What exactly is Existentialism?

Factual Questions
1

I’ve seen ‘I :heart: Huckabees’. I’ve seen the; “Question the Answers” bumper-stickers, and I’ve looked it up on Wiki. I’m humbly admit that I don’t fully get it. I don’t know why but it all seems very confusing to me. :confused:

I understand **‘I :heart: Huckabees’ **individual messages; at least I think I do!? I just didn’t understand how it all fit into the ‘bigger picture’. Also, it seemed like it could be satirizing the, ("concept? “theory”? “belief”?), of existentialism as well. I was initially going to post a thread to ask dopers to try to explain the film to me, But I don’t want to derail the thread from the broader question. So if any of you out there loves the film, (a lot seemed to like it in CS), and get as excited as I do explaining what makes a movie so clever to dumb people, feel free to **PM **me.

Could someone explain to me in simple terms what Existentialism is about. I just don’t get it, and that bothers me. It’s also seemed to me, (by reading wiki), that’s it’s something that’s been perhaps more refined in time, which confuses me a bit more.

2

FTW, I did goggle and read it’s full wiki page, I could sight some questions, but there are to many, I’m afraid I’ll be mistaken in my interpretations of it. I really don’t even know if what I asked is a loaded question. I’m reading it over right now, and it seems very loose and touching on things I have difficulty linking together. They mention “Determinism” which is not only something I understand but seriously thought about MANY years ago on my own.

I’m not one for math and Science, but I understand the idea of everything is an on-going cycle of cause-and-effect. The idea that everything is or can be a veritable to what happens next.

3

I haven’t seen the movie, so I don’t know if my answer will help or not.

There are a few different types of existentialism, but most existentialist philosophers share the basic notion that “existence precedes essence.” There is no inherent meaning to life; instead of relying upon a higher or transcendental plane of existence (e.g., Platonic essences) to provide us with meaning, each individual is responsible for creating his or her own identity/“essence” (most, although not all, existentialists were atheists).

Most existentialists felt that the burden of this responsibility was so overwhelming that it can create a profound sense of alienation and despair, or, as Jean-Paul Sartre put it, “nausea.” As a result, in popular culture, many people have associated “existentialism” with a very dreary and perhaps somewhat self-absorbed view of the world (think: “angst”).

Philosophically speaking, existentialism is grounded for the most part in Husserl’s phenomenology. The most famous thinkers associated with existentialism include Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre. The most famous “existentialist” literary author is undoubtedly Albert Camus.

The hey-day for existentialism was probably the late 1950s and early 60s–especially the post-WWII environment of Europe.

I should probably point out that most of those individuals disliked the term “existentialism” (except for Sartre, who somewhat reluctantly accepted it). But that’s typical of most modernist movements in art, literature, philosophy, etc.!

4

I hadn’t finished this post, but this is what I’m talking about. “existence precedes essence” is difficult for me to understand. What does that mean?

In the movie a woman says: “There’s glass between us.” And the guys says; “What does that even mean!?” I feel the same way, and I really want to get this.

5

Gutterfunken explains the term in the same paragraph of his post. “Existence before essence”, as in a person is born before he/she has a meaning in life (the essence).

6

I’ve never seen ‘I :heart: Huckabees’ so my answer may be way off base.

With that disclaimer, existentialism in one word would be “individualism.”

In other words…

Think for yourself instead letting society dictate your thoughts. Society dictates your life in various ways by overlaying your “world” with government structures, religious structures, economic structures, corporate structures, etc. Existentialism pushes the individual to design his life and to find meaning outside of all those " collective society" hierarchies.

The other aspect to existentialism is to stress the primary importance on this life, your earthly/material/physical/mortal life because it’s the only life you really have. It is a rejection of metaphysical school of Plato (and usually also religion).

Hmmm… you don’t like philosophy explained with more philosophical jargon? I tried to skip philosophical terminology in my answer above. See if it jives with the TV show you’re referring to.

Also, there’s an idea that if one doesn’t “get” Existentialism, then maybe his brain is not pre-wired for it to receive/understand its message. Some people are born with innate belief that “man is a social being” or has unquestionable faith in religion and their church leaders. This mindset may resist the understanding of Existentialism.

7

There is no inherent meaning to life; instead of relying upon a higher or transcendental plane of existence (e.g., Platonic essences) to provide us with meaning.

Which means, there’s no big answer other than the knowledge that we’re all in the same boat?

8

The movie had virtually nothing to do with existentialism. I have no idea who wrote the script and decided to attach existentialism to the philosophy being put forth in the film, but whoever it was was very wrong.

I’m not claiming any expertise here, but I did have a couple classes on it and read a bunch of the existential authors (a long time ago).

A huge problem in defining existentialism is that none of the existentialists could really agree on much. In fact, none of them referred to themselves as existentialists. So you have differences in the philosophies of Sartre, Camus, Dostoyevski, Kafka, and Kirkegaard. Something that did come through in one way or another in (I think) all of those authors was the acceptance of the absurd (though they didn’t all use that word).

In Camus, he takes Sisyphus (guy in Hades doomed to eternally roll a boulder up a mountain over and over) as the poster child for this acceptance. Though his only lot in life is to roll a rock up a hill again and again, he is struggling against the absurdity of his situation and is consequently happy.

Kafka has his “The Metamorphosis,” where the main character is changed into a giant insect. There’s no reason for it, and the character tries to adapt to his new life and but eventually dies a short time later. In “Before the Law” a man is denied access through a gateway to “the law.” Eventually he grows old and dies there, at which point the gatekeeper closes the door, as it was meant only for that one man.

I don’t know that Kafka would refer to his characters as happy because of the struggle, but they struggle because there’s little else they can do.

