Existentialism is extreme nihilism.
Lois
OK, this program is acting up. First, I tried to move a long spam message this morning and it deleted it. Just now I tried to respond to Lois’ post #18 as a separate post, and the stupid thing stuck us all together in what had been Lois’ short post. Sorry about that, Lois.
Occam
Well, Sarte was pretty clear:
L’existentialisme est un humanisme] (Fear not! It is an English link…)
Translated literally: Existentialism is a [form of] Humanism.
But he did write the book in this way because he felt that existentialism was misunderstood as nihilism.
Without having deep insight in the humanist or existentialist literature, I would say that existentialism is much more about the personal experience of freedom, fear, responsibility, death and the meaning of life. Humanism as I see it is much more a set of values, and ideas about how these values affect our daily life. They have different accents, but are very much overlapping and complementary.
Theist humanism is perfectly possible of course: it bases its humanist values on just on some belief. Christianity can therefore be a good source for humanist values. If you take from the two main messages of Jesus ‘Love God’ and ‘Love your neighbour’ (short versions…), just the second one, you have a (very…) general base for humanism.
To be complete, there is also the Christian version of existentialism (see Kierkegaard]), which was in fact the historical predecessor of the later atheist versions of existentialism. Christians who did not take every word of their priests as truth, also wrestled with questions about freedom, fear, responsibility etc.
Well, let’s be honest here. Christianity is the source of almost nothing. The things we associate with Christianity predate it (or were stolen from other religions by various churches). Heck even Christmas isn’t Christian.
Hi…
Just my fifty cents here since I’m learning a bit more about Existentialism and I find it very interesting.
As GdB said, Sartre called Existentialism a (form of) humanism, and I really, really would love to read his big book, but might never get there. From what I get though, Existentialism is not a philosophy at all, and can’t be compared with Humanism. Maybe they share elements, but so do many things.
Existentialism, as far as I get it, is actually a reaction against a scientific (and deterministic) worldview. Sort of like Romanticism in the face of the Enlightenment. It seeks to bring “the human element” back into a world of physics and where everything can be calculated one way or the other. It’s also not philosophy as normally understood. It uses novels, stageplays, poetry, movies, etc., and treatises to make its point, but “that point” is always dependent upon the “existentialist”, as there is no school or agreement, as pretty much all the “existentialists” consider themselves free thinkers outside any school, and even Sartre only having used that term to be somehow understood as people began labeling him.
By the way, I’m writing here to understand this better myself.
Being rather poetic-minded I love this Existentialism thing, just as I like the Romantics, but I would throw it in a box with art, not philosophy, and therefore not comparable to Humanism on that level.
Peace.
Theist humanism is perfectly possible of course: it bases its humanist values on just on some belief. Christianity can therefore be a good source for humanist values. If you take from the two main messages of Jesus 'Love God' and 'Love your neighbour' (short versions...), just the second one, you have a (very...) general base for humanism.I always thought that "Love thy neighbor as thyself" was a very humanistic message. Can you really be expected to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself? But you can love your neighbor for the same reason you love yourself, because you are both human beings.
Hi... Just my fifty cents here since I'm learning a bit more about Existentialism and I find it very interesting. As GdB said, Sartre called Existentialism a (form of) humanism, and I really, really would love to read his big book, but might never get there. From what I get though, Existentialism is not a philosophy at all, and can't be compared with Humanism. Maybe they share elements, but so do many things. Existentialism, as far as I get it, is actually a reaction against a scientific (and deterministic) worldview. Sort of like Romanticism in the face of the Enlightenment. It seeks to bring "the human element" back into a world of physics and where everything can be calculated one way or the other. It's also not philosophy as normally understood. It uses novels, stageplays, poetry, movies, etc., and treatises to make its point, but "that point" is always dependent upon the "existentialist", as there is no school or agreement, as pretty much all the "existentialists" consider themselves free thinkers outside any school, and even Sartre only having used that term to be somehow understood as people began labeling him. By the way, I'm writing here to understand this better myself. Being rather poetic-minded I love this Existentialism thing, just as I like the Romantics, but I would throw it in a box with art, not philosophy, and therefore not comparable to Humanism on that level. Peace.Nicely said, Michelle. I have no idea if you are correct, but if not, you could have fooled me.
Existentialism is extreme nihilism. LoisIf anything, I would guess that, nihilism is an extreme form of existentialism. -- With existentialism calling in to question the meaning of life, while nihilism has already decided that the answer is that there is no meaning.
It appears obvious to me that life does have meaning, but ONLY the meaning that we each assign to it. As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.
