example as a Catholic you’ll be more prone to be critical of relativism than I am (and mind: I’m neither saying you might not be right about it in many ways, nor am I saying that I’m not critical of it at all.).

 

Many who are "labeled" Existentialist would argue that they are not with a passion! In general--Existentialism has evolved to mean the latter 19th century-but mostly 20th century philosophizers, and indeed they are all relativists. give me an example of an Existentialist whose philosophy is not relative to the individual quest for meaning or renunciation of meaning. Key word: individual (hence "relative").

That is the perennial question. Existentialism claims to have found it, but that claim of a universal answer is that there is no universality. THAT is an inherent contradiction--and therefore necessarily false--it cannot NOT be, and be at the same time.

I meant lets move on and just discuss the issue, not the analogy since it seems to be confusing to you.

Indeed. But Existentialism simply ignores that since it might be chicken for some, and egg for another ...(NVM...that's another analogy )

Mostly not, however--most have agreed with Nietzsche and the "God is dead" concept. Remember--who is and is not an "Existentialist" is debatable. Regardless--they are all anti-absolute--that really only leaves relativism (which to state as an "absolute" truth of existence is self-contradicting). Even Kierkegaard wasn't a believer in the absolute except as it relates to the individual's conception of it.

In order to stress the element of self-determination in thinking, philosophy declares: The absolute is because I think it. But since philosophy itself perceives that free thinking is thereby designated, not the necessary thinking it usually celebrates, it substitutes another expression: namely, that my thinking of the absolute is the absolute’s thinking-itself in me. This expression is by no means identical with the one preceding; it is, however, very suggestive. That is to say, my thinking is an element of the absolute, and therein lies the necessity of my thinking, therein lies the necessity with which I think it. It is otherwise with the good. The good is because I will it, and otherwise it is not at all. This is the expression of freedom, and the same is also the case with evil-it is only inasmuch as I will it. This in no way reduces or lowers the categories of good and evil to merely subjective categories. On the contrary, the absolute validity of these categories is declared. The good is the being-in-and-for-itself, posited by the being-in-and-for-itself, and this is freedom. It might seem dubious for me to use the expression “to choose oneself absolutely,” because this might seem to imply that I chose both the good and the evil just as absolutely and that both the good and evil belonged to me just as essentially. It was to prevent this misunderstanding that I used the expression “I repent myself out of the whole existence.” Repentance specifically expresses that evil essentially belongs to me and at the same time expresses that it does not essentially belong to me. If the evil in me did not essentially belong to me, I could not choose it; but if there were something in me that I could not choose absolutely, then I would not be choosing myself absolutely at all, then I myself would not be the absolute but only a product. Either/Or Part II, Hong p. 224

I agree with that, mostly...the thing I don't agree is that "I" have any bearing at all on the authentic truth--the objective reality that exists apart from my perception of it. I do not create God in thinking him nor is God created in me by my thinking--God is regardless of my "existence." However, what God is to me individually is my own responsibility ansofar as I cooperate with and conform my will to His reality and His Will.

not sure why I might be more prone to reject relativism than others...I wasn't "raised Catholic," I chose Catholicism--just like I think we choose our philosophical leanings. Perhaps that's a chicken and egg thing too!

 

As noted, I think he says we create the "Absolute" by thinking it. That's still relativism.

I believe God (THE Absolute) exist whether we exist or not. I do NOT think something must be perceived by human minds to exist. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it or hear it, it still is--still exists-- despite perception. One might argue then, "who cares" if God exists or not? ....well...God does.

 

So any philosophy that focusses on the individuum is automatically relativist to you? That’s a rather broad brush! The notion that each of us ought to examine his own life individually before God is as old as the Bible and some see Augustine as a forerunner to existentialism because of it.

The one existentialist you asked for as a counter-example is close at hand. From your own Kierkegaard-quote: “. This in no way reduces or lowers the categories of good and evil to merely subjective categories. On the contrary, the absolute validity of these categories is declared.”

I have an inkling you are just repeating your old thesis in an attempt to avoid answering the question. Your very own reflections on existentialism aside: who do you think ought to decide which of our various perspectives is valid and which is not?

Ironically Kierkegaard would probably agree with you for the most part here. He too believes in a God outside of one’s thinking. I’d say in the first part of your quote he refers back critically to Descartes’ ontological argument (“philosophy declares”). In his ‘correction’ (“That is to say, my thinking is an element of the absolute, and therein lies the necessity of my thinking, therein lies the necessity with which I think it.” he presupposes God as the reason because of which we think. Kierkegaard criticizes Descartes logical approach. Instead he finds it necessary to do a ‘leap of faith’ and he leaps. He too wants to completely submit to God’s will, albeit he does not trust institutionalized christianity to tell him what that will is. Instead he calls for ‘inwardness’.

It might well be.

 

See my previous post. Almost completely off-topic, but as for the falling tree and whether it still exists when no one sees it, you mind be baffled by quantum physics. In this video Keith Ward has a very interesting talk on it and the implications it has for Christian belief. Incidentally (being more of a 'logic-man' himself) he also criticizes Kierkegaard in it (very much at the end). It's a long talk but imho the journey it takes you on is well worth it:

[video=youtube;PzakgdDXXeQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzakgdDXXeQ[/video]