The one thing I've never been able to understand about existentialism

Why is it always linked to depression and hopelessness? I consider myself an existentialist. I don't believe that life has any inherent meaning, or that I as a human being was born with a purpose to fulfill. I believe that my birth was a product of chance, the right circumstances having been in place at the exact right time. What I don't understand is why people automatically assume that these beliefs mean I'm a depressed person. Lack of purpose doesn't make me depressed. Rather, it's a liberating and lightening feeling to know I have no grand role in the universe and I'm not of particular importance. It's also liberating knowing that my future will be whatever I make it out to be, and that there is no "plan" for me. I can enjoy the 80-something years I have on this Earth, and simply lose consciousness afterwards. What more can one ask for? Life is full of so many pleasures, and so many incredible experiences. For me, growing towards existentialism meant enjoying every single moment of joy and seeking as many of those moments as possible. For all you existentialists out there: why is it depressing to realize you have no purpose in life, and that your life has no meaning? Why can you not simply enjoy a burden-less existence, full of Earthly joys and pleasures?

 

I don't know if there's a rational cause. It seemed to be the 'thing' to be a hopeless solipsist at the time. There must have been social causes, the wars. Drugs were becoming popular and used by many writers, and opium-derived drugs seem to have a numbing effect which could produce that state of mind. An inability to connect with the world from a young age could have led to insular and solipsist type thinking.

Could you say which existentialists you are thinking of?

 

I wasn't thinking of any in particular. But when you explain to someone what it means to be an existentialist, and they respond with "That's so depressing". Why do people feel that way? I don't see what's so depressing about it at all.

Or, put another way, why is freedom a condemnation?

 

You obviously haven't read Sartre :beatnik:

 

Because they have been indoctrinated into a completely opposite view of life. A full and complete answer to your question would fill several pages. You're not going to get through to them with just a clever sentence or two. I doubt that most of them care to learn more about your perspective anyway.

:iagree:​

:cheers2: :reddevil:

 

walsh: I admit, I haven't read much Sartre. Just Les Mouches and Huis Clos, and even those only because they were assigned reading in my French Language class. But in response to your quote: just because all human actions are doomed to failure, just because all roads lead to death, doesn't mean you can't enjoy yourself along the way.

Karen_J: Good point about the indoctrination.

 

I don't know that not enjoying yourself is part of existentialist philosophy rather than a misinterpretation of it, but I would argue that is precisely what existentialists are doing when they write their essays and books - enjoying themselves.

 

you have to consider who's making these links. a lot of people would have no problem with existentialism yet find christianity to be depressing, for example.

 

I don't think most people have a proper understanding of existentialism, therefore their thoughts on existentialism are rather moot.

It seems to get stereotyped a lot as "we don't know anything"/"nothing exists outside of our thought". I've seen it explained those ways in movies, even.

The other side of it is from Christians, that find the idea of "life being meaningless" to be the ultimate summary of existentialism -- which, really isn't the overall point; and in line with existentialism the importance of that idea, or even the value of that idea, is really up to the individual.

Most negative responses I've seen towards existentialism were based on misinterpretations of it such as these.

 

Very true. I can't think of many things more depressing than basing your entire life on false hope.

Some use the terms existentialism and hedonism almost interchangeably, maybe because so many of the same people are into both.

How could anybody be depressed while living a hedonistic lifestyle? Unless you have taken too many risks and gotten yourself into some bad consequences...

 

I think this is rather tangential, but I'll bite anyways.

Some are hedonistic because they are avoiding pain, whether endured or potential pain. Also, some strive towards hedonism because they are already in so much pain.
Some cause harm to others, through their lifestyle, and that causes them pain.
Some people, through their hedonism, neglect needs; leaving them unsatisfied.
It could be easily said that junkies are hedonists.
And finally; some would argue that all humans are naturally hedonistic.

 

I can't argue against any of your points, for those hedonists who have not adopted an existentialist point of view. In this thread, I was thinking only about existentialists who become hedonists. That has to be a high percentage of the total number, since an existentialist has little if any motivation to conform to traditional moral standards, except where they happen to closely match sound medical advice.

I should have explained that more clearly.

In the most common use of the terms, I think hedonism is often associated with the kind of people you described -- folks with a lot of personal problems. And the word existentialism tends to make us visualize a more intellectual type person, quietly reading philosophical articles and books. Like all stereotypes, these are partially but not entirely true. In fact, both people can be the same individual.

