Talk:Existentialism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Religious Bias in this article

The article seems to take great pain in pointing out the Christian beliefs of Dostoyevski and Kierkegaard, and also includes a Christian Existentialism part, yet completely ignores any other faiths and their correlations with Existentialism. It goes so far as to even mention the term "nothingness", but no mention of Buddhism.

Any linkage of any religion (particularly Christianity) to Existentialism where Dharmic faiths are not mentioned is simply silly. The idea of Karma, especially if looked at with purely secular eyes, is as Existential as one can possibly get.

How does the Wikipedia community justify such overt bias here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.209.60 (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's due to any overt bias, but simply a general lack of knowledge of Eastern traditions on the part of the editors. Jagged 85 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is more than lack of knowledge. It is lack of relevance. Even if similar ideas were postulated in "Eastern traditions," there is no reason to assume that such ideas influenced the European Existentialists. Was Sartre influenced by Buddhism? Doubtful. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The article does refer to the Buddha and some Islamic and Arabic texts, and maybe some other things in parts of the article i have not read yet. Any interesting correlations or connections between existentialism and Dharmic faiths or any other faiths would be fair game for consideration by all, including the many who lack sufficient knowledge of those other faiths. Please if you have some time start to write an idea or two into the text, and i or others may be able to help get them in there. Bo99 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following from the Christian Existentialism, as a deliberate attack and having nothing to do with Existentialism in any form: "God is incomprehensibly paradoxical (this is exemplified in the incarnation of Christ); theism is not rationally justifiable, and belief in God is the ultimate leap of faith." 63.169.27.4 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Anon: 1337 CST 8/15/2008

I wouldn't consider that a deliberate attack, It's a central point in Kirkegaards philosophy on the three stages of life, though it could perhaps have been expanded on. And Kirkegaard is one of the more famous christian existentialists. //ttias 14:14, 19 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.96.162 (talk)

I would think one of the main reasons for covering the Christian existentialist movement as an important part of existentialism as a whole, is due to the founding and evolution of existentialism in western society by otherwise pious men. I have always regarded Descartes as the father of existentialism, and his connection to the catholic church cannot be denied. Eastern beliefs are very existential in their modern incarnations, but due to a lack of education I am currently not able to write about them at an encyclopedic level. I believe there is also a large chunk of history missing regarding the evolution of eastern philosophy with regard to existentialism, and therefore any article on that particular school of thought may be pure speculation. I may be wrong, and it is quite probable, but thats my two pennies. Wophi (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wophi. Any course in existentialism will start with Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky because they are considered the fathers of existentialism. I think any syllabus from a university or anthology on existentialism will attest to this. It is NOT due to bias in favor of Christianity, but simply that several of the most prominent existentialists have in fact been men of deep faith. I would have to disagree though with existentialism beginning with Descartes. If we want to go back that far and to the French thinkers, I think Pascal, specifically in his Pensees, would be a more accurate representative. In contrast, Descartes would be more idetified with the systematic philosopies culminating in Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Marx, et al., that existentialists have beeen so critical of. Also, I agree with SineBot. That actually is a central point in Kierkegaard, both the tri-nature of a three personed-god and the scientific impossibility of the incarnation and immaculate conception. Kierkegaard's point in his writings was that TRUTH (whatever metaphysical truth is out there) does not matter, but truth (my own subjective truth) does and that the appropriate question is not whether Christianity is Truth (in fact, he says it cannot be because of the very points the previous poster saw as potentially offensive to Christians). The question is: "Do I want to make Christianity MY truth?." To paraphrase his journals: "What I must do is find a truth that is true for ME, a truth for which I can live and die." Therefore, I think omitting this teaching of the Christian existentialists would be an unfortunate editing of their position. sorry, if I'm not signing correctly, it's my first time. 71.254.175.156 (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)donselma71.254.175.156 (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Can Existentialism be understood without a background that includes Xty (or at least theism)? Can it be understood without a background that includes Kant (both his antimonies & his interest in a formal system)? --JimWae (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, no. Kierkegaard's thought, for instance, is impossible to understand without understanding his christianity (this is what makes it so hard for us atheists to figure out what he's on about, but at the same time, it's not vanilla flavour christianity either, so being a christian doesn't necessarily help you either). In addition, even the atheistic existentialists were often in opposition to religion. In other words, you can't even make their positions clear unless you highlight their relation to religion.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That is my read too. Someone who was never a theist would be pretty much unable to think of himself as an existentialist, would not have any sense of loss/despair/dread nor think the world absurd. If there are exceptions to this, they would have to have quite an idiosyncratic view of the world. In this sense, atheistic existentialism pulls its own "essence" (or raison de etre?) out from underneath itself--JimWae (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not all as bad as that. Even Kierkegaard can be understood (in a broad sense of the word) by an atheist, and one doesn't have to be religious to feel despair or have existential issues. The religious in Kierkegaard is the "way out," not the way in. Sure, rationality can't pierce the paradox, but atheists aren't thoroughly rational either. I thought you meant in relation to the article: If you want to write an encyclopaedic article on existentialism you can't leave it out, but it's perfectly possible for anyone anywhere at any time to "be an existentialist." Der Zeitgeist (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to BE disappointed that "cosmic justice" does not prevail to describe yourself as an existentialist. Theists might hope it still might happen. Can you give an example of an existentialist who was not raised a theist? --JimWae (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think you can argue that the desire for cosmos is a religious desire. It's more like theism is _one_ "answer" among many possible answers to the questions resulting from a confrontation with the absurd. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone give an example of an existentialist who was not raised a theist? --JimWae (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I just looked through two of Wikipedia's artiles on existentialists, and neither mentioned whether the person in question was raised a theist. What you're asking for here is obscure. Steve Biko might qualify...

Anyway, I propose that the "Types" section be eliminated. --Brilliand (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I ask the question not because I think the article needs to say which were raised theist - but because it raises the question whether atheistic existentialism can have any future. I think the answer is "NO, ALL existentialists were raised as theists" -- and that the disappointment with "life" is based on a loss of certainty that never was warrantted in the first place. In this view, existentialism is not so much a philosophy, as a psychological state of loss - something that people could recover from by realizing that if they were not theists to begin with, they would have had far less disappointment & anxiety & would never have become existentialists - in other words, "ADAPT" as you would have your own non-theistic children adapt. I do, however, also think that the 2 types are well-established in the lirerature & should stay in the article --JimWae (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that most of the recognised existentialist philosophers lived in an age when everyone was raised a theist. Furthermore, it assumes that being raised a theist necessarily makes you a believer, and that is a false assumption; people are not able to actually be religious until they reach a certain (st)age (of development), and children often treat religious stories as being just stories like Harry Potter (i.e., they don't believe in them, but they are able to be amused by and engaged in them). It is also so that even people who are raised atheists today face existential problems. They're just not well-known existentialist philosophers (yet). Unwarranted certainty also comes from other places than the religious. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Modern thought

There is a REDIRECT to this article from "Modern thought".

"Modern thought" is a term used in the Victorian period for a mindset that rejected the Bible as an accurate source of knowledge concerning the Creation and the origin of species. It would be good to have an article on "Modern thought" including a link to the controversial bestseller Essays and Reviews (1860). Modern thought may be an antecedent of Existentialism, but not a parent. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Making decisions

Existentialism asserts that people actually make decisions based on what has meaning to them rather than what is rational.

This is supported somewhat by fMRI evidence collected by Dean Shibata. It appears to be much more than an assertion. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Theology Section

“An existential reading of the Bible demands that the reader recognize that he is an existing subject studying the words God communicates to him personally. This is in contrast to looking at a collection of "truths" which are outside and unrelated to the reader.[29] Such a reader is not obligated to follow the commandments as if an external agent is forcing them upon him, but as though they are inside him and guiding him from inside.”

…and just how is this different from non-existential reading?

“Existentially speaking, the Bible doesn't become an authority in a person's life until they authorize the Bible to be their personal authority”

Wow, genius. *rolls eyes* I guess all Christians are existentialists then, at least according to Wikipedia. Must be Wikipedia's utopia or something. What a joke this article is (and existentialism in general).

