the American vision is about freedom of identity. Voting is a ritual that broadcasts that ideal: that you're responsible for your government. — frank

This was always my understanding - and, as with the Shapiro reference, I think its true. People f'ing it up doesn't change the basis.

This was always my understanding - and, as with the Shapiro reference, I think its true. People f'ing it up doesn't change the basis. — AmadeusD

I think about that every time I vote, so I don't feel so bad. :grin:

Because a few people widely considered to be existentialists denied the label, that means there are no existentialists? I don't think the logic is working out on that. — flannel jesus

Please prove why the logic wouldn't work out.

Do you have sources on Heidegger denying the label? I see that Camus and Sartre have. — flannel jesus

Heidegger doesn't seem to have had been interested in Existentialism. I haven't seen his comment on it. He is more interested in Metaphysics i.e. problems with existence and being. Hence his denial of himself being an existentialist has been presumed.

Please prove why the logic wouldn't work out. — Corvus

Because other people than that short list of people could be existentialists. "These people denied they are, therefore nobody is" isn't much of an argument. My gramma denies she's a Muslim, therefore nobody's a Muslim.

Because other people than that short list of people could be existentialists. "These people denied they are, therefore nobody is" isn't much of an argument. My gramma denies she's a Muslim, therefore nobody's a Muslim. — flannel jesus

It is not just that fact, but definition of existentialism has been obscure. What is your definition of existentialism and existentialist?

Sure, the definition of existentialism is a bit vague. THAT'S potentially part of a good argument for why nobody is an existentialist - nobody can be one because it's not well defined. I'm not saying that is an argument I agree with, but it's much closer to being at least something with some meat on it, compared to "Nobody's an existentialist because these 4 people denied they are"

Nobody's an existentialist because these 4 people denied they are" — flannel jesus

The claim was based on the inductive principle,
1. that the most famous would-be existentialists were denying that they were the existentialists.
2. Definition of existentialist is obscure.
3. It is impossible to go and ask the whole population on the earth if they are existentialist in practicality.

Therefore it is safe to conclude, that there is no such people who are existentialist.

I don't think you need to ask the whole population to verify if there are no existentialists, surely you just need to find one person who says they are.

It is just a supporting observational fact, which saves further analysis, investigations and observations on the point for the conclusion. Inductive conclusions are subject to be proven to be incorrect of course if new counter factuals (objective evidences or findings) emerged just like the scientific theories.

Let's add some observations then:

Stanford seems to think Sartre self-identified as an existentialist

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20the%20major%20contributors%20are,embrace%20a%20conception%20of%20radical

only Sartre and Beauvoir explicitly self-identified as “existentialists.”

Josh provided this quote from Sartre to support that:

In Existentialism and Humanism Sartre writes,

The existentialists, amongst whom we must place Heidegger as well as the French existentialists and myself . . . what they have in common is simply the fact that they believe that existence comes before any essence—or, if you will, that we must begin from the subjective.” — Joshs

I’ve always found the concept of existentialism to be an exercise in nomenclature. Let’s all decide to define something. Welcome to the forum ;). Or should I say to the machine? For all you pink Floyd fans.

Existentialism is an activity or state more than a concept, related to a stream of consciousness type of awareness / feeling somehow that is often fleeting - but can endure as a default… until you get too pedantic for even yourself. Forcing a modus operandi is almost always fatal to good humour ;).

When are you abstract and aware? And when are you lost in a pattern? Both are useful pursuits.

Everyone is an existentialist. Sometimes. Else you are only counting half (or so)

I’ve always found the concept of existentialism to be an exercise in nomenclature. Let’s all decide to define something. Welcome to the forum ;). Or should I say to the machine? For all you pink Floyd fans. — Metaphyzik

Existentialism is an activity or state more than a concept, related to a stream of consciousness type of awareness / feeling somehow that is often fleeting - but can endure as a default… until you get too pedantic for even yourself. Forcing a modus operandi is almost always fatal to good humour ;).

When are you abstract and aware? And when are you lost in a pattern? Both are useful pursuits.

Everyone is an existentialist. Sometimes. Else you are only counting half (or so) — Metaphyzik

Given what I said before about N and K, I disagree -- existentialism can certainly be an activity or state, but it's also a concept -- and not less than an activity or a state.

