EPTAnd
Has reading existentialism influenced your life directly in any way? If yes how so
Serious Discussion about Existentialism
| Blogs > zulu_nation8 |
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
And Has reading existentialism influenced your life directly in any way? If yes how so | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
| ||
|
Kingsp4de20
United States716 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
I smell homework -.- Or someone really, really boring. All I can tell you is that I remember there being a question about existentialism on my midterm in English, and I got that question wrong because I didn't know what the fuck it was. To this day, I've never bothered to wikipedia it. EDIT: Oh nevermind, I remember my friend telling me about this (I just wikied the definition) when I was said. I told him it was too similar to stoicism and that I thought it was a load of horse shit and a bad way to live your life. He says he lives by it, but I'm sure he makes exceptions. EDIT 2: If you don't know what I mean by it being like stoicism, consider this: If meaning only exists if you create it, and giving meaning to death and pain makes you sad, why give meaning to them? It seems like the logical conclusion is to become stoic and unconcerned with giving meaning to things that hurt you, which IMO is not a good way to live. Maybe you could argue that giving meaning to death and pain gives special meaning to their antonyms, but then you're just beating around the bush and you might as well call existentialism the belief of doing whatever floats your boat (as opposed to the guide (in this case, very gentle nudge) of how to live your life). | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
| ||
|
XCetron
5225 Posts
On June 19 2008 01:51 geometryb wrote: lol | ||
|
RavenWrath
Germany174 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On June 19 2008 01:50 zulu_nation8 wrote: Heidegger's existentialism is how when a person gains a better understanding of his own being and realizes it's self interpreting he has to come to terms with the fact that there is no meaning behind his existence and either can own up to it, disown it, or be blind to it I think? Um I can't really say if that was good for me. I think tbh it was. It just allows me to take serious things less seriously, and then enjoy random things more easily...I can pick and choose how seriously I take the world and I don't think someone who hasn't gone through this type of realisation can. Hey what's the other type of existentialism? | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
kemoryan
Spain1506 Posts
| ||
|
sanftm00d
Austria73 Posts
there cant ever be a serious discussion about philosophy because its just a bit more complex religion since the invention of the free market economy its not even necessary to discuss it anyway, just put your theory on the market and u can see how good it is without having to discuss about it in the first place on a serious note, i can understand how it is important for some to talk about philosophy because they are engaged with their lives. It just won't get anyone anywhere. Its acting that solves problems, and if not u can still falsify and start a new... | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
RavenWrath
Germany174 Posts
On June 19 2008 02:36 sanftm00d wrote: philosphy is taking terms and abusing them as much as possible there cant ever be a serious discussion about philosophy because its just a bit more complex religion since the invention of the free market economy its not even necessary to discuss it anyway, just put your theory on the market and u can see how good it is without having to discuss about it in the first place on a serious note, i can understand how it is important for some to talk about philosophy because they are engaged with their lives. It just won't get anyone anywhere. Its acting that solves problems, and if not u can still falsify and start a new... word! | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On June 19 2008 02:36 sanftm00d wrote: philosphy is taking terms and abusing them as much as possible there cant ever be a serious discussion about philosophy because its just a bit more complex religion since the invention of the free market economy its not even necessary to discuss it anyway, just put your theory on the market and u can see how good it is without having to discuss about it in the first place on a serious note, i can understand how it is important for some to talk about philosophy because they are engaged with their lives. It just won't get anyone anywhere. Its acting that solves problems, and if not u can still falsify and start a new... dude what? | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
He just denounced philosophy and generalized it into a single sentence. That guy has fucking amazing potential. He even got "word[ed]" for it. Which makes the statement even greater.. someone is dumb enough to agree. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On June 19 2008 02:53 {88}iNcontroL wrote: what? He just denounced philosophy and generalized it into a single sentence. That guy has fucking amazing potential. He even got "word[ed]" for it. Which makes the statement even greater.. someone is dumb enough to agree. word | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
crabapple
United States397 Posts
On June 19 2008 02:04 PsycHOTemplar wrote: Another complaint I have about existentialism is that it denies ideals of love. It seems to say that any feeling of love you have was entirely artificial and your own doing, instead of what it really feels like which is just starting to happen to you without your consent. this is the same feeling you get when go to see a doctor cause ur in so much f-ing pain, and hten he tells you everything is normal. then you try to explain to him, "but i'm fucking hurting really reeeeeally badly." and then he tells you "we'll maybe it's all in your head, try to get out of it", writing you off as a hypochondriac. like you are some infallible illness detector? BOILS MY BLOOD!@ | ||
|
crabapple
United States397 Posts
i still don't know, despite hearing so much about it... i believe i exist. does that make me an existentialist? or do i have to believe that i don't exist or something like that? | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On June 19 2008 02:54 zulu_nation8 wrote: I'm afraid i have no idea what we are discussing here zulu..this discussion has potential perhaps if we talked about social trends and their implications on 18th century we could have a nice chat? | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
