In my introduction thread, Belacqua said it might be interesting to explore the way existentialism relates to atheism. I'm an atheist, but Belacqua noted that not all existentialists are or were atheists.

Existentialism is basically the concept that our actions and encounters throughout life are what define us. Whether we call ourselves atheists or Christians is irrelevant; it's what saying I believe in God or There is no God means to us and the behavior it motivates that's important.

We have to be careful not to fall into bad faith. Saying that you're obeying God's word or that you're just following the evidence is dodging responsibility for your perspective and behavior. There's an element of risk in any important choice, and you can't pray or reason your way to the ideal decision or way of being. No God is going to explain what you should do, and no abstract reasoning is going to decree what you should find meaningful or important. 

Is that a good enough start? Has anyone here read the work of existentialist writers like Sartre, De Beauvoir, Frankl or Camus?

I've read Camus and Frankl.

What do you think of Sartre's definition of existentialism? "Existence precedes essence." It surely has its detractors. But (since Sartre has been so influential in the movement) many take it to be a good definition.

(March 19, 2022 at 9:33 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I've read Camus and Frankl.

What do you think of Sartre's definition of existentialism? "Existence precedes essence." It surely has its detractors. But (since Sartre has been so influential in the movement) many take it to be a good definition.

It's fine by me. We're defined by the choices we make and the ways we encounter Being, not by our religious identity, evolutionary heritage, or genetic makeup.

Whether someone is religious or not, the main question of the human condition is How should I live? Like I said, I'm not religious but I assume that's the main concern of any religious person as well as any nonreligious one. There are a lot of ways, religious as well as secular, that one can dodge responsibility for confronting that question fully.

What's the relationship between existentialism and Humanism? Are they different, or is Humanism in a sense a follow-up to existentialism?

(March 19, 2022 at 9:49 am)Angrboda Wrote: What's the relationship between existentialism and Humanism?  Are they different, or is Humanism in a sense a follow-up to existentialism?

I think there's a certain amount of overlap. Jean-Paul Sartre even published an introductory volume about existentialism with the title Existentialism Is a Humanism.

It goes without saying that human experience is derived by human modes of cognition, perception, language use and culture. I think humanists and existentialists alike would agree that we should define morality and the social order in human terms rather than according to traditional religious precepts.

Where they diverge is the existentialist is unlikely to share the humanist's optimism toward things like reason and scientific progress. The existentialists hold that there's an irrational core to human existence and the question of meaning, and that anything that objectifies the human being and systematizes human society should be viewed with skepticism.

(March 19, 2022 at 9:44 am)Istvan Wrote:

(March 19, 2022 at 9:33 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I've read Camus and Frankl.

What do you think of Sartre's definition of existentialism? "Existence precedes essence." It surely has its detractors. But (since Sartre has been so influential in the movement) many take it to be a good definition.

It's fine by me. We're defined by the choices we make and the ways we encounter Being, not by our religious identity, evolutionary heritage, or genetic makeup.

Whether someone is religious or not, the main question of the human condition is How should I live? Like I said, I'm not religious but I assume that's the main concern of any religious person as well as any nonreligious one. There are a lot of ways, religious as well as secular, that one can dodge responsibility for confronting that question fully.

I'll steal a quote from my dad (Who may have gotten it elsewhere)  "Live your life in such a way that people won't use your funeral as an occasion to celebrate"

(March 19, 2022 at 9:44 am)Istvan Wrote: It's fine by me. We're defined by the choices we make and the ways we encounter Being, not by our religious identity, evolutionary heritage, or genetic makeup.

Whether someone is religious or not, the main question of the human condition is How should I live? Like I said, I'm not religious but I assume that's the main concern of any religious person as well as any nonreligious one. There are a lot of ways, religious as well as secular, that one can dodge responsibility for confronting that question fully.

Sorry, got to differ with you on genetics. You might need to consider those with genetic conditions that impact an individuals ability to perceive and mentally process environment/interactions and make choices. Many don't/can't make choices or processes that effect 'how should I live'.

(March 19, 2022 at 10:51 am)brewer Wrote:

(March 19, 2022 at 9:44 am)Istvan Wrote: It's fine by me. We're defined by the choices we make and the ways we encounter Being, not by our religious identity, evolutionary heritage, or genetic makeup.

Whether someone is religious or not, the main question of the human condition is How should I live? Like I said, I'm not religious but I assume that's the main concern of any religious person as well as any nonreligious one. There are a lot of ways, religious as well as secular, that one can dodge responsibility for confronting that question fully.

Sorry, got to differ with you on genetics. You might need to consider those with genetic conditions that impact an individuals ability to perceive and mentally process environment/interactions and make choices. Many don't/can't make choices or processes that effect 'how should I live'.

Yeah, this is true. Not everyone's free will is the same.

(March 19, 2022 at 11:36 am)Ahriman Wrote:

(March 19, 2022 at 10:51 am)brewer Wrote: Sorry, got to differ with you on genetics. You might need to consider those with genetic conditions that impact an individuals ability to perceive and mentally process environment/interactions and make choices. Many don't/can't make choices or processes that effect 'how should I live'.

Yeah, this is true. Not everyone's free will is the same.

No one disputes that people's circumstances and abilities differ, or that human power is subject to various constraints. The existentialists spent a lot of time talking about facticity, which is how they conceptualized the physical and cultural contexts of human endeavor. Simone De Beauvoir wrote:

However, man does not create the world. He succeeds in disclosing it only through the resistance which the world opposes to him. The will is defined only by raising obstacles, and by the contingency of facticity certain obstacles let themselves be conquered, and others do not.

What you do with what the world does to you, in other words, is what defines you.

That would seem to fit with our commonly expressed intuition about moral desert. We tend to believe that between two people, one that the world has done much to in the sense of erecting barriers...and another that the world has done relatively less to in that same sense - having achieved identical outcomes, cannot be defined equivalently. That the definition of the former in some meaningful sense exhausts the definition of the latter and continues along from there. That the former deserves more of the positive consequences for that achievement, and deserves less of the negative consequences of having achieved it, than the latter might.

Do you think that's accurate with respect to an existentialist description of moral desert...and, if you do, do you think that there are any grey areas to address in order to make a strong claim to that effect beyond intuition, but described as or in-fact?

In a similar vein, how well delineated do you think facts-of are from as-facts...with respect to the purportedly irrational core of human human existence and meaning? To clarify, where would you put the line (or what examples might you have) of things that are facts-of human biology or psychology and things only treated as-fact pursuant to the same?