Olive branch: "Everyone is an existentialist sometimes" -- I certainly think activity is important, but it seems to me you're saying "existentialism" is nothing but nomenclature. I'd disagree with that.

Given what I said before about N and K, I disagree -- existentialism can certainly be an activity or state, but it's also a concept -- and not less than an activity or a state. — Moliere

I agree. For Sartre, individual existence is freedom. For Heidegger, individual existence is being-in-the-world. For Nietzsche, individual existence is will to power.

Only common concept is the supremacy of existence over essence and the existential crisis. — Abhiram

I often see the notion of existence over essence or existence preceding essence. Yet it seems to me that Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzsche are saying that existence is our essence, i.e., being-in-the-world is our essence, freedom is our essence, will to power is our essence. And even if that is the only common concept, it is a significant concept.

a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will. — Chet Hawkins

That is good.

Yet it seems to me that Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzsche are saying that existence is our essence, i.e., being-in-the-world is our essence, freedom is our essence, will to power is our essence. — Arne

I've always thought existence – how one actively exists – creates (one's) essence – becomes who one is. They (usually) reject the notion of "our essence" which is why (most) "existentialists" also deny the (non-subjective) designation. In any case, "being-in-the-world", "freedom" and "will-to-power" do not seem to me, according to primary sources, either synonymous with each other or equivalent to "existence".

Lots of quoting old dead philosophers…. Which isn’t much of an existential reply if you think about it.

I meant that defining things is nomenclature. It’s a tautology. Including existentialism of course. A polite joke.

It’s just fodder for thought…. Existentialism is notoriously hard to define, at least the definitions and explanations always seem strained even from those brilliant long dead philosophers.

All the old references are Interesting of course but maybe - just maybe - existentialism fits better as a state of mind than anything else.

"being-in-the-world", "freedom" and "will-to-power" do not seem to me, according to primary sources, either synonymous with each other or equivalent to "existence". — 180 Proof

They are not synonymous and the lack of clarity is on me. For Sartre, human existence is freedom. For Nietzsche, human existence is will to power. For Heidegger, human existence is being-in-the-world. But no, Sartre's freedom is not the same as Nietzsche's will-to-power and neither are the same as Heidegger's being-in-the-world. I apologize for any confusion. .

Reason alone suggests that if human existence is X, then X is human existence. That does not mean that other entities might not exist in the colloquial sense of the term. But they are not using their terms in a colloquial sense and they do not equivocate.

For example, Heidegger identifies three modes of being (ready [or unready] to hand, present to hand, and existence). Heidegger assigns the term existence as the mode of being for entities having the characteristics of Dasein. (“That kind of Being towards which Dasein. . . always does comport itself. . . we call ‘existence’” Being and Time at 32.). By default, the mode of being for all entities not having the characteristics of Dasein is either “ready [or unready] to hand” or “present to hand.”

Existence belongs only and always to Dasein and Dasein is the only being that is and always is being-in-the-world. Existence is being-in-the-world. There is no wiggle room.

All the old references are Interesting of course but maybe - just maybe - existentialism fits better as a state of mind than anything else. — Metaphyzik

I do find it interesting that not a single arguably significant philosopher felt the need to define it. And sadly, defining terms for purposes of which philosophers meet the definition makes it easier to ignore philosophers that are likely worth reading.

For Sartre, human existence is freedom. For Nietzsche, human existence is will to power. For Heidegger, human existence is being-in-the-world. — Arne

I appreciate the reply, Arne, but I do not read these three philosophers this way. 'How one exists creates one's essence' is the gist of my understanding of existentialism: essence becomes and is not 'what is' (e.g. will to power, freedom, or being-in-the-world). 'Existence precedes essence' means existence necessarily does not have an essence just as a lump of clay necessarily is not a bowl or statue. 'Existence' is necessary, 'essence" is contingent: 'to exist is to make (choose) one's essence'. None of them are primarily concerned with the "Human", but only with, IIRC, becoming (intentionally) For-Itself, (transvaluatively) Übermensch or (authetically) Dasein, respectively. Whatever else existentialism may mean, existence lacks essence, or every existent needs (though most don't strive for) an essence. IMO, to say "human existence" in this context, Arne, already says too much (or not enough).