Sartre has a similar work called Les Jeux Sont Faits where basically a man who is killed is given the opportunity to change his fate, but is unable to alter the eventual outcome. And of course his famous “No Exit,” where we learn that hell is not torture, but is in fact “other people.”

So I agree with Ruminator in that the individual is the force which must be relied upon in the struggle. Even if that struggle is eventually meaningless.

If anyone’s interested, also check out Baudelaire’s Paris Spleen. Here’s a link to my favorite storyfrom it, though I can’t find my preferred translation.

9

Oh… I would say I have a pretty open mind. I mean, I only have %100 faith in one thing, and that’s my own ‘perception’ exists in some form. That’s not to say I think it’s at all likely that life is “simulated”, or anything like that, but what else can I know for sure? I take all things with skepticism, but I don’t rule a lot of things out either, (I guess you could say never with %100 certainty, that doesn’t mean I believe in Bigfoot). So if that’s what they mean by “question the answers”, I always do.

For instance, this whole: “if you don’t “get” Existentialism, then maybe his brain is not pre-wired for it to receive/understand its message” Makes me weary. Sounds like a secret club.

If I don’t understand it’s not anyone’s fault. My brother’s good translating this stuff for me, unfortunately he doesn’t really know much about it.

10

I’ve read a little bit of philosophy, I could be completely wrong but, my take on ‘existance preceds essence’ is this;

Plato took the view that all ‘phenomena’, things we experience, people, animals objects etc, have ‘essences’ or ‘forms’ which define them. The objects we see in the real world are merely transient imperfect representations of their essence which we are able to intellectually understand but not experience directly.

Existentialists on the other hand believe that things we experience in the real world as defined entirely by their physical form. It’s the existance of a thing that defines it’s essence, not an abstact concept.

11

Oh, and don’t worry about not “getting” that movie. It wasn’t as deep as it pretended to be. Really more pop philosophy than anything-- I’m sure whatever you were picking up on was what they were laying out for you. Don’t get me wrong, I liked it, but just don’t think that it had something that you couldn’t understand unless you had read a ton of philosophy.

12

I’m always puzzled when people say this. I would guess that 99.9% of the population believes they have an open mind. I’ve never met a single person that admitted he is “close-minded”

In any case, Existentialism doesn’t require an “open mind” to understand it. I’m not sure any particular philosophy requires an open mind – it either speaks to you or it doesn’t.

13

Or maybe your brain is wired for it. And what your not getting are the explanations for people who don’t. Sometimes explanations of the inherent only serve to confuse.

14

I guess I mean that I TRY to have flexible beliefs, I’ve reconsidered my thoughts on many things, and I’m sure I will again. Can’t say don’t have moments of close-mindedness, but even in many of those instances, I know on some level I’m being close-minded.

Of course I don’t know how other’s see me. So I can’t say for sure that I am 'Open-Minded"

15

Isn’t this just common sense? I never knew I was an existentialist.

Why do people still discuss Plato. Wasn’t he wrong about everything?

16

Why do you say that?

17

I hated I :heart: Huckabees, though I expected to love it. I don’t think it had anything to do with existentialism, it was just mocking self-help gurus who like to appropriate terms from the intellectual and scientific culture and turn them into pop psychology.

Existentialism is a school of that branch of philosophy that deals with questions of meaning, what we might call the great mysteries of life, the universe, and everything (Douglas Adams was much more existentialist than I :heart: Huckabees, IMO): What is the meaning of life? What is the purpose of history? What does it mean to be good?

Previous philosophers often tried to answer these questions by getting at the “essence” of things - the true nature of things apart from their mere accidents. To find out what it means to be good, one had to identify the true nature of humanity, for example. Once you knew what it really means to be human, you could figure out how to be a good one. Answers included that to be human is to be rational, or to be free, or to be in society, or to be a true reflection of the divine.

Existentialism was a reaction against all this. There were no big, universal answers out there that philosophers could discover like scientists uncovering the true nature of reality. There is no “true nature” of reality, just reality, which is what we deal with every day. We aren’t born with a purpose or a destiny or a true nature we have to find, we’re just born, and then we drive ourselves mad looking for the meaning and the narrative.

Existentialism differs from nihilism in that nihilism denies that meaning and narrative exist. Existentialism says that they are real, but they are artifacts of life that come later, after the fact. Martin Luther King didn’t achieve many things because he was a great man, existentialists would say, he was a great man because he achieved many things, things that we can only recognize now that he has achieved them. Morality, courage, wisdom, strength, and the opposites of these are not “things” or “qualities” we possess in our “hearts” or in our “souls” or in some abstract realm and which guide our actions. Our actions come first; those words are judgments we or others apply to them.

Existentialism can seem bleak because there are no correct answers, no guiding forces with which to align ourselves, no way to “get it right.” There are no excuses. You can’t say that you were just following orders and following orders is always right, because nothing is right in and of itself - we can only judge things by our own standards and with what we know.

18

For a long time, people thought that Plato got everything right and probably wondered why they should bother studying him, when it was all just common sense.

That’s the thing about philosophy - all of it seems to be obvious common sense, obvious nonsense, obfuscationist blathering, or blinkered idiocy. But which is which? Why is “common sense” today so different from “common sense” of a previous generation? Which philosopher is today inventing the common sense of our grandchildren?

19

He believed in an geo-centric universe where the moon, sun, and planets revolved around the earth in crystalline spheres. He was against democracy and thought that only a few were deemed worth of rule. He had that odd “shadow of reality” viewpoint of the world where our objects are just an imperfect shadow of an ideal form. He believed in the “elements” of earth, air, fire, and water. He was just a font of incorrect beliefs. Joe the Mayan probably had a better grasp of the world than Plato did.

20

Albert Camus There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide.