existentialism
Howard Duck
definitive meaning of this term. The most apt statement I've found says
that it is not a set of beliefs or a systematic philosophy, and that it is
best explained by the novels of certain writers (notably Sartre, whom I have
not read). But the contention seems to be that life is subject to
completely irrational forces which beset any and all, and that one is
accountable to no one but him or her-self. Such statements are contrary to
everything that I, as a Christian, hold to be true. Yet, I would like a
deeper understanding of existentialism (without spending a great deal of
time reading) to be able to argue the essentials of the belief system
knowledgeably and to show why, it is irrational to adopt such a belief
system.
--
Howard Duck <hbd...@koyote.com>
Raptor514
"Phenomonology and Existentialism." I'm not a philosopher yet but I think I
can help you here. Existentialism holds that: a) we are completely free in
how we relate to reality. That is, how we react to events is totally up to
us and this gives us absolute freedom. b) this absolute freedom is
frightening to us and much of religion and social norms are the result of
people denying their freedom. c) People deny their freedom because
absolute freedom means absolute responsibility. People use self-deception
to escape their absolute freedom/responsibility. Existentialism is a very
moralizing and ethically strict philosophy despite never managing to produce
a comprehensive set of ethics and is often considered the "Protestantism" of
modern philosophies.
To understand existentialism you really have to understand phenomonology
first (and it is a philosophical technique, not a philosophy in itself). I
can recommend a single, short book on existentialism that does a good job of
explaining both: "Introducing Sartre" by Philip Thody and Howard Read.
$10.95 :-) Note, that Sartre's existentialism is almost certainly NOT
what your son is talking about. Sartre was the main populizer of
existentialism but he was not it's best thinker - just the most popular with
lay-people. Merleau-Ponty basically "corrected" and improved Sartre,giving
us modern existentialism. (Sartre's philosophy has a lot of really silly
crap that has never been accepted.) But the basics are there in Sartre.
I am not an existentialist but there are some errors in your assumptions
below. First, you assume that existentialism is irrational while you,
admittedly, don't know much about it. Secondly, existentialists do not say
that we are beset by "irrational" forces but by "contingent" forces, which
means that, there is no apparent reason for anything to exist AT ALL, there
is no "meaning of life" and so we have to "make life meaningful" which is
both frightening and liberating but is certainly not irrational. Finally,
existentialism began with a Christian theologian named Kieerkegaard.
Existentialism is one of the major forces at work in modern Christianity, by
which I mean, since the 16th century. There are many things in modern
philosophical existentialism that might make a Christian uncomfortable but
partly from early existentialism came Protestantism with it's work ethic and
strict moral code. There are plenty of other factors in modern Christianity
but existentialism is the root of many of your own beliefs (almost
certainly.) You would have to REALLY get deeply into it to see the full
extent of this influence however.
By the way, existentialism is a "dead" philosophy nowadays. Just like
"Freudianism" in psychology, there are no modern existentialist philosophers
thinking and writing today except for a few tenured fossils whom no one
listens to anyway. Modern philosophy has taken just about all the "meat"
from it and moved on, leaving the "bones" behind so to speak. I have no
idea where it's all going now but your son might want to know that he is
several decades behind and that he should read some critiques on
existentialism (avoiding the post-modernist sewage of course, now that IS
irrational stuff.)
Hope this helps some.
Howard Duck <hbd...@koyote.com> wrote in message
news:93204776...@news.remarQ.com...
Howard Duck
going to talk about this at all, so I'll try to find the book you suggest.
As for post-modernism, that's a term I have only heard used and know nothing
whatsoever about.
I will have to learn what "contingent" forces means. I will also have to
consider how this "absolute freedom" relates to biblical truth - I mean, in
that Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free." But as I understand it, *that* freedom does not imply a freedom to
do evil, but rather that knowing and receiving the truth of salvation we
have a changed nature which sets us free from bondage to evil desires and
thoughts, etc. I have heard Peer Gynt (of the Grieg suite) by Ibsen
referred to as an existentialist, but reading the tale, I see nothing but a
very vain self-absorbed personality.
But, as you say, I'm not sure that my son really knows much about what he is
talking about either. He has probably picked up a popular conception and
tagged it "existentialism", but he cannot really tell me in clear terms what
he means by this either.
Raptor514 <Rapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9320733...@news.remarQ.com...
Howard Duck
anything out. Yes, our children were raised in a Christian home and church
environment. Unfortunately, they have seen too much of the hypocracy of the
(so-called) church world. In the case of the son I mentioned, he enjoys
deciding for himself what he believes and also, I think, debating the
issues. I have wanted to understand more about the subject, not primarily
to rebut him (in spite of my offhand statement when I asked about
existentialism), but because I find it a strange and curious attitude toward
life. The more I hear what others have to say about it, and the more I read
of books classified as noir or existential, I find it odd and sad that
people can be of the opinion that there is no purpose to life other than
what we ourselves make of it - no guiding principle other than what we
determine - no hope in this present life other than what is SELF-directed
and SELF-absorbed - no hope of a life to come - no direct communion with God
through the Holy Spirit - no belief in absolutes - no belief in sin as an
absolute, therefore no belief in righteousness as an absolute - no belief in
the need for salvation - no belief in the Bible as infallible, or Jesus
Christ as Savior. I marvel that people can live with that outlook. I
suppose that in my depressed youth I also looked upon life somewhat like
that, but when the crises came, I told God that I could not live that way,
and somehow He began to direct my path. Today, if I still held to such
empty premises about life, I would ask myself each and every day what I am
doing here. I would say, eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die,
except that eating and drinking would not make me merry, nor would anything
else in the world. If this is what children are taught today, it is no
wonder that suicide and violence are epidemic - I'm afraid I would feel as
they do, that death cannot be worse than life here and now.
