Talk:Existentialism/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Existentialism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

I removed a brief paragraph on Hesse's novel from the Early 20th Century section. If it needs to be mentioned, I think that's what the literature section is for. I admit, the same argument could be made out for Kafka (Dostoevsky at least directly influenced existential philosophy). In any case, I am not sure this is the right article to summarize the themes of Steppenwolf - we don't have paragraphs summarizing Nausea or The Stranger - and even if we were to do so, commentary would need to be supported by references to published critical opinion.

Perhaps I am wrong about this. I don't wish to appear to be removing material for purely negative reasons.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Clearly this has been a contentious issue, and one in which the contributors to this entry have invested no small effort or frustration, but the introduction to this article is inadequate. "Existential" and "existentialist" are right up there with "ironic" on the list of abused adjectives in contemporary discourse, but the curious layperson looking to get a sense of what existentialism "is" will here find more information about what it is not. The introduction is at stands is awfully short on concrete information. Surely a broad swath of non-existential(ist) philosophers can be said to have taken the human subject as the starting point for philosophical thought, and while existential philosophy is undeniably the "explicit conceptual manifestation of an existentialist attitude," the statement approaches tautology. One is left with the assertion that existentialism "begins with a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world," but where does it go from there? And to know that existential philosophers have often regarded academic philosophy as remote from human experience is to know something of the history of existentialism, but little of the thing itself. If I had never pursued a study of existential philosophers, this intro would be incomprehensible to me.

I think it would be worthwhile to articulate what we consider the signatory qualities of existentialism—the things we would say to our roommate when he asked what it was all about. I have only a dilettante's understanding of Heidegger, having mostly addressed the works of Sartre, Camus, Ortega, Husserl, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, so I don't feel qualified to start rewriting the introduction to my own notions. My question to you is: What are the important aspects of whatever can broadly be called Existentialism? If somebody just needs to know what the fudge it is, what do we tell them? Let's make a charitable list and winnow it down. It's embarrassingly difficult to find a rough-and-ready explanation of what existentialism is, and I think we have the opportunity to do something useful here. I'll start. In no particular order, I think that:

1) Existentialism emphasizes the problem of meaning in contemporary life. Existential philosophers often posit the absence of objective values as a fundamental aspect of human existence, either because they do not inhere in the universe (Camus, Sartre) or because we no longer believe in them (Nietzsche.) According to existentialism, human beings naturally seek meaning, so this apparent absence of meaning is vexing.

2) Human beings are possessed of agency—what is glibly called "radical freedom"—and this agency is scary, too. Existential philosophies often posit that "existence precedes essence," meaning that human nature and individual identities are not predetermined, but rather are the consequence (whether on a factual or conceptual level) of choices.

3) The combination of numbers 1 and 2 above has led many existentialist philosophers to conclude that human beings are responsible for creating meaning in their own lives.

4) Existentialism addresses itself to the experience of consciousness in the world, and generally does not posit viewpoints outside individual consciousness. In this way, it is significantly influenced by phenomenology.

5) Because of their emphasis on subjectivity, existential philosophies often place a high premium on individualism.

6) Existentialism emerged in the context of European fascism, World War II, and their aftermath.

That's what I've got, off the top of my head, while the chicken is grilling. What have y'all got? Where am I wrong? What have I failed to include? Help me out. We have the chance to settle one of the minor arguments of contemporary culture, here, and I think we should take it. Aptninja (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are constructive suggestions, although I think the intro as currently phrased does deal with your point that many philosophers start with the human subject. The existing intro is something of a compromise, and could probably be improved, although the huge disagreements among so-called existentialists are hard to paper over. I looked at a lot of introductory texts while discussing that intro, and most do solve the problem either by refusing any neat definition of existentialism or excluding some existentialists from consideration. One massive problem is that the facile claim that existentialists believe human beings are free to create their own values is something by no means all existentialists believe. Specifics:

• I agree with the first sentence of 1), but the rest is hard to square with the views of the religious existentialists.
• I think 2) is fine, but hard to express simply.
• 3) is only acceptable if Kierkegaard, Shestov, Berdyaev, Unamuno, Buber et al are excluded.
• As for 4), only some existentialists were influenced by phenomenology: obviously, major works were written in complete ignorance of Husserl. And I don't think it's feasible to deal with phenomenology in a neat, concise introduction.
• 5), yes, but 6) just isn't true - look at the history in the article.

So I am being a bit negative, as usual, but maybe the existing intro can be improved with some of the ideas in 1) and 2) above?

This is what I'd do with the existing intro:

Existentialism is a term that has been applied to the work of a number of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences, took the human subject — not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual - as a starting point for philosophical thought. Existential philosophy typically begins with a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world lacking in objective values. Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.

KD Tries Again (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I had written something here earlier before I updated firefox, which made me loose all the text. This was very exasperating at the time, so I just put it off until now. The gist of it, however, was that considering things from a layman's perspective doesn't mean "adjusting the text to conform with the layman's perspective," but may as well amount to an attempt to disappoint the layman: If the layman came here expecting "existentialism" to be a monolithic thing, he should be disappointed; he should be told he was wrong in his beliefs, and that the truth is that the term "existentialism" either has to be "the existentialism of X" or a very general and heterogeneous concept. As it wouldn't be particularly "fair" to exclude everyone but Sartre (who is one of the few who explicitly embraced the term) in a wiki article on this, we have to settle for naming diversity and disagreement as the unifying principles. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and certainly one of the attributes common to "existential" philosophers is their refusal to identify themselves as existentialists. I don't think it's the only unifying principle we can identify, though. Without pandering to the layman's desire to simplify a diverse group of philosophers into some popularly imagined unity, how much positive information can we offer? Surely there are some criteria by which a philosophy can be said to be "existentialist" or "not existentialist." If we resign ourselves to diversity and disagreement being the only unifying principles, then by our definition "existentialism" could refer to any philosophy. I'm still optimistic that we can pick out a few commonalities among the philosophies we're addressing.

