I mentioned in the other thread I have just read William Barrett’s Irrational Man.
Existentialism often revolves around the idea of “authenticity”.
In a way, i.e. the experience of reality by the subject. But existentialism is all talk, no to-do-list [actual skill development] and many of its elements are very misleading.
Then I tap folks like you on the shoulder and ask them to note how this is not applicable to them. With respect to their own interactions in the is/ought world.
You have constructed a very flimsy raft, there is no way I will step into it when I am already on a very steady ship.
You keep thinking and is mistaken I am one of those religious bigots and objectivists which typical continental existentialism and William Barrett are targeting. Nope, Philosophically I am way out of range from their bull’s eye.
Western existentialism started with Kierkegaard who introduced the importance of the ‘subject’ within in the practice of theism rather than focusing and looking outside to a God, paradise and hell out there.
Note this issue of centering-on-the-subject was introduced long ago since Protagoras ‘Man is the Measure of All Things’ and very very long ago in the Eastern Philosophies.
Also note Kant’s famous Copernican Turn toward the ‘subject’ for knowledge instead of the external.
While Kierkegaard still kept one foot with God [at least some psychological anchor albeit fictitious], the problem with the subsequent Continental existentialists was they cut the ‘subject’ loose without making any attempt to develop an anchor to stabilize the subject and thus throwing all those [moths] who adopt their philosophy [Continental existentialism] into a limbo, lost or got burnt.
If one study and adopt the teachings of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, etc. there is nothing in those teachings that show how one can act [the practices] and do to to improve oneself to deal with the theorized despairs of existentialism. What they do is condemnation of the ‘other’ then talk, talk and talk only but no proposed actions that are effective and can improve one’s skills to deal with the theorized problems of life.
In other words, from my frame of mind there is no “psychological anchor”. At least not for me.
This is why I propose all humans must develop a psychological anchor, the stronger the better, but at least there must be some sort of anchor.
Note:
Equanimity
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193778
Generic Problem Solving Technique of Life
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030
Know Thyself
If one do not develop some sort of anchor, one will be lost and suffers.
Fortunately yours is a philosophical existential crisis and not a spiritual crisis.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_crisis