Best products from r/Existentialism

If one decides to perform an action in advance, and then performs that action, was it not a self-determined action? He was determined to slap the person in advance, but it was still a choice he made given many alternative options. Furthermore, is free will simply the freedom of action, or is it also the freedom of self-determination? I would argue that free will gives us the freedom to form ourselves into the people we wish to be, not just to perform the actions we wish to perform. He may have shaped himself into the type person that would slap an opponent instead of debating. Since this sub is about existentialist philosophy, you will probably find more people here agree with the idea of shaping ourselves into the people we wish to be.

>(or as Steven Pinker puts its a ghost inside your body pushing all the buttons)

Ah, another reference to a "pop intellectual" who isn't an expert in philosophy or free will. I've seen Sam Harris, Robert Salpolski, and now Steven Pinker as the defenders of hard determinism. It tends to be neuroscientists and psychologists in the popular science community. Why hasn't anyone mentioned a professional philosopher that shares their deterministic views; one who can provide a solid philosophical foundation for such beliefs? It may be because the majority of professional philosophers either believe free will is compatible with a deterministic universe, or that there is free will and it is incompatible with determinism.

>Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

If you're interested in learning more about the justifications and challenges for free will, I recommend reading Elbow Room by Daniel Dennet and Four Views on Free Will. I can guarantee you'll learn more about free will from those two books than you will by listening to Steven Pinker.

Hey Rhyan! Thanks for the like.

I like the "applied theory" part of therapy, and much of good therapy theory and practice could be written by a good Stoic (although contemporary therapy has the advantage of empirically supported techniques). So I definitely consider therapy to be an applied sort of philosophy -- philosophy in the old sense, when it was more about how to live your life not just in a narrow ethical sense. But what I really like the most about therapy is what the emotionally-focused therapy (a school of therapy) folks call emotion coaching, which involves working with clients in managing, accessing, and understanding their emotions -- and not just in a theoretical sense, but a very felt shared moment sense involving lots of attunement to the client in terms of noticing nonverbal expression and working from there in a felt sense. There is an incredible art here where the canvas is another person's emotion.

Philosophy is usually small enough as a major to tack onto many other majors. I was a major in psychology with a double minor in philosophy and writing, and think if you really know how to "sell" your transferable skills in an interview, you can really impress folks with your background in philosophy given that it provides skills of critical thinking, constructive argument, abstract reasoning, and so on. Unless you're planning on going into the competitive field of being a philosophy professor, I see philosophy as a major or minor like a base drink you mix with other drinks but don't drink by itself, meaning I wouldn't recommend majoring in it by itself, not because you won't be employable (there's a whole book which debunks the myth that liberal arts fields like English and Philosophy can't be very useful majors for finding jobs, like Smart Moves for Liberal Arts Grads -- and fwiw, I did just over a year of career counseling before moving to the personal side, and love both but the latter more).

Just feckin' read, man. That's what I say. I'd actually say, having two degrees, that one of the biggest aids has been not so much the books we've read but knowing how to find the right books. In my field this means looking for certain publishers (e.g., Routledge, Guilford), which publish the heavy stuff meant for therapists rather than the self-help stuff that too many shrinks read which is really meant for their clients. Don't get me started.

FWIW, I was an English major for a semester, and found it was really a covert history major given that it focused so much on the context of the authors of the great literature and not as much as I'd hoped on literature itself. I have absolutely no regrets not majoring in English, and think it in no way has limited my ability to appreciate and interpret literature. I'd recommend considering a minor in writing instead -- you'll likely get your fix by taking English classes but get a super duper good transferable skill when it comes to the market. I loved the hell out of my writing minor, partly because it combined so many areas, like critical theory writing, philosophical writing, fiction writing, and technical writing, linguistics, and grammar. But you follow your bliss, as Joseph Campbell says.

And when you do get to college, the very first week I'd recommend calling your career services department and seeing if you can take the Strong Interest Inventory or other inventories, just to see what might fit your interests and personality.

Don't think that majoring in English is a limitation. I've done research on this as part of my career counseling job, and the percentage of people who major in English and Business who end up getting jobs out of college is small (around 5-10%), and can easily be explained by the fact that English majors usually don't know how to "sell" their transferable skills from their major, of which there are many (and what most people don't know is that according to NACE, the National Association of Colleges and Employees, employers consistently look for the top skills which are provided by non-major classes like electives and required courses), whereas being a Business major means this is part of the game. I'm just saying that English isn't as Englishy as you might suspect given the focus on historical context and other extra-literature variables. But if you're planning on teaching English or going into either for graduate level work, I think majoring in it with philosophy could be super impressive.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Just because you feel that this is existentialism doesn't mean that it is existentialism. Existentialism for me is what it is defined to be, not what I feel that it is.