Article is Inadequate

The article is titled "Existentialism," but is almost solely about Sartre's existentialism. More needs to be written about the existential part of the philosophy of Heidegger -- generally considered the most important existential philosopher -- even though he denied that he was an existentialist. I suggest readers and potential writers of this article read Walter Kaufmann's "From Shakespeare to Existentialism" for an understanding of the overall philosophy. Grantsky (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article is indeed a bit short in the Heidegger department, but that most of the terminology has been taken from English translations of the works of Sartre doesn't mean that the concepts themselves are Sartrean in essence. Despair, for instance, is talked about by both Sartre and Kierkegaard, and the notion expressed in the article is more Kierkegaardian than Sartrean, although it is, in fact, simply a common denominator in the works of most existentialist philosophers, implying that it, as a part of existentialism, doesn't belong to any single one of them. A similar argument applies to the other concepts discussed; bad faith, freedom, facticity, and the other concepts are discussed by existentialist philosophers in general, and no-one in particular (though some have made more explicit and deeper analyses of them than others). I do not recommend reading "overview" books, but rather the original texts of the philosophers.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

About the intro

Trying to make existentialism into the invention of one single person wouldn't do; it isn't the invention of neither Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard, or any of the other philosophers generally acknowledged as being existentialst philosophers. Sure, the introduction is not the best in the world (yet), and should be fixed up a bit, but introducing the notion that any single philosopher can be held responsible for the "creation" of this field of philosophy is not only incorrect, but an actual lie. Thus, the claim existentialism is a "doctrine conceived by Martin Heidegger" is misleading and shouldn't be left standing. If it should be attributed to Heidegger, why not to Kierkegaard, Nietzsche or Pascal? Philosophy is surely complicated, and for that reason, Heidegger did not conceive of the doctrine of existential philosophy.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really! Heidegger's Sein und Zeit stands alone without a need for support from works of Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard, etc. If they did not exist, Heidegger's Dasain (being here or to exist) comprising In-der-Welt-sein (being-in-the-world) and Mitsein (being-together) would be sufficient for Existentialism alone. That is THE attribute of originality determining a fatherhood... of everything. Once the notion had been developed in general and provided by Heidegger, their particular attributes were added by Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard, etc. also for a popular consumption; almost nobody is capable to process the general notion, as provided by Heidegger, because it is too difficult to read and understand. Additionally, the Heidegger's past was not helpful either. But they were only secondary developing particular attributes of given and well developed notion by Heidegger. I could make a contribution to Existentialism by writing about itch of my big toe, which may be almost as important as freedom or boredom, but it would not make me a creator of Existentialism. The same is with the theory of relativity conceived by Albert Einstein, which many others contributed to.

Additionally, the first sentence is very incompetent, because it does not define, what Existentialism actually is (a doctrine), but instead it concentrates on the secondary, popular and flimsy aspect, which is its application (as a movement) misleading the readers. That is an unfortunate misinformation, and - so - the removals of my correction seem to be acts of... bad faith (see Existentialism). Please, do not do it again. Sincerely, 71.247.12.83 (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

Ok, first of all, Kierkegaard, Pascal, Unamuno and Nietzsche all preceded Heidegger, so if it's about being "the first," they should be credited before Heidegger. Actually, I'd credit certian Buddhist and Taoist philosophers with it (especially the notion of nothingness) before I'd credit Heidegger (not because I don't like Heidegger; I'm quite inclined to agree with the man on several points).

When it comes to existentialism being a doctrine, I'd say that's as far from the truth as you could get; living life by a doctrine (indeed living life as Sartre, as many have attempted) is bad faith. It isn't really a movement either.. I'd simply call it a field in philosophy if it were up to me (in the sense that Hannah Arendt was also an existentialist philosopher), but that would probably also leave out some of the other aspects of what is considered essential to existentialist philosophy (It is a philosophy of life or living as well as an academic field of study), so I'm not going to. However, to call it simply a movement is also too easy, but pretending it was all Heidegger's invention is just plain wrong. In consequence, even though I would not normally revert an edit like this without waiting for a reply, discussing it, etc, I will do so with this one -- because it is too misleading to be left unchanged.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, and for the last time:

Heidegger was the first, who created the independent philosophical system (Existentialism) and published it (in Sein und Zeit), and not a Buddhist monk or Kierkegaard, Pascal, Unamuno and Nietzsche. Their works did not constitute a published, working system (doctrine), and Existentialism by Heidegger did not need them to function. What counts is who constructed a working system for the 1st time and published it, and not, who preceded or added to it, as with theory of relativity by Einstein.

All in the 2nd part of your statement above are your emotions without a shred of formal definition, analysis, deduction, etc. You shall not force on others through Wikipedia, which is public, own standard based on feelings, and revert a referenced contribution by other, because it is inconsistent with your private views. Please, construct a proper argument first. Saying, that because Existentialism is not "living life by...", "field of philosophy" or "simply a movement" therefore it cannot not be an invention by Heidegger is a pure nonsense. In other words, something being not this or that does not prove that it can or cannot be a third, unrelated thing. Or, even simpler speaking, number not being 3 or 5 does not prove to be or not to be 7. Formal logic, please! A solid argument is needed, before reverting anything here, and not idiosyncrasies! Sincerely, 71.247.12.83 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

Again, and for the last time: Existentialism isn't Heidegger's invention. Existentialism is a large and diverse field in philosophy, and many of the concepts studied were developed way ahead of Heidegger's time. Some of them aren't even treated by Heidegger. Many of his thoughts are most likely largely influenced by many of the aforementioned philosophers (we know he read Kierkegaard, etc). All of these philosophers' works also constituted a working system, which you would have known if you had read anything outside of Heidegger. Also, calling existentialism a doctrine goes in the face of everything existentialism is.

"What counts is who constructed a working system for the 1st time and published it." No. What counts, in a description of a field of study like existentialism, is to explain what is studied. Your text belongs in the "historical background" section, not in the introduction. The reason for this is that it doesn't say anything about existentialism, only something about Heidegger; reading the introduction should tell you what existentialism is, not who some guy believes "created" it. Especially when this guy doesn't know anything about it.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to be kidding:

• What is it, as not a DIRECT definition [sic!], the following 1st sentence I wrote for the WP:LEAD, please?

Existentialism is a philosophical doctrine - [...] - which describes the nature (sense) of being [...] as being here (Ger. Dasein; existence) on earth (being-in-the-world; Ger. In-der-Welt-sein), among things and other people (being-together; Ger. Mitsein).

It says everything, namely, that a doctrine is a search for a sense of being, and being here (existence) is that sense, etc. It is so obvious, please!

• On the contrary, that is exactly, what the reverted lead lacks in the following 1st sentence:

Existentialism is a philosophical movement which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, and that this essence follows from their existence.

1. It contain a fundamental, logical error: If individuals create the [...] essence, how come this essence follows from their existence? Or one or the other, please. Or you create something, or it follows form something else, i.e. is not created, but derives, please!!!

2. It is obvious, that Existentialism is a doctrine, and philosophical movement only follows the doctrine. So, in any encyclopedia, it is necessary to define first the doctrine, and only then describe the philosophical movement, which is only a derivative of the doctrine.

3. Nobody denies that "Existentialism is a large and diverse field in philosophy...", but, again, formal logic is needed to argue, because something being not this or that does not prove that it can or cannot be a third, unrelated thing. Or, even simpler speaking, number not being 3 or 5 does not prove to be or not to be 7.

4. Existentialism is Heidegger's invention, because he put it together as a doctrine for the 1st time. Others wrote about certain aspects before and after (nobody denies it), but he formalized it for the 1st time in in Sein und Zeit.

71.247.12.83 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a description of existentialism. That is a description of dasein. If anything should be chalked up as being "the main focus" of existentialism, it would have to be freedom and responsibiliy (which is what is implied in the notion that one creates one's own essence).

1. There is no "fundamental logical error." What you see as one is simply a sentence that could be rewritten slightly, but the sentence doesn't mean that essence logically follows from existence if existence is taken as a logical predicate. Existence is your existence, your life, all your meanings, etc, and the claim that is being made is that there is no predetermined essence, but rather only the essence that you yourself "create" (it is not a creation ex nihilo, but a creation in the sense that it is only after the fact that you are you what you are, and then you are already no longer what you were while still being it. This also seems like a sentence full of logical contradictions, and if you knew anything about existentialism, you would know that many of the statements from existentialist philosophers seem contradictory, but arguments and context show that you, if you were to write them down logically, would have to write a sentence that has a different form from that of the actual sentence taken literally word for word).

