Is existence absurd and superflous?

[GrowingSmaller]

IIRC Sartre the existentialist said that existence was absurd and superflous.

It is absurd because ultimately there is no reason for it to be here.

It is superflouus because being contingent, it is more than is necessary.

I think that whilst existence may seem absurd we can give it, or at least ourselves and our experience of life, a reason for being e.g. to enjoy ourselves. This seems at least to be a "final cause" for continued existence. We have radical freedom in this respect, and can choose so many objectives, although we have to live and learn.

As for being "superflous" I can't think of a counter to that except that life becomes necessary if we want to enjoy it etc.

 

[KCfromNC]

Is existence absurd and superflous?

Only if you're doing it right.

 

[Eudaimonist]

IIRC Sartre the existentialist said that existence was absurd and superflous.

It is absurd because ultimately there is no reason for it to be here.

Why should there have to be a reason? It would be absurd if there were a reason, since any cause of existence would itself have to exist.

It seems to me that existence is only absurd if one expects there to be a reason for its existence. If one has no such expectations, it's not experienced as absurd.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

Not too familiar with the Sartrean interpretation of absurdity (more of a Heidegger fan, for the fraction I can understand), but Camus' understanding of absurdity rested on the idea that our desires are contradicted by the world's offerings. I desire meaning, therefore I expect the world to provide it; I get nothing. Absurdity is the feeling of being existentially snitched. The solution is a revamping of our expectations, to the point where hope is placed as much as possible in the confines of the present moment.

As for superfluity, all the better. The party is much more fun knowing I've crashed it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why should there have to be a reason? It would be absurd if there were a reason, since any cause of existence would itself have to exist.

What about "internal/structural reasons" rather than prior causes. For example nothingness might have been logically impossible, and physical reality may have developed from there.

 

[quatona]

IIRC Sartre the existentialist said that existence was absurd and superflous.

Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

It is absurd because ultimately there is no reason for it to be here.

From which/whose perspective?

It is superflouus because being contingent, it is more than is necessary.

So what would be necessary?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

I suppose we have to see how it affects people, look at the consequences. If one is counting on finding intrinsic rationality to existence, then one could at least be disappointed in the short term.

From which/whose perspective?

I suppose from the philosophical perspective, looking at the genral rationality of existence.

So what would be necessary?

I am not sure. I have not studied modal logic. Maybe the answer could be in all possible worlds something rather than nothing must exist, and that can be known a priori.

 

[quatona]

I suppose we have to see how it affects people, look at the consequences.

Well, we can see how existence (be it superfluous/absurd or not) affects people, and we know that non-existence can´t affect people.

If one is counting on finding intrinsic rationality to existence, then one could at least be disappointed in the short term.

Yep. Then again, as reality shows there are all sorts of ways to simply assume intrinsic rationality to existence. That´s where wishful thinking can be very strong.

I suppose from the philosophical perspective, looking at the genral rationality of existence.

Ok. However, I would be a little surprised to see Sartre basing his philosophy and value judgements on expectations that he doesn´t have.

I am not sure. I have not studied modal logic. Maybe the answer could be in all possible worlds something rather than nothing must exist,

Yes, sure. "Existence in a (possible) world" appears to be nonsense, because worlds themselves would have to exist for that to make sense.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that the possible worlds of modal logic are just logical constructs. For example sheep are animals in all possible worlds, if we actually define sheep as animal. But in some possible worlds they may be green, orange or blue, as stating such does not entail a contradiction in terms. It does not follow that possible worlds actually exist. As you know, it may be possible that we are all dreaming, or that radical skepticism is true and knowledge is impossible, or that Obama is a Muslim, but that does not make it a fact nor does it have to be a fact somewhere or other.

 

[quatona]

I think that the possible worlds of modal logic are just logical constructs. For example sheep are animals in all possible worlds, if we actually define sheep as animal. But in some possible worlds they may be green, orange or blue, as stating such does not entail a contradiction in terms. It does not follow that possible worlds actually exist. As you know, it may be possible that we are all dreaming, or that radical skepticism is true and knowledge is impossible, or that Obama is a Muslim, but that does not make it a fact nor does it have to be a fact somewhere or other.

