Individualistic Existentialism and the loss of human connection

[mindlight]

Modern existentialism, individualism, and emotional isolation have contributed to the bubble effect of society. People live in separate bubbles of consciousness and we have lost the human connections that traditional communities and organized religion used to provide.

Kierkegaard was one of the first philosophers to look at the world from an existential point of view. Though a Christian he addressed the ways in which the state church was too controlling and did not respect people's feelings and inner life and also the ways in which scientific objective truth had drowned out the significance of the subjective. Have we now swung too far the other way?

Nietzsche, an atheist, looked at the world also in a highly individual way and was proclaimed the first psychologist by Freud for example. His focus was arguably on individual creativity, on exceeding our limits and becoming superman. He was a force of destruction to existing structures and one of innovation of new ones. But has the continual will to power and to change without regard for God that he evoked become something that has destroyed essential communal values, good traditions, and the things that bound us together as people?

How can we find our way back to human society and connection from the existential bubbles that we currently live in?

 

[Jonaitis]

Modern existentialism, individualism, and emotional isolation have contributed to the bubble effect of society. People live in separate bubbles of consciousness and we have lost the human connections that traditional communities and organized religion used to provide.

Kierkegaard was one of the first philosophers to look at the world from an existential point of view. Though a Christian he addressed the ways in which the state church was too controlling and did not respect people's feelings and inner life and also the ways in which scientific objective truth had drowned out the significance of the subjective. Have we now swung too far the other way?

Nietzsche, an atheist, looked at the world also in a highly individual way and was proclaimed the first psychologist by Freud for example. His focus was arguably on individual creativity, on exceeding our limits and becoming superman. He was a force of destruction to existing structures and one of innovation of new ones. But has the continual will to power and to change without regard for God that he evoked become something that has destroyed essential communal values, good traditions, and the things that bound us together as people?

How can we find our way back to human society and connection from the existential bubbles that we currently live in?

Nietzsche, though an atheist, recognised this existential problem in Western civilization, and his idea of the 'superman' was an attempt to answer the very question you're asking. I feel that Nietzsche, because of his nihilistic and atheistic views, is largely misunderstood. When he cried, "God is dead!", he did not mean that in a celebratory way, but as the recognition of the importance of religion in our society for human purpose and morality. He knew the importance of Christianity in the drive for stability and development in our Western civilization, but saw the rise of its decline. He credits Schopenhauer for much of his thought (and would you dare to read him! lol). Of course, Nietzsche tried to find an alternative route to support the evolution of man's future without religion, but not all of his points were not completely off. One of the problems of his 'superman' was finding out what that exactly was. He had no idea, and personally admitted that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Modern existentialism, individualism, and emotional isolation have contributed to the bubble effect of society. People live in separate bubbles of consciousness and we have lost the human connections that traditional communities and organized religion used to provide.

Kierkegaard was one of the first philosophers to look at the world from an existential point of view. Though a Christian he addressed the ways in which the state church was too controlling and did not respect people's feelings and inner life and also the ways in which scientific objective truth had drowned out the significance of the subjective. Have we now swung too far the other way?

Nietzsche, an atheist, looked at the world also in a highly individual way and was proclaimed the first psychologist by Freud for example. His focus was arguably on individual creativity, on exceeding our limits and becoming superman. He was a force of destruction to existing structures and one of innovation of new ones. But has the continual will to power and to change without regard for God that he evoked become something that has destroyed essential communal values, good traditions, and the things that bound us together as people?

How can we find our way back to human society and connection from the existential bubbles that we currently live in?

That's a big subject, mindlight, and as an Existentialist of sorts myself, it's not an easy one to address. But if we're going to try to treat this particular evaluation of yours regarding "how" one might come to understand an existential perspective, the first thing to get here is that I'd suggest we controvert the whole idea that existentialism constitutes a perspectival "bubble." If anything, it's an awareness that a person has escaped OUT OF the bubble of acculturation that others have created and have required that we operate, live and think within.

This means that I see existentialism, especially Christian existentialism, as a "bubble-less" form of inquiry into the world. It's a frame of mind in which an awareness of the cognitive and epistemic limitations of human beings is paramount. In this frame one finds the freedom to push forth in inquiry into LIFE and its meaning as it stands against the surety of our individual DEATHS.

When a person wakes up within "the World" with an existentialist perspective, it enables him to come to the realization that one is 'free to will' in the search for finding God, and the eventual having of faith in Jesus Christ isn't so much a destination through which one apprehends an epistemic closure and finality in this life, but is instead a journey of exploration that remains ongoing until the day one dies. Without dismissing the epistemic complications we all face, I say all of the above remains the case even despite the presence of other tangential doxastic issues we may have to also wrestle with.

My own existentialism follows in the wake of Sagan and Sartre, and it found a path by which to reconsider the place of my own existence via Pascal and Kierkegaard (along with other Christian philosophers). Via this "route," I've found an environment in my own thought that mutes the mystery and the doubt that have always plagued me and which I still encounter.

Fun Fact: Nietzsche disliked Pascal. Being that Existentialism isn't a "one size-fits-all" term, let's not conflate the individual outlooks which each of these guys had and, by avoiding this, let us then acknowledge that one form of existentialism isn't necessarily identical to another.

 

[mindlight]

Nietzsche, though an atheist, recognised this existential problem in Western civilization, and his idea of the 'superman' was an attempt to answer the very question you're asking. I feel that Nietzsche, because of his nihilistic and atheistic views, is largely misunderstood. When he cried, "God is dead!", he did not mean that in a celebratory way, but as the recognition of the importance of religion in our society for human purpose and morality. He knew the importance of Christianity in the drive for stability and development in our Western civilization, but saw the rise of its decline. He credits Schopenhauer for much of his thought (and would you dare to read him! lol). Of course, Nietzsche tried to find an alternative route to support the evolution of man's future without religion, but not all of his points were not completely off. One of the problems of his 'superman' was finding out what that exactly was. He had no idea, and personally admitted that.