2. Existentialism as a doctrine: Your confusion here arises from the fact that you believe existentialism to be Heidegger's invention. However, it is only when you reduce something to the work of one philosopher, or "the word" of one book (as with the bible) that you can call something a doctrine; a doctrine needs well-defined and immutable boundaries. In this sense, what you are outlining could be called "the doctrine of Heidegger," but it is not existentialism. This is due to the fact that existentialist philosophers do not necessarily agree on everything, neither when it comes to what is important, what should be studied, or which conclusions one may draw from one's study of whatever one sees it fit to study. What existentialism is, is more properly defined as a school of philosophy, but this term has historically also come to rely on certain other restrictions when it comes to definition (the "school's" members have to preferably be located in the same place, know each other/communicate, etc). It is because existentialism isn't a doctrine that it is possible for philosophers to be defined as existentialist while they themselves renounce the label.

3. "formal logic is needed to argue": More importantly, knowledge about the subject is required to argue. In other words, you have to have read other philosophers than Heidegger (if you have even read him) to be able to argue about existentialism.

4. If anyone put existentialism together as a doctrine for the first time, it would have to be Sartre. However, since existentialism isn't a doctrine, we cannot attribute it to neither him nor anyone else.

Now, then, instead of arguing over this for eternity, we could try to work out a new introduction that could say something more about Heidegger, but I refuse to reduce existentialism to a doctrine of any sort, meaning that it can't be outlined as Heidegger's invention, nor Sartre's nor anyone else's. However, mentioning slightly more about some of the fields of study, including what Heidegger worked on, couldn't be said to conflict with the spirit of an introduction, if it were to be done right, and not "do" too much of what the other parts of the article should. If we were to create a new intro, it should be done in here first, to avoid further confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Der Zeitgeist (talk • contribs) 10:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Dasain is a proper definition (of Existentialism) meaning being here meaning existence; see the resemblance between Existentialism and existence [sic!], please? Doctrines are named after their essence. I hope, you understand that!? Otherwise, any discussion is pointless... .
• 2. The logical error of the 1st sentence is unacceptable: individuals create the [...] essence, CONTRADICTS this essence follows from their existence! Only one or the other can be true! Or you create something, or it follows form something else, i.e. is not created, but derives!
• 3. Your following statement (see above) is plain false: If anything should be chalked up as being "the main focus" of existentialism, it would have to be freedom and responsibiliy (which is what is implied in the notion that one creates one's own essence).
  • A. If "freedom and responsibiliy" were the focus of Existentialism, it would be called Freedomism and Responsibilism.
  • B. You also admit that your 1st sentence does not include "the main focus" and that it is only implied, meaning that Existentialism is NOT defined there (and anywhere else)! Btw., there is no "main focus", but just "focus", which means - more less - "definition".
  • C. Your statement that one creates one's own essence is UTTERLY false, because one's own essence or inward nature or humanity evolved (see Darwin) and was not made at once (created) by anyone (or anything, as opposite to Creationism). In other words, nobody creates one's own essence. You mistake humanity for humanitarianism. Any form of your 1st sentence using the syntax: individuals create the ... of their lives is false, because existences create the meaning and essence of their lives according to Existentialism.
• 4. The 1st sentence of the lead is not a place for learning and putting a false, personal, esoteric and - so - vague description, but it is only for a clear and strong definition (Dasein is) per WP:LEAD, which your sentence lacks per your own admission of no focus.
• 5. Why do you still insist on such bad language after it was proven erroneous by myself and lacking a proper definition by your admission, please?71.247.12.83 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The intro is indeed unclear and poorly written, as is most of the article; but I'm afraid the solution doesn't lie in thrashing out editors' personal opinions about the origins of existentialism. I agree that Sein und Zeit is not a systematic discussion of existentialism, and that Heidegger was not really an existentialist - but that's just another opinion. Since this is Wikipedia, the solution lies in going to reliable secondary sources for descriptions of existentialism, and then coming to a consensus about what should be cited here. There's Kauffman, there's also MacQuarrie, and William Barrett.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• 1. You are very kind describing it as "poorly written" for it is misleading.
• 2. Nobody claims Sein und Zeit is, but, if you have to describe Existentialism in one paragraph, as it should be in encyclopedic articles (so the reader can grasp their essence first), then Dasin fits the bill despite all its shortcomings. Does not it, please? If not, do you have a better idea for the 1st sentence, please? After the 1st sentence, you can always elaborate details in the next ones... .71.247.12.83 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the main problems with the introduction, as I see it, is that it still doesn't offer much of an introductory insight into the subject at hand: More should be said about the actual field before one starts introducing "forefathers" and main theorists. There's also the issue with calling it a "philosophical movement," which, to me, seems to undercut its continued relevance as an actual field of study in philosophy (but that could be because English isn't my first language). The introduction also kind of misrepresents the field with its reference to a sort of unexplained "creation" of "meanings" and "essences." If there's one thing that outlines most, if not all, of existentialist thought, it is rather freedom and responsibility. Of course, if you already know what the article is about, you also know that the initial sentences aren't to be taken as literally as they may be, and that what is meant is indeed the fact that you are free and responsible, but if you don't know anything about it, that sentence could be a source of misrepresentation (sentences like it from "introductory books" on the field have been confusing people for decades already, it seems; hardly anyone who thinks they know anything about existentialism knows more than the "literal" meaning of such oversimplified sentences. Of course, an introduction should simplify a bit, but there's a fine line between simplification and misrepresentation, and the problem is how not to cross it.).

While holding the issue of "philosophical movement" in abeyance, maybe an introduction that focused more on the freedom and responsibility would sit better? However, one would have to resolve the hostage situation where liberalism has laid claim to the concept of freedom first. Perhaps: "Existentialism is a philosophical movement that focuses on the freedom and responsibilities of individuals in the perpetual creation and sustenance of themselves, their values and their meanings" could work better as a first line? Of course, more should be mentioned about the field itself (one sentence of content and three paragraphs of "forefathers" is hardly informative), most likely something about absurdity and the "shaky ground" of putting all your bets on one card.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dasein is a specific technical term from Heidegger's philosophy, and therefore inappropriate to an introductory sentence introducing a broad philosophical/cultural field where Heidegger is only one protagonist. As I suggested above, the easy route - and the only secure one with Wikipedia - is to look at introductory sentences from a few existing secondary sources, and use those as the basis.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Not really. Dasein is a compound German word meaning being here (sein=be, Sein=being, da=here) on earth meaning existence (on earth). So, Sartre translated it as such to French, and since his book became popular and not the Heidegger's (he was a proponent of Hitler from 1933 to 1939), so the doctrine became Existentialism, but already Heidegger called it as such, because Dasein is not a specific, technical term, but it means exactly existence. Nobody questions that the telephone was invented by Graham Bell despite that iPhone does not resemble it much. The same is with Existentialism formalized by Heidegger. It is fact and not a matter of opinion.71.247.12.83 (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger and the new first sentence

Sorry to be a sledgehammer, but it's important to show that won't do for a whole bunch of reasons:

1. Existentialism as such doesn't define being as dasein. Not even Heidegger defines being as dasein (and "being here" is a controversial translation of dasein). Dasein, for Heidegger, is the mode of being which is my own, and it is totally contrary to his thought to equate that mode of being with being itself.

2. "Ontology" and "metaphysics" can't be used interchangeably as implied by the parenthetical comment, and in any case Heidegger sharply distinguishes them.

3. "Earth" and "world" are entirely distinct concepts for Heidegger. Welt, as in in-derWelt-sein, is a technical term referring to a meaningful framework of concerned projects. Erde is introduced in Heidegger's later essays, and is one member of das Geviert, along with Welt (etc).

4. In any case, this is all quite specific to Heidegger, and can't introduce a broad philosophical-cultural field where Heidegger was only one (reluctant) protagonist.

5. Finally, I don't know what P.O.W. has to do with it, but Sartre was prompted to write L'Etre et le Neant rather than the short existentialism book as a response to Sein und Zeit.

With the best will in the world, the article can't be mended by editors' well-meaning improvisations about Heidegger. Anyone writing about Heidegger has to know the material really well - it's difficult. And this isn't the right place. Again, I suggest checking standard works on existentialism to establish a clear, general, inclusive introduction. Meantime, the new paragraph - which is unsourced anyway - has to go.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

This is all getting very confusing what with the new headings and all, but... starting from the current initial sentence:

"Existentialism is a philosophical doctrine": This is false because a doctrine is a set of particular propositions set forth by one person or group of persons. The propositions in a doctrine are dogmatic meaning they are not susceptible to neither criticism nor variance by any of those who subscribe to the doctrine. In other words, if Heidegger formulated the doctrine of existentialism, Sartre couldn't criticise it (as he did in being and nothingness) and still remain an existentialist.

"individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives": The words "create," "meaning" and "essence" are too vague to be put to proper use in this context. The sentence also contains an ambiguity relating to the issue of "spontaneous" or "received" creation (meanings "received" by society) and "willful" or "free" creation (the decision to do something so as to make oneself be the one who did what one did) which is undercommunicated the way it is right now.

After that, the only actual information about existentialism, as opposed to its "forefathers," is too scarce to actually mean anything to anyone who wants to get a grasp on existentialism.

When it comes to the arguments brought forth by 71.247.12.83, there is not much more to say: The point about dasein meaning "existence" is useless; the "logical" argument (which operates at a level of abstraction not proper to the matter at hand) is illogical (it doesn't account for actual meaning, only "literal" meaning); the argument about naming -isms is childish; the argument about essence, again, shows that the person putting the argument forth has little or no understanding of existentialism; and, finally, the point about having to describe existentialism in one paragraph relates more to an isssue of the nature and requirements of encyclopediae: Can you describe existentialism (or any field at all) in one paragraph? An encyclopaedic article doesn't have to be introduced by a single sentence that describes the be-all of the subject matter at hand; an introduction can span several pages, if need be. The point is that it should give the reader a particularly concise definition of the subject matter at hand while leaving open a few key "blanks" that are to be filled out by the rest of the article.

Now, instead of this bickering, I suggest we work something out in here before randomly editing the article.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right - but again, it has to be something derived from verifiable sources. That's the place to start.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

But then the question would have to be "what is a verifiable source?" Is it only secondary literature? If one talks about several philosophers under a common heading that is more "instrumental" (in that it groups these philosophers together by what happened to be their field of study rather than what they called themselves), a reference to the same theme occurring in the works of all of the philosophers should be enough, in my opinion. However, would it then have to be an explicit reference to a particular paragraph, page, sentence, chapter or work, or couldn't one just as well refer to the theme itself as occurring throughout the philosophers' writings? As an example, it's easy to show that dread/angst/etc is treated in a similar manner by both Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Sartre, but would you have to have a reference to some kind of secondary literature that says "dread was treated in a similar manner by both Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Sartre," or would it do to simply point out that these philosophers all treated the same phenomenon? This cross-reference does, after all, have a verifiable source, but the source is not a single work.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User 71.247.12.83 wrote above (but let's not skip back and forth):

"Not really. Dasein is a compound German word meaning being here (sein=be, Sein=being, da=here) on earth meaning existence (on earth). So, Sartre translated it as such to French, and since his book became popular and not the Heidegger's (he was a proponent of Hitler from 1933 to 1939), so the doctrine became Existentialism, but already Heidegger called it as such, because Dasein is not a specific, technical term, but it means exactly existence. Nobody questions that the telephone was invented by Graham Bell despite that iPhone does not resemble it much. The same is with Existentialism formalized by Heidegger. It is fact and not a matter of opinion."

No, this is inaccurate. In everyday German, dasein just means "existence". It can be broken down into component parts, but da is more plausibly translated as "there" than "here"; in any case, neither in everyday German nor in Heidegger's philosophy does it include any reference to "earth". That's OR, as far as I can see: if you're unfamiliar with Heidegger's distinction between "world" and "earth" which I referred to above, the best place to start is with the "Urpsrung des Kunstwerkes" article, or - for a reliable Wiki source - with W.J. Richardson's book on Heidegger. I can't imagine that you think the French phrase "l'etre pour soi" is a translation of "dasein", so I can make no sense of your point about Sartre (also Sein und Zeit's popularity was not constrained by Heidegger's involvement with National Socialism, which was not well documented until decades after the book was published, etc, etc....). I am sure your comments are in good faith, and I only hope to draw your attention to the number of straightforward errors you are making.

This is why we need to proceed on the basis of checking our sources and reproducing what they say accurately.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Technically you right, because I was sloppy with my words, but not substantively. Dasein means being there or around (existence)... <there and mistaken here are exchangeable in this case>. So, you see the question, what there stands for or is it around what... in the case of metaphysics or - more precisely ontology. Is there any other option than earth, please? Is it not prima facie?

Next, Dasein comprises In-der-Welt-sein, where Welt means world. What kind of otological world is it, please? Moon, Mars, Venus...? Do we live there or on earth? So, why do you need Richardson or anybody else to tell, what is the place of reference of Heidegger's philosophy!

As far as Heidegger's reluctance goes, can you picture a conceited genius, who does not want to have much in common with the disciples using his sophisticated work for their cheap political purposes, please? If you need to find truth, you rather need to analyze by yourself. Otherwise, you may not be able to understand even references.

Anyway, the 1st sentence of the lead now is garbage, and I will fix it as well as I can for the last time. I believe that editing there is more efficient than discussing here. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that you do not even know the difference between welt and erde in Heidegger's thought, I can't see how you should be fit to edit this article. All your other edits don't seem to have any coherence to them either, so it's hard to tell whether you have a field of expertise at all. That you keep insisting on editing and reverting without discussing or listening to arguments is not a particularly good sign either. Furthermore, if you are to make claims about what Sartre did or did not do, you should have to do better than a reference to existentialism is a humanism, which you don't even appear to have read. If we have to refer to secondary literature instead of the conglomerate of the original literature, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is as good as any:

"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"[1]

That not even Sartre, then, as I have also claimed, can be called the "father" of existentialism, the fact that Heidegger partially influenced Sartre (if you had read any of Sartre's works, you would know that he also criticised Heidegger) shouldn't make much of a difference; Sartre and Heidegger are just theorists within a field of philosophy called existentialism; a theory of dasein would be Heidegger's and a theory of pour-soi would be Sartre's, but neither of these theories make up existentialism, and neither of these theories is the same. To have a historical overview isn't a bad thing - far from it - but the introduction should not contain falsities of the kind that implies that either Sartre or Heidegger invented existentialism. I added one of those edit-war warning boxes to your profile, and if you keep editing, I will report it to the moderators (or, perhaps, KD Tries Again should, since he is less involved?). Then they can decide: Either I or you will have to be banned if you keep editing.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 1. You do not have a whole and synthesized picture of, what you read; you do not understand WP:LEAD, you do not understand the purpose of Wikipedia and, who the target reader is. Only, what you say is that this wrote that and that wrote this... . Stanford Encyclopedia is not a good base for the lead, because it just avoids to say, what Existentialism actually is (too polite to make a judgment), so they go ballistic on the college level and you afraid to use your own words or do not know, how to synthesize and simplify that.
• 2. Because it is difficult to say simply that "Existentialism is this and that...", I linked it with the key term Dasein (meaning existence), added the general terms metaphysics and ontology and connected historically the two main contributors and their pivotal works in just two simple sentences (per one of the WP:LEAD options for complex terms), so the Wikipedia's target readers (layperson; see Mediator) can get something understandable instead of your gibberish full of logical mistakes, which I left untouched for you to fix, if you can... .
• 3. It seems, that you cannot use own words, but only to quote others. You can copy from others, but not edit by yourself. You cannot argue (discuss), you can only quote. You cannot process information, but you can just repeat it. Try to be your own person - an editor - and not a copier. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 1. So a "whole and synthesised picture" of existentialism is that it is Heidegger's invention? Is that the conclusion to draw from reading existentialist philosophers, from reading Sartre, Kierkegaard, Unamuno, Nietzsche, Pascal or Buber? If you believe so, I ask you to read these philosophers again. If you have not read any of these philosophers, I maintain that you are not suited to editing an article on existentialism. Stanford encyclopaedia doesn't avoid a definition of existentialism. Quite the opposite, it gives a clear - perhaps too clear - definition of it. The definition is, however, not summed up in a sentence, which is one of the weaknesses of the current introduction to the wiki article. That you do not agree with the SEP definition can be attributed to the fact that you do not seem to have read anything other than secondary literature on Heidegger's philosophy.
• 2. To take the point of "logical mistakes" first, you still do not seem to understand the argument that some "logical mistakes" are only logical mistakes if taken at face value: If I said that the for-itself "is what it is not, and is not what it is," you would need to take context into account if you wanted to make an intelligible logical notation of this; at face value, this sentence says P = !P ^ P != P, but it still remains one of the main propositions of Sartre in Being and Nothingness. When it comes to laypersons, I'm sure that if you want to actually represent existentialism, making it out to be Heidegger's invention is the same as lying to them. That some of the complex language should be made more intelligible is true, but at the same time, we're trying to represent a philosophy in which one of its main theorists says that something (the for-itself) is what it is not and is not what it is, and in which this sentence has a particularly pregnant meaning. Reducing it to a logical impossibility would be to disregard a very important point.
• 3. If you're somehow trying to make some point about my thoughts not being "original," then this is hardly a relevant point in this context: First of all, wikipedia isn't about "being original." It's about writing an encyclopaedic article on a subject you are knowledgeable on. Secondly, and to remain "unoriginal": In Husserl's words, even if you did not think the original thought, you are still able to "live" it if you can "translate" it in terms of your own "original evidence." You could probably benefit from reading the origin of geometry.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that editing there is more efficient than discussing here. No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Articles are edited by consensus, and the discussion page is the place to achieve consensus. In order to save going over old ground, I'd ask User 71.247.12.83 not to make edits which aren't supported by citations. Please be familiar with the basic Wikipedia policy on citation: "... Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." No original researchI'd also strongly advise User 71.247.12.83 to open a Wikipedia account if he/she intends to get heavily involved with editing articles: see Why create an account?. Perhaps if we can proceed in accordance with policies, we can make some progress.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• Yes, it does with advanced editors, who do not need to blab about, what they are about to write, but they just edit, and their edits tell, what they meant... . I do not present my own opinion, but my own synthesis you corrected. I do not believe in using citations, because it smells like... plagiarism. Because it is difficult to say simply that "Existentialism is this and that...", I linked it with the key term Dasein (meaning existence), added the general terms metaphysics and ontology and connected historically the two main contributors and their pivotal works in just two simple sentences (per one of the WP:LEAD options for complex terms) you improved, so the Wikipedia's target readers (layperson; see Mediator) can get something understandable instead of the gibberish full of logical mistakes, which I left untouched to be fixed by others, because some authors are attached to their text.71.247.12.83 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you consult No original research as I advised, as well as Wikipedia consensus, you'll see that you're not accurately stating Wikipedia policy. You proposed changes with no sources; and since it's been explained at length why those changes are controversial, you need both to provide sources and to work on the talk page to reach a consensus.

