Clarity vs Philosophical Concept Clash

I guess this is a multi-subject thread.

I’m reading Being and Nothingness, and according Sartre, I live in bad faith because I lie to myself. According to my view, however, his book should be called sucking and suckiness.

This is a line from his book, “What determines the being of the appearance is the fact that it appears.” And I’m like Hey, thanks . . .

Which brings me to my second point: I notice a lot of smart people tend to junk their words, and ultimately, their concepts together when speaking/writing. Sartre does it. And a lot of people a ILP do it. Just know. . . . that big words junked together don’t add value to your intelligence. Using small words, more compact words, and spacing out your ideas doesn’t dumb you down any, it only adds to clear communication. I’m a smart guy but I’m not going to wade through sentences like, “The phenomenon is conducive to phenomenally more and yournger phenoms, both as a condition of its relevation and on a acount of its being.” That all sounds intelligent, but it communicates NOTHING. Albert Einstien would be just another name in the phone book if he hadn’t simplified those high concepts into basic equations for everyone to understand. Communcation comes before content. Remember that.

Lastly, I happen to identify with a lot of books that have nihilistic/existential undertones. It seems like a lot of edgy modern day lit springs from Notes From The Underground. Can anyone suggest a better philosophical view point other than existentialism? I’m kind of sick of it. I’m in my late twenties and I’m tired of calling myself an existentialist. Are there any trends in philosophy these days that aren’t so self destructive?

Comment on anything you wish to comment on.

I think a person should speek in whichever way they are most comfortable with. It’s about personal-preferance.

BOING>>>

fine, but I’m not going to attempt to understand people who cant hear the sound of the language they use. And yes, you came to mind when I made the critique.

debunk the junk

I agree, Dan~.

In a somewhat similar thread, I wrote:

Seems to apply here as well.

To the other point, the core application of existentialism states that your life is yours to create. Nothing ‘self-destructive’ about that at all. Perhaps, kevconman, you need to recall the reasons you became an existentialist in the first place and start afresh.

Did you think I did it to impress people?

I am simply being myself.

no, honestly I didn’t think that you wanted to impress. But sometimes I think you get so carried away with you brilliant ideas, you forget to express it as clear as I’m sure you can.

You skooted in before my previous reply.

Quick little shit, you are.
The force is strong with you.
One be.
In the present, know.
:laughing:

Thanks dude.
I’ll make a point of talking and stuff. =D>

Cootoooezzz

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I dont think all existentialists believe in free will. I haven’t for years. I know sartre does, but then again, I dont condsider being “condemned to freedom” that appealing. I dont like responsiblity.

That’s fair. Try deterministic fatalism maybe.

haha, I dont know why I laughed. but I did. Maybe I’ll try it. It sounds absurd enough.

edit: Now I’m smiling at the word “try”

“Maybe I’ll try it.”

?

Don’t…

deterministic fatalism can not be found on wikipedia . . .

neither can splung dungus

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

yeah, dummy me, tried that next. thanks anyway.

Thanks Dan~, I’ll take the other half. :wink:

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

I like strawberries. In all seriousness, I think the problem with Sartre, in part, is that he lacked a vocabularly to really address what it was he was trying to say. He COULD have done a better job with it all, but I think being somewhat obscure was probably critical to his philosophy. Heh.

As far as other philosophies go, I happen to be fond of a modified pragmatism I suppose you could say. I think that we can never know much of anything, but it is critical that we pretend we can as the situations we participate in in daily life nearly demand we “know” things that we can’t.

I’m not sure you could “read up” on this, but it might be a welcome break from Sartre as that particular book will leave you feeling hollow after you read it. He could have accomplished the same end by simply publishing a book entitled “nothingness”.

So do I.
Can’t we all just be more honest about our feelings towards berries?

all berries must DIE!!!

[size=200]VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!! [/size]

except for chuck… he’s cool…

-Imp