what exactly is Existentialism all about?

[GQ Chris]

now it seems like we're gettin more Filosofical in here

 

[Gracchus]

now it seems like we're gettin more Filosofical in here

 

[nadroj1985]

So what he should have said is that you have to recognize the existance of a thing before you can assign it properties? If so, he should have said that, instead of obfuscating the obvious with a catch-phrase.

I'm beginning to wonder whether you're capable of following along here. This is the second time I've said something about special kinds of properties (whether intrinsic or essential), and had you apply it to properties in general. It's not that hard an idea to grasp.

In any case, it's not like Sartre just threw the catchphrase out there. He did say things along the lines of what I'm getting at in his work. "Existence precedes essence" is merely the phrase that people latch onto, since it's easy to remember, and expresses his thought simply if you know how to cash out the terms.

A defintion is a boundary, and thus a definition always relates something to something else.

We're not talking about a full definition -- we're talking about ascribing properties. In any case, I won't push this further. Since I think it's essential rather than intrinsic properties Sartre is on about, I won't quibble over whether there are such things as intrinsic properties.

So what he meant was, "I think, therefore I am, and at some point I become uncertain." Can't sell books with that thesis, I would guess.



"Existence precedes essence", then, seems to be an assertion about which we could echo Wolfgang Pauli: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

All of this is either utter misunderstanding or evasion. I hesitate to ascribe either to you, Gracchus, but I don't see any other way out.

 

[The Nihilist]

I meant sociology as the examination of human behavior. So more like psychological. My apologies for being fairly incompetent with the English language :/

I was trying to give a very simple definition, according to my own understanding of existentialism. If I have the wrong idea, I suppose my question lies in the very first post. Care to explain, Nihilist?

Oh, ok, that's different. You're pretty close then. I was just cranky.

 

[Gracchus]

I'm beginning to wonder whether you're capable of following along here. This is the second time I've said something about special kinds of properties (whether intrinsic or essential), and had you apply it to properties in general. It's not that hard an idea to grasp.

A "thing" is its properties. They cannot be separated. Its not that hard an idea to grasp.

In any case, it's not like Sartre just threw the catchphrase out there. He did say things along the lines of what I'm getting at in his work. "Existence precedes essence" is merely the phrase that people latch onto, since it's easy to remember, and expresses his thought simply if you know how to cash out the terms.

Well, I was asking you to "cash out the terms". Let's see how you do it. Do you get anything but unsigned IOU's?

We're not talking about a full definition -- we're talking about ascribing properties.

Without definitions, it is hopeless to attempt reasoning.

In any case, I won't push this further. Since I think it's essential rather than intrinsic properties Sartre is on about, I won't quibble over whether there are such things as intrinsic properties.

"An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, independently of other things, including its context. An extrinsic (or relational) property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things. For example, mass is a physical intrinsic property of any physical object, whereas weight is an extrinsic property that varies depending on the strength of the gravitational field in which the respective object is placed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties_(philosophy)

"The distinction between essential versus accidental properties has been characterized in various ways, but it is currently most commonly understood in modal terms along these lines: an essential property of an object is a property that it must have while an accidental property of an object is one that it happens to have but that it could lack."

Essential vs. Accidental Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

How is a thing separate from its "essential properties"? How can it pre-exist its "essential properties", unless its "essential properties" have changed? And iif its "essential properties" have changed, can it still be the same thing?

All of this is either utter misunderstanding or evasion.

... on my part, or yours?

There is the possibility, however remote you may consider it, that you have simply reified an undefined abstract concept for something that may or may not exist. Or, to put it another way, its essence is non-existence.

It is much more likely that you allowed yourself to be convinced of nonsense. It has happened to all of us.

I hesitate to ascribe either to you, Gracchus, but I don't see any other way out.

If you couldn't be wrong, I am not surprised that you don't see any other way out.

 

[nadroj1985]

A "thing" is its properties. They cannot be separated. Its not that hard an idea to grasp.

Not that your point responds at all to what I was saying, but... that is in fact a very hard idea to grasp. Our general conception of an object is something which has properties, not something which just is the collection of its properties. It may be that it's true (though I doubt it), but if it is, it's certainly not obviously true. Your view commits you, for instance, to the claim that all the properties of a thing are essential to it -- that may be, but it certainly is a far cry from what most of us normally think.

How is a thing separate from its "essential properties"? How can it pre-exist its "essential properties", unless its "essential properties" have changed? And iif its "essential properties" have changed, can it still be the same thing?

There are a number of ways in which this could be the case, and, if you'll recall, I gave you three ways of looking at it earlier:

This could be read in a few different ways -- either that properties of humans are all non-essential, or that humans come to gain essential properties as a result of their existence (or, as Sartre will say, as a result of their choices), or that "humanity" in general is essentially undefined -- we don't and can't know what essential properties mark out what it is to be "human."

I think it's more than likely that the last one is the one Sartre means, though I probably shouldn't have formulated it in terms of knowledge. Sartre would probably say that what it is to be "human" is undefinable, that there is no set of properties which, taken together, mark out humanity as what it is.

This is all wrapped up in Sartre's atheism as well, of course -- part of what it is for our existence to precede our essence is for us to have been uncreated. If God creats us with a blueprint in mind for what we can and should be, our essence clearly precedes our existence -- before we ever start, our path is, so to speak, laid out for us. For Sartre, the human is the being for whom free choice determines not merely how it lives, but what sort of being it is. What sort of being it is cannot be determined in advance.

here is the possibility, however remote you may consider it, that you have simply reified an undefined abstract concept for something that may or may not exist. Or, to put it another way, its essence is non-existence.

It is much more likely that you allowed yourself to be convinced of nonsense. It has happened to all of us.

You misunderstand me. I'm not convinced of any of this. I think Sartre's dead wrong about most of it. My point wasn't to defend his position, but to put it forward a good bit more charitably than you had. At the very least, it should be clear that critiquing Sartre's position requires a little philosophy, and not mere definition-mongering.

 

[The Nihilist]

oh get a room you two

 

[Nooj]

Just posting this because I want to discuss it here, I know a little bit about it.

There's a frightening freedom that we have and it comes from the fact that only we are responsible for who we are. Not fantasy concepts like human nature or excuses like 'I had no choice' or 'genetics made me this way'. It's all up to you.

 

[Gracchus]

There's a frightening freedom that we have and it comes from the fact that only we are responsible for who we are. Not fantasy concepts like human nature or excuses like 'I had no choice' or 'genetics made me this way'. It's all up to you.

You may be certain of that, but that does not mean you are right.

See, for instance, "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not", by Robert Burton, M.D.

I choose not to believe in free will, although I realize you probably have to.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I choose not to believe in free will, although I realize you probably have to.

I believe in a form of freewill, though I don't believe I have any choice in the matter. Even with freewill, we can't help what we find persuasive or not. We can only choose what we focus our minds on, for how long, and with what sincerity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nooj]

I know nothing about free will. I didn't think about the concept of whether my choices were real or apparent ones when I was a kid. It just wasn't relevant to me. And even when I first heard the term 'free will', I neglected it in favour of stuff like the existence of God. Should I care?

 

[epicurean]

It's basically a philosophy that deals with 1) do we exist? 2) if we do, why? 3) is our existence subjective or objective.
so in theory, i do exist, but is this world i'm in right now essentially just what i have made it? is my perception really what i take as truth?
good authors - franz kafka, fyodor dostoevesky, and my personal favorite, friedrich nietzsche