I'm no longer an Existentialist

But you are arguing over whether or not you can escape for a moment the human condition. Sartre said that there is "no non-human" aspect of the universe, as we are human and are never free to escape the human condition. You therefore cannot ask what it is to KNOW something without the implication that it is "knowing something as a human being". That, you would agree is fine but for one human to "know something" is not for all humans to know it. In this respect we are always bound to a sbjective experience, both as an individual and as the human race.
Shane is right - in this respect:

(edited in much later) BTW - the title of this thread is "I am no longer an existentialist". In reply to that I would say: Well I dont believe you ever were an existentialist.
you ask

Well it if you are asking, "how will this improve my life". I can only suggest that you might ask how knowing that there is a force called "gravity" improves your life. It does not. It is a DESCRIPTION and serves as an in depth study, if you want someone else to tell you how to live, perhaps you should read a PRESCRIPTION, like the bible.
To be an existentialist you would need to write academic text that is worthy of publication. You might as well have said "I am no longer a member of the Bloomsbury set", you were never that either.

 

i have no idea wether or not i ever have been but i have always wondered, when people called me that, what the hell they were talking about. several of them tried to explain it to me but i've still never quite 'gotten' it.

i'm pretty sure in some sense i'm something that exists, and maybe even that i'm not the only thing that does, and that i am both distinct from and at the same time in some way connected to the rest of what i'm pretty sure there exists also. like one herking big universe. at least one. and no reason there can't be zillions of those too.

=^^=
.../\...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

 

well in that case whoever called me one must have been making a very strainge kind of joke. i have always found the idea of an impersonal probablistic universe more comforting and far less frightning than for all of the unknown to be subject to personal sentient whim.

=^^=
.../\...

 

This is not incompatible with the ideas of existentialist theorists

How could it be otherwise - you have no choice to be comfortable in that world - its your world

You really should read "Freedom and Responsibility" a collection of essays by JP Sartre
You will see how he is perfectly able to describe that fear.
I really think everyone should look at the work of Sartre and realise that we are living the existentialist life - how can you fail to acknowledge tht first of all you exist and then when you are able to - you go into the world and make that existence an exploration of the possibilities. Fear is when we realise that we are free to choose and that our choices will have significance on everything we become - also we are at first so free we are like fluids in our young days and yet as time goes on we become more and more careful and less likely to choose until we crystalise (until we are no longer becoming but have become) At your death you will be able to see what your choices made you. To want the impersonal is to have the desire that the burden of choice is somewhat removed from you you are limiting your choices - but even that is a choice.

DAH ! I could go on and on but I implore you to read some of Sartres academic works on Freedom and responsibility

 

i don't think existentialists are pessimists, regarding what the original poster said.

i think to be an existentialist is to believe the responsiblity of life is in your hands, it is your choice, your ability. while i find the outer world affects and determines the inner world, it is ultimately the inner world that interprets and decides what has happened. although they are both inter-linked, and one probably doesn't exist without another. or maybe it does, who knows.

either way, to me existentialism is about dropping all pre-conceived notions about life,
to drop all that culture has imbibed in you, all that your parents taught you, and to live life, moment to moment and learn through awareness what is right and wrong.
This is rpobably impossible to do completely, but i think it is important to try.

This is not to say I'd condone torturing babies, because I've been brought up with the morals not to. But, I think even someone who wasn't trained or un-trained (or taught) to torture babies would not want to, because it would make him/her feel bad. I think it would produce toxic and uncomfortable and distressing chemicals in our bodies, much like when we're in anguish.

I thought about people who like killing, crazy people. How to explain them? Well, I consider those kinds of people's perception of the world as very distorted. and while their happiness may be real to them, I don't believe they are truly happy. After all, while they may feel joy in killing someone, they're clearly fucked up in the head(usually) and definately have issues that other people that are genuinely happy just don't have. So I find the murderer's happiness not real, they're just confused.

So, I think it's important to be an existentialist. I think it is the only true way to life. it is to live life as a celebration, and as an alive, flowing process.
Not some dead thing to be read about, or thought about, but to be Lived.

This philosophy doesn't have to be called existentialism. It has many names.

Taoism teaches this.
I think this is what Jesus was trying to teach, before religion distorted it.
I think this is what Buddha was trying to teach, before religion distorted it. To discover for yourself what is real and what isn't, to discover for yourself what makes you happy and what doesn't, and to do what makes you happy because life is about whatever you want it to be. and happiness feels good, happiness is god, happiness is ectasy.

This is existentialism


To me anyways