# What exactly is Existentialism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 20, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233 "2009-01-20T23:43:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/41 "2009-01-22T10:04:12Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I said the examples were of philosophy. I did not say the were existentialism. Mr. Blather dissed philosophy in general, and I wanted to show direct usefulness of philosophy. Thank you for pointing out that the examples were not of existentialism. I think you miss my point. Was **DanBlather** ’s point too broad? Of course. Did he have the kernel of a point, though? Yes. A lot of non-analytic philosophy is sophistry and navel-gazing, whereas the ideas that influence mathematics and science, and hence are actually _useful_, are usually taken from analytic philosophy (which isn’t surprising). ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/42 "2009-01-22T13:54:37Z")
My understanding of existentialism is that basically “We’re here because we’re here because we’re here” We weren’t put here for a purpose or even an example,we’re just a cosmic accident,a random occurrence,a meaningless blip in a meaningless universe. And now I’m off to cut my throat. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/43 "2009-01-22T18:25:54Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > I think you miss my point. Was **DanBlather** ’s point too broad? Of course. Did he have the kernel of a point, though? Yes. A lot of non-analytic philosophy is sophistry and navel-gazing, whereas the ideas that influence mathematics and science, and hence are actually _useful_, are usually taken from analytic philosophy (which isn’t surprising). Yes, we miss each other’s points. Much philosophy is useful to people, not just to you or me. I personally find the math stuff useless as I don’t do math except for simple arithmetic. I find the philosophy of theology useful and entertaining, but many people don’t. Most people just find all of philosophy outside their usual experience and therefore uncomfortable and describe it as you did. ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/44 "2009-01-22T21:56:35Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > You can describe an infinity to me, but you cannot actually show me an infinity of anything. Q.E.D. I can’t show you a quark either, but they exist. Q.E.D. If “reality” is defined by “what can be shown to a human being”, that leaves out a whole lot of what actually exists in the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/45 "2009-01-22T21:59:37Z")
> [@BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed](#): > > How is it meaningless? Unless you contend that we know all of reality, thought experiments are never meaningless. Scientific paradigm shifts occur because of thought experiments. People thought everything was made of four elements. We thought that Newton’s physics explained everything until Einstein came around. > > I’m not saying there’s a 1-to-1 correlation between believing in the matrix and the theory of relativity. But to assert that we should discount as meaningless all that can’t be sensed with our senses or with current scientific experimentation is pretty close-minded. Wow, that’s a gigantic leap from what I actually said. Plato’s cave is meaningless. Everything else you say above is unrelated to anything I’ve posted so far. ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/46 "2009-01-22T22:17:31Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Are there any physics equations that use infinity as an answer to describe “reality?” I understand that some equations use as intermediate calculation steps but not as a final answer that corresponds to the real world. > > Or will the discussion of “infinity” always deteriorate to disagreement because nobody will be able to agree on the meaning of the words “concept” and “reality?” “Concept”: something made up by humans which may or may not have any relation to reality. “Reality”: that which actually exists. Numbers have a reality outside of the human concept of them. They define the physics of atoms and elements, size, mass, time, etc. I can’t “show you” the infinity of numbers, but then neither can you “show me” the largest number. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/47 "2009-01-22T22:30:17Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > I can’t “show you” the infinity of numbers, but then neither can you “show me” the largest number. …because there is no such thing as the “largest number.” Your 1st (defintions) and 3rd paragraph (examples) contradict each other. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/48 "2009-01-22T23:08:29Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > Of what use is it, as anything? What’s wrong with it is that it’s meaningless. Yeah, along with everything else. ---
**Author:** ![BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/49 "2009-01-22T23:32:04Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > Wow, that’s a gigantic leap from what I actually said. Plato’s cave is meaningless. Everything else you say above is unrelated to anything I’ve posted so far. How is it a gigantic leap? Remember, it’s not Plato’s cave, it’s his allegory of the cave. My comments to you and **DanBlather** still stands; until you’ve proven that we’re not in the Matrix, the concept of viewing reality in ways that might not quite jibe with what our sense are telling us, allegories like this are always useful. Plato himself presented it as a thought experiment. I’m making the assertion that thought experiments which break us out of our narrow perceptions of reality are part of the impetus for paradigm shifts (I’m not just throwing in the word paradigm, btw-- Thomas Kuhn wrote about science undergoing “[periodic