I was wondering why existentialism has the stigma that it has. I’m not implying that I think it’s unfair…I just don’t know exactly why it exists.
The stigma I’m talking about is how existentialism seems to be constantly associated with adolescence, or youth. For instance, someone asked for advice on this board, and another replied with the suggestion of reading about existentialism, then letting that phase pass at about thirty. In the Magnetic Fields song: I could dress in black and read Camus / Smoke clove cigarettes and drink vermouth / If I was 17 that would a scream
I’ve found lots of references like this since I’ve started reading more about exist. in the past few months.
Although there is some misunderstanding regarding the main problems of existentialism, it is not regarded as a classical philosophy. It doesn’t come under the scopes of most philosophers. Even France doesn’t have much time for Satre these days!
Why it is sometimes associated with youth: Because its fanciful, enticing, yet ultimately lacking in substance. It doesn’t ‘hold water’ in traditional philosophical terms. Young people, without the proper experience in philosophy might be more likely to be seduced by fanciful theories of man-in-the-world.
Funny, to me it was the logical evolution of my philosophical progression. I was infatuated by “the classics” as a young man, but as I get deeper into my thirties I can’t shake my existentialist bent.
Existentialism as a whole isn’t particularly criticised, though I’ve no idea what Nietzsche is doing being classified as an existentialists since he thought individual freedom a nonsense and though phenomenology was bunk. However French Existentialism (post wwII) has been immensely criticised, particularly the work of Sartre. Now Sartre was a sham, a mediocre philosopher who stole all the most interesting points of his work from previous philosophers and advanced an entirely dubious and undefended theory of freedom of the will. This became very popular in postwar Europe in particular but we’ve subsequently woken up and realised that there are better 20th century writer.
To answer your question in brief: French Existentialism (commonly called just ‘Existentialism’ as you have done) was a cult that lost its cult status and had nothing else to offer.
Again, French existentialism is associated with youth. This is because of some of the notions there: easy rebellion (against parents/school/church/whatever), supposed individual freedom (don’t have to listen to X anymore), the whole idea of being ‘clever’ about ones personality by reading philosophy about life itself, it all fits in with the individualistic and pseudorebelistic attitudes of today’s cynical youth…
Like I say, existentialism since Sartre has been a load of crap. Easy to grasp (because most existentialists are effectively 20th century liberals) but there’s very little there in terms of solving problems or advancing and promoting life. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are far superior and neither wear the ‘existentialist’ tag comfortably. Not being over 30 I don’t know whether my interest in them will wane…
existentialism is stigmatized becos it cuts thru a lot of the crap that binds other philosophical positions to authoritarian ideologies & hegemonic epistemologies.
but kierkegaard was a funny guy. you shld read ‘either/or’.
Speaking of the cynical disenfranchised youth of modern society, how old are you guys? I’m a freshman, any other youngsters in our midst. Please don’t tell me I am the only one swayed by the naïve emotional tempest we call adolescents! Hopefully a few of these sound time tested ideals will rub away some of my boyhood ignorance. Haha JK
I do go well with Hume, I use his arguments as part of my general sceptical barrage.
I rarely if ever criticise Wittgenstein, mainly because my complaints with his work are so small, technical, possibly even pedantic that I don’t see much point in discussing that here. I’ve recently taken a leaf from ol’ Dunamis and given Spinoza another go. I have to admit that I’m more impressed this time round. I adore Nietzsche’s work, and that of Epicurus and Heraclitus. I read Derrida all the time and have a long history of reading Marxist/postMarxist political philosophy (Marcuse, Durkheim, Lenin and so on). That isn’t to say that I agree with all these, just that I can read them without finding fault all the time.
I have very little to do with Husserl, I only read bits of his work to help me to understand Derrida and Merlot Ponty. I like the work of Helene Cixous as well, mainly because she writes in such a quirky and inspiring manner, though it could be the translation.
you seem mostly be a political philospher, and linguist. deconstruction is just a lingual toolset, imho, so dont bicker with me. i know what you would say, and no one needs to hear it ad nauseum.
you seem more interested in power in manipulation than you do meaning or normative concepts, or any meaning for that matter. 'tis a good list, though, rarely do i meet someone who even knows whom marcuse is.
anyways, you probably already have this info, but what you should also be familiar with is game theory, i hope. this illuminates all the modern use of dialectics and language in politics.
i would prefer language to not be used as a weapon, myself.
Once I finish with Derrida I’ll move onto the Spin and Husserl
Obviously this is wrong… but I feel like wittgenstein doesn’t have a whole lot to say? From what I’ve read so far his language game is thick… but doesn’t really go anywhere.
Being unenlightened sucks…
couple more years Siatd, I’ll have a better picture… too much reading to do.
One never finishes with Derrida (obviously I’m impersonating myself a bit with that comment)
Tractatus only makes sense when you’ve read around it, the history with Russell and Frege and so on. His best works were from his later period, when he certainly went somewhere, though where he went is unclear.
I keep telling myself that. Just a couple more years, then I can write that book solving everything. Just a couple more years…
I prefer ‘rhetorician of the revolution’ but we needn’t get into which tag is which…
The day that you stop making false comments about deconstruction (lingual toolset indeed, you’re getting this from one of those anti-deconstructionists who has never read in the field, aren’t you? Come on, you can tell me) is the day that I stop ad nauseating you
Meaning is overrated, deconstruction is where it’s at, or more precisely where it is (under erasure) at
Sure, and in truth I could never solve everything, I just meant that I sympathise, it always seems that there’s something else that one really should be reading.
The best philosophical texts are literary, from my experience.
Philosophy without art is propositional logic, and I’m still working on the 2 player rubix cube…
