wanting to learn more about existentialism

I like the idea of existentialism and I'd like to learn more about it. I know some of the philosopher's toi check out are Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Hiedegger. Can anyone recommend any books for me to read to learn more about the subject.

 

^^^took the words right out of my mouth. it was one of the harder books that i've read, but its a must. it was my first experience in existentialism. another favorite is 1000 plateaus deleuze and guattari. have fun

 

no offence guys, but sartres being and nothingness isnt the best existentialist text ever

please please please read 'the birth of tragedy' and 'thus spoke zarathustra' by fredrich nietzsche they WILL change your life, you can read them for free online... go here:http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/ its down at the mo, but keep checking

and also if you really feel like a task read hiedeggers being and time, but i must make this clear that it is an extreamly hard book and you will need to put aside a couple of years for it

but honestly nietzsche is the man, you'll just be changed by him!

 

I recommend watching a little film called "Waking Life". Life changing, for me anyways, and then delve into the books. I also suggest reading books that summarize all existential philosphers rather diving right into Thus Spake Zarathustra because it is really heavy shit.

 

i disagree with that

nietzsche just says it! in thus spoke he says it via metaphore, but really theres no better place to start than nietzsche, because he just says it!

 

well go for your perferred medium.

 

Don't forget Camus

 

camus is good yes, perticularly his novels, same with sartre really, read the outsider (camus) or nausea (sartre)

i dont think they'll have an immediate impact on you unless you already know somewhat about existentialism...but their grand books all the same

also check out this website, its a really good source for existential and phenominological thought, plus its got poetry, art, and stuff on there, a lot of jim morrisons poetry who was infact an existentialist himself
http://www.thecry.com/

try reading about nietzsches concept of the dionysian...it really will shake you up into taking on pessimism, and nihilism

have fun

 

it is actually difficult to point out existential authors/philosophers because even some who are considered to be existential have claimed to want nothing to do with the subject, nor did they ever claim to be existential to begin with. other "existential" thinkers have been around even before the term was ever even coined....
but as far as who have been said to have a lot of existentialist ideas, there are a couple who have not yet been mentioned in this thread:
-Blaise Pascal, the only thing I've read by him is his Pensees, but it was definitely worth reading
-Fyodor Dostoyevsy, the Russian novelist, author of The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, Notes From the Underground
-Franz Kafka, whose best works are his short stories especially The Metamorphosis. his novel The Trial is an excellent read as well.

good luck man, this is a list of books that I don't believe I have quite fully understood yet. they're all thick reads but it is a very interesting subject

 

Yah Being and Nothingness is over the top for a beginner. Just start out hanging out in paris, drinking twenty expressos a day reading those kind of novels, and then read Descartes, Kant, a bit of Kierkegaard and 19th century German philosophy, then Husserl, then Heidegger, and only then will Being and nothingness and merleau ponty will make much sense, if at all.

I'm still on the drinking expresso stage.

 

A very good, very readable introduction to existentialism is an essay by Jean-Paul Sartre called 'Existentialism as a Humanism'. It's not all that long and you can find it in a number of different anthologies (incl. 'Existentialism: Basic Writings' edited by Guignon and Pereboom'; it is also in an anthology of Sartre's writings called 'Existentialism and Human Emotions').
This essay very clearly and concisely lays out the key claims of Sartre's existentialism. What's especially good about it is that it explains how (despite the best efforts of literary critics and intellectual elitists----who have no business screwing around with philosophy to begin with) existentialism is a positive philosophy.
Highly recommend it.

"Existence precedes essence." That's existentialism, in a nutshell.

 

Oh yeah that's a reeeally cool little book! Also there's 'sketch for a theory of emotions' (which is really charming) and 'existentialism and human emotions' (very readable).

Although about what you said about "intellectual elitists screwing around with philosophy"... I think that Sartre could so often be one of the worst offenders, to be honest.

Anglo-american philosophy is so much clearer!

 

Yeah, I suggest getting a book called Basic Writings in Existentialism. It has excerpts from all the big names.

Also, there is a lecture series that is about 15 hours long maybe? It is called No Excuses: Existentialism and the Meaning of Life. It is a very good one.

 

Forget all about books and philosophers. If you wish to know what existentialism is you'll have to actually experience it. Go out and expereience Life. Don't let anyone put ideas in your head, find your own meanings. Philosophy is a mind construct, totally useless. For example, you can read all the philosophies about love, but once you experience it all the books will be seen as dross.

 

I don't know that I completely agree with that. On one hand it is true that many people become just as blindly engrossed in philosophy and philosophers as any religion. At the same time though, I think you should fully understand what you are identifying yourself with.

I discovered existentialism on my own. I mean, I thought of the whole concept on my own and then later found that it had already been well discussed. Reading the books before experiencing it myself would have saved much time and trouble... not that it was necessarily a bad thing.

Reading never hurts and open mind.

 

I completely disagree with this. It is like reading everything about love before experiencing it. All that it will do is set expectations in one, it will set a standard bywhich to guage reality - yet anyone who has fallen in love will tell you that nothing you read will ever prepare you for it. As an existential experience it can only be experienced individually by each person. That person will react differently than any other person. If you have expectations as how you should react, then that is disengenious and will hurt your soul.