Colour me surprised. Over in the other thread you were desperately trying to convince me that opinions (no matter wrong or right), even feelings and wishes were "facts".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It is a fact that I have an opinion, or a feeling or a wish, yes.
The content of the opinion e.g. "The sun is green" may not be or correspond to a fact, but merely being an opinion does not guarantee this. Opinions can be right, for instance a doctor's opinion. So if I am of the opinion that there is aesthetic value in the Picasso, merely being an opinion does not make it inherently flawed or "unfactual".

 

[quatona]

It is a fact that I have an opinion, or a feeling or a wish, yes.
The content of the opinion e.g. "The sun is green" may not be or correspond to a fact, but merely being an opinion does not guarantee this. Opinions can be right, for instance a doctor's opinion.

In any case, the content is not a fact, but at best corresponds to a fact.
That´s about the position I took in the other thread, but you kept disagreeing.

So if I am of the opinion that there is aesthetic value in the Picasso, merely being an opinion does not make it inherently flawed or "unfactual".

It doesn´t make it a fact.
Furthermore, as opposed to e.g. "the sun" there is no such thing as an external value that your opinion can possibly correspond to.

 

[Simply_Amazing]

IIRC Sartre the existentialist said that existence was absurd and superflous.

It is absurd because ultimately there is no reason for it to be here.

It is superflouus because being contingent, it is more than is necessary.

I think that whilst existence may seem absurd we can give it, or at least ourselves and our experience of life, a reason for being e.g. to enjoy ourselves. This seems at least to be a "final cause" for continued existence. We have radical freedom in this respect, and can choose so many objectives, although we have to live and learn.

As for being "superflous" I can't think of a counter to that except that life becomes necessary if we want to enjoy it etc.

If you want to ask me, there really isn't an ultimate reason for anything, so everything is superfluous in the ultimate sense. That said, we attach meaning to things at a human level and living is collectively important to us.

What I want to know is what meaning Christians attach to life. If this is just a transitional phase to something better (where you have a chance to screw up) why would God bother to have it at all?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What I want to know is what meaning Christians attach to life. If this is just a transitional phase to something better (where you have a chance to screw up) why would God bother to have it at all?

I might be religious, but I am more of a secular philosopher.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In any case, the content is not a fact, but at best corresponds to a fact.

I can go along with that.

That´s about the position I took in the other thread, but you kept disagreeing.

MAybe we are not understanding one another.

It doesn´t make it a fact.

True it could be a opinion containing a false rather than a true belief, but all I argued that there was at least a possibility of truth.

Furthermore, as opposed to e.g. "the sun" there is no such thing as an external value that your opinion can possibly correspond to.

So what? We seemed to agree that something may have value to me. I acknowledge that the value of a Picasso is not there if the human race disappears, but again so what? That does not mean that the value is not real. You seem to be arguing that only mind independent things are factual, and that mind dependent things are somehow sub-real.

 

[quatona]

So what? We seemed to agree that something may have value to me.

Yes.

I acknowledge that the value of a Picasso is not there if the human race disappears, but again so what?

The value you give to a Picasso isn´t there if you don´t exist. You are not speaking or valueing for the entirety of mankind.

That does not mean that the value is not real.

It means that the value is not an attribute of the Picasso, but of you.

You seem to be arguing that only mind independent things are factual, and that mind dependent things are somehow sub-real.

No, I´m arguing that products of the mind tell us something about the mind, not about the object. The value exists within you, not within the Picasso. That something exists within me is in no way devaluing it to me - quite the opposite.
Of course, there is a difference between mind products and external objects that you don´t get rid of by preventing language from denoting it.
The "reality of a stone" is something completely different than the "reality of a thought", even if we call both "reality".
I´m not calling anything "sub-real", I´m not even proposing a valuation of sorts. I´m simply pointing out the difference.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Yes.
The value you give to a Picasso isn´t there if you don´t exist. You are not speaking or valueing for the entirety of mankind.

Nor is it there is the Picasso doesn't exist.

It means that the value is not an attribute of the Picasso, but of you.

What "I, not the picture, am aesthetically pleasing"? Thats not true. It is the objective features of the Picasso, alongside the subjective processing, that leads to the aesthetic value phenomenon.

No, I´m arguing that products of the mind tell us something about the mind, not about the object.