It appears obvious to me that life does have meaning, but ONLY the meaning that we each assign to it. As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less "real", but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.Yes, that's one angle. Another angle is that outside of the DNA code to replicate(assigning some basic drivers such as food, shelter, reproduction) there is no meaning to humanity. As such we relate to these "meanings" through behavioral drives, but they do not constitute any meaning as a long term goal or destination. A purpose. That's opposed to an assigned meaning such as "we are god's creations and we are here to build a heaven on Earth". Your points on fabrications are well taken. Also as you said, each individual can assign meaning to his or her own life-definitely. But as a humanity, I see no purpose. An individual is perfectly capable of making the distinction between "individual" and "humanity" and plotting a course that doesn't involve nihilism.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your comment. To be quite honest, I’m not sure if I’m correct. This is just the way I view this right now, this “existentialist movement”. I guess to really understand it, you would have to dig deeply into everyone of these varied folks. Which I’d love to do, but unless it’s part of my classes I doubt I’ll find the time for that.
I wouldn’t really agree with Lois though concerning nihilism. Actually I’d say Existentialism is hope in the face of nihilism, the latter being in fact the logical result of a godless universe… unless you give it meaning, which is Nietzsche’s whole point. Hence the whole “God is dead” thing. It wasn’t a wish, it wasn’t an ideal to say that. It was a mirror to say, if God is dead, and he is dead, as we have killed him, what then? “Who will wash the blood off our hands, us murderers of all murderers?”
There is no one meaning of life for everything or everyone, because each individual gives life their own meaning, just as you say, and that meaning is by no means meaningless, as theists would often have it. Why should it be? Is my life meaningless just because there is no God? Why? It’s quite meaningful to me. Telling me it’s meaningless just because there is no God is pretty in your face condescending. I’m a human being, and I think that’s where the humanist element comes in. Only the human being has that capacity to give things meaning. (As far as we think about it anyway.)
Sorry, too much babble already. I really enjoy reading this existentialist stuff, although there’s so much and some of it so weird that it’s hard to wrap your mind around unless you really make that your goal… which, now that I think of it, would be a nice goal actually 
Peace.
Well, apparently Vyazma managed to extract secular humanistic principles from the christian humanism the teacher presented him with. :) Occam
Well I became an atheist at the same time roughly. 6th or 7th grade. I just thought the nun was spewing the same old catholic School Mumbo Jumbo. The religion class Nun was also probably a humanist too. She had lot's of those peace signs with the dove stickers. Played guitar and sang for us.
A person can do those things and not be a humanist. LoisLois, you may want to go back to posts 14 and 15. Vy clearly stated "My seventh grade history teacher was a Humanist Catholic Nun. She taught us many values of Humanism." While you define religious humanism and secular humanism as exclusive of each other, you can't successfully demand that Vyazma accept your definition. Occam I don't. I was simply giving my opinion. I don't demand anything from anyone. Lois
As GdB said, Sartre called Existentialism a (form of) humanism, and I really, really would love to read his big book, but might never get there.Just to avoid confusion: I assume with Sartres 'big book' you mean 'Being and Nothingness'. Sartre's 'Existentialism Is a Humanism' is more a small pamphlet, and is still available, and quite an easy read.
Existentialism, as far as I get it, is actually a reaction against a scientific (and deterministic) worldview.I think that is not the right way to say it: it is not a reaction against science, but on science. In previous world views (in the western world especially the Christian world view), man had a well defined place in the 'big chain of being', and from that values and ethics followed clearly. According to Sartre, in the scientific age we have no such orientation anymore. Therefore his famous adagio 'Existence precedes essence]':
The proposition that existence precedes essence (French: l'existence précède l'essence) is a central claim of existentialism, which reverses the traditional philosophical view that the essence or nature of a thing is more fundamental and immutable than its existence. To existentialists, human beings—through their consciousness—create their own values and determine a meaning for their life because, in the beginning, the human being does not possess any inherent identity or value. By posing the acts that constitute him or her, he or she makes his or her existence more significant.
Sort of like Romanticism in the face of the Enlightenment.So not quite: Romanticism really was a reaction against Enlightenment.
It seeks to bring "the human element" back into a world of physics and where everything can be calculated one way or the other.Existentialism looks what is left for humans in the light of a scientific world view. The answer is off course: not much. (Therefore it is easy to confuse existentialism with nihilism.) But what is left the freedom to choose oneself, in the eyes of the others].
I would throw it in a box with art, not philosophy, and therefore not comparable to Humanism on that level.Yeah, more specific literature. But there might be an overlap with philosophy. Philosophy was also not always defined the same as it is now. Sure, existentialism does not count very much as a 'science-oriented philosophy'; but it asks questions that we all ask sometimes in our personal lives. Due to very difficult decisions some people have to make in their lives, existentialist questions become of the utmost importance to them. In this way existentialism still has something to say to us.
If anything, I would guess that, nihilism is an extreme form of existentialism. -- With existentialism calling in to question the meaning of life, while nihilism has already decided that the answer is that there is no meaning.Good way to put it. However, I think that in existentialism it is important that the questions are never answered definitely. A 'real existentialist' keeps asking the questions for himself, and never trusts that an answer at one moment is also valid at the next. (E.g. an existentialist can, per definition, not be a rule based ethicist.) A nihilist has answered the questions, and in an existentialist view, does not lead a real human life anymore. Once somebody thinks his questions of life are answered, he has stopped existing: he is vegetating.