Note also that creating an original synthesis is against Wikipedia policy too, even when it's based on published sources, which - as far as I know - your synthesis was not.

Please assume other editors' good faith with respect to making progress with the article, but please understand equally that unsourced edits with which your fellow editors strongly disagree will, one way or another, fail to find their way into the article.

Also, please consider Etiquette and concentrate on criticizing edits rather than editors. Speaking only for myself, I agree that the existing text isn't good enough. If nobody else is interested in looking at reliable sources, I will try to prepare an improvement based on MacQuarrie, Barrett, Solomon and other standard English language secondary sources - but not today.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• For God's sake, it is a synthesis of general knowledge and not about testing of rockets requiring quotations of test results... . Please, do not manipulate Wikipedia policy on synthesis, because I do not intend to or reach a conclusion. I do assume other editors' good faith, but it does not change the fact that the 1st sentence of the lead is not clear and full on basic mistakes disqualifying the article. I also do not like plagiarism, so I use my own words requiring certain level of proficiency, as the whole subject does. I do not criticize editors, but the way they argue... for which I apologize: I am sorry and I will not do it again.71.247.12.83 (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Addressing your amended comment above, Wikipedia offers editors no choice in the matter of using citations. If you're not willing to provide cites, the other editors here might as well move on with improving the article.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• If they could have moved... [sic!], why the 1st sentence of the lead has been so bad for so long, please? 71.247.12.83 (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence isn't really bad, it is simply unclear; it isn't wrong, like your sentence, but it is not as clear as it could be. If you had bothered to consult one of the texts on existentialism, Sartre's Existentialism is a humanism,[2] you would have known that he defines the common theme of existentialist philosophers as the fact that they belive that "existence comes before essence." Of course, this sentence doesn't contain all its meaning when considered in abstraction from the context it appears in, and it needs to be qualified by further definitions to be understood. This is partly, but not completely, done in the current introduction. In your introduction, on the other hand, this aspect of existentialism is completely overlooked. The reason? Your introductory sentence contains an incomplete account of some Heideggerian terms.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion you've proposed is that Heidegger's SZ "formalized" existentialism and that Heidegger is the key figure in the field (along with sub-conclusions about the sense of dasein). I have no idea whether this conclusion is based on a synthesis, other than your statement that it was. But let's not prolong the debate: if you can't tell us which sources your proposal is based on, there's not much we can do with it. There is, of course, every reason to summarize the sources accurately in your own words, but without knowing the sources, nobody can verify the claims you are making.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

My inspiration is an obscure book in a forigen language printed in 1962. But, it is not important; you need to understand the subject instead of relying on quotations, please. Good luck. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "foreign language" means - foreign to what? All you have to do is tell us what it is, but if you aren't able or willing, well...good luck to you too.KD Tries Again (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It does not matter, I fixed it encompassing your concerns. Bye:) 71.247.12.83 (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And I reverted, because you need to provide citations and seek consensus. "Ontology" is not an alternative name for "human being", and the claim that existence is somehow fundamental to human nature is just mysterious. I would prefer not to make this a matter for Administrators, but there will be no choice if you are unwilling to engage in discussion and demonstrate that your contribution is verifiable.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Please, do! If you do not, I will. But before you do, please check the meaning of ontology first. I cannot lower myself to a discussion about definitions of basic terms. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "Existentialism is a group of various philosophies begun in early 1930s, which share the doctrine that existence (Dasein) in the world, with all the reality and problematic character of it, is a fundamental nature of human being (ontology)." The claim that existing in the world is what human beings do hardly distinguishes existentialism from most other philosophies. "Ontology", as the Wiki article says, is the study of being; it is not human being - and certainly Heidegger, of all people, does not equate ontology with human being. But as I said, it really doesn't matter if you can't provide a citation: encyclopedic content must be verifiable.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

1. Meaning of complex sentences is NOT determined by its 1st cause, but I have changed the structure to more accessible.

2. Does text in parenthesis means always the same, as one in front of it, or not necessarily (but the structure is changed anyway; see my parenthesis use here), please?

3. I have simplified the sentence understanding the target reader, as only with high school diploma (or GED). 71.247.12.83 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Absent any consensus or supporting citations for your approach, we have moved on to a different proposal. See below.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

New Introduction

This is a proposal to replace the first paragraph. Once we have a stable beginning to the article, we can address other concerns.

"Existentialism is a term which has been applied to a disparate group of late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophies which, despite profound doctrinal differences, share the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject - not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual. Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as remote from concrete human experience. The term was first coined in the 1940s* by the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, and adopted by Jean-Paul Sartre, but has also been used retrospectively to describe earlier thinkers."

The first sentence tries to capture what the existentialists have in common, while distinguishing them from other philosophers (Descartes, Idealists, Husserl) who start with the thinking subject. The second sentence tries to capture an important theme which most, but not all, existentialists share. The cites will be Kauffman's introduction to Existentialism: From Dostoevsky to Sartre and Macquarrie's Existentialism. I am still trying to find my copy of Barrett's Irrational Man, but I am sure that will be consistent with the above. The source for Marcel coining the term will be Beauvoir. Can other editors support something along these lines? *NB: 1940s can't be right - let me work on that.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Sorry, your proposal is so anti-definitive, vogue, unnecessary historical, excessive, convoluted, uneconomical, and wasteful (inadequate) that it does not qualify for corrections, but only for a full rewriting, please.71.247.12.83 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Vogue?

Here's a slightly amended version:

Existentialism is a term which has been applied to the work of a disparate group of late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences, shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject - not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual. Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.

1943 does seem to be the right year for Marcel using the word, and I have three sources. But there is an alternative suggestion that it was first used earlier by Heinemann. We can drop that point from the first paragraph and raise it later in the article - just to keep things simple.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The last comment; your proposal is so bad & hopeless that I will not comment ever again:

1. If you define something, you need to say first of all, what it is!!!

2. Your phrase "is a term which has been applied to" is empty, because it does not say, what Existentialism is, and it can be replaced with just a single verb (guess, which one).

