*

+
/ WWW-Forum: Jaspers, Karl Forum Frigate / 3March04 /
/ Philosophy Forums > Intro to Philosophy-Factual questions /
.
             A Curious Convergence?
.
 The great English philosopher B.Russell held the view that
philosophy was an enterprise caught midway between religion
on one side and science on the other. This may indeed be so,
but Russell's empirical mind rebelled against the stupidities
and superstitions of religion. All his philosophical efforts
were spent in the (seemingly futile) search for certainty;
which could not be found in religion OR philosophy. As a
result Russell proposed that we should all have "faith" in
Science; presumably because there is at least some small
measure of certainty in the "assured results" of science.
.
 Now K.Jaspers rightly points out the contradiction involved
in this advice to have faith in science. Jaspers, I think,
would rather urge us to have faith in philosophy; or rather,
to have faith in our own personal ability to think
philosophically, and to improve our skill at such with
determined practice. This strikes me as a far more sensible
piece of advice, and perhaps even suggests that Jaspers was
the better philosopher of the two. But the interesting thing
is that Jaspers seems to agree with Russell that philosophy
has one foot in both camps. Yet he goes beyond Russell in
suggesting that philosophy is superior to both science and
religion because it can draw upon the strengths of each;
whereas science and religion are otherwise perpetually
trying to negate each other.
.
 What do you think?
.
        - the almost harmonious one - cybrwurm ;;>
x

+
/ Topic > What is Existentialism? / 5March 2004 /
/ Forum: Philosophy Forums > Philosophy > General
/ Philosophy > Intro to Philosophy - Factual questions /
.
         Best Definition of Existentialism
.
> On 22Nov03 BMW-Guy wrote: Pardon my ignorance (but
> hey, Socrates claimed to have no knowledge, too), but
> would someone kindly define "Existentialism" for me?
> Thanks!
.
 da wurm say: Existentialism is NOT difficult to define.
Confusion obtains solely because there are as many bad
definitions of existentialism as there are good ones; and
few are astute enough to consistently distinguish between
them ... The best definition of existentialism that I have
come across was given way back in 1959 by the English
author Colin Wilson (one of my all-time favorite writers)
in a fascinating little book entitled 'The Age of Defeat'.
On page 109 of this study on the 'hero' he describes it
this way:
.
 "Existentialism is an attempt to map and explore
human complexity; its chief 'bete noire' [ie. something
especially hated or dreaded] is oversimplification (or
abstraction)."
.
         - the almost definitive one - cybrwurm ;;>
x

+
/ Topic > What is Existentialism? / 6March 2004 /
/ Forum: Philosophy Forums > Philosophy > General
/ Philosophy > Intro to Philosophy - Factual questions /
.
       A Very Messy Business
.
>> cw wrote: "Existentialism is an attempt to map and
>> explore human complexity; its chief 'bete noire' [ie.
>> something especially hated or dreaded] is over-
>> simplification (or abstraction)."
.
> 180 Proof say: yeah, well, anytime you "map" any "complexity"
> you simplify or reduce it to an abstraction. wilson was right
> though, but then this contradiction is precisely what's wrong
> with existentialism, why this movement has produced so many
> incoherent, even superficial philosophical treatises.
.
 wurm replies: Hey 180. I know what you mean. Some parts
of Jasper's writings give me the willies: abstract to the point
of incomprehensibility and beyond. Ditto for Husserl and
Heidegger. Obviously existentialism is an altogether very messy
business. But then again so is reality. 'Life, the universe,
and everything' has a nasty habit of resolutely resisting
being bound up in clever formulas and all-inclusive systems.
.
 On the other hand, the strength of existentialism lies in
its ability to embrace contradiction, paradox, chaos, and
absurdity. And the reason for this is simply because man is a
creature of contradiction, paradox, chaos, and absurdity. All
those philosophical systems that are coherent, rigorously
logical, and free of all contradiction are the very ones we
know to be false because they proceed on the assumption
that man is a rational, logical, and coherent being. Since
this assumption is obviously false, so is any philosophy that
proceeds from it: poisoned roots can only lead to poisoned
leaves and fruits.
.
 This ability to embrace the messiness of human-being is
one reason why existentialism is not confined solely to
philosophical literature as such. Indeed, some of the best
existential writings fall under the general catagory of
fictional literature: hence authors like Kafka, Camus (eg.
'The Stranger'), and Dostoevsky (eg. 'Notes From Under-
ground'). [See W.Kaufmann's outstanding anthology
'Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre' for selections.]
.
 Sartre also wrote several novels and plays, and some of these
are among his best work. The main problem with most of these
writers/philosophers (eg. Camus and Sartre) is not so much
contradiction and incoherence, but rather that despite all
their talk of freedom they are unable to free themselves
from the oppressive negativity of unrelieved despair, nausea,
absurdity, inauthenticity, etc, etc, etc! But this is not a
flaw within existentialism as such; merely a failure of
imagination on the part of these particular philosophers.
And it is this very failure of imagination in the 'movement' in
general that is directly responsible for the incoherence and
superficiality that you complain of.
.
 On the other hand, this flaw is by no means confined only to
the existentialists. Indeed I would even go so far as to say
that the chief characteristic of philosophy-in-general, as it
is practiced today (especially in academia), is precisely this
very failure of imagination. Thus they cannot stick humankind
into a test-tube and run it through the lab, so they just toss
out all the big-questions, and console themselves by analyzing
language, and expounding at length on the impossibility of
knowing anything. Yes, they avoid contradiction by giving up
the game altogether, and by reducing philosophy to a series
of trivial pursuits! It's no wonder that there is so much talk
these days about philosophy being dead in the water.
.
 Socrates would be appalled.  
.
      - the thoroughly appalled one - cybrwurmm ;>
.
P.S. "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit
on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting
throats." -- HL Mencken
x

textman
*