KD, you raise a lot of good points, and I appreciate your helping me keep my unsubstantiated assertions on the Talk page rather than the entry. Regarding #1, can we responsibly say that the existentialists emphasized "the individual's search for meaning?" That will cover both the atheists and the theists (especially, I guess, Viktor Frankl) and address, obliquely, the idea I clumsily articulated in #3. As for expressing #2 a little more succinctly, how about: "Existential philosophers emphasize human freedom and the role it plays in constructing individual identity." I think you're right that phenomenology is too thorny to address in the intro. Your comment also leads me to wonder whether my assumptions about which philosophers are existentialists and which are properly regarded as influences on existentialism differ from consensus here. I guess I regarded Kierkegaard, for example, as a pre-existentialist or an influence on later existential philosophers. Consensus seems to hold that he, Nietzsche and other pre-20th century philosophers should be considered existentialists, so #6 just isn't accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Zeitgeist, what's a mark of an existentialist for you? KD, what are we forgetting to include? Anybody else want to weigh in? Aptninja (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Existentialism" as a term for a school of philosophy was taken up by the media immediately after WW2. This is true. It was then retroactively applied, especially by Jean Wahl, to Heidegger and Jaspers (who had written about existenz) and to Kierkegaard. Philosophers influenced by Kierkegaard - most of whom were, unlike Sartre and Camus, religious thinkers - were then labelled existentialist too. Some adopted the term, others didn't. That's essentially the sequence of events. The existing intro does point out a couple of things these thinkers have in common. If you want to add something about the individual's search for meaning, no objection here. It's hard to say anything more precise, though, when treating these disparate philosophers as a genuine group. As I've said before, it's a different matter with the Phenomenologists or the Logical Positivists or the Pragmatists, who knew each other and each others' work and consciously shared beliefs and objectives. Existentialism was a retrospectively (and clumsily) created movement. Sartre hardly ever refer to Kierkegaard. Camus treats Kierkegaard and Shestov at some length in Sisyphyus - for the purpose of attacking and rejecting their positions.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

As an interested layman trying to grasp what is meant by extistentialism, let me offer an observation on the discussion so far. First, thank you for the effort to solve this problem! It seems that the diverse uses of the term makes it difficult to make statements that are precise enough to be useful. Would it be possible to find a common philosphical feature within each of a few subgroups based on "who called them existensialists". You have the ones who originated the philosophy before it had a name. You have the ones who later used the term about themselves (ironically? to seem hip? because they liked having a taxonomic home within philosophy?--sorry, just having fun thinking of vain existentialists). Finally, those who were later identified as existentialists by the popular press--despite them being quite different from the other groups. Phytism (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, that would be something along these lines?

"Existentialism became famous as the philosophy associated with Jean-Paul Sartre and his circle in the years following the Second World War. It stated that human beings found themselves thrown into an apparently meaningless, absurd world lacking objective values, but attributed to them the freedom to make choices in order to give their own lives meaning. This philosophical position was claimed to derive from the eighteenth century thinker Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard, however, and the religious 'existentialists' who followed him - unlike Sartre - found meaning not through their own actions but through faith in God."

That's a really rough draft, but does it seem better to anyone? If so, we can work on it.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I'm only a layman, but perhaps this gets closer to the goal of a lead comprehensible to the layman: "Existentialism is a philosophy associated with Jean-Paul Sartre and his circle, who wrote in the years following the Second World War. It states that the world and the things in it have no meaning, but that humans have the freedom to make choices in order to give their own lives, and the rest of the world, meaning. This philosophical position was claimed to derive from the eighteenth century thinker Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard, however, and the religious 'existentialists' who followed him - unlike Sartre - found meaning not through their own actions but through faith in God." As an aside, if there are still serious scholars who claim the "philosophical position" derives from Kierkegaard, then it should read "is sometimes claimed" or something of that sort. -Rrius (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I like this introduction. I can clearly get the gist of Sartre's philosophy and how it is distinct from Kierkegaard's. I encourage you to make this change and to address with all the exceptions, nuances and debates in the subsequent parts of the article. Thanks! Phytism (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

---

"Existentialism refers to a broad set of various philosophies and lifeviews that emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries which focuses on questions regarding the individual and its existence and personal responsibilties. Søren Kierkegaard, posthumously regarded as the father of existentialism, maintained that the individual has the sole responsibility of creating meaning and acheiving selfhood for him or herself, in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, choice, boredom, and death. Subsequent existential philosophies retains the emphasis on the existing individual, but differ in varying degrees on how individuals can achieve selfhood, what constitutes selfhood, as well as what external and internal factors are involved, including the existence or non-existence of God."

Kierkegaard's actual phrase is a fully realized human being, with a task of becoming itself. But I like selfhood as an simple abbreviation. "thrown into an apparently meaningless, absurd world lacking objective values" is false for theistic variations. The intro above is inclusive and applies both to theistic and atheistic variations of existentialism. Poor Yorick (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Three good suggestions, right there—I feel like we're moving toward something that is a little more instructive and still responsible. Rrius, I'm concerned that your introduction places undue emphasis on Sartre—who is my personal favorite, but not a person I feel comfortable making the center of what we're talking about. Yorick, I like the thrust of your intro, but I think it inadvertently creates the impression that the term "existentialism" was contemporaneous with Kierkegaard. I'm also not comfortable making him the father of existentialism; one could probably make an equally strong argument for the influence of Nietzsche, for example. Since both men get a lot of play in the article proper, I think it's better if we don't try to identify a primogenitor in the introduction. Here's my crack at it:

"Existentialism" is a term that emerged after World War II to refer to the work of a disparate group of 19th- and 20th-century philosophers. Existentialism is neither a unified doctrine nor a school of philosophy, but the philosophers called "existentialist" often address common themes, particularly the individual's search for meaning in contemporary life. Existential philosophers emphasize human freedom and the role it plays in constructing individual identity. Because of their common emphasis on subjectivity, existential philosophies often place a high premium on individualism. Ironically, many of the philosophers commonly described as "existentialists" refused to identify themselves as such, and the term has as much popular resonance as it does scholarly value.