3. "late nineteenth" century is false, because pre-existentialists do not count as existentialists.

4. "disparate group" is false, because they were not a group, only their philosophies.

5. "despite profound doctrinal differences" is a repetition to "disparate", which is false (see 4.).

6. "shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject" is a false characterization, because almost every philosopher does, as also ontology.

7. "the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject - not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual" unnecessarily says, what Existentialism is NOT (who cares!).

8. "Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience" is completely irrelevant.

9. CONCLUSION: Sorry, but there is not a single decent phrase in your proposal. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I've grown quite sick and tired of your snide tone and the very unhelpful attitude you evince in everything you contribute. Statements like "there is not a single decent phrase in your proposal" are offensive and not in keeping with a cooperative project like Wikipedia. Why don't you check your attitude? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyway, cites for the current proposal: John Macquarrie, Existentialism, New York (1972), pages 18-21; Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich, New York (1995), page 259; Ernst Breisach, Introduction to Modern Existentialism, New York (1962), page 5; Walter Kaufmann, Existentialism: From Dostoevsky to Sartre, New York (1956), page 12.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Disregarding the ramblings of IP, who has now extended his vandalism to the phenomenology article, I think your proposal is better than the current one (which has already been reverted from IP's again). I have a few points I would like to make, however. Perhaps, after the sentence about the "acting, feeling, living [...]," the main "campaign slogan," that existence precedes essence could be added? Something in the direction of "It is in this sense Sartre claimed that Existence precedes essence" (the source for that would be Existentialism is a Humanism: "What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards."). That this sentence is much richer in meaning doesn't need to affect the introduction: The concept is elaborated upon in the article (even though the definition is still preliminary and needs a bit more work).

When it comes to the part about many existentialist philosophers being sceptical of traditional systematic and academic philosophy, do you mean in the sense that many of them preferred to describe and expand their philosophies in a sort of "poetic" or "literary" way (Kierkegaard's different personae, Sartre and Camus' plays, Heidegger's focus on Hölderlin and other poets (and his own attempts at poetry), etc.)? Or did you mean in the sense that many of the existentialist philosophers criticise more "formal" systems (Hegel is a common pet peeve, it seems), as these frequently end up being reductionist and/or missing the point simply in virtue of having to stick to their own formal rules, meaning that they draw their conclusions not from their lives, but from their philosophies? In any case, or, possibly, in both, I feel it could be elaborated a bit -- each existentialist philosopher did, after all, develop a large and coherent philosophical system. I don't know if such an elaboration would be too.. elaborate for the introduction, but I'm just putting it forth as a proposal.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll give the existence/essence point some thought. For Wiki, I think it's preferable to have a secondary source (rather than Sartre) to support the claim that this is an important general theme in existentialism, and I can probably find one. As for your other point, yes - it's the resistance to Hegel-type systems and the treatment of the human individual as a purely rational animal; and yes, I think we should develop it later rather than in the first sentence or two.

Can any other editors support this approach?KD Tries Again (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Ah, I was being unclear. I meant Sartre as a source for the statement that "it is in this sense that Sartre [etc.]," not for the fact that this is what existentialist philosophers have in common (although it's quite clear to anyone who reads all these philosophers that a central presupposition in their philosophies could be summed up as the fact that existence precedes essence). I guess my wiki skills suffer because I'm mainly sceptical about secondary literature.

It may be bad to mention Sartre specifically in the intro, but since it is, after all, a "slogan" that is often connected with existentialism, I just thought it would be a good idea to put it in there. I also thought that it could be used as a link between the first and last parts of the paragraph: It could be tied in to the opposition to "traditional" systems in that deducing the human condition from a system (instead of the other way around) is a sort of essence preceding existence (the essence is deduced from the systems and then applied to the explanation of human behaviour).

When it comes to other editors, I believe there would be more to gain from the philosophy portal than from these talk pages: There haven't been many replies to things I've posted in here since I first started editing these articles... there have been a few modifications to what I wrote, some of which I don't mind.. others were more problematic, but not as blatantly untrue as IP's edits, so I let them stand in good faith until I could come up with a better way to say what I wanted to say; this is as much a learning experience (I need to be able to explain what I'm researching better) as it is a "teaching" experience.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• You need to understand the subject and not just plagiarize sentences from here and there, thus having loose citations from excellent sources, but nothing else in the above two boldfaced proposals. A WP:LEAD shall not be a compilation of loose quotations, but a summary of the whole article that your proposals do not resemble even remotely. There is not a single decent phrase in the proposals meeting the criteria of WP:LEAD, so crude and unrefined they are despite the seriousness of the sources you used to get the compiled quotations from. Your proposals represent only, what you wish to have, and not, what WP:LEAD calls for. Sorry, but I will take an administrative action against your reverting/blanking of my addition of the 1st sentence correcting deficiencies of the lead also you admitted existed. Your reverting/blanking abuses WP:CONSENSUS per WP:PRACTICAL. Good luck. 71.247.12.83 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided us with a single source for your inaccurate improvisations about Heidegger. Not a single source. Unfortunately, I have to remind you again of Wikipedia etiquette and ask you not to make accusations of plagiarism. Presenting original content based on specifically identified source is not plagiarism; it is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. KD Tries Again (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I like this introduction, overall, but I think we should consider that many people without any background in philosophy will be typing "existentialism" into Wikipedia in order to clarify a widely-used (and -abused) term. If I had no background in philosophy, I don't think the present introduction would satisfactorily answer the question, "What is existentialism?" Do you consider it possible to include such concepts as "existentialism emphasizes individual freedom and, therefore, individual responsibility" and "existentialism posits that contemporary life is often characterized by an absence of universal value systems" without being too reductive? Aptninja (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I heart huckabees

Why remove it? A parody is as inspired by the philosophy as a "serious" existentialist movie. The film's tagline was "An existential comedy"[3], and even (perhaps especially?) existentialist philosophers have a sense of humour.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see it as a serious attempt to express existentialism. Many contents and themes are actually contrary to existentialist thoughts. Wandering Courier (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah ,existentialists may have a sense of humor, but its just annoying to see a parody of something so serious as a philosophy that deals with the extreme struggle of humanity in trying to find meaning. I don't think the film should be included; it's not really infuenced by the philosophy, but rather by a superficial understanding of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.77.11 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinion

I'm responding to a request for comment made directly to me on my talk page. There are two policies that are of special relevance to the discussion here. The first is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged... must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Claims made in a Wiki article must be sourced, especially if they have been challenged. The second is Wikipedia:Consensus, which states, in part, "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making".

For example, the Shorter Routledge, in the first paragraph of its article on the topic, says

The term 'Existentialism' is sometimes reserved for the works of Jean-Paul Sartre, who used it to refer to his own philosophy... But it is more often used as a general name for a number of thinkers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries...

If this Wiki article is going to suggest something at odds with this, it ought to be supported by some substantial sources. Check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Banno (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

New Introduction - continued

I found the Solomon book, which allowed me to add an important point I felt was missing - in bold (Solomon, Existentialism, 1974, pages 1-2). I still plan to look at whether "existence precedes essence" can easily be fitted in. I actually agree with the early suggestion that "disparate group" is not good; replaced with "a number of", but open to alternatives.

Existentialism is a term which has been applied to the work of a number of late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences, shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject - not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual. 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. Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.

I welcome comments, but please explain the basis for any disagreement.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I've now loaded up the new introductory sentences. As above, please note that this material is supported by citations from six reliable sources. Per the Outside Opinion above, I'd ask editors to be prepared with counter-citations if they have objections to the new introduction, and to work on this page to achieve consensus rather than reverting a fully sourced edit to one which has no sources at all. At the same time, there is always room for improvement, of course.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I would first like to note that, as per my previous comments about secondary literature vs. original literature, I'm probably not particularly suited to wiki editing. However, I still believe that knowledge and academic study of original literature should at least entitle me to an opinion.

"Existence precedes essence:" It doesn't necessarily have to be that specific sentence.. the point is to make it clear that an existentialist philosopher wouldn't take an abstract concept, the concept of "man" (in the sense of Das Man or similar "substitutive" structures), for instance, as determinative of each individual's essential way of being; nothing determines man. I do not feel that this is sufficiently clear from the current introduction.

