Stumps brought up a good point concerning your attack on “existentialism”.
Existentialism has been pretty strongly associated with certain images, action and ideas in popular culture(s), but these connotations seem to make a lot of people misinterpret the basic (and very general) idea of the word (which can refer to many seemingly opposite ways of thinking).
Someone may celebrate Christmas by buying gifts for family and friends
(even though those people don’t need this things… and the act of thinking about and buying the gifts was initiated by the idea the person ought to give them gifts, because it would be bad not to)
and doing other actions (buying and decorating a tree, putting up lights, etc.)
for no religious (or consciously deemed “spiritual”) purpose,
but not celebrating Christmas with THAT (kind of) meaning doesn’t mean the holiday is meaningless (to the person).
I will say that I also think consumerism has ill effects, as advertising tends to convince people that what they are selling will make them happier (or less miserable), and oftentimes, in order to do this, it attempts to make you feel a lack of something (makes you feel anxious and/or not content with your situation).
However, to describe the mindset “of” (/ways of thinking culturalized by and propagating) “modernity”
(I am assuming you refer to capitalism, industrialism, secularism, etc… that that came after the enlightenment period deemed “reason”–and efficiency, and then productivity–the “right”/“good” way to think, be, do, blah)
as “existential”
(even if you are taking my above description of “modernity” and pinpointing it on what’s specifically going on NOW)
doesn’t make sense.
The kind of thinking you are actually referring to is rationalism which
–when considered alongside existentialism as another kind of basic distinguishable (philosophical) “attitude”
(IE both considered as distinctive “contexts” of “knowledge” from which one defines and pursues “good”, and accordingly judges other things)–
is much, much different from existentialism.
I can see how you can of “existentialism” as one valuing one’s own pleasure (and making that the goal of one’s existence),
and from there think that (emotionally manipulative) advertisers (the minds “of” consumerism)
are willfully seeking pleasure (through an income) at the detriment (lessening and/or preventing of pleasure) of others,
and then (I can see how you could) deem those personal-existence-pleasure-seeking mindsets “existentialist” and conclude this a sign of “existentialist thinking in modernity”.
BUT, I could then argue that EVERYONE acts to obtain pleasure (and/or avoid displeasure)–everyone acts towards (their subjectively defined, and reality-contextualizing) “good”/“right”;
when the advertiser consciously plays with people’s emotions so he can make an income, he is probably doing it, above all, because having a certain excess of money is “good”, right?
What I’m basically saying is that an existentialist
(who actually judges things according to a basic existential context)
isn’t (…necessarily, at least) some bitter misanthrope who “lives his own life” because he’s too selfish, antisocial or whatever else to see and live by the “rich” (and absolute) meaning of things around him
(of and for the right purpose, with which “modernity” is at odds).
The (actual) existentialist interprets (his qualitative judgments of) things in light of the idea that that judgment of good or bad, right or wrong, is wholly HIS
–the “meaning” results from his own mind (which results from past experiences); it is not deemed as being (or being in light with, or in conflict with) any objective meaning and purpose (requiring “right” ways of being).
If the existentialist finds himself irritated with another person, and notices that he’s deemed(/associated) the person with some “bad” (word), the existentialist interprets that judgment (and the corresponding discomfort) as HIS experience–rather than trying to explain why the person is indeed “bad”/“wrong”
(according to some objective and righteous value and purpose)
he “accepts responsibility” for his role as the storyteller and thinks according to the goal to avoid HIS discomfort. It may be as simple as walking away and immediately feeling better
(…as opposed to getting all worked up trying to defend not only the righteousness of his initial judgment, but even the goodness of himself)
or, if he feels it may be a frequent agitation in the future
(whether the person is a regular acquaintance or whether some particular action–that has been deemed the source of the discomfort–is anticipated to come up again and again),
he will investigate why that thing gave him a “bad” experience to see if he can prevent similar experiences in the future.
Yes, a lot of people think that way. The part I put in bold is (an) especially ludicrous (way of thinking)
… the first sentence I also find silly, when seen in light of the next
(otherwise, I think that–depending on what one means by “believe”–it can be a valid point).
But attacking another person’s beliefs by saying it is at odds with some absolute truth that something is or is not some “thing” (in this case, “cold”, “unconscious” and “random”),
when that “truth” has no empirical support,
is not existential thinking.