What do you think? I wanted to make sure I addressed Zeitgeist's well-founded objection to presenting existentialism as a monolithic, capital-E thing. Conspicuously absent is the broad division that can be made between theist and atheist existentialists, which I think is important but would make the intro a lot more cumbersome. I'm shooting for efficiency, here. How far off am I? Aptninja (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I just took KD's attempt and translated it into something a lay person would understand. As a lay person myself, there isn't much I can do in terms of substantive changes. The trouble with the various versions I have seen is that they give the reader too much credit. When throwing a new bit of philosophy at someone, it is helpful to dial back on the vocabulary a bit. Also, it may be important to note that the school is not monolitic, but that should be handled in a second paragraph. Readers need to know what existentialism is before learning what it isn't. For example, "Existential philosophers emphasize human freedom and the role it plays in constructing individual identity" is pretty dense for someone who doesn't know what existentialism is. What is meant by "human freedom"? If it something akin to free will, a term more like that should be used. For most people the term "human freedom" is going to sound more like political freedom, which makes its relation to "constructing individual identity" a bit vague. Does it mean "Existential philosophers believe the individual alone has the power to define himself"? What of the concept that nothing has any meaning except that which each of us gives it? I swear I've been told that is part of existentialism. If it's true, that level of rejection of inherent meaning should probably be in the lead. -Rrius (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to address existentialism's lack of cohesion early because so many of the so-called existentialists either specifically denied it (Camus) or died before the term was invented (Kierkegaard.) Existentialism is a thing the way Grunge is a thing—useful as a way of referring to a big blurry group of people that are definitely all kind of up to something, but also trendy and reductive in a way that makes people not want to be associated with it. Ideally, we could define the term enough that you can't just call everything "existential," but without pretending to a specificity or ideological unity that existentialism doesn't have. For me, at least, an important part of existentialism is the refusal of many philosophers to call themselves existentialists. As Robert Solomon and Walter Kaufmann have pointed out, such behavior fits with the spirit of the philosophies.

Good point re: "human freedom." How about "individual freedom," as in, "Existential philosophers emphasize individual freedom and the importance of free choice in the creation of identity."? I'm trying to capture the notion that "existence precedes essence," which I think is very important, without putting it in exclusively Sartrean terms. As for the idea that "nothing has any meaning except that which each of us gives it," I think you're mistaken. While a lot of the atheist existentialists suggest that meaning does not inhere in the world, the theists—most prominently Kierkegaard—argue pretty much the opposite. I think the notion you're getting at is encompassed by the assertion that existentialism emphasizes "the individual's search for meaning." Both the theists and the atheists agreed that finding and/or creating meaning was a definitive task of being human. Aptninja (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely some good and constructive suggestions here. I agree of course that "existentialism" is a ragbag term. The emphasis on Sartre does make some historical sense, as the term was really taken up for the purpose of designating Sartre, his circle, and the contemporary Parisian "scene." I fear, however, that making him the center of the intro is just asking for a Heidegger fan to come along and try to rewrite it. A bigger technical problem, for me, is the emphasis (in some suggestions) on individuals freely creating meaning for themselves. The theists didn't believe that - I don't think even Kierkegaard's emphasis on subjectivity implies that - for them, meaning is achievable if at all through surrender to God (put crudely).KD Tries Again (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The theists believed that individuals must create meaning for themselves and take responsibility for that before God, not to surrender it to God. Kierkegaard's phrase, as I return again, is to become a true self or to achieve selfhood. Here's what Storm writes about it:

The theistic existentialist also emphasizes the individual and personal responsibility—but the individual before God. The existence of a moral system given to us by God in no way limits our responsibility and necessity to live our own lives with intelligence and volition. Theistic existentialism recognizes the chaotic and ferocity in man, and presents it to God for forgiveness, healing, and strength. This is not an abdication of responsibility. In fact, God requires that we make choices, and he honors them. [1]

As for Kierkegaard being the father of existentialism; well, so many modern books reference that to be so [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Poor Yorick (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to get the feeling that any attempt defining existentialism is a part of great metaphysical joke that I don't get because I didn't take philosophy. Anyway, the best I can do is give you folks an outline for what we the laymen need, and hope it comes out well. The first sentence should say something to the effect of, "Existentialism is X," or "Existentialism is a loosely defined school of philosophy that is difficult to define because of its diversity." If the latter, the next sentence should say something like, "One way of explaining it is X." I am resigned at this point to the idea that X will equal something unintelligible to the average reader because of the disparate nature of the field. The very next sentence, though, should say, "More simply put..." Bear in mind that it is often necessary to sacrifice accuracy for simplicity. If X would not appeal to some existentialists, explain why in the last sentence of the paragraph. The next paragraph should say, "Kierkegaard is widely regarded as the father of existentialism ... World War II ... encompasses theistic and atheistic philosophers ... many philosophers generally considered existentialist don't/didn't consider themselves existentialists. -Rrius (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Existentialism is X
"Existentialism refers to a broad disparate set of various philosophies and lifeviews that emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries which focuses on questions regarding the individual and its existence and personal responsibilties."

Pretty sure individuality, existence, and responsibility are three mostly uncontentious commonalities of existential philosophies.

One way of explaining X
The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, posthumously regarded as the father of existentialism, maintained that the individual has the sole responsibility of creating meaning and acheiving true selfhood for him or herself, in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, choice, boredom, and death.

Wrote "posthumously" because Kierkegaard became the father of existentialism after his death, thanks to 20th century existentialists retroactively including him in the canon as the first existentialist.

Sickness Unto Death, Concept of Anxiety, Either/Or, explain the need for existing individuals to have the "task of becoming itself in freedom", overcoming despair, angst, et al.

Other ways of explaining X
Subsequent existential philosophers retain the emphasis on the subjective individual, but differ, in varying degrees, on how individuals can achieve selfhood, what constitutes selfhood, what obstacles individuals must overcome, and what external and internal factors are involved, including the existence or non-existence of God."

how individuals can achieve selfhood / what constitutes selfhood - Dasein? Authentic individual? Throwness? Humanism?

what obstacles individuals must overcome - tempted to suicide? bad faith? absurdity? nihilism? anguish?

what external and internal factors are involved - what counts as faciticity, the Other/Crowd/Herd? Gender relations?

Very brief history
Existentialism became fashionable in the post-World War years as a way to reassert the importance of human individuality and freedom. However, many existential philosophers did not consider themselves existentialists as they did not want to be associated to or typecast with another thinker's implementation of existentialism.