You don't have to read books to discover the basics of existentialism. Some can figure it out for themselves, as they come to a realization that the more traditional viewpoints are not working for them, and seem to be untrue. This discovery may be depressing at first, but can evolve into acceptance.

 

If you are talking about many Christians, they have a hard time seeing anything outside of their own narrow viewpoint. The more fanatic they are, the more likely they are to have a problem with a different viewpoint. But here is the thing----the more fanatic they are, the more they harbor doubts about their own religion within the shadow of their subconscious psyche. The ego works extra hard to deny such shadow elements by continuously convincing them how good, and religious they themselves are, while projecting these shadow elements out on the rest of the world as evil, and secular. When you profess to them that you believe in an atheistic version of existentialism (and probably even if it was a theistic existentialism), you threaten them, because deep inside, buried in their shadow, they may have the same doubts that you would have of their beliefs--even if you don't discuss such doubts---and, just as when any shadow element is approached, their ego causes them to consciously lash out at you: "You are so depressing, and fatalist, and..."

But on the other hand, existentialists have long recognized the alienation that is part of life in the modern world. They see the nihilism that lies beneath the surface of our daily life, and the empty never-ending search for happiness that masks, and takes the place of asking those deepest questions of 'why?' And then if it is approached, you fall into that existential crisis. Existentialism tries to provide the answer to this crisis, but to provide the answer you have to point out and approach the problem. Existentialism therefore gets a bad rep anyway, because people dwell on its focus of this nihilistic dilemna rather than on the answer. It isn't helped by the fact that a good number of existentialists put a lot of focus on the existential crisis, and accept that as an inevitable, and possibly never ending----like Kierkegaard's Fear & Trembling, and Sickness Unto Death...

But in response to Walsh's quote from Sartre----read Sartre's book, Existentialism and Human Emotions---the first chapter, titled, Existentialism, actually deals with this very question, and I think he speaks very positively of existentialism, and sees it as an upbeat philosophy, that leads to a satisfying zeitgeist.

 

Sounds like you are more of a nihilist than an existentialist.

If you are happy with your life being meaningless/never felt existential angst, then you aren't an existentialist.

That being said, one could argue (quite oddly) that you have found meaning in meaninglessness in-and-of-itself. But no. You're simply an optimistic nihilist.

 

I haven't read very much literature on the subject. Only snippets of things, so let me approach this from a more personal perspective.

You argue that it's liberating to be able to make the decisions for what is significant to you in your world and how you're going to live your life, yes? Perhaps it's liberating to you because you have no qualms about making your own decisions. Who gives a damn? If you can make it up as you go, it's all good.

What about somebody who has lived their entire life passively based on others' wants and needs? Suddenly, it's a realization that that individual is not going to get anywhere unless they start making their own decisions. Living their own life. It's the fear of taking responsibility for your actions and your life. Where does one even begin to start assigning significance to what? It's like you have to recreate your entire world from scratch. It's scary. What if that person doesn't even know what they want from life?

This is a true story. I talked to my father and I asked him what he would do without his daughters and his wife. He said he wouldn't exist. I asked again, what would happen if he had never met my mother? He said that he probably would've found someone else and started a family with them. "What if you didn't?" "Then I wouldn't exist."

A bleak statement, no? But it's easier than trying to do some soul-searching to figure out what you want in life and how you want to get it. Just rely on someone else for happiness. They'll give you everything you need.

But for people with existential angst or depression, we'd rather struggle through finding/creating our identity even if it means a temporary attitude of ambivalence towards life. That so-called depression is so worth it in the long run if the struggle rewards us with a meaningful and fulfilling life with purpose.

So in short, if you are a non-passive person, existentialism will free you. If you are a passive person, existentialism will swipe the rug out from under your feet and leave you confused.

The next step for the individual going through an existential crisis would be to try to strive towards authenticity. But again, for someone who has trouble making decisions based on their own wants and needs, this is a long and confusing path.

*** The above poster does have a valid point. Existentialism is the idea that we make meaning and significance in our lives on our own - not that there is no significance at all. That's like saying that because you can choose whatever color you want on your walls, the color doesn't exist. That's not true. It exists. It's just that you get to pick which one and it might change depending on how you feel. If you don't even care that there's a wall, that's more nihilistic.