XCetron
5225 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
G5
United States2880 Posts
| ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
I'm slowly beginning to read some stuff, starting with Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, which is fantastic so far, and speaks to a lot of the thoughts I've had for some time, particularly in being critical of the subject and critical of our ability to know the world. So, I think that if you are interested in a more meaningful discussion, you ought to erase the barriers to entry (the need to have read particular philosophers) and put the problems you want to discuss in language that is more accessible to this audience. I'd definitely be interested in this discussion if I knew in particular what you are comparing or interested in discussing. | ||
|
RavenWrath
Germany174 Posts
On June 19 2008 02:53 {88}iNcontroL wrote: what? He just denounced philosophy and generalized it into a single sentence. That guy has fucking amazing potential. He even got "word[ed]" for it. Which makes the statement even greater.. someone is dumb enough to agree. people like you were/are the greatest philosophers of all times. No idea of anything but addicted to attention. So what to do?! Being bumptious enough to gather a small group of other people too dump to make something up themselve but lazy enough to prefer follwing your words to doing something of worth. Oh I forgot. To be a potent philosopher you have to be naiv enough to think that your bullshit changes anything/solves any problems/is of any worth at all. Imagine the hardcore philosphers even thought they reached anything in life right before the reaper gets them. Well I guess the right term is stubborn, not hardcore. | ||
|
crabapple
United States397 Posts
On June 19 2008 03:18 nA.Inky wrote: I'd love to talk philosophy, but I am one of those folks who hasn't read a lot of philosophy. I also know, however, that one can have very deep philosophical conversations without having read particular authors. I'm slowly beginning to read some stuff, starting with Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, which is fantastic so far, and speaks to a lot of the thoughts I've had for some time, particularly in being critical of the subject and critical of our ability to know the world. So, I think that if you are interested in a more meaningful discussion, you ought to erase the barriers to entry (the need to have read particular philosophers) and put the problems you want to discuss in language that is more accessible to this audience. I'd definitely be interested in this discussion if I knew in particular what you are comparing or interested in discussing. THIS is a comment that deserves a "word". word and yes, please explain existentialism at the very least, in a couple of sentences. it's not like catholicism is it? where only special people are allowed to explain it? | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Now I need to pack up the tent before dusk. They only come out at night. Mostly. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On June 19 2008 03:18 nA.Inky wrote: I'd love to talk philosophy, but I am one of those folks who hasn't read a lot of philosophy. I also know, however, that one can have very deep philosophical conversations without having read particular authors. I'm slowly beginning to read some stuff, starting with Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, which is fantastic so far, and speaks to a lot of the thoughts I've had for some time, particularly in being critical of the subject and critical of our ability to know the world. So, I think that if you are interested in a more meaningful discussion, you ought to erase the barriers to entry (the need to have read particular philosophers) and put the problems you want to discuss in language that is more accessible to this audience. I'd definitely be interested in this discussion if I knew in particular what you are comparing or interested in discussing. Well continental philosophy is not accessible to people who don't have basic knowledge of the discipline because it's a very rich tradition like most other humanities. I didn't mean to make an exclusive discussion but the topic does demand people to have a reasonable philosophical background. | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On June 19 2008 03:22 crabapple wrote: THIS is a comment that deserves a "word". word and yes, please explain existentialism at the very least, in a couple of sentences. it's not like catholicism is it? where only special people are allowed to explain it? The thing is I can't explain it in a few words. I can explain it in Heideggerian terms but then I'd need to explain who Heidegger is and what his definitions mean and to do that I have to explain his philosophy. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On June 19 2008 03:19 RavenWrath wrote: people like you were/are the greatest philosophers of all times. No idea of anything but addicted to attention. So what to do?! Being bumptious enough to gather a small group of other people too dump to make something up themselve but lazy enough to prefer follwing your words to doing something of worth. Oh I forgot. To be a potent philosopher you have to be naiv enough to think that your bullshit changes anything/solves any problems/is of any worth at all. Imagine the hardcore philosphers even thought they reached anything in life right before the reaper gets them. Well I guess the right term is stubborn, not hardcore. This should be the wiki definition for philosophy imo | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On June 19 2008 03:42 nA.Inky wrote: If the goal is to get people to express their complete lack of knowledge and confusion, possibly so you can feel knowledgeable and well read, then congrats, you seem to have succeeded! If the goal is to get people's thoughts on some issue, you might try changing your approach. On June 19 2008 03:42 nA.Inky wrote:I intend for this to be a purely constructive post and mean no offense. Like I said, I'd love to talk philosophy. I feel as knowledgeable talking to you as I do when a person who hasn't played starcraft tries to argue strategy with me. It's not some elitest attitude but rather an expectation that people who come into my blog would at least have some idea of what I'm talking about before barging in here expecting me to explain to you a whole fucking school of thought. If you want a quicky just so you can come in and tell me about your brilliant interpretations go read the wiki article on existentialism. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Newbistic