Most famously Heidegger using the Letter on Humanism to prevent being typecasted with Sartrean Existentialism

That's my two cents! Poor Yorick (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a few points to make. Firstly, I don't think it's a good idea to "fix" the term "existentialism" in terms of time (I'm pretty sure Kierkegaard writes about "existential philosophy" at some point, but I cannot for the life of me find the exact place, so...). That would also help with the "Kierkegaard as father" problem: Saying that the concept originated after the war is, although not completely, akin to saying that existentialism proper is Sartre's existentialism. If we are to take the fact that many so-called existentialists have denied being existentialists (and that the term itself mainly is a matter of convenience) seriously, there is no point in calling one man the father and another the mother; Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as well as Pascal and others who have been mentioned can be considered existentialist or as having existentialist tendencies without favouring one to the other (a move that necessarily will be one of personal preference). That they were some of the earliest doesn't make them the ultimate source of anything existentialist that succeeded them.

I didn't say the concept originated after the war, I wrote that the concept became fashionable after the war; the concept was posthumously originated in Kierkegaard. Existentialism in terms of time isn't all that either, but that's how it's been used by so many respected texts on existentialism. Poor Yorick (talk)

On the issue of meaning, it's quite clear from Kierkegaard that there is no meaning to be found in the world. What is prescribed as the "solution" isn't "surrender to god," but the leap of faith: According to Kierkegaard, faith, not the supposedly objective existence of god, is the only thing that can "save" a person. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, Kierkegaard's faith solution isn't shared by the atheist existentialists no doubt, but his analysis of the problem (that we are inauthentic selves needing to become a true self) is shared by the existentialists. However, subsequent existential philosophers ... differ, in varying degrees, on how individuals can achieve selfhood...

A few points:

• Remember, this is about verifiability rather than truth. Reliable sources overwhelmingly emphasize Kierkegaard as the origin of modern existentialism (personally, I don't agree, but there you go). I think he has to be picked out as the key precursor.
• The claim that theistic existentialists do not abdicate responsibility before God is controversial. Camus accuses them of precisely that in Sisyphus. I think Shestov would find the idea of an individual creating his or her own meaning ridiculous.
• The preponderance of sources trace the term "existentialism" (l'existentialisme) to Marcel circa 1943. Care must be taken when terms like "existential" and "existentialist" are found in English translations of earlier writers (such as Kiekegaard), because in some cases it's put there by the modern translator.
• I think the best way to continue this would be for someone who thinks they can put a draft together to start a new section with that draft so we can comment on it.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

OK, this got confusing now, as Poor Yorick seems to have commented in-between. Keep comments at the end.

Theistic existentialists may have been criticised for abdicating responsibility, but it's quite clear that in Kierkegaard, at least, responsibility and guilt is _multiplied_ in the face of god. Faith in god helps one to go on living, but it cannot ever relieve you of your responsibility. One may, of one's own free will, submit to the will of god, but as with Abraham in Fear and Trembling, there's just no way to relieve yourself of the responsibility and angst that goes with doing so: There is no sign of god anywhere. Even though I'm an atheist myself, I find the objection that one abdicates one's responsibilities to god, at least in Kierkegaard's case, unsatisfying. I also find many parallels between the theistic and the atheistic solutions, and even atheism requires a leap of faith (not because religion is somehow the "primary condition," but because _every_ choice of life-view is a leap of faith.

Kierkegaard and existence: I read Kierkegaard in Danish, and he uses "eksistens" to talk about the human being. He also writes something about eksistens-philosophie or something like that (it vexes me that I cannot find it) somewhere. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, personal responsibility is commonality shared by both theistic and atheistic existentialists. As for SK, are you referring to the Philosophical Fragments where he writes the phrase, essentia involvit existentiam? Danish English translation Poor Yorick (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's in Danish, I think, but I don't have the time to search through all the books now... Der Zeitgeist (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Existentialism refers to a broad disparate set of various philosophies and lifeviews that emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries which focuses on questions regarding the individual and its existence and personal responsibilties. The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, posthumously regarded as the father of existentialism, maintained that the individual has the sole responsibilities of giving one's own life meaning and living that life passionately and sincerely, in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, choice, boredom, and death. Subsequent existential philosophers retain the emphasis on the subjective individual, but differ, in varying degrees, on how one achieves and what constitutes a fulfilling life, what obstacles must be overcome, and what external and internal factors are involved, including the potential consequences of the existence or non-existence of God. Existentialism became fashionable in the post-World War years as a way to reassert the importance of human individuality and freedom. As such, many existential philosophers did not consider themselves existentialists as they did not want to be associated to or typecast with other philosophers' conception of existentialism.

I've replaced selfhood to make it a bit more lay. Poor Yorick (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Revised:

• Existentialism refers to a disparate set of various philosophical views that emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, focusing on questions regarding the human individual's existence and personal responsibilties. Existential philosophers differ, in varying degrees, on how one achieves and what constitutes a fulfilling life, what obstacles must be overcome, and what external and internal factors are involved, including the potential consequences of the existence or non-existence of God. Existentialism became fashionable in the post-World War years as a way to reassert the importance of human individuality and freedom.

The main cut, obviously, is Kierkegaard. I see why you want to mention him, in order to introduce certain themes, but I have some problem with the way his thought is characterised. As I've already said, SK doesn't just talk about the responsibility of the subject in general, but quite specifically in relation to the leap of faith. The suggested version makes it sound like SK would support a subject taking responsibility for his or her own atheism. I'm also not sure that free will and death count as distractions. Thoughts?74.64.107.49 (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Free will and death are obstacles, the former was characterized by Sartre as a condemnation of freedom, by Kierkegaard as regret either way; the latter is the end of one's existence which means the end of one's values, which Kierkegaard says must be factored in as an account of selfhood; I believe Heidegger also mentions death as important as well. Kierkegaard in fact does support a subject taking responsibility for atheism, if that's what one really wants to do, if that is indeed the truth that is true for him. We all know about SK's distinction between praying to an idol passionately and praying to the true God insincerely. The former has a more appropriate relationship to the truth than the latter. But more specifically, in his pamphlets against the Danish Church, he calls for honesty: if you live an atheist life, then declare that you do, and don't pretend you're a "Christian". Again, the issue of taking responsibility for oneself is paramount for Kierkegaard. Poor Yorick (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I want honesty. If that is what the human race or this generation wants, if it will honorably, honestly, openly, frankly, direct rebel against Christianity, if it will say to God, "We can but we will not subject ourselves to this power" - but note that this must be done honorably, honestly, openly, frankly, directly- very well then, strange as it may seem, I am with them; for honesty is what I want, and wherever there is honesty I can take part. An honest rebellion against Christianity can only be made when a man honestly confesses what Christianity is, and how he himself is related to it. - Attack upon Christendom, March 31, 1855

