Talk:Existentialism

Archives
2003 – June 2006 mid 2006 – mid 2008

Implied link between Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Nihilism

For Nietzsche, I am 100% certain there is no link, other than that Nietzsche provided a in depth refutation of nihilism. Implying a link reinforces the oft-repeated fallacy that Nietzsche was a nihilist.

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 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)

Is it a cat, a dog, or something else...?

The purport of the present lead is NOT clear, because it DOES NOT mention, what existentialism actually is, please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is it a cat, a dog, or something else, please?????????????? Sincerely concerned. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to calm down. If you don't like the way it's worded now, start offering your alternatives, here on the talk page. لennavecia 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have (it is an old posting), and offering of alternatives have already begun. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Etiquette Alert

Out of courtesy, I am posting this notification here as the user in question has now edited from a series of different IP numbers, making it impossible to determine which User Talk Page he/she is currently using: [Wikipedia Etiquette Alert]KD Tries Again (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• Too bad, but you have to live with it. Verizon changes my IP # at will and I use only one at the time; once it is changed, I cannot use it anymore. Instead of digging dirt I suggest to improve arguing. Sincerely. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• • With respect, nobody can know which Talk Page to use to communicate with you. It's really not my fault. I am not sure why you choose not to have a Wikipedia account.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I do not need a talk page and I do not wish to be talked to, if possible. I believe that anonymous editors should have the same rights, as register ones, because truth does not depend on, who is telling it. It is enough just to edit and to avoid discussing on talk pages for it seems to be a waste of time. Just do make constructive edits and intelligent editors will deduce, what they do or are to mean.

Btw., your way of defending the position is... terrible, and you do it... in bad faith... with premeditation... to cover up your limitations..., and you have a personal agenda..., and you do not care for a majority of readers, who are just laymen with a high (grammar or middle) school diploma, but also human beings (O.K., it is existentialism, so everyone is responsible for himself... to make it funny), please. It makes me sick, so how can you expect me to be encourage to communicate, please??? Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Anon, regular editors are encouraged to get accounts. For example, right now I can tell that you're from Brooklyn, 40.6594 latitude by -73.9625 longitude near Prospect Park. Registering an account protects your privacy.--Loodog (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, the northern Bronx, and my privacy is protected enough; the rest - I do not care. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, please do get an account. The difficulty is that you can use any of the Talk Pages, and it's impractical to continue the same conversation from one to the next.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Anon, please remember to [assume good faith]> I have no idea what my agenda is - I've simply tried editing the lead based on absolutely standard, reliable sources. I opposed the introduction of technical Heideggerian terminology as inappropriate to a general article on Existentialism, and asked for your sources, which you declined to provide. As for my limitations, I've published on Heidegger, have a PhD in modern European philosophy, and have taught philosophy at a British University. That doesn't make me an "advanced editor" here, of course, but it responds to your comment.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• Very well, thanks for the info...; so you are not 15 or 16, but your agenda is - whether or not you see it (that tricky subconsciousness... ha, ha, ha!) - to apply your technical and bookish (Ph.D.'s) standard to... Wikipedia dedicated to... laymen. IT DOES NOT APPLY! You do not write books for children the same way you do for adults, which are also different then ones about philosophy! GOT IT, please? Then, to force your way (agenda) through insisting on sources. It is the same whether you write in an inaccessible way or insist on quoting sources, because one is equivalent to the other. GOT IT, please? ...AND - apparently - despite your Ph.D., you do not have imagination. I have a few such friends, who are always technically right, but... nothing else, so they compensate... in various ways. If you are cold, like fish, and appealing to your empathy (heart) is pointless, because you have none, please, cooperate without believing to see, what happens; be spontaneous a bit for the sake of layman readers, who need Wikipedia, and abandon the bookish and useless here agenda for... your ego. Please, advance above it. Wikipedia has a nice article about Dasein, and such reference might enrich the lead using just one word, but it is not a big deal. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Anon, you're going way beyond what is reasonable here. It's not WP:CIVIL or good faith to accuse someone of an agenda. There's no need to make the attack that another editor is retarded, and it's completely unnecessary to declare a fellow editor lacking in imagination or empathy. Comment on content, not on the contributor.--Loodog (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not an attack, but an analysis (free). DK had asked for the agenda, and I have provided it. Does not like it? Too bad, but, please, such is the reality to be faced. The leads are not a place for a Ph.D. dissertation style whether it is imposed directly or through a sources requirement (the effect is the same). The leads are for laymen - simple people, please. It is not the editor, but about them, please. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Attacks don't cease to be attacks because the accuser claims them to be true. In the future, please do not offer "analyses" of fellow editors; talk about the article. This is wikipedia policy.--Loodog (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right, but nothing else had worked (I had mistaken you in the 3rd message above for KD, but my reply above has been corrected). I had to explain a possibility of subconscious or otherwise out of control behavior (resistance) in case it had been unnoticed (nothing personal). I have a neighbor, who cannot help himself, but a "cold shower" from time to time reminds him about controlling... . He always tries to prove that he is right... and technically he is, because he chooses or changes conditions to suit his only ability to be factual also by removing considerations (manipulation), where facts do not play a role, e.g. where synthesis counts. So, my objective was to point out that such mechanism is very visible and detrimental to the simple lead for laymen (nothing personal). It was not about the editor, but about the mechanism, like in an Aesopian tale, where you cannot separate a mechanism from the person, but it is still not about the person. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