Look, if it has nothing to do with the Picasso then why do they not pay millions of pounds for my lousy doodles? The Picasso has aesthetice value, and we say that because it (rather than my doodles etc) produces a certain resonse in a subject.

The value exists within you, not within the Picasso.

The response does yes. But do you really want to say "Its me not the picture that has aesthetic value"?

That something exists within me is in no way devaluing it to me - quite the opposite.

Ok. Subjective does not mean non-factual.

Of course, there is a difference between mind products and external objects that you don´t get rid of by preventing language from denoting it.

I accept that, but implying that the subjective or mind dependent is "not factual" really messes things up. I would advise, look for another distinction.

The "reality of a stone" is something completely different than the "reality of a thought", even if we call both "reality".

Your point, if they are both real?

I´m not calling anything "sub-real", I´m not even proposing a valuation of sorts. I´m simply pointing out the difference.

Yeah with the clumsy Humean "fact-value distinction" terminology.

 

[quatona]

Nor is it there is the Picasso doesn't exist.

Sorry, I don´t get the grammatical structure nor the meaning of this sentence.

What "I, not the picture, am aesthetically pleasing"?

I think I have explained my pov sufficiently clearly so that such gross misrepresentations don´t need to be addressed seriously anymore.
I suggest you respond to my actual statements instead of continuously making stuff up, please.

It is the objective features of the Picasso, alongside the subjective processing, that leads to the aesthetic value phenomenon.

Since the objective features lead different people to different subjective processings, the value part quite obviously is generated in the mind, and isn´t a trait of the Picasso.

Look, if it has nothing to do with the Picasso then why do they not pay millions of pounds for my lousy doodles?

Never said (and have repeatedly and explicitly pointed out that this is not position) that it "has nothing to do with the Picasso". These strawmen get tiresome.

The Picasso has aesthetice value, and we say that because it (rather than my doodles etc) produces a certain resonse in a subject.

No, your mind produces the response.

The response does yes. But do you really want to say "Its me not the picture that has aesthetic value"?

For the umpteenth time: No.

Ok. Subjective does not mean non-factual.

Yes, it just means that it is a fact that your mind is doing something.

I accept that, but implying that the subjective or mind dependent is "not factual" really messes things up. I would advise, look for another distinction.

I´m not interested in your wordgames. I have explained the distinction.

Your point, if they are both real?

One is a product of your mind, the other exists out there.

Yeah with the clumsy Humean "fact-value distinction" terminology.

No, in my own words. Often enough.

 

[Katrin Seeker]

Why would that matter? You exist, make the most of it and if at all possible enjoy it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Since the objective features lead different people to different subjective processings, the value part quite obviously is generated in the mind, and isn´t a trait of the Picasso.

It is generated by the mind yes, but it depends on traits of the Picasso. The mind responds in a certain fashion to various inputs like size, colour, shape etc, such that some shapes will be pleasing and others not. I would say that aesthetic value is an emergent phenomenon, emerging from the interaction between a mind and an environment.

When I say "For me the Picasso has aesthetic value" I mean it produces a pleasing aesthetic response in me, it appears to be beautiful or tasteful etc. I don't think we need to abandon ordinary language in this case. Aftre all if I were to say "she has sexy legs" when I find a womans legs sexy, would you complain that I am incompetent verbally? To me her legs are sexy and that is a fact. Or, is it a "value" (as if that were an alternative, contrasting ontological category which seems to be your claim)?

Never said (and have repeatedly and explicitly pointed out that this is not position) that it "has nothing to do with the Picasso". These strawmen get tiresome.

So we agree theen.

No, your mind produces the response.

I can live with that.

I´m not interested in your wordgames. I have explained the distinction.

What? I am interested in the claim your words imply. This is not "wordgames" but a simple analysis of claims being made, and then comparing them to the world we are in.

One is a product of your mind, the other exists out there.

Agreed. But why the "fact value" terminology? It does not seem to reflect reality. You seem to be saying that subjective states in which which we experience things as are not factual, and thertefore not real. All I am saying is that value, for instance aesthetic value, or the value of a spanner for tightening a bolt, is a real phenomenon. The fact that it is a mind dependent phenomenon does not make it "non-factual" as the fact-value distinction implies. The value of the Picasso (remember ordinary language) or the spanner is just another kind of fact. Even if for you the Picasso is ugly and the spanner is useless. How that is word games I do not know.