Free will and death are certainly neither obstacles nor distractions. In fact, they are fundamentally things that induce angst, and which one attempts to distract oneself from, by applying other distractions. When it comes to Kierkegaard, his religiosity is more of an appeal than a requirement, and the only obligation (fordring) is to become oneself. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, death denial certainly is a distraction. But, we can replace those two with other concepts from Kierkegaard's oeuvre, such as the Crowd, absurdity, alienation, abstraction, or double-mindedness. Becoming oneself is probably a must have for the intro, but since those two words probably aren't lay enough, living life passionately and sincerely would have to do. Poor Yorick (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

References to these two basic concepts of philosophical thought in relation with the conceptual framework of the existentialism have been left out from the article. In this respect the presentation of existentialism in a broader historic context would be better (its relation with other trends, especially the postmodern ones, e.g. deconstructivism, but also with the formers like cartesian and kantian philosophy), so i like this comment to be an example for this more general suggestion.

As Heidegger pointed out the existentialism indicates a shift in emphasis from epistemology to ontology in philosophical thought. In a broader concept this means that the existentialism claims that philosophy should deal with issues of fundamental questions of (human) being rather than problems of cognition, because our fundamental concepts of the former determines our epistemic knowledge. (Heidegger argues in its lectures - published in English under the title: What is called thinking? - that our way we thought is dominated by our ontical concept of being, i.e. on the distinction of "ontic" and "being".)In conclusion, an expressly articulated reference to the significance of ontology regarding existentialism would be - in my opinion - crucial in the article.

In accordance with this - although it has a bit lower importance - the epistemology of existentialism could be also discussed in the article. I think of issues such as the theory of the dichotomy of subject/object (Jaspers), and the influence of Schopenhauer in this respect. (By the way, the role of Schopenhauer within the development of existential thought could be mentioned too.) The subjectivist and idealist characteristics of existential (epistemic) thought could be also expressly highlighted by using these general terms and referring to their dialectic counterparts.

(I sorry if my wording was not proper, but i am a very newly registered - and not an English speaking - user, and don't know exactly how to post my proposals.)

--Prospero85 (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it seem to anyone else that this section is both unnecessary to the understanding of existentialism and a contribution to biasing the article towards Sartre? Isn't it enough that it's linked in the "External links" section, or possibly that we add a link to the wiki article on it in the "See also" section? Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's completely unnecessary.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

My answer would be: Choices are unavoidable & need to be made. We have no certainty upon which to base our choices, but must make them anyway. Our choices determine our character.

I think Kierkegaard, Sartre & Camus all fit in with this --JimWae (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, choices, and taking responsibilty for those choices are important for existentialists. Poor Yorick (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My answer would be: Choices are unavoidable & need to be made. We have no certainty upon which to base our choices, but must make them anyway. Our choices shape our character.

I think that covers central themes in Kierkegaard, Nietsche, Sartre & Camus - maybe not Heidegger (who probably gets to be called an existentialist mainly because Sartre followed through on some of his terminology). I hesitate to call this existentialism's contribution, because I am not sure it originated with existentialism, but it was the the direction in which they worked --JimWae (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Existentialism has many more contributions, but you're right, their contribution on chice is that choices shape character. As Kierkegaard writes, "our lives always expresses the result of our dominant thoughts" Poor Yorick (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think saying Existentialism is "about human existence" is vague, & does little to distinguish it from anything else - unless some claim is made that it was a turn away from things that were not "about human existence". That claim *was* probably made, at least as hyperbole -- something like the arts crowd that might claim science, logic, and math are "irrelevant to the human condition" --JimWae (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I took another stab at the intro:

"...despite profound doctrinal differences, took the human subject — not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual and his or her conditions of existence (e.g. death, loneliness)— as a starting point for philosophical thought."

Changed to:

"...despite profound doctrinal differences, all held that the focus of philosophical thought should be dealing with the emotions, actions, and thoughts of the individual person and his or her conditions of existence (e.g. death, loneliness)."

If I didn't know what existentialism was, the first intro might have screwed me up. It makes it sound like existentialism is just psychology and zoology. The point of existentialism is "let's figure out how to deal with the fact that we have emotions, thoughts, actions and conditions."--Louiedog (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty good, I'll also add responsibilities of the individual person as well. Poor Yorick (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that the intro is relatively stable, I did change "all held" to "generally held" because what follows isn't remotely true of Heidegger, and not very clearly true of Shestov or Buber for different reasons.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I just reverted the intro to the stable version. Editors seeking to rewrite it should be aware that the current version is supported by citation: it's not appropriate to just rewrite the text and leave the citations as they are, because the citations will not necessarily support the revised text. Why not discuss changes here?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Lou, P.U., I have shortened and changed the order of the 1st sentence of the intro without changing its meaning or references in order to say first, what the term means, and only then, by whom, as the encyclopedias do, resulting in:

Existentialism is a current of philosophy focused on the conditions of existence of the individual person and his or her emotions, actions, responsibilities, and thoughts[1][2], that was shared by a number of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers despite profound doctrinal differences[3][4].

I hope you like the removal of empty phrases. --71.247.231.74 (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are against consensus and unhelpful, and have been reverted. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to prove it by showing such conflicting consensus? You accused me of vendalism ("02:30, 17 November 2009 RepublicanJacobite Reverted 1 edit by 71.247.231.74 identified as vandalism to last revision by RepublicanJacobite"), but a Wikipedia's policy does not support your claim. Would you be less arbitrary, please? --71.247.231.74 (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As a layman reader, I find the Dec. 17, 2009 version to be both readable and comprehensible. I thin it is the same as the the Nov. 16 one. I encourage the stability suggested by KD above. Phytism (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The pictures at the top don't seem entirely appropriate since the people in question are important as precursors to existentialism, not for being existentialists themselves. It would probably be better for the most famous existentialists to be there instead. Munci (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Sartre invented existentialism, yet his picture is a few pages down. BurningZeppelin (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guys. I think there are a few usage errors in the current introduction that can be corrected without affecting the larger meaning of the work. Rather than start editing without consulting the regulars on this page, I wanted to post my proposed changes here and make sure they meet with general approval. My version follows with a list of the corrections made. Let me know what you think.

Existentialism is a term applied to the work of a number of 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who, despite significant doctrinal differences,[1][2] generally held that the focus of philosophical thought should be on the conditions of existence of the individual person and his or her emotions, actions, responsibilities, and thoughts.[3][4] The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, posthumously regarded as a father of existentialism,[5][6] maintained that the individual is solely responsible for giving his or her own life meaning and living that life passionately and sincerely,[7][8] in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom.[9] Subsequent existential philosophers retained this emphasis on the individual, but differed on how one achieves and what constitutes a fulfilling life, what obstacles must be overcome, and what external and internal factors are involved, including the potential consequences of the existence[10][11] or non-existence of God.[12][13] Many existentialists also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience in both style and content.[14][15] Existentialism became fashionable in the years after World War II as a way to reassert the importance of human individuality and freedom.[16]

Changed: “profound doctrinal differences” to “significant doctrinal differences”—My first edit is probably the most arbitrary. It’s hard to overstate the breadth and depth of disagreement among the philosophers called existentialists, but “profound” implies foundational. I think we group them together because they are similar at a profound level.

“focus of philosophical thought should be to deal with the conditions...” to “focus of philosophical thought should be on the conditions”—correct idiomatic agreement

“19th century” to “19th-century”

“regarded as the father of existentialism” to “regarded as a father of existentialism”—Nitpicky, but I think one can argue that Nietzsche and other thinkers also made significant contributions. I am the Maury Povich of continental philosophy.

“individual solely has the responsibilities of giving one’s” to “individual is solely responsible for giving his or her”—Omit unnecessary words and correct pronoun usage

“Subsequent existential philosophers retain” to “Subsequent existential philosophers retained”—correct tense shift

“but differ” to “but differed”—Ibid

Omit “in varying degrees”—avoid redundancy

“Many existentialists have also regarded” to “Many existentialists also regarded”—correct tense shift

“philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience” to “philosophy as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience in both style and content”—avoid split prepositional phrase

“the post-World War years” to “years after World War II”—correct ambiguity and avoid awkward hyphenation

Aptninja (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look too bad, for the most part: Changing profound to significant makes a lot of sense. However, when it comes to Kierkegaard, "one could argue" doesn't change the fact that he _is_ regarded the father of existentialism, and that Nietzsche, while influential, has been less important in a purely existential context.

Then you have a few changes where you seem to put all existential philosophers in the past ("subsequent existential philosophers retained"), which just isn't true.

"In both style and content": I'm not sure about this, of course, and I'm not a native speaker of English, but it doesn't seem like the sentence becomes any better by doing what you did to it; it seems to include too much in one single breath, if you catch my drift. In addition, it seems to "hide" the dissonance, in a way: It first seems like _philosophy_ is too remote, and not the current philosophy's _style or content_, and when style and content enters into the picture towards the end, it seems like one could just as well change the style and content of concrete human life as one could change philosophy. Perhaps simply switching the "in both style and content" to "both in style and content" could help it a bit, both as it stands, with the commas, and as it would be in the other version should others agree with you that it is better.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of those changes will improve the introduction greatly and are welcome. My reservations: I agree with Der Z. that Kierkegaard is regarded as the father of existentialism, despite other contributions. I would prefer to keep "profound" because the split between religious and non-religious existentialism does seem to me to be foundational and is one of the real problems in writing a cohesive article on the subject. I think there's a good reason for the "style and content" phrase - it literally means just that: existentialist philosophy is opposed to "academic" philosophy as much in terms of style of presentation as doctrines.

One further suggestion - the article used to say that existentialism is "the term applied to", which I think is better than "a term applied to..."KD Tries Again (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

- Profound or Significant: I'm with KD on this one; theist and atheist variations are quite divisive. Anything specific to either variation ought to mentioned in the respective article: Christian existentialism and atheist existentialism; this article ought to focus on what is common to both strands.

- "in varying degrees" - This phrase indicates and reinforces the fact, there are not only minor differences, but even "profound" differences on how each thinker views their existential philosophy.

- As with Der Z and KD, Kierkegaard is overwhelmingly regarded as _the_ father of existentialism by reliable sources.

- Agree with Der Z on present tense.

-"in both style and content": What about:

Many existentialists have also regarded the style and content of traditional systematic or academic philosophy as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience. Poor Yorick (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

To be frank, it's a mess. There's at least five films listed that are based on novels, and David Lynch is listed as under literature when he's more known for his film work. My problem is that there's a lot of films out there, the films of the French New Wave, the experimental/queer cinema films of Anger, Smith, and Warhol, the late 70's/early 80's No Wave Cinema from New York, etc. It would be best to list films that are not based on novels, and add a note in the literature section that many novels dealing with existential issues have been adapted into classic films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.201.251 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than listing many movies which might or might strike Wikipedia editors as "existentialist"(Warhol? Really?) my proposal would be to list only those where we can point to a reliable source describing them as "existentialist." That will keep the section tight.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It is often overlooked, but existentialism is a major Western current in Japanese philosophy of the 20th century. In particular I think some mention of Keiji Nishitani, who likely did the most to synthesize Zen and existentialism ought to be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.244.125 (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Existentialism is a term applied to the work of a number of 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences,[1][2] generally held that the focus of philosophical thought should be to deal with the conditions of existence of the individual person and their emotions, actions, responsibilities, and thoughts.

Obviously there is no way to comprehesively define the word in a single sentence, so I think the focus should rather be on making the first sentence one that would allow most laypeople (compared to students and/or accomplished scholars) to get some sense of the word. I've read the entire article twice and still feel like I haven't a clue, which makes me wonder if the author(s) had an adequate grasp of the word themselves.

Here's a short list:

1) "...doctrinal differences..." Do we really need to know about the fact that there were "doctrinal differences" before we even get the slightest sense of what the word "existentialism" means or applies to ?

2) "...generally held..." believed ? I think that a statement that starts with the word "generally" ought to have some simple and easy-to-understand concepts. What follows this word is generally ambiguous.

3) "...to deal with..." Deal with ? Negotiate ? Focus on ? Sounds like Phil Donahue wrote this definition. How does one "deal with" philosophy ?

4)"...emotions, actions, responsibilities, and thoughts..." Huh ? Did someone just string a bunch of words together, and adopt the "throw in the kitchen sink" strategy of defining this word ? What about ideas, goals, dreams, regrets, and idiosyncratic quirks ? Could they be on this list ?

