The notion that existence precedes essence is pop-psychology. Heidegger says our existence is our essence and Sartre misinterprets Heidegger as saying existence precedes essence and now all proceed as if if "existence precedes essence" is an existential given. It is not! — Arne
And I make my argument for the sole purpose of cautioning "someone who is trying to understand all that is existentialism." Please see original OP. — Arne
The notion that existence precedes essence is pop-psychology. Heidegger says our existence is our essence and Sartre misinterprets Heidegger as saying existence precedes essence and now we all proceed as if if "existence precedes essence" is an existential given. It is not! — Arne
the fear of death is an adequate explanation for why people bring up the notion of an afterlife.
— Moliere
Another good point. — ToothyMaw
I definitely do, sorry if I came across as unwilling to engage. — ToothyMaw
That's actually good. Maybe you could point out what doesn't make sense to you? — ToothyMaw
Agreed. I bypass this discussion, however, by stipulating in my argument that one either goes to an afterlife or one doesn't after dying. This is true regardless of whether we can evaluate the proposition 'there is an afterlife'. Then, to follow, if there were an afterlife, what might we expect it to look like? From there, my (bulleted) argument is mostly straightforward. — ToothyMaw
That would kind of defeat the purpose of having an afterlife I think if one stops being oneself upon dying. — ToothyMaw
Pardon an intrusion into a discussion about past philosophers. — jgill
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’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
I do not believe that I am directly aware of a distal object. I believe that I am directly aware only of my sensations. Therefore, my perception is not of a distal object and so therefore perception is not direct. — Michael
Science and metaphysics are different from one another, but they bleed over into one another all the time. The first time I heard of "emergent properties" was in a molecular biology class, not a philosophy lecture. Metaphysics and ontology tend to touch science on the theory side.
So, any book on quantum foundations is going to discuss metaphysical ideas. Any discussion of "what is a species and how do we define it," gets into the same sort of territory. "What is complexity?" and "what is information?" or "is there biological information?" are not uncommon questions for journal articles to focus on. Debates over methods, frequentism in particular, are another area of overlap. This isn't the bread and butter of 101 classes — although in Bio 101 we were asked to write an essay on "what life is?" and consider if viruses or prions were alive, a philosophical question — but it's also not absent from scientific considerations either.
The two seem related in that both inform one another. Physicists have informed opinions re the question of substance versus process based metaphysics for example, or mereological nihilism — i.e., "is the world a collection of things with properties or one thing/process?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
we don't want a strange world of nothing but particles arranged x-wise or one undifferentiated process either. We'd like to say cats exist on mats (and just one at one time and place), that lemons are yellow, that rocks have mass and shape, etc. I am just unconvinced that these can be properly be dealt with fully on the nature side of the Nature/Geist distinction. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I'm not sure I understand you. What is different, Nature versus Mind or science vs a Nature/Mind distinction? — Count Timothy von Icarus
But we don't want a strange world of nothing but particles arranged x-wise or one undifferentiated process either. We'd like to say cats exist on mats (and just one at one time and place), that lemons are yellow, that rocks have mass and shape, etc. I am just unconvinced that these can be properly be dealt with fully on the nature side of the Nature/Geist distinction. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Do you not, then see that this is an aspect of many work environments which still requires the surrounding details to discuss it? — AmadeusD
I will do my best to engage back - but I expect this can't be done — AmadeusD
Hmm... Not in this discussion, no, as it violates the premise being asked about (though, i do intuit that this is by way of the OP being very imprecise in its aim). "the work environment" imports nothing to be discussed, ethically. You have to import some detail to get anywhere. You're basically not disagree with me, but still arguing that my position is off.
Can you just directly address why you think the abstract concept of 'work environment' without any indication of detail is apt for ethical discussion (and this, specifically in opposition to "a work environment, X")? — AmadeusD
You are leapfrogging over the discussion into one which I am not having. Though, I have very, VERY clearly stated that once there are details(i.e an example of), that discussion is apt and important. — AmadeusD
This could be said, and It would be hard to argue against, but there are millions of examples within capitalism where this is not the exchange. Exploitative trade is very much a thing (and imo, a good thing) which doesn't involve any direct relationship with value per se, and instead, value per individual. — AmadeusD
There is no universal relationship between employer and employee beyond the "fact of" (which doesn't, on it's face, involve any interaction or disposition at all) — AmadeusD
Pizza - anything from Margherita, to seafood - clam, scallops, shrimp, to goat cheese sun dried tomatoes and asparagus, to chicken tikka masala, to apple — Fooloso4
I prefer Nelson Goodman's suggestion that instead of defining what is art we look at when something is art. — jkop