In that context, I would also rephrase the sentence about the individual's starting point: Existentialism is, after all, a philosophy, and it is the philosophy that starts with the individual; I would call it the starting point of the philosophy, not the individual: To the extent that existentialism also prescribes a "remedy" for inauthentic individuals, it is also a philosophy that relates to individuals who are not aware of the fact that they are being inauthentic (cf. Kierkegaard's Spidsborger (I don't know what the English translation is, as I've only read the Danish texts, but it's the "lowest" "stage," preceding the Aesthetic)), and who, consequently, have not been confronted with their conditions of existence.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing Lead

It is very important that editors do not replace the language in the lead with their own language while ignoring the sources. One set of statements cannot be replaced with another while the sources remain unchanged. Breisach, for example, cannot be used to support "For many, concrete human experience - emphasized by existentialism - was too abstract and remote for traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content" - that's not what Breisach says.

I'd ask editors to discuss changes to this lead on the Talk Page rather than replacing material supported by reliable sources with unsourced POV material. Note that the use of "Dasein" in the lead is opposed by the consensus on this Talk Page.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Okay. Here are my concerns with some attempted versions of the lead:

1. "Existentialism is a term that..."
2. "...philosophical thinking begins with the human subject..."

On #1, the most tautological and useless way to begin an article is to state the obvious in the definition. Of course it's a term, but why not use a more useful noun? You wouldn't write, "The United States is a label...", or "chocolate is a word..." would you?

Number 2, needlessly abstruse. Wikipedia states that it should always be optimized for laypersons over experts, and philosophy experts aren't going here to learn, the neophytes are. Existentialism says, "God doesn't give you a meaning or set of rules. You live and you die, try to find meaning in the meantime." Why bother with this convoluted wording? If someone wants a more precise definition, (s)he can always read on.--Loodog (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

1. The last thing I am worried about is the word "term". I am sure anything along those lines will do fine. What the sentence needs to reflect is that the word/term/label was applied for the most part retrospectively, by those who came later, to earlier philosophers who did not consciously form a school or group. That's what is unusual about it, and what the lead has to capture. Whereas one can plausibly write that phenomenology is a philosophy created by Edmund Husserl, one can't write that existentialism is a philosophy created by Soren Kierkegaard.

2. Cutting the sentence short doesn't help; I am sure the wording can be improved, but I'd like to keep it encyclopaedic. Your version obscures the fact that probably most of the notable existentialists were religious thinkers who certainly believed meaning was to be found in the individual's experience of God: starting with Kierkegaard. By all means come up with something clearer, but less exclusive. What do your sources say?KD Tries Again (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• I agree with Loodog (talk) and additionally, Breisach was not quoted (have you seen any quotation marks, please?), and the sense of, what he had said, was kept, so your argument is purely arbitrary... again! Is it possible that you suffer of a limitation preventing making any comparison of values that are not identical even, if very close..., please? Such limitation could be characterized by excellent memory and no ability to process values, like of the "Rain Man"... remember? In such case, arguing would be pointless. Sincerely. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No-one mentioned quoting. You don't have to quote someone directly to use them as a source.

Now, let's take this one step at a time.

1. Saying that existentialism is a coherent system of beliefs or a "doctrine" just won't cut it. Existentialism has been applied to philosophers who have diverse philosophical claims. What they have in common, however, is the life and experiences of an earnest individual in particular situations (where one faces the absurdity of life).

1a. I would just like to make the point again that perhaps one could include the fact that the existential attitude would require a sort of earnestness somewhere around where it is discussed? I'm sure that this source, Solomon, couldn't be taken as saying that the existential attitude is available at any moment, even to a Spidsborger or other such "one does as one does" kind of characters.

2. Saying that existentialism posits that you are free to create a meaning doesn't actually cover all existentialist philosophers. Zapffe, for instance, believed that human consciousness was a "tragedy," and that the only way to survive was to "artificially reduce your consciousness." This (i.e. distraction) is not the same as happily choosing a meaning to life. The same goes for Kierkegaard, where the "solution" is faith. Faith, in Kierkegaard's thought (and many would agree with him), is a non-rational phenomenon: Abraham's leap of faith doesn't constitute a meaning for him; in it, before it, and after, all hope is lost, and only faith remains (without constituting what one could call a meaning. It may seem paradoxical, but that's just the way it is with Kierkegaard).Der Zeitgeist (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Intelligent, pointed discussions exclude your method of posting false or nonsensical premises and arguing that they are wrong implying that - so - you have to be right. NO! Something false does not prove that something else is right (formal logic). E.g.:
• 1. You said "No-one mentioned quoting". Yes, but KD Tries Again implied that by stating "do not replace the language in the lead with their own language while ignoring the sources", because it applies only, when a source is quoted. GOT IT, please? In other words (to make it simple), if own language is used (without quotation marks), it means that here is a notion in own words and there is the source of the notion, but not actual wording, because without quotation marks. GOT IT, please? ...AND YES, it is legitimate!!!
• 2. Nobody stated, what you imply: "Saying that existentialism is a coherent system of beliefs or a "doctrine" just won't cut it". You cannot attribute to anyone something nobody said, build an argument on such false premise, and make self-serving conclusions! Please, do not drag us to 2+2=4, or, in this case, since 2+2 is not 3 or 5, so my way must be right. NO! If existentialism is to be defined in a simple way, and it is not a doctrine, it means, that no one intends to call it a doctrine and that we are looking for other simple way to call it. GOT IT, please? Do not make false assumptions in an intelligent discussion, as a base for arguing, because the implication with a false assumption is always true (formal logic), please.
• Please, do not waste out time by arguing boloney. Seriously concerned. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that comparing another editor with "Rain Man" is a serious breach of Wikipedia etiquette.KD Tries Again (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• O.K., so maybe you are 15 or 16 years old or there is another cause (who cares!), but building the 1st par. of the lead from the 4 raw quotations taken out of context from the advanced and complicated books is not an option per WP:LEAD, and you have not shown ability to simplify, merge or even process them to be fit per WP:LEAD, suggesting had you been able, you would have NOT reverted constantly the edits, but you would have participated in constructive processing the lead, which you - apparently - are not capable to do, for God's sake, please...!!! See also my arguments above. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Der Zeitgeist is right. There's a big difference between "existentialism" on the one hand, and schools of philosophy like "phenomenology" or "logical positivism" or even "structuralism". In the latter three cases you can identify pretty clearly when and where they started, who started them, and what their core beliefs are (even if members of the schools later changed or modified their views). "Existentialism" (as such - not existenzphilosophie) is a name Gabriel Marcel coined in the 1940s which caught on as a term for the work of the Sartre circle and for various non-philosophical cultural off-shoots. It was then retrospectively applied to past philosophers, and extended to other philosophers who were not followers of Sartre (many of them Christians, apart from anything else). It follows that the lead for this article is not going to state simply "existentialism is X". The best it can do is identify common themes which caused such different thinkers as Kierkegaard, Sartre, Buber, Unamuno, et al to be linked under the label. The current lead is a step in that direction, with sources given which support the themes identified.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

To address point #2 again. What you said about different existentialist ideas having in common the individual, why is it a stretch to write that they have in common, "that each man is responsible for creating his own meaning"? This business with "begins with the human subject" means nothing to a layperson, and could be easily interpreted (1) to contrast to beginning with *animals*, (2) to mean that existentialism is synonymous with (a) psychology or (b) biology, (3) to mean existentialism states to look to other people for meaning. It's awful wording that only has precise predefined meaning to someone already familiar with the subject.--Loodog (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

...and I fully support Loodog's argument. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

But to be clear, it doesn't just say that: the same sentence goes on to say what "human subject" means. If you can come up with something clearer than "human subject", no problem - "human being"? "man or woman"? If I could come up with a better way of saying it I would; I open to suggestions. I certainly don't resist adding either the point about creating meaning, or Zeitgeist's related point about existence preceding essence. It's important to be able to source it, though, as the lead is currently under attack. Can anyone do that? I can, but I need to find time (have been working on the Phenomenology lead, but reluctant to post it until I have some confidence it won't just be reverted).KD Tries Again (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

In terms of sourcing, I found this on a quick google search:

“ Sartre's slogan — "existence precedes essence" — may serve to introduce what is most distinctive of existentialism, namely, the idea that no general, non-formal account of what it means to be human can be given, since that meaning is decided in and through existing itself. Existence is "self-making-in-a-situation" (Fackenheim 1961:37)[4] ”

I think that's miles better than this "begins with the human subject" stuff. I propose: Existentialism describes a number of differing philosophies which all share the notion that no general, non-formal account of what it means to be human can be given, since that meaning must be determined through a person's life.--Loodog (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sartre's slogan — "existence precedes essence" seems to be too sophisticated in the lead for laymen with a high school (grammar or middle school) diploma. Maybe it can start conservatively and positively, as: Existentialism refers a number of differing philosophies, which share the notion that the meaning of human existence is determined through human being's life. "Person" can be also legal, so such word should be avoided. Then - of course - you can go to: Existentialism is any of diverse philosophies sharing an approach to human existence in the world stressing that human beings are free and responsible for creating their own meaning in life. Etc... --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Loodog, so something like:

Existentialism is a term which has been applied to the work of a disparate group of late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences,[1][2] shared the belief that that no general, non-formal account of what it means to be human can be given, since that meaning must be determined through the individual person's life[3]. 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.[4]

I highlighted "non-formal" - not having Fackenheim's context, I don't really get that. Can we cut it? And we'd subtitute the Fackenheim cite for Macquarrie. I did like the bit emphasizing living/feeling human being over thinking subject, but maybe it can be introduced elsewhere.