China2912 Posts
Talking about unsubstantiated philosophical theories is just too fucking easy. Yes, i guess the world could be interpreted as "something" and "nothing" as heidegger believes it, but there is no practical purpose whatsoever in doing so. He basically holds the view that science isn't as important as the exploration of "dasein" which is somehow underneath all reality, despite the fact that science has lead to technology, which has in turn infinitely benefited mankind while his philosophy doesn't have any practical potential at all. Having said that, my ultimate point is probably that heidegger's idea of transcendence, which is to embrace the existence of "nothing" and "dasein" is just too limited because there is no practical purpose. There are too fucking many philosophers who believe their views are worth half a piece of turd (and unfortunately, a lot of other people also see it that way -_-), but ultimately they're simply highly personal and highly personalized interpretations of the world developed for their own personal usage. | ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On June 19 2008 05:08 Newbistic wrote: I haven't read any of Kierkergaard's stuff, but at least I think heidegger's ideas are full of shit. Talking about unsubstantiated philosophical theories is just too fucking easy. Yes, i guess the world could be interpreted as "something" and "nothing" as heidegger believes it, but there is no practical purpose whatsoever in doing so. He basically holds the view that science isn't as important as the exploration of "dasein" which is somehow underneath all reality, despite the fact that science has lead to technology, which has in turn infinitely benefited mankind while his philosophy doesn't have any practical potential at all. Having said that, my ultimate point is probably that heidegger's idea of transcendence, which is to embrace the existence of "nothing" and "dasein" is just too limited because there is no practical purpose. There are too fucking many philosophers who believe their views are worth half a piece of turd (and unfortunately, a lot of other people also see it that way -_-), but ultimately they're simply highly personal and highly personalized interpretations of the world developed for their own personal usage. nono he thinks science will not truly be positive and good science without having better understanding of dasein. The purpose of being and time is not to construct a personal philosophy at all but rather to re-examine every kind of human thought ever. For example without realizing that the organization of life in biology is high dependent on the prevalent thought and discourse of society and culture, biology will just go in circles and did for centuries without realizing what it's actually doing which is just reflecting the changes in the self interpreting human way of being aka existential. It serves a very practical purpose because it pretty much made everyone realize that every idea ever has a highly complicated and implicit background and it's important to examine every idea in those contexts aka hermaneutics in order to make actual progress. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On June 19 2008 05:09 MiniRoman wrote: I personally think existentialism is the ideal belief set for today's world. Live by what is right for you, own up to things you've chosen to do. Everything in your life is a product of yourself choosing to accept what is.Far too often people bitch about not having a choice when they are truly the only one who has the power to live their lives. so did it actually have an effect on how you live, like did you actually try to own up and accept certain stuff you were confused about or ignored before. | ||
|
sanftm00d
Austria73 Posts
On June 19 2008 05:19 zulu_nation8 wrote: so did it actually have an effect on how you live, like did you actually try to own up and accept certain stuff you were confused about or ignored before. i strongly believe[lol] that it can only be the other way round. Your life defines your believes, thus its your experience that defines which philosophic stance one finds appealing. So to word it a bit different: Its not the words that have impact on your life, its your life that impacts how you understand the words. Thus all life is problem solving in the first place, and imo both heidegger and kierkegaard fail at giving any advice on problemsolving. They only give a certain combination of terms one may find appealing if raised in the right culture/class/language/etc.. To discuss these things seriously one would have to define the meaning of every single word, and then define every single word in every definition and so on...its just not possible =>Thats why falsification is so important. | ||
|
sanftm00d
Austria73 Posts
1.)Its not possible to dicuss Heideggers/kierkegaards philosophy. We can only discuss what they have written down, not what they where thinking! (seems to be a no-brainer) We can further only discuss how we see what they have written down. Thus we can only dicuss our interpretation of their work. One could say that only using terms, the combination of terms and the definition of terms heidegger/kierkegaard provide is legitimate. This would lead us to not discussing but copy/pasting because if only what they wrote down is legitimate, only the exact sentences are legitimate... The moment we add new terms or new combinations of terms its not Heidegger/Kierkegaard anymore, but only our own thoughts. So their have to be as many interpretations as their are people on this planet(maybe more) and deciding which is more true is impossible. Its only possible to decide which does more copy/paste and which is more our own thoughts. 