Reason vs Consciousness

[Jenny A]

I am not sure you all understand what ontology is or the existential path to knowledge.

Existentialism? Ontology? Postmodernist? Oh my! Lions, and Tigers, and Bears. . . Oh No! Sartre, Heidegger, and Camus. . . Oh My!

Seriously, ontology, is a rather broader subject than existentialism. Ontology as a philosophic subject (not biological ontology which is different) deals with whether there are fundamental categories of being and what it means to be. Say the word ontology and I'm thinking of Plato and the idea that concepts actually exist as ideal things. Because it deals with the meaning of individual being, and whether there are such things as morality, existentialism is a subset of ontology.

But, even existentialists seem unable to agree to a definition of existentialism. If I were to try to define it, I would say something like this: "existentialism" is the belief that philosophical thinking begins not with just the rational mind, but also the feeling acting mind of the individual. But that's not very enlightening. And I'm not sure how enlightening it could be because existentialism is so diverse.

Some would say that existentialism is about the true essence of being a person. Existentialists argue that existence precedes essence. In this context "existence" means to be a conscious, independent, responsible, individual; and "essence" means the roles, stereo types and preconceived categories into which an individual fits. Existentialist maintain that for individuals existence is much more important than essence. What a person actual does is their "true essence." In creating our true essence, we create whatever meaning our lives have.

Unfortunately most existentialist go on to some form of absurdism. They assert that because there is no intrinsic meaning to life, there is not real morality, right and wrong, etc. That way leads to suicide and despair.

If you define ontology and existentialism differently, please say so, because there's a lot of room to differ since the existentialists themselves seem to differ so much.

Now, with that in mind and in answer to your specific question:

I see reason as a subset of consciousness, not apart from it. All I am really asking is do some, all, or no atheists accept that reason has its limits, and that ontological paths to knowledge, as championed by the great existential thinkers, are equally or more viable than the mechanical rationalists of the Enlightenment Project, which many postmodern thinkers regard as "toast."

emphasis mine

Reason, logic, and mathematics are all tools for describing and deducing things about the real world. They can and have been used to analyze emotion and the human mind. As such they are remarkably effective. Nothing about rationality, logic, or mathematics, implies that there is a meaning to life. Abstract value judgements about meaning are precisely the kind of question rationality is not aimed at.

Ontology is to some extent concerned with meaning but I've never found the meanings asserted by Plato and others particularly elucidating. Existentialism has proved remarkably ineffective at saying much of anything concrete, except that that there is no preconceived meaning to life. That there is no "meaning of life" beyond that which you, as an individual give it, is a concept that I, and many atheists would agree with. But I didn't need existentialism to get there and I don't need the baggage associated with existentialism.