Another angle is that outside of the DNA code to replicate(assigning some basic drivers such as food, shelter, reproduction) there is no meaning to humanity. As such we relate to these "meanings" through behavioral drives, but they do not constitute anymeaning as a long term goal or destination. A purpose. That's opposed to an assigned meaning such as "we are god's creations and we are here to build a heaven on Earth".Right. Existentialism does not know general, eternal, answers. A purpose or meaning of humanity would imply such an answer.
...as you said, each individual can assign meaning to his or her own life-definitely. But as a humanity, I see no purpose...Re: assigning meaning to humanity Each of us is interconnected to some degree with the rest of humanity, i.e., we would not be born, survive infancy, survive long after infancy, develop communication or complex concepts, or survive as a species if we were perpetually only individuals without connection to other humans. Although we each may come up with our own concept of meaning that is salient for us as individuals, I see no reason that we could not do the same collectively, at least in subgroups. As a matter of fact, I think this often does occur. Most on this forum would agree that when that collective concept of meaning is based on the supernatural, it is erroneous. But I suggest that if a collective concept of meaning is based on what we can determine to be reality based... what's the problem? (other than the difficulties that may be involved in updating our collective sense of meaning in regards to our developing understanding of reality).
Re: assigning meaning to humanity Each of us is interconnected to some degree with the rest of humanity, i.e., we would not be born, survive infancy, survive long after infancy, develop communication or complex concepts, or survive as a species if we were perpetually only individuals without connection to other humans.Yes Tim, but if I may, be careful. What are the common denominators of those interconnections? It's all DNA derived, human behavioral processes. Instinctual survival. I'm not saying we are not interconnected with each other. I'm saying there is no goal or purpose to humanity. In the same way I would say there is no goal or purpose to a huge termite mound, teeming with termites. What's the goal there? What's the purpose? Are all of the termites inter-connected? Yes, definitely. But after that we have to ask the question? Which came first, the wood or the termites? Of course that's an over-simplification of evolution, but it illustrates my point-hopefully. If you can track that. (coarsely track the wood/termite timeline backwards through known and supposed evolution lines. Now coarsely track it forward into the future using reckoning. What have you got?)
Although we each may come up with our own concept of meaning that is salient for us as individuals, I see no reason that we could not do the same collectively, at least in subgroups.Right, we do. Again it's all DNA, behavioral derived. Churches, nations, Bridge Clubs etc..
But I suggest that if a collective concept of meaning is based on what we can determine to be reality based... what's the problem? (other than the difficulties that may be involved in updating our collective sense of meaning in regards to our developing understanding of reality).Great question. I'm going to try and answer it(my $0.02) in a few sentences. Let's say the goal is World Peace and no hunger. That's based on reality. Where are we on that now? We've never really seemed to get anywhere on that issue-ever! Human's have had consciousness on those items for quite awhile now. It would seem to be a no brainer. Humans have had the technology(on all fronts) to arrive at that goal for at least 50 years. But, some have had the impetus for it for thousands of years. "Evil" and "Good" cancel each other out. That just makes: "it is what it is." Or...the needs of individual(can be one person, or a sub-group) survival and collective survival clash. Constantly!(look at my posts on the children/refugee/immigrant thread.) Or yet another way...do you think it's possible to get everyone on the same page as far as meaning or goals are concerned?
V, Not discounting any of your points, I suggest that just as individuals can assign meaning to their lives, collectives of humans (subsets of everyone) can assign “meaning” to human existence. I doubt, as do you, that everyone will ever be on the same page, in this regard.
As far as whether certain collective assignations of meaning, will inevitably or ultimately improve human conditions, I expect that certain assignations of meaning would have a better chance of doing so, than others. E.g., humanistic assignations of meaning are probably better for us, in the long run, than most theologically based assignations of meaning.
I think this “Purpose of Humanity” thing that goes on depends on what we define purpose as.
I’m of the opinion that the only purpose of life and humanity is to continue to exist through successive generations. My reasoning for this is simply because that’s what life’s function is. The sun makes heat, gravity pulls things down, and life makes more life. Humans do this through individual synthetic purposes that help them thrive.
V, Not discounting any of your points, I suggest that just as individuals can assign meaning to their lives, collectives of humans (subsets of everyone) can assign "meaning" to human existence. I doubt, as do you, that everyone will ever be on the same page, in this regard.Can you give some examples Tim of what "meaning" or purpose people could assign to humanity? Other than faith-based ones. Plus, is your answer going to be tainted by your own subjective overview? I'm not interested in having a discussion about how we can improve humanity here. That's waaay off-topic.