Noora <enfa...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:7moo2l$t44$1...@newton.pacific.net.sg...
>
> Howard Duck wrote in message <93204776...@news.remarQ.com>...
> >completely irrational forces which beset any and all, and that one is
> >accountable to no one but him or her-self. Such statements are contrary
to
> >everything that I, as a Christian, hold to be true. Yet, I would like a
> >deeper understanding of existentialism (without spending a great deal of
> >time reading) to be able to argue the essentials of the belief system
> >knowledgeably and to show why, it is irrational to adopt such a belief
> >system.
> >--
> >Howard Duck <hbd...@koyote.com>
> >
> >
> I refer to the last part of your post. I understand your concern and
> conflict. But it is a little dangerous to acquire understanding of a
subject
> so that you can refute it. It will not be true understanding this way. It
is
> best to learn something first without prejudice or intention otherwise
such
> learning/understanding will be warped and to your son, it will seem like
an
> attack. This is just my two cents' worth, feel free to ignore. I'm not
> asking you to abandon your belief system, but just to set it aside first
> while you truly seek to understand the matter. You must understand that
you
> are coming in from a certain standpoint and your son from another. If you
> seek to criticise his system even more with knowledge, it is and will be
an
> attack on him and will probably alienate him further from your belief
> system. I mean, this is a probable situation. There are factors here to
> consider. You are the father and hence the authoritative figure, so coming
> down on something he has decided for himself will seem like control and
> imposition. The idea is to guide. Perhaps you could seek to ask him what
he
> thinks existentialism is and means to him. Because for all that you can
> glean and read from books or wherever, it is HIS understanding of it that
> matters more in this situation. And it is his understanding that you have
to
> come to terms with. I'm not here to say if I agree with you or not, I'm
just
> hoping to let you know that there could be backfiring. (I'm putting
forward
> here my thoughts because they are yielded from experience) Perhaps, if
your
> son has always been brought up in a Christian environment and now claims
to
> existentialist, perhaps the first questions to meditate upon is why. Not a
> why in terms of how could you do this. But more, is it a reactionary
action?
> (reactionary to the Christian upbringing) And if so, why? Is it because he
> did not understand? It appears to me that a lot of kids who are brought
into
> a religious family and taught since young that this is God, you have to
> believe in him, so on and so forth tend to develop a reaction if not made
> to understand. Instead of receiving guidance, it becomes a doctrine
> enforced, a system of dos and don'ts. One needs to cultivate the
> spirituality in children, not by imposition but by allowing the child to
> seek and understand. The reaction some kids adopt is to reject. Others
just
> blindly follow, never really finding true spirituality or understanding.
And
> some are perpetually questioning and are in conflict.
> You have to consider that belief systems are personal and inextricably
> linked to a person's identity. To question that, or to criticise that with
> the intention of showing that another is 'right' has repercussions on the
> ego. It is a tricky thing to do. Therefore you have to consider if your
son
> will cling on more to existentialism should you debate it with him because
> he feels threatened in terms of losing his identity or what makes up his
> self or if he will willingly listen to you. Sometimes, the best way is
> subtlety. Perhaps presenting it through another person who's not an
> immediate authoritative figure might work. And perhaps it might work
better
> if it isn't set out as a father-son talk and rather a more
person-to-person
> talk. There are two people involved after all. You and your son.
>
> Noora
>
>
>
Noora
Miranda Meagan Keefe
existentialist. I have sought for a
>definitive meaning of this term.
>deeper understanding of existentialism (without spending a great deal of
>time reading) to be able to argue the essentials of the belief system
>knowledgeably and to show why, it is irrational to adopt such a belief
>system.
Although I strongly disagree with this approach and disagree with his point of
view, what you want are some of the books by Francis Shaeffer. He has one book
that examines Existentialism from a Fundamentalist viewpoint.
Instead of doing that, though, I would recommend that you do what you don't
want to do if you really want to dialog with your son. Actually do some study
even if it takes some time. The best way to get exposed to Sarte is to read
his play "No Exit". Another enjoyable Athiestic Existentialist play, not by
Sarte, is "Waiting for Godot".
Also there are Theistic versions of Existentialism. The proto-Existentialist
was Soren Kierkegaard of 19th Century Dennmark. The most important Christian
Existentialist, and the first real 20th Century figure to propound this
viewpoint, was Karl Barth. Read his commentary on Romans. Also check out
Brunner, Buber, and Tillich. Buber's "I and Thou" is pivotal in understanding
Christian Existentialism, even though he's Jewish and the book is really Jewish
Existentialism.
The best example of a short confessional version of Christian Existentialism is
the Barmed Declaraction. You can find that online at www.pcusa.org
Take Care....
Starchild the Christian Existentialist