2.) It's not necessary to discuss it. If we define philosophy as he act of 'thinking and talking', one can see with ease that there is no link between the reality and our minds. Our minds can be in fact endlessly far away from any form of matter. The link between our minds and the reality is 'acting', but one has to admit, that out actions can be as far away from our philosophy as our mind is from matter. Simply put thinking and acting are two different universes (third universe called the universe of problems by karl popper), Problems cant be solved by thinking they can only be solved by acting (no-brainer) Thus instead of verifying our thoughts and believing in acting better afterwards, we have to act and then falsify those actions which werent costeffective (this is done by the free-market, where over time the more efficient households will displace the less effective ones). round up: Thinking is the link between problems and actions. This link can only be made after the problem and the action have appeared. Thus it is impossible to discuss philosophy as long as the op isnt providing a problem and a possible action. Sorry for this post i am very bored right now... | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
"The moment we add new terms or new combinations of terms its not Heidegger/Kierkegaard anymore, but only our own thoughts. So their have to be as many interpretations as their are people on this planet(maybe more) and deciding which is more true is impossible. Its only possible to decide which does more copy/paste and which is more our own thoughts." No man there are interpretations which are dumb and interpretations which are not. If you think every person can have a different interpretations of heidegger than you don't know what basic hermeneutics/interpretation is. This isn't fucking wuthering heights, it's a person trying to express his ideas in the clearest way possible in text. Do you have like, trouble reading or something? "If we define philosophy as he act of 'thinking and talking', one can see with ease that there is no link between the reality and our minds. Our minds can be in fact endlessly far away from any form of matter." Sick definition man. I guess entire time I thought I was reading philosophy I was actually reading a person thinking and talking. Oh no link between reality and mind? Go circle jerk with your solipsist buddies and stop posting in my blog. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
Dude where do you get this definition from? Did you read some fucked up pragmatist texts combined with Hume or whatever? | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
sanftm00d
Austria73 Posts
Still my argument remains intact , as i wasnt arguing against heidegger but against the idea of discussing about philosophy. Seriously your answers arent really argumentative but mindless insulting of myself. If u want to flame in your Post i would have stayed out, but you should have changed the name of the thread then. My views come from my studies of philosophy, economy, politics and from my life experience one could say. I am leaning towards a 'economic' viewpoint in my posts though. I would recommend Karl Popper on the 3universes- thinking acting problems and how they interact Oppenheimer Franz on why philosophy is irrelevant lol hegel to counter to much heidegger :-) I hope u dont feel insulted or hurt by my posts, as u have written that i shall stay out of your thread and then asked a question which will inevitably lead to me posting... | ||
|
kemoryan
Spain1506 Posts
On June 19 2008 19:44 sanftm00d wrote: i strongly believe[lol] that it can only be the other way round. Your life defines your believes, thus its your experience that defines which philosophic stance one finds appealing. So to word it a bit different: Its not the words that have impact on your life, its your life that impacts how you understand the words. You talk as if Freud, Adler or Jung had never existed. But they have and if you had studied one of them minimally, you'd know that it's not life which impacts and thus configures your self, it's what you interpret from life which is what really affects you and configures your the schemes with which you behave. And of course, that interpretation is not something you choose. It might seem trivial but it's not. On June 19 2008 19:44 sanftm00d wrote: Thus all life is problem solving in the first place, and imo both heidegger and kierkegaard fail at giving any advice on problemsolving. They only give a certain combination of terms one may find appealing if raised in the right culture/class/language/etc.. To discuss these things seriously one would have to define the meaning of every single word, and then define every single word in every definition and so on...its just not possible =>Thats why falsification is so important. You say heidegger and kerkegaard fail at giving any advice, so what? Do you think their philosophy's purpose is to be practical? No, not necessarily. These philosophers don't aim to reach some efficient/practical method to obtain some result. They are in search of truth, they try to think and seek the essence of things not for any other reason than to have a better insight of them. It's something our current materialist minds can't understand because of our technological culture. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 19 2008 01:44 Kingsp4de20 wrote: What in gods name is a serious discussion?What in gods name is existentialism? | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 19 2008 20:54 sanftm00d wrote: That is so wrong that it's wronger than wrong round up: Thinking is the link between problems and actions. This link can only be made after the problem and the action have appeared. Thus it is impossible to discuss philosophy as long as the op isnt providing a problem and a possible action.  You don't need to problem to exist to think or philosophy about it. Most of math is based on this. Mathematicians invent tools to be used for a purpose they most of the time don't know of. They just philosophy about it, archive it and leave it there for someone to find a use for it. When matrixes were invented dozens of years ago no one knew we would use that to calculate 3d computer graphics.Philosophy can offer potential solutions for problems that do not exist yet! That's why I believe philosophizing at any degree is (can be) important. So I think it's very useful to talk about existentialism philosophies in this thread. Move on..  (Sorry about using only math examples, that's all I have knowledge of) | ||
| ||