Nietzsche helped drive the decline of Christianity and saw its apollonian sublimity as a fossilized heavy burden on humanity. But the main point I was making was the ways in which he entrenched highly individualistic, existential ways of looking at the world, the universe, and everything that militated both against Divinity and community as boundary-setting guides. His syphilitic madness was that he dissolved all reference points to people's sanity and then simply urged them to create a new reality that he himself had no reason to believe was even possible.

 

[mindlight]

That's a big subject, mindlight, and as an Existentialist of sorts myself, it's not an easy one to address. But if we're going to try to treat this particular evaluation of yours regarding "how" one might come to understand an existential perspective, the first thing to get here is that I'd suggest we controvert the whole idea that existentialism constitutes a perspectival "bubble." If anything, it's an awareness that a person has escaped OUT OF the bubble of acculturation that others have created and have required that we operate, live and think within.

This means that I see existentialism, especially Christian existentialism, as a "bubble-less" form of inquiry into the world. It's a frame of mind in which an awareness of the cognitive and epistemic limitations of human beings is paramount. In this frame one finds the freedom to push forth in inquiry into LIFE and its meaning as it stands against the surety of our individual DEATHS.

When a person wakes up within "the World" with an existentialist perspective, it enables him to come to the realization that one is 'free to will' in the search for finding God, and the eventual having of faith in Jesus Christ isn't so much a destination through which one apprehends an epistemic closure and finality in this life, but is instead a journey of exploration that remains ongoing until the day one dies. Without dismissing the epistemic complications we all face, I say all of the above remains the case even despite the presence of other tangential doxastic issues we may have to also wrestle with.

My own existentialism follows in the wake of Sagan and Sartre, and it found a path by which to reconsider the place of my own existence via Pascal and Kierkegaard (along with other Christian philosophers). Via this "route," I've found an environment in my own thought that mutes the mystery and the doubt that have always plagued me and which I still encounter.

Fun Fact: Nietzsche disliked Pascal. Being that Existentialism isn't a "one size-fits-all" term, let's not conflate the individual outlooks which each of these guys had and, by avoiding this, let us then acknowledge that one form of existentialism isn't necessarily identical to another.

Existentialism by itself is about the perspective of an individual looking out at the world and himself. You can argue the liberating effects of such an outlook from false burdens imposed on individual consciousness with some validity. Kierkegaard clearly saw the church as too controlling and objective scientific facts as somehow too abstract to intrude too deeply on to his personal space. But maybe we have swung too far toward moral relativism and he would argue differently in todays chaotic context. A key discussion here is how far we can balance the objective and the subjective in our outlooks.

Science sets factual boundaries to what can be said. Existentially for example a man may call himself a woman and psychologically identify as one but biologically he remains a man however much damage he inflicts by expensive surgeries and hormonal treatments.

Historical witnesses set boundaries to what can be said with any authority as do the scriptures themselves. We have boundaries, set by facts, plausibility, and doctrine, that our existential consciousness is free to roam within. It is a wide open space with infinite potential but we can still see valid walls to it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Existentialism by itself is about the perspective of an individual looking out at the world and himself. You can argue the liberating effects of such an outlook from false burdens imposed on individual consciousness with some validity. Kierkegaard clearly saw the church as too controlling and objective scientific facts as somehow too abstract to intrude too deeply on to his personal space. But maybe we have swung too far toward moral relativism and he would argue differently in todays chaotic context. A key discussion here is how far we can balance the objective and the subjective in our outlooks.

Science sets factual boundaries to what can be said. Existentially for example a man may call himself a woman and psychologically identify as one but biologically he remains a man however much damage he inflicts by expensive surgeries and hormonal treatments.

Historical witnesses set boundaries to what can be said with any authority as do the scriptures themselves. We have boundaries sets by facts, plausibility, and doctrine that our existential consciousness is free to roam within. It is a wide open space with infinite potential but we can still see valid walls to it.

Those are some excellent points, but while there are those who may argue on behalf of what they think are the "liberating effects of existentialism," that ain't what I'm doing here. No, like Pascal, my concern has always been to find a way to navigate out of the felt 'void' I was in and into the Light of Life.

But yeah, Nietzsche thought he was pulling the curtains off of the stage. He wasn't. If anything, he was just a syphilitic old and deluded individual who wanted life to what he wanted it to be. The problem with that is ... well, we all know what the problem with that is.

 

[mindlight]

Those are some excellent points, but while there are those who may argue on behalf of what they think are the "liberating effects of existentialism," that ain't what I'm doing here. No, like Pascal, my concern has always been to find a way to navigate out of the felt 'void' I was in and into the Light of Life.

But yeah, Nietzsche thought he was pulling the curtains off of the stage. He wasn't. If anything, he was just a syphilitic old and deluded individual who wanted life to what he wanted it to be. The problem with that is ... well, we all know what the problem with that is.

If you turn the lights off a dark space can look like an endless abyss. Nietzsche started at the blindness of his nihilism and looked out from there. His worldview was a sad and hopeless one because of that despite his struggle and vain protestations.

As you say there is a Light we can appeal to that can shine in the darkest corners of the largest caverns in our souls and give us opportunities for safe navigation, sculpted creations of our own, and even access points by which we can reach into other worlds, those of the others that surround us and among whom we move, live and breathe.