5) My primary objection to this definition is that it seems to be a comparitive definition. Existentialism is the work of philosophers that "held" that "philosophical thought" should "deal" with (long list of abstract concepts that or may not have something to do with each other, and may also include many others that are not listed). Sounds like it's in comparison to the "work" of OTHER philosophers that believed in "something else". What was that "something else" ? And second, is existentialism ONLY the "work" of 19th and 20th philosophers ? Are there no modern-day existentialist ? Are they post-modern existentialist ? Does word only apply to the WORK, and to nothing other than the "work" ? What IS the "work" of a philosopher, anyways ?

See what happens ? Once the credibility of what should be a very straightforward definitions is lost, the ball of string comes completely unraveled. I have very little faith in ANYTHING the article says, due to the provoked reactions detailed above.

Jonny Quick (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

Of course you're right, and you are welcome to read the Talk Page archives which will show you the many months of argument and compromise which produced this introduction - an introduction which is slowly decomposing as editors come along and make thoughtless changes to it. It's also ridiculously weighed down by citations. Welcome to Wikipedia. I would be interested to know if you think this is better or worse?KD Tries Again (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

...that conceptually 'existence precedes essence' could be more apparently construed as 'manifestation is established before a sourcing of cohesive valuation or a volition set to its being prior to its meaning for a purpose.' ? 184.76.53.217 (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not me. Anyone?KD Tries Again (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Hahaha, I concur. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't touch this again, but maybe there's a way to make the first sentence of the intro a positive statement without introducing inaccuracy? This just juggles around an earlier version:

Existentialism is an approach to philosophy which begins with the human subject — not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual.[48] The term has been used to describe the work of a number of late 19th and 20th century philosophers, despite profound doctrinal differences.[46][47] In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.[49] Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.[50][51]

KD Tries Again (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Haha, you're probably right in that you shouldn't touch it again, and neither should I: I have far too much going on right now. This article makes it tempting to write a book on existentialism simply to be able to cite myself as a source... Anyway: To the suggestion.

The "approach"-approach kind of works, but the sentence seems awkward (mainly because of the apparent restriction that the concept to be defined has to be the first word of the article?)... and it seems to imply methodology? Can existentialism be a mode of philosophy? Der Zeitgeist (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A mode? I think it's almost a mood. An attitude? There must be a word for it.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Hmm... Outlook, stance, position, orientation, form..? "Way of doing philosophy?" "An attitude towards philosophy" actually works, but didn't we already do that a long time ago? "Existentialism is a philosophical approach to the human subject?" "A philosophical attempt to understand the human subject?" Is it the human subject or the human condition? "An attempt to understand the human condition from the point of view of the individual?" It's hard because the most accurate way of stating what existentialism is, is still to say that it's a term of convenience for grouping together philosophers with common themes. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree of course, but the intro is doomed to be forever edited by people with the preconceived idea that the first sentence must say what existentialism is.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

How about adding this to the intro, after polishing it?

Existentialists generally agree that man is completely free and his behavior is not restricted by any kind of determinism. He fails when he tries to find an objective meaning of life given externally to him. There are no values outside him which could tell how he should behave. This leaves him in anguish because he must no matter take decissions and act. Ultimately it's he who creates values and meaning as he makes choices and lives his life. He regards the world as absurd because of its lack of meaning and value.

Anna Lincoln 16:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe this section's tags can be removed: of course it can always be improved, but in my opinion the section is neutral, accurate, and does not require further authentication. Anna Lincoln 15:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The music subsection is terrible. Is there any reason that all of that unreferenced content should not simply be removed as unsubstantiated opinion? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It's gone. Zazaban (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well done. If someone finds a reliable source which describes, in some detail, the influence of existentialism on popular music, that'd be great. In the meantime, no loss. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite the controversy, I think this is extremely well-written. If only some of the anthropology pages (which brought me here) were half as clear, accessible, and relevant...

I have an anthropology degree from a top school, and can understand this page much better than the esoteric dribble they have up on those pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.130.156 (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that in much of the article, various persons' names are placed in boldface. Why? This seems both unnecessary and contradicted (by WP:MOS). I changed it in one paragraph, then saw that it was a major feature of the article. I am going to hold off removing the bold face throughout pending some type of explanation. 98.82.21.78 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like it is used to distinguish philosophers' names from book titles and fictional characters? However, I do not think such a distinction is necessary, nor that using bold is a good way of going about it, so for me it makes sense if you remove them. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Entirely my fault. It helped me keep track when I was editing those sections, but if it is contrary to WP:MOS it can go with no loss.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Existentialism|p00547h8}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Could we discuss this preference for existentialism being "a" term used to describe the philosophers in the article. It suggests there are other terms and this is just one of them. What are the other terms? It makes for a very odd first sentence, as if we could be discussing a variety of schools into which these thinkers fall, but just happened to pick this one. Adding: wow, I seem to have agreed with "a term" some months ago. Isn't "the term" better?KD Tries Again (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The issue is debatable - there probably are various terms that would be acceptable as synonyms of "existentialism" ("Philosophy of existence" in English perhaps, as well as various foreign-language equivalents). I therefore do not consider "the" an improvement over "a". Philosophy Teacher (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The bit about christianity seems a bit biased. I will rewrite it without bias if given permission, for I believe we should respect all religions equally. I am not trying to be heretical, far from it, but I believe we should write it with the assumption that Christ has not yet been proven to exist. 01:47, 5 December 2010

I've taken the liberty of relocating your message to the bottom of the talk page, which is the accepted practice. There are no "sins" on Wikepdia so one doesn't have to concern one's self with "heresy". There are, however, policies and guidelines which can be reviewed here. Touching on your main point; are you referring to the Existentialism and Christianity section? Tiderolls 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a glaring misrepresentation of Camus' understanding of Sysiphus under the "post war" section. The section says, "[regarding his endless task] Camus believes that this existence is pointless but that Sisyphus ultimately finds meaning and purpose in his task, simply by continually applying himself to it." Camus point isn't that we should find or invent meaning, in fact I think that would fit his criteria of "philosophical suicide," Camus believes that we should exist and thrive despite meaninglessness. I think this particular statement should be amended to more accurately portray Camus' worldview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pass-a-fist (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bad faith article needs help from available editors. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My edits were reverted.