Part of the problem is that you are appealling to the mind when existential experiences tend to transcend the mind. It is like reading a book about going to the dentist and the book saying that you will feel pain. No matter how the book is written, when the dentist says, "this is going to hurt," there is nothing in the world that will prepare you for it. You will have to experience it for yourself. Only afterwards will you be able to make any sort of valued judgement. If it is the first such experience you will not be able to compare it to anything else. In that sense the initial experiece is existential, with all subsequent experiences non-existential (in a sense) because it is a memory in the mind, a thought association.

Existentialism is something to be experienced, not something to ruminate about. Talking and thinking about something is useless, it makes one inauthentic. If you wish to dance you will have to move your feet to the music not read books about how to dance. You learned to walk by trying, not by reading. As a child you didn't think about what it would take to walk, you just got up and walked. Now, why did you try to walk? Probably because you saw your parents walking. Now, if you see two people in love, how will you try to emulate it?

Existentialism is a subjective matter so it goes beyond the objective, what people see and write about. As ideals they may appeal to the mind but it probably has little reality in truth. To wit, the out of office politician may shout about a need for change and rebellion, but once he is in power he will try to keep the status quo, he will try to stay in power as long as possible. So rebels talk about social injustice and corruption, but the minute they are in power they suppress the populace and liberties, they use the system to become rich and more powerful. Those who are impotent imagine themselves with power, while those in power know the truth.

 

As a philosopher (by trade), there is value in reading philosophy. The thing to avoid is ONLY reading philosophy and not bothering about living it. This is the main trouble with academic philosophy as it's currently practiced. It's very hard to take "All Fs are Gs" out in the world with you.

To have value, a philosophy must be lived, rather than merely quoted. It was reading and hearing about existentialism that put me on the path to studying philosophy. "Existence precedes essence" and "one is condemned to be free" (and later on "The Being of Dasein is in each case mine"); I never would have thought of my own existence in those terms had those particular ideas not come to my attention. Those notions have and do cast a shadow on my life. When something occurs in my life and I take it a certain way (e.g. as enjoyable, boring, or tragic) it is because *I* have chosen to reckon with it that way. That is the way I go about my Being within the world, as though all I experience is my responsibility (much the same way a Christian would look to the example Jesus as way to alleviate one's suffering). It has become second-nature to me to explain my world of experience in an existentialist (and prgamatist) way. This is the fruit of careful reading (allow that tree to bear its fruit).

There isn't a dilemma between reading and living. Remember, Kierkegaard himself cautioned against living a life of pure sensation (which seems to be the alternative to reading). The problem isn't reading philosophy, it is reading it RATHER THAN living it.

There are too many people in the world, young and old (esp. young) that, to borrow an example of William James, can recite all the popular theories of architectural beauty, but would not recognize a beautiful building if they were to come across one. THAT is the mistake.

 

Gunison,

Another problem I see with philosophy is that people may latch onto an idea and believe that that is the only or core belief of said philosopher. So not understanding all of what Nietzsche said, one latches onto one idea, like "God is dead" or the "Superman" and perverts its meaning.

Another problem may be that that philosopher may not be completely understood and what one then ends up studying are the different interpretations of Heigel or Nietzsche, for example. If one does have the original to read, as opposed to interpretations, one then is left with the failure of language to convey the subjective experience; words don't always mean exactly what they seem to mean. What usually happens is that one tends to find a philosopher or philosopy which agrees with one's world view. but one may also make the mistake of not studying other philosophies or philosophers to get a balanced view of the world; this is especially true of nihilism. But if one just subscribes to the nihilist view of Nietzsche, then what of his work, "Thus Spake Zasathustra"?, which extolls the virtues and joys of life? http://www.eserver.org/philosophy/nietzsche-zarathustra.txt All they quote is "God is dead" not knowing what they are saying.

ibid.

Just reading the word "meditation" and what transpired will not convey any truth whatsoever. One who has studied Zen has already heard of the "lion's roar" and is likely to see different symbolism than one who is unawares of it's inner meaning.

The Superman is the Enlightened Man, the Buddha, the Christ, etc. He spoke words of the spirit and the wise men just proved themselves to be foolish.

 

Nietzches...Superman...or ask me...I wrote an essay on it.
oh ya...the book is called Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but I recommend reading some secondary sources aswell, to help clarify.

 

Mistress,

Can someone who hates Christianity better understand Nietzsche or one who knows what Nietzsche truly means? (one who has had a similar epithany). Would one need to have the same type of disposition? Not having had any similar experience, could one hope to truly understand what he is saying? Does one look for similar ideas to support one's position? When one is discussing "good," "evil," "virtues," "morality," "sin," etc. does one have a pre-conceived idea of what is meant? To wit, does one take a stance of what constitutes 'good and evil' based on what others have said or what one has experienced in life? Does one research the ideas of all the philosophers concerning 'good and evil' and agree with just one, does one come to a jumble of understanding, or does one just give up and become nihilistic, taking a position of relativism? What then is truth? Truth then comes at the end of a barrel of a gun - those who can exercise power of life and death decide what truth is; it thus becomes inconsequental to the individual whose life is at risk.

In the case of the saint who told Zarathustra not to go amongst men, was he wrong? He was happy just as Zarathustra was happy, but Zarathustra judged him. Why didn't he just go back and ask him? Instead he untimately becomes the antithesis of Diogenes. Men would therefore ask him upon what evidence should they be his disciples. He finally seems to realise that it is all worthless, so why didn't he go back to the mountain top cave?