revolutions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn#The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)” which he referred to as paradigm shifts). So Plato presents an allegory as a thought experiment, and you’re claiming that it’s meaningless. I’m making the claim that it’s partly because of thought experiments that challenge our perceptions of reality that scientific progress in the form of paradigm shifts get made. Do you still consider that a gigantic leap? (and I apologize if my last post came across as a little snarky. I’m not trying to snark here-- I’m curious if you’re saying just Plato’s stuff was meaningless, or any kind of thought experiment like this, or non-analytic philosophy in general, or what) ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/50 "2009-01-22T23:47:17Z")
> [@BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed](#): > > My comments to you and **DanBlather** still stands; until you’ve proven that we’re not in the Matrix, the concept of viewing reality in ways that might not quite jibe with what our sense are telling us, allegories like this are always useful. You continue to have the burden of proof backwards. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/51 "2009-01-22T23:51:21Z")
Well, every paradigm shift, in the Kuhnian sense, that I can think of has been instigated because collected data didn’t match with accepted models. This holds for the shift away from considering heat and temperature as the same thing, special relativity etc. Only after the mismatch was observed were thought experiments used. Is there a handy example where holding the thought experiments first guided us to a real paradigm shift? ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/52 "2009-01-23T00:50:59Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > …because there is no such thing as the “largest number.” Which is kinda the definition of infinite, no? Remind me, what are you and I disagreeing about here? > [@Ruminator](#): > > Your 1st (defintions) and 3rd paragraph (examples) contradict each other. In what way? ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/53 "2009-01-23T00:56:52Z")
> [@BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed](#): > > So Plato presents an allegory as a thought experiment, and you’re claiming that it’s meaningless. I’m making the claim that it’s partly because of thought experiments that challenge our perceptions of reality that scientific progress in the form of paradigm shifts get made. > > Do you still consider that a gigantic leap? > > (and I apologize if my last post came across as a little snarky. I’m not trying to snark here-- I’m curious if you’re saying just Plato’s stuff was meaningless, or any kind of thought experiment like this, or non-analytic philosophy in general, or what) Ok, you’ve now said it yourself, but I’ll repeat it, for the _third_ time in this thread since you, for some reason, keep insisting on making a generality out of my specific: Plato’s allegory is meaningless. Thought experiments in general are a useful tool. Some thought experiments, like those of Einstein, lead to breakthoughs; some, like those of Plato, lead to nothing. ---
**Author:** ![BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/54 "2009-01-23T01:11:21Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > Ok, you’ve now said it yourself, but I’ll repeat it, for the _third_ time in this thread since you, for some reason, keep insisting on making a generality out of my specific: > > Plato’s allegory is meaningless. > > Thought experiments in general are a useful tool. Some thought experiments, like those of Einstein, lead to breakthoughs; some, like those of Plato, lead to nothing. OK, I understand now that you’re focusing on Plato exclusively. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. I guess I’m not willing to discount any thought experiment as meaningless, even though it has led to nothing concrete. Or at least nothing yet. I think that changing our thinking in any kind of way is useful in some sense. Note that I’m not claiming some amazing breakthroughs will come with those lines of thinking. My earlier Einstein example was when I thought we were discussing generalities. Analytic philosophy will undoubtedly produce more results in the scientific field. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/55 "2009-01-24T05:53:48Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > You continue to have the burden of proof backwards. No he doesn’t. There’s no particularly good reason for me to believe that you exist. Ergo, that’s the extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary proof. The world is simpler if I’m the only thing in it. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/56 "2009-01-24T07:49:09Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > I can’t show you a quark either, but they exist. Q.E.D. If “reality” is defined by “what can be shown to a human being”, that leaves out a whole lot of what actually exists in the universe. You can show me evidence of a quark having passed my way, the same way a microscope can show me a bacteria. You can’t show me evidence of an infinity passing my way, but you can describe it. Quark are piece of matter, an infinity is not. Your analogy is less than helpful in convincing me that a concept is matter or energy. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a concept. Unlike infinity, used in calculus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a rhetorical device and used differently, but still useful. But not real. Like the Tooth Fairy. ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233/57 "2009-01-24T14:20:43Z")
Wow, everything’s clear now. 😕:dubious:😉 Anyway, keep up discussion if you want, I feel I have a grasp on the subject. Thanks Dopers! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-existentialism/482233.md?page=2)