>Like “rationalism” and “empiricism,” “existentialism” is a term that belongs to intellectual history. Its definition is thus to some extent one of historical convenience. The term was explicitly adopted as a self-description by Jean-Paul Sartre, and through the wide dissemination of the postwar literary and philosophical output of Sartre and his associates—notably Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Albert Camus—existentialism became identified with a cultural movement that flourished in Europe in the 1940s and 1950s. Among the major philosophers identified as existentialists (many of whom—for instance Camus and Heidegger—repudiated the label) were Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, and Martin Buber in Germany, Jean Wahl and Gabriel Marcel in France, the Spaniards José Ortega y Gasset and Miguel de Unamuno, and the Russians Nikolai Berdyaev and Lev Shestov. The nineteenth century philosophers, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, came to be seen as precursors of the movement. Existentialism was as much a literary phenomenon as a philosophical one. Sartre's own ideas were and are better known through his fictional works (such as Nausea and No Exit) than through his more purely philosophical ones (such as Being and Nothingness and Critique of Dialectical Reason), and the postwar years found a very diverse coterie of writers and artists linked under the term: retrospectively, Dostoevsky, Ibsen, and Kafka were conscripted; in Paris there were Jean Genet, André Gide, André Malraux, and the expatriate Samuel Beckett; the Norwegian Knut Hamsun and the Romanian Eugene Ionesco belong to the club; artists such as Alberto Giacometti and even Abstract Expressionists such as Jackson Pollock, Arshile Gorky, and Willem de Kooning, and filmmakers such as Jean-Luc Godard and Ingmar Bergman were understood in existential terms. By the mid 1970s the cultural image of existentialism had become a cliché, parodized in countless books and films by Woody Allen.

>It is sometimes suggested, therefore, that existentialism just is this bygone cultural movement rather than an identifiable philosophical position; or, alternatively, that the term should be restricted to Sartre's philosophy alone. But while a philosophical definition of existentialism may not entirely ignore the cultural fate of the term, and while Sartre's thought must loom large in any account of existentialism, the concept does pick out a distinctive cluster of philosophical problems and helpfully identifies a relatively distinct current of twentieth- and now twenty-first-century philosophical inquiry, one that has had significant impact on fields such as theology (through Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, and others) and psychology (from Ludwig Binswanger and Medard Boss to Otto Rank, R. D. Laing, and Viktor Frankl). What makes this current of inquiry distinct is not its concern with “existence” in general, but rather its claim that thinking about human existence requires new categories not found in the conceptual repertoire of ancient or modern thought; human beings can be understood neither as substances with fixed properties, nor as subjects interacting with a world of objects.

>On the existential view, to understand what a human being is it is not enough to know all the truths that natural science—including the science of psychology—could tell us. The dualist who holds that human beings are composed of independent substances—“mind” and “body”—is no better off in this regard than is the physicalist, who holds that human existence can be adequately explained in terms of the fundamental physical constituents of the universe. Existentialism does not deny the validity of the basic categories of physics, biology, psychology, and the other sciences (categories such as matter, causality, force, function, organism, development, motivation, and so on). It claims only that human beings cannot be fully understood in terms of them. Nor can such an understanding be gained by supplementing our scientific picture with a moral one. Categories of moral theory such as intention, blame, responsibility, character, duty, virtue, and the like do capture important aspects of the human condition, but neither moral thinking (governed by the norms of the good and the right) nor scientific thinking (governed by the norm of truth) suffices.

>“Existentialism”, therefore, may be defined as the philosophical theory which holds that a further set of categories, governed by the norm of authenticity, is necessary to grasp human existence. To approach existentialism in this categorial way may seem to conceal what is often taken to be its “heart” (Kaufmann 1968: 12), namely, its character as a gesture of protest against academic philosophy, its anti-system sensibility, its flight from the “iron cage” of reason. But while it is true that the major existential philosophers wrote with a passion and urgency rather uncommon in our own time, and while the idea that philosophy cannot be practiced in the disinterested manner of an objective science is indeed central to existentialism, it is equally true that all the themes popularly associated with existentialism—dread, boredom, alienation, the absurd, freedom, commitment, nothingness, and so on—find their philosophical significance in the context of the search for a new categorial framework, together with its governing norm.

Now onto your "post":

>Technically, nothing matters.

Technically? Technically by whom? Or is this just what you're saying, and you're placing technically in front of your opinion to make it sound like some well-established metaphysical fact (lol Kant)?

> The only thing that matters is what you perceive to matter.

