EPT
existentialism help
| Blogs > zulu_nation8 |
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24614 Posts
More seriously, you really have absolutely no leads? I don't know much about existentialism with my limited philosophy education, so I can't steer you in the right direction, but I'm surprised that you can be content with that entire book yet can't think of even a few ideas to bounce off us... | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Zalfor
United States1035 Posts
the stranger | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24614 Posts
On March 04 2009 10:16 zulu_nation8 wrote: calm down dude I've made two blogs I didn't even realize you had made another existentialism blog before hahahaha | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24614 Posts
It was facetious, and implied satire of the usual problem with the same help topics over and over in blogs | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On March 04 2009 10:17 Zalfor wrote: albert camu. the stranger That book actually shows an existential failure...the MC has an existential epiphany at his death...for the rest of the book, he's a mere absurdist more or less. at OP: I haven't studied existentialism closely yet...I'm signed up for that class next quarter...haha. Though if you can't find something to argue about, that's a waste...philosophy is all about discourse and debate...haha. One of the professors at my school said something along the lines of, "In philosophy, any field of study has constant debate going on. People will nitpick and tear apart anything and everything, trying to find everything wrong with it. Then once there's no more problems, we kind of stop talking about it." | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Tynuji
127 Posts
Doesn't exisitentialism say we die, that's it, kapoot? We make the choice on how to live blah blah blah, but possibly a hefty arguement on what's the meaning in all of it? If you believe there is no meaning then use Nietzsche to back you up. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
anyways i would basically just write a synopsis of the book complimented with occasional opinions/criticism of my own | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
NonY
8748 Posts
| ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
Also, another good thing to do is find major outside criticisms and try to refute them, or at least look into what they're trying to do. Well...that formula works well for more contemporary western philo...like epistemology, linguistics and whatnot...I dunno about the older stuff. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On March 04 2009 11:24 Liquid`NonY wrote: can you arrange a meeting with the professor or TA? never hurts to ask for help as long as you've studied the material and it's far enough in advance of the due date. all my best papers involved a 1 on 1 meeting with the prof im supposed to meet with him when i think of ideas to get approved. Btw I'm writing a critique of dreyfus on foucault in my spare time, that dudes gonna get owned. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you might want to read about compatibilism of free will to get a feel of the operating space for the aforementioned metaphysical nominalism vs realism question. some people, like me, think that we can have free will in a substantial way even under determinism, and it is enough to support the existentialist take on being human. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#1.1 if free will is not easy to work with, try something like identity. there should be enough stuff written on that to fill trucks but i think this direction is far off the path of continental philosophy. or you can examine the political implications like jibba suggested. it depends on the focus of your course | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is against nihilism, normative or completely amoral. for a normative nihilism (which is itself a contradiction btw, so it is a vulgar position entertained by noobs) you simply dispute it as any normative assertion. if a guy says "this is ok...because nothing is wrong." or "we should accept this... because nothing is wrong." you simply disregard the second part of his sentence and challenge the former, noting that it is a normative position in itself and thus requires justification by normative arguments. for the amoral kind of nihilism, you are faced wtih a situation in which no positive normative judgment is being advanced, then you simply bring up the normative dimension by asking a normative question, provided that there are appropriate moral agents involved. say the situation is a guy depriving a cute little girl of her candy, and you say "what a douche!" the sceptic then questions your 'right' to pronounce judgment on the situation. the response you are faced with is probably something like "but you can't say that it is wrong because nothing is wrong" here you declare that you are simply exercising your faculty of moral consideration, of putting whatever issue at hand under normative scrutiny. each moment of moral significance is an application of this faculty. (this is more of a faculty of thought, like the ability to think mathematically) it is your liberty to think of the problem normatively, to live a moral life is thus not contingent on the existence of absolute morality but on you taking the time to do so. at the end of the day, we have a situation in which the god of fundationalism is being destroyed while that destruction is still understood under its shadow. the dissolution of absolute standards leads some to abandon any ethical contemplation at all, which is not a necessary result. the most interesting issue is why a metaphysics, a cosmology indeed, is required at all in order to think ethically, and the relation between our substantive and pragmatic ethical judgements and metaethical theory. | ||
|
Diggity
United States806 Posts
Otherwise I would suggest a compare and contrast with Soren Kierkegaard. Even if you aren't allowed a direct route of comparison because you are locked on sources, Soren can give you some different lines of thought or counter arguments. If not Soren you can check up on both of their responses to Hegel or Hegels influences. (Contradiction and negotiation as a means of evolution vs Will to Power as a form of advancement in its place maybe) Either way both will give you a baseline to argue against or for Nietzsche | ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
| ||
| ||