• Explanations given for each (nonminor) edit as can be seen here[7], such as referring to WP:Use plain English.
• The minor addition to the lede, "meaning and purpose" (which is most dictionary definitions of existentialism) is from the RS content in the article body, so does not need further sourcing per MOS; also defining material should be in the first paragraph.
• All other addition of content had RS as can be seen here[8].

But all the work was reverted with explanation "No explanation or references offered for any of this." That is not true, as per the links provided above. PPdd (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It was late, and I was editing, clearly, without paying enough attention. My mistake. My concern, though, is that you made a great many changes, in a relatively short amount of time, with edit summaries I found vague (use plain English, for example). A more thorough explanation, here on the talk page, of your edits is preferable. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit summary style. The summaries were intended for comparing the diffs so other editors could check each step of my edits. I did them one at a time, with no other editors intervening, so when I was done, they were meaningles in comparing my overall edit diff. My mistake. Sorry. (My putting an explanation in the edit summary doesn't mean my edits were necessarily good ones, however, and my content should be checked.) PPdd (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did a complete rewrite on the bad faith article. I could use some help on making the "existentialism" section there more "plain English", since concepts like "authenticity" are hard for me to explain in one or two plain English sentences, without distorting them.

Even a minor tweak to make the bad faith article more readble by laypeople would be helpuful. PPdd (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede - Per MOS on lede – 1st sentence define. 1st paragraph define with more depth. Plain English, Avoid too much specificity, complex wording, and jargon. Lede summarizes article body

Suggested format for lede -

• (1) Plain English definition about existentialism in first sentence, e.g., meaning and purpose of life and subjective themes like freedom, angst, and ethics (not "collection of work of some philosphers with these themes, who do not all agree with each other, or the classification of their work as existentialism. The same can be said for any branch of philosophy, and does not do anything to define existentialism. SEP article is defective in this way, too).
• (2) First paragraph expanding first sentence, defining subject of article without specifics, listing topics (e.g., meaning or purpose of life, individual in the world, subjective vs objective knowledge, freedom, choice, guilt, angst, absurdity, ethics, etc.), not individuals or history.
• (3) Second paragraph major existentialist philosophers, one or two sentences each, with content, not history about them. (If just one is to be mentioned, Sartre is more appropriate than Kiek, and mention of one Protestant theist (Tillich), who only got one brief mention in the article body, is overly specific and violates WP:Undue, so should not happen- themes of existentialism are universal and independent of any one religion in one place, except for some historical things (a crisis over how a child-man can also be god? LOL.)
• (4) Third paragraph history (Christian theism and atheism can go here)
• (5) Fourth paragraph – contrast with other modern philosophy (continental vs. island philosophy), and more recent developments in existentialism; influence on other philosophy and other fields of study; reception. PPdd (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The lede, as it currently stands, is the result of much discussion and consensus. I suggest no major changes be made without discussion ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I opened this talk section. The existing lede is pretty good, better than SEP. The lede in the SEP article sucks. (I am friends with their chief editor, who wrote the "realism" article, which dsicusses bad faith as used in existentialism in a way I don't understand very well. My only exiswtentialism class was at Stanford, where I ended up staying post doc. We can do better than the SEP article with some hard work. PPdd (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sartre shuold be mentioned in the lede, with Kierk. PPdd (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are essential figures in Existentialism's origins. It is more appropriate to pair those two in the lede than add Sartre, who came much later. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is there nothing in the criticism section about genetics, which surely shows us that we are not truly free and there is such a thing as a predetermined essence?89.240.70.62 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

If we attempt to juxtapose existentialism to utilitarianism, we must ask ourselves: "What is the usefulness of pondering the meaning of life incessantly? Should not we work to achieve pleasure,happiness,comfort,provision of all our needs and wisdom independent of the fact that in certain instances life can become meaningless? About the absurdity of life we can ponder that it is this absurdity which compels us to give meaning to our lives in the face of absurdity. Absurdity then becomes the catalytic agent that forces us to seek something nobler than just mere existence.In a societal context if we can make the lives of those around us better that will give our lives meaning not to mention that we gain popularity and the good will of our fellow individuals to the point of earning recognition by our peers in the form of trophies , certificates and ceremonies designed to elevate us to superior status among all others.In the case of pragmatism we must ask ourselves: "what is the truth in this pondering about the meaning of existence?" or "How can we find truth in our philosophical divagations ". This becomes extremely important when we consider philosophies such as Ontology, Metaphysics, Theology and even religion. How can we explain the connection between spirit and matter? Are they connected at all? Or merely coexisting temporarily only to be separated again and again? What we cannot see is sometimes more real than what we can perceive. This fact becomes extremely disturbing specially when you study demonology. I refer you to the anecdote of the wind. You can not see the wind yet, you can FEEL it.Consider electricity, you can not perceive the movements of the electrons yet, you can benefit from the effects of these movements.We are discovering how to benefit from technologies which we do not fully understand. I refer you to atomic power. How can we harness the power of thunder and light our houses with it? In the consideration of solipsism we face absurdity once again. What compels us to believe that only we are real and everything around us is an illusion? What is the meaning of life if we believe that "Only I am real and everything and everybody else is like a projected image without concrete reality?" Consider this belief for a minute or two. Absurdity elevated to the nth potency. About suicide keeping on living in the face of extreme tragedy requires monumental and collosal courage and valor. In other words it takes guts to remain alive. Suicide is for the cowardly. God is the God of the brave. No one knows what is going to happen the next minute yet we keep on living. This requires faith. The ultimate purpose of life should be to learn. It is experience that makes us avoid costly mistakes.Epistemology will be discussed later.--76.18.50.67 (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for posting essays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.155.57.115 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrt to this passage, Jean-Paul Sartre, in his book on existentialism Existentialism is a Humanism, quoted Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov as an example of existential crisis. Sartre misattributes^{[citation needed]} Ivan Karamazov's claim, "If God did not exist, all things would be permitted,"^{[citation needed]} to Dostoevsky himself, this source says neither Dostoyevsky nor his character, Ivan, said exactly those words. Don't know how reliable the source is. Yopienso (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There is two movies with this name; which one is the existentialist one? In the reference associated, this movie is not present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbbinder (talk • contribs) 16:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)