I mean, in a Sartrian human-world realism I suppose so, but in an axiomatic sense. If you never take a thing as an intentional object then it can never matter to you. So insofar as the only thing to exist is that of which you are now consciously aware, then yes, the only thing that matters is that which you perceive to matter.

>However, since quite a few people believe that everything does happen for a reason, (ahem religion) we are stuck with conflict in our species.

Kant

>Since there is no explanation or proof of where humanity came from, a lot people tend to believe a powerful being with supreme intellect made us.

Kant

>The Bible was made by a group of very smart people to help ignorant people get along with each other/give a reason for people to have hope and contribute to society.

Oh, I didn't know this about the Holy Bible. Who were this group of "very smart people"? Given that the Bible was, afaik, written over centuries, this seems strenuous. And you say it like the Bible was written and then "poof!", the "ignorant people [of society]" now have hope and direction! This is, of course, ignoring the existence of the Greek/Roman pantheons, Zoroastrianism, etc, plus all the superstitions that people have held. Nope, "poof!" Bible was written, then "ignorant people" had hope to contribute to society.

But wait! There's more! I quote: "The only thing that matters is what you perceive to matter." So if people perceive the Bible/religion to matter, then it does matter! Ta da, bested by yourself.

>There is one thing that matters to me, and that is our species progression as a whole.

Okay, that's cool. Good goal to have. Maybe don't be so pretentious about it and some progress can be made in this regard. Because so far I see you arguing like this (ignoring the prefacing statement that "nothing matters"): 1) The only thing that matters is what is perceived to matter; 2) I perceive that religion doesn't matter; 3) therefore religion doesn't matter. What this way of thinking does is completely eliminate community from your consideration, because you have failed to accept what other people perceive to matter. What you are saying is so self-centred and egotistical in your complete dismissal of the experience of the rest of the world that it is appalling. What you are saying collapses to the following: "I am right and everyone else is wrong". Furthermore, you have failed to establish why "species progression" is the most important thing to care about, other than by the circularity of "because it is what I care about" and therefore "it is the only thing that matters" and therefore "it is the most important thing that matters".

>Bottom line is: Religion is good for helping ignorant/weak people back on their feet, but bad for progression of our species as a whole.

Again, you're just saying things. Soren Kierkegaard would disagree.

And, again, Kant.

Also, in reply to your edit of "I think you're just looking for someone to get defensive on this topic so you can provoke a reaction", this is incorrect. I'm just tired of edgelords like you posting your angsty bullshit and using existentialism as justification when you have clearly read no existentialism. I don't really care anymore though. I've said my piece, and I've already unsubscribed from this sub.

Existentialism isn't just one single "belief" or "school" or whatever. But it's concerned with the questions of what meaning, if any, our lives have or can have. That is the core concern--these "existential" questions (pertaining to our existence). When it comes to so-called Existentialist writers, I think that Nietzsche is my favorite (though when he was around "Existentialism" had not yet been named). Yeah, Nietzsche is my favorite by far. Kierkegaard is also considered an early "Existentialist" and he comes up with some great insights especially into psychology but I just can't stomach his "leap of faith" idea. Perhaps the most famous Existentialist (and who actually claimed to be an Existentialist) was Jean-Paul Sartre. I disagree with him on human nature though. His idea was that human nature is not determined at all, that we are absolutely free to therefore determine our own nature as we live, make choices, etc. I think that modern science bears out the falsity of his "existence precedes essence" view here.

Anyway, I would recommend The Basic Writings of Existentialism, found here . It contains various excerpts from some of the major Existentialists. It's what got me introduced to it.

As for your friend, I just have to say that a lot of us "philosophy types" are pretentious douchebags--or at least come across that way sometimes. I find myself slipping into that same thing from time to time. I must say that in philosophy, Existentialism is considered "weak philosophy." Especially in America and England most modern philosophers don't even bother with Existentialism at all. So your friend doesn't have that much to boast about, really. So he has some ideas on meaning in life? Great. And? It's not that great of an intellectual feat, really, to understand some of this stuff. He's just puffing himself up. That being said, Existentialism is what got me interested in philosophy to begin with. Anyhow, good luck.

i agree with many of your thoughts

the idea that happiness/success is the "unintended side effect" of pursuit has stuck with me ever since i read it

i think your definition of happiness is more correct as a definition as pleasure, and interestingly, if you look at the neurotransmitters involved (seratonin for happiness, dopamine for pleasure) it seems to fit this distinction

This is a good image to explain what I'm trying to talk about

Another thing to add to your readings, if you haven't come across it yet, is Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

Hi there! There's a lot of different types of philosophy, so it really depends on what you're interested in.