No self-respecting existentialist would actually accept the label for themselves..

Or a fun way of saying it: they wouldn’t ever belong to a club that would have themselves as a member. Aka Groucho Marx.

They did however try to define their world views, some of which were not entirely cogent to be honest.

Sartre: Justification for Revolutionary violence aka any means justifies the ends? We can have meaning by acting in certain ways (hardly a profound statement)?

Heidegger: is another language - or sub- language - really necessary in order to explain what you mean?

Camus and neitzche seem to be in another conversation altogether, as their world views are more couched in nihilistic considerations.

essence becomes and is not 'what is' (e.g. will to power, freedom, or being-in-the-world — 180 Proof

I appreciate the reply, Arne, but I do not read these three philosophers this way — 180 Proof

I do not expect people to read them as I do. And your reading on the existence/essence issue is more dynamic and richer than mine and I adopt it.

But to say that existence precedes essence is to beg the question of what is the existence that precedes essence of the human. For Sartre, the existence that precedes essence of the human is freedom. For Heidegger, the existence that precedes essence of the human is being-in-the-world. For Nietzsche, the existence that precedes essence of the human is will to power.

And when the context is set by someone "trying to understand all that is existentialism" (Please see OP), putting teeth to the ambiguous notion of "existence precedes essence" is in order.

Similarly, to not say "human" existence and "human" essence when someone is "trying to understand all that is existentialism" is to risk the gravest of all existentialist sins, i.e., writing the "human" out of the equation, literally.

Perhaps I am an existentialist?

Perhaps I am an existentialist? — Arne

Perhaps you are. I'm not ...

Perhaps you are. I'm not ... — 180 Proof

Its the same when someone asks me if I believe in God, I generally and sincerely respond "sometimes". I enjoy reading Heidegger and Nietzsche, but I can find no reason to exempt either from the Nietzschean sense that perhaps its all an illusion. . .

Well, I claim that 'theism is not true' and so demonstrably by implication that takes care of "God" as far as I'm concerned. I'm much more Spinozist (or Epicurean) here than Nietzschean (or even Feuerbachian). Thus, absurdism appeals to me in a way existentialism (i.e. 'subjectivism') never has.

Sartre's The Gaze and The Look are interesting additions to his fundamental idea of creating meaning in one's life. I suspect every athlete who moves from the playground to the big leagues learns to deal with how others perceive him as he performs. To some the roar of the crowd is stimulating, while others might have a harder time dealing with the interaction between observers and himself. How easy is it for a pro golfer to handle sudden small noises in a crowd? On the other hand how can one reach those levels without mastering control of The Look?

As much psychology as philosophy. Pardon an intrusion into a discussion about past philosophers.

Pardon an intrusion into a discussion about past philosophers. — jgill

:D

I can't help myself sometimes.

Lots of quoting old dead philosophers…. Which isn’t much of an existential reply if you think about it.

I meant that defining things is nomenclature. It’s a tautology. Including existentialism of course. A polite joke.

It’s just fodder for thought…. Existentialism is notoriously hard to define, at least the definitions and explanations always seem strained even from those brilliant long dead philosophers.

All the old references are Interesting of course but maybe - just maybe - existentialism fits better as a state of mind than anything else. — Metaphyzik

I think there's something to be said for this. Contrary to my impulse to define everything by its history it's not like that history is gone or somehow stopped with the authors I listed. One could be an existentialist and in this sense I think you're right to say it's a state of mind, or a mood, or a temperament -- the unity between existentialists or existentialisms is more along those lines.

Ingmar Bergman comes to mind as a non-philosopher existentialist in The Seventh Seal and Winter Light -- I'm sure he does elsewhere too these are just the ones that came to mind as good examples of existentialism that's not defined by concepts or dead philosophers (though it is a dead film maker :D )

I agree. For Sartre, individual existence is freedom. For Heidegger, individual existence is being-in-the-world. For Nietzsche, individual existence is will to power. — Arne

Was Kierkegaard an existentialist? In what sense yes or no?

Was Kierkegaard an existentialist? In what sense yes or no? — Corvus

He's been called the Grandfather of existentialism. He drew attention away from grand project building (like Hegel) to the experience of being alive: to that 'quality of being that comes to rest in the sanctuary of the form.'