I agree that "existences precedes essence" is too technical for the lead; we needed a lay version of it, and perhaps Fackenheim is enough for that. "Existentialism is any of diverse philosophies...(etc)" - all kinds of philosophies would indeed fit that description more or less. As it happens, the label "existentialist" has been applied to a fairly contrained list of thinkers for historical reasons. Technically I agree about "person", but given the context I don't think it matters much.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC) KD Tries Again

1. Loodog already said to skip "is a term", because - I am spelling out for you - it is not intelligent to use it, please.

2. You need to say first, what IT is, and only then, what it applies to.

3. So, the syntax (not the content) could rather look as:

Existentialism is a philosophical movement based on the belief that only no general and non-formal account can be given, of what it means to be human, and that meaning must be determined through the individual person's life.[3] Such belief was shared by a disparate group of late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers despite their profound doctrinal differences.[1][2] 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.[4]

4. The content is still a mumble-jumble for laymen, but at least you started to soften. Nice! --141.155.135.66 (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to chime in on this existence precedes essence thing. The point I've made, and that I've tried to make in editing the article is that existence precedes essence does not mean the same as "you create the essence of your life." For many existentialist philosophers, sure, you "are allowed" to create a meaning to your life, but this is not essential to existentialism. That existence precedes essence means only that there is no essence to be found that dictates what it is to be human. The point about creating an essence for yourself is only for certain philosophers like Camus and Sartre while Kierkegaard's alternative of faith and Zapffe's reduction of consciousness are not about "creating a meaning to life." This is also what should be understood by the sentences quoted up there: They may seem to say one thing, but they are taken out of context. Having read quite a bit of Sartre, I know that self-making-in-a-situation isn't the kind of self-help book phrase it looks like. It means that regardless of what you do, you are constantly defining yourself -- in retrospect. You act, you are what you act, but then you are no longer what you act because you are fleeing it towards your possibles while still being what you were in the mode of not-being-it.

Existentialism isn't a self-help philosophy. At least not in the sense that those words are normally used ("how to be happy," etc): it is a complex system of descriptions of the human conditions, examinations of the modes of existence and spheres of life... in short, it could just as well be a basis for a personal way of living life as it could be a basis for developing a psychological or political philosophy or theory. What this theory is going to look like will vary, depending on whether you start with Sartre, Kierkegaard or any of the others, but they all share a keen eye for the human condition.

When it comes to sourcing my claim about existence preceding essence, however, I only have my own experience with reading these philosophers and Sartre's "Existentialism is a humanism" (which I would consider a sort of "secondary literature" considering that he, in this context, is actually talking about the "other" existentialist philosophers, like Kierkegaard and Heidegger, effectively making it a "commentary" on their philosophies by a philosopher who I would consider somewhat of an authority on the area. However, if people disagree, I am not going to force this specific point on the lead).

When it comes to the point of the word "term," that's just beating a dead horse. I thought KD made it clear that the point wasn't that "existentialism is a term," but rather that "existentialism is a term that has been applied to [...]." In other words, the fact that it is a term is secondary (in addition to being true). At least if one were to contrast it with any account trying to make "existentialism" out as being some sort of coherent system, a philosophy or doctrine; it is a quick way to define the general field you're working within without going into specifics -- that is, it is well-suited for a layman's introduction to the subject).

To spell it out for you, IP, to say what existentialism is, is to say that it is a term that has been applied to many different philosophers in retrospect, and that the reason why it has been applied to them is that they have a few things in common. Only then would it make sense to list the things they have in common. When it comes to your "syntax" and "simplified" leads.. well, throwing stones in glass houses just isn't a good idea.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no, no, and no! This is not a Ph.D. dissertation, but an article for laymen. Its lead needs to be written using simple language, at least in the 1st par., and a conservative and well known (to laymen) schematic: 1) what is it or refers to; 2) what it applies to; especially, because the subject matter is not coherent and extremely difficult, so spare them a convoluted construction or syntax. We all know, what KD meant, but that way is not clear and easy to understand for laymen. Please, use your superior knowledge, intellect and intelligence to process more, generate something simple (does not have to be that accurate; you can specify everything underneath), and propose it constructively, instead of wasting time analyzing, what I said. It is irrelevant. Only a simple lead matters. The phrase "you create the essence of your life" does not belong to the lead also, because it is too murky (technical) for laymen. What about something like:

Existentialism is a complex philosophical system of descriptions of the human conditions and examinations of the modes of existence and spheres of life.

or (yes, I went through your tirade)

Existentialism is any of diverse philosophies sharing an approach to human existence in the world emphasizing that human beings are free and responsible for making choices that cause dread and anguish.

or

Existentialism refers to various philosophies emphasizing the hard reality and problematic character of existence, as essential to nature of human being. It stresses that human existence in the world is characterized by freedom and responsibility for making choices that cause dread and anguish.

Please, try to be constructive and not philosophical. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop being offensive to other editors. We are making progress despite the constant breaches of [WP:No personal attacks] and [WP:Civil]. I do agree that starting out

Existentialism is a philosophical movement based on the belief...(etc)

reads better. Yes it does: it's clear and simple. Personally, I don't think it's true. I think there was a brief "existentialist movement" in Paris in the late '40s and earl '50s, but existentialism as a whole was not a movement in the way that logical positivism was, or phenomenology (in Germany, around Husserl's Jarhbuch was). It's Wiki policy, though, that what matters is verifiability, not truth. The sources with which I am familiar go to lengths stress that existentialism was not a movement. If someone can come up with decent support for the claim it was, maybe we can work with it, even if we need to qualify it later in the article. Otherwise, it's competing with a lead which is well sourced.

I don't think we're going anywhere with the other suggestions thrown out by 141.155.135.66: "making choices that cause dread and anguish" is really, well, not quite right.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

You have asked for it and you do it again... . Please, do not make suggestions, which you subsequently discredit, like the above "Existentialism is a philosophical movement based on the belief... [...] Personally, I don't think it's true". Your sarcasm "If someone can come up with decent support for the claim it was, maybe we can work with it" is offensive and... hypocritical or sick. Nobody will go and look for a support for... what seems to be false. We have got... nothing, because still at the 2nd word of the 1st sentence of the lead. Subsequently, your statement "We are making progress" seems to be inflamatory, as described in edit warring. All of the above suggests bad faith and meeting the criteria of creative trolling.--141.155.135.66 (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, it's not sarcasm, it's based on Wikipedia policy that statements need to be verifiable. I can't verify that existentialism is a "movement" based on the sources at my disposal. I agree that a straightforward statement would be a great way to start the lead, but it must be supported by citations (as explained to you by an uninvolved editor [here].KD Tries Again (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Okay, how about:

Existentialism refers to the doctrines (thought? work?) of a disparate group of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers...(etc)

Gets rid of "term", which I understand the objection to, but doesn't suggest they were all part of a movement or even subscribed to exactly the same doctrines. We then go on to suggest some of the broad themes that are common to the group. Anyone like that?KD Tries Again (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Or (exclude <comments>):

Existentialism refers to philosophies <without saying, what it is> emphasizing <or a synonym: "having in common", "centered",...>... <here, something synthetic, what they are about> of a disparate group of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers...(etc.)

--141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)