There's two big camps - analytic and continental - but they really boil down to logic and classical reasoning vs. more existential material. Analytic philosophy would try to prove the existence of god, while continental philosophy would talk about how the existence (or non-existence!) of god would impact your life.

All that being said, I would recommend an intro to philosophy book like this. A lot of classic philosophical writers tend to be hard to read and convoluted. I'd recommend getting an intro to phil book and finding what interests you, then going from there.

I found this invaluable and more importantly interesting more so because of the author. Full of blow your socks off introductory historic philosophy revelations, the audio book is good as well. https://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Western-Philosophy-Routledge-Classics-ebook/dp/B000P0JNBM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1510338972&sr=8-2&keywords=a+history+of+western+philosophy&dpID=51VQ2spJ2ML&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

Also actually read Carl Jung. I love this book, highly recommended.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Earth-Has-Soul-C-G-Jungs-Technology/dp/1556433794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510339935&sr=8-1&keywords=the+earth+has+a+soul&dpID=51XeWeHXucL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

Nothing really, you can go right to it. But it's not light reading and might not resolve your concerns, especially if Man's Search for Meaning didn't immediately help. What Frankl offers in that book is basically a patronus. Not that Harry Potter isn't a way of life but it's not a rigorous framework either. It's a charm in your pocket, if you can find one that's strong enough to withstand scrutiny and repeated use.

Because of your other questions The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. It gets to the heart of the question.

r/existentialsupport

Why not start with the #1 NY Times best seller for non-fiction for 2016:
At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails.
https://www.amazon.com/Existentialist-Caf%C3%A9-Cocktails-Jean-Paul-Merleau-Ponty/dp/1590514882/.

I read it an loved it.

Another good place to start is Robert Solomon's lecture series: No Excuses
No Excuses: Existentialism and the Meaning of Life
http://www.audible.com/pd/Nonfiction/No-Excuses-Existentialism-and-the-Meaning-of-Life-Audiobook/B00DDY7SWS

Who Rules the World? – Noam Chomsky

Siddhartha– Herman Hesse

The Way of Zen– Alan Watts

Dropping Ashes on the Buddha

The Platform Sutra of Huineng

Dogen on Meditation and Thinking

Essays in Zen Buddhism by DT Suzuki

Lyrical and Critical Essays- Albert Camus

The Myth of Sisyphus- Albert Camus

The Metamorphosis- Franz Kafka

The Stranger- Albert Camus

The Rebel- Albert Camus

Man's Search for Meaning- Viktor Frankl

On The Advantages and Disadvantages of History for Life- Nietzsche

Frankenstein– Mary Shelley (Surprising, but highly existential)

Nausea– Jean-Paul Sartre

The Awakening- Kate Chopin

Candide- Voltaire

The Gateless Gate (Mumonkan)

Couldn't get all the PDF's at the moment, but just google the name of the book and then "PDF" for a potential online copy. Highly recommend all of these– Frankenstein and The Myth of Sisyphus are must in general. Alan Watts is great for synthesizing Zen thought as well.

HEY! EVERYTHING IS ALRIGHT!
I've gone through bouts of similar thought processes and usually it's pretty difficult to dig yourself. There's no one thing that anything can say to brighten the situation or your outlook. Still, this book helped me find a bit of focus and perspective (http://www.amazon.com/The-Defining-Decade-Twenties-Matter-And/dp/0446561754), though it has nothing to do with existentialism.

It can be a bit corny at times, but overall it offers some pretty practical advice.

Just had a look then, the copy in my course-reader is photocopied from an anthology type of thing called "Philosophical Writings (The Beauvoir Series". It's translated by a woman called Marybeth Timmermann and after a quick google I can confirm that you can get it on Amazon pretty easily.

Hope this helps!

Yep! "Letters From A Stoic" - https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Penguin-Classics-Lucius-Annaeus/dp/0140442103/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=letters+from+a+stoic&qid=1558561107&s=gateway&sr=8-3


Here is a fantastic audio recording of it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a5jDHyXXDw&list=PLzKrfPkpj5om1kEBj7c80cwjJ1JS78FL7

Camus was both an essay writer and a fiction author, so reading a piece of each is a good idea. The Stranger would be his best work of fiction to read, and "The Myth of Sisyphus" his best essay. It really lays out his ideas regarding the absurd. It usually appears in a book called The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Both books, especially the first, are in most libraries.
I haven't read Kierkegaard, but I've heard that Either/Or is both a simple read and puts his ideas on display. If you'd prefer to read it online, here's a link that I found.

there isn't a set definition rather a set of philosophers that have some existentialist theme in their writing. Check out Barrett but then do yourself a favor and check out the complete works themselves.