The function of Existentialists values is to liberate humankind from craven fear, petty anxiety and apathy or tedium. Existentialists values intensify consciousness, arouse the passions, and commit the individual to a cause of action that will engage their total energies — Rob J Kennedy

I assume this quotation is from Hazel Barnes.
It gives me a a starting-point to explain my attitude to existentialism.
The quotation suggests that it belongs alongside Stoicism and Epicureanism (and perhaps Scholastic Christianity and Buddhism) in that basing a way of life on a philosophy of life. I realize that the distinction is a complicated, but it enables me to articulate my own attitude.

As a way of life, existentialism had and has considerable appeal. Despite its tendency to atheism (though there are or were Christian Existentialists and Kierkegaard), it has the classic elements of a religion - a diagnosis of the human condition and a recipe for escaping it. (The escape, of course, is explained by Hazel Barnes' quotation "Existentialists values ........ arouse the passions, and commit the individual to a cause of action that will engage their total energies." This recipe is more or less content-free so differs from full-on religions.)

This explains, I would think, why it became so influential across so many fields. The, as it were innate, appeal, was surely reinforced by the post-war world and the coincidence that Sartre and de Beauvoir appeared on the scene at that time. It captured and reinforced the liberation experienced by many people as WW2 ended. (After thought - It would be quite wrong to think that the end of WW2 in any way influenced Kierkegaard or Nietzsche or Heidegger or Sartre. The development of existentialism must surely have been influenced by the nineteenth and possibly the early twentieth century. I'm only saying that the end of WW2 affected the reception of it.)

I think it deserves to be up there with Stoicism &c and so to be a serious contribution to the philosophical tradition. But no, I'm not going to sign up.

Why?

I don't intend to try to find fault with Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre all at the same time. But here's one fundamental issue I choose to discuss. I think it is clearest in Sartre, though I could be wrong.

The starting-point for Existentialism is our being "thrown" into the world and life. So it is hard to understand why Sartre's Being-for-itself turns out to be something so abstract and more or less instantly recognizable as a Cartesian subject. (Heidegger's version is, to my mind, even more abstract and even more puzzling.) But the greatest issue with this very attractive idea is that it presupposes that our lives start as conscious, reflective beings - more or less, as adults. But we start our lives either at birth or shortly before. We become reflective beings some years after that - and we don't have any choice in the matter, or perhaps better, we are incapable of meaningful choices for some time after our lives begin. Though it is true that the world that I am part of and which makes me what I am is a not a matter of choice, but of chance, in a sense.

The idea is that, as subjectivities, we are radically free. Existence precedes essence. If I wanted to be picky, I could expatiate on the point that to exist requires an essence. But I get the point, I think. Roughly, we create ourselves in our interactions with the world - or does the world create us by its interactions with us? Both.

The complete last sentence of Hazel Barnes' quotation is "Existentialists values intensify consciousness, arouse the passions, and commit the individual to a cause of action that will engage their total energies." A promise of relief from the real pains of anxiety in a meaningless world and also a promise of trouble and fear. But perhaps that's just me. Either way, we are born as embodied beings with instincts primarily directed to survival and reproduction and a drive to seek patterns in the world and a tendency to respond to reward and punishment appropriately. Not quite Sartre's (or the empiricists') blank sheet of paper.

While I understand the appeal of commitment as an escape from anxiety and that values become valuable 0nly when human beings adopt them, the process puzzles me because in itself, it seems as random and meaningless as everything else. This, if I remember right, is what we are presented with in Camus' Outsider. But, again from memory, Mathieu's commitment in the third book of Sartre's Roads to Freedom is actually very similar; it doesn't read like a choice made in an enthusiastic moment of decision; or that's how I remember it.

Finally, looking back at the first sentence in Hazel Barnes' quotation - "The function of Existentialists values is to liberate humankind from craven fear, petty anxiety and apathy or tedium." - I notice the powerful rhetoric that she chooses to attach to "humankind", "fear" and "anxiety". This is not existentialist cool at all, is it? Her commitment here is to rouse people from apathy and tedium, in ways that seem to me now strongly reminiscent of the rhetoric that many existentialists wanted to escape from.