1: I think you are underestimating laymen.

2: Not even a layman benefits from being given wrong information, no matter how accessible it is.

3: References to the subconscious is as much a personal attack as anything else, and even more so in this case: You probably do not know anything about psychology either (do you even know the details of any of the theories on the subconscious, the current psychological view on it, etc.?). In any case, what you say could just as easily be applied to yourself, but are you willing to look at yourself in the "mirror?" It wouldn't seem so, considering you don't even stop to think about any of the criticism directed at you from all the other editors you have been arguing with; you are, after all, who they're talking to and about.

4: You rant about synthesis and logics, but you haven't shown a single sign of having understood any of what you're talking about. You haven't been able to point to any single philosopher (using Heideggerian terminology is in no way equivalent to having read Heidegger) or philosophical work in defending your introduction. I'd say it's quite relevant to know your qualifications here, at least when your position is challenged. Did you just read an "obscure book in a foreign language" on Heidegger and decide you had the whole picture? Can you even explain what existentialism is? Do you do anything besides edit the leads of articles?Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

NPA, please. Thanks. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia etiquette alert - arbitrary break

If I may speak as an uninvolved editor here, I think that you (the anon) might feel you are being attacked for editing anonymously. I would submit that you are not seeing the actual issue of concern. I don't think anyone cares if you edit anonymously; some people do it with perfectly valid reasons, and we should assume good faith that the anon is preferring to be such for one of those reasons.

However, assuming good faith doesn't mean overlooking bad behavior. If you wish to edit anonymously, please act anonymous. When you attack your fellow editors, and make it personal, then you invite a level of scrutiny and suspicion that might very well be unwarranted. There are contributors who have been banned from editing by Wikipedia for various reasons, and some try to return and edit anonymously anyway. Usually, their frustration at having been banned/blocked comes through in their edits as incivility and personal attacks, and they are found out sooner rather than later, because they draw attention to themselves through their antisocial behavior.

You are drawing attention to your unpleasant behavior (ergo, the WQA, which will, if unresolved, will usually lead to AN/I and a range block of your IP). I would encourage you to take the time to listen to folk who are trying to help you, and focus on the edits, and not the editor. If you don't want to create an account, fine. Do not expect to enjoy the same level of good faith that the rest of us with accounts are automatically given. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped a warning on his current (as of the latest contribs) talk page of the anon. There were several appropriate templates to choose from, but I went with the NPA template. If disruption continues, a block will surely be issued. لennavecia 16:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• No, I do not feel being attacked as anon. Intentional acts have an objective content that Husserl thought they could be studied systematically, so I had studied the objective content of the insistence on exact quotes. The insistence on exact quotes is not supported by WP:SOURCES, which requires "relying" and not quoting, or by WP:LEAD requiring only "carefully sourced as appropriate ". If WP:SOURCES required quoting instead of "relying", it would be in conflict with the requirement of "a clear, accessible style" (for laymen) required by WP:LEAD in case of sources on the difficult and complex subjects, like existentialism, which are complicated and not clear or accessible to laymen at all. Is it a conflict between clarity and accessibility by WP:LEAD and sourcing by WP:SOURCES? No (only, if you mistake sourcing for quoting), because WP:LEAD requires "carefully sourced as appropriate ". The key word is "appropriate" meaning appropriate for "a clear, accessible style".
• IN CONCLUSION (it took a while to reach it): "a clear, accessible style" supersedes quoting, because required sourcing is not limited to quoting, but also includes an own, simplified wording with the notion from a source, where it can be checked for originality and details.
• So, I had tried to simplify the 1st par. of the lead compiled from 4 difficult and incoherent quotations, and several times it was abruptly reverted; once with the edit summary "Corrected lead to comport with sources", which is not consistent with the Wikipedia rules summarized in the conclusion above. Reverting is not constructive, but discouraging and repellent, as to say: you do not belong here. Was it done, because I edit anonymously? I do not know, but I was NOT trying to be personal, only to reach the above conclusion, which took a while, because I did not see or understand the hidden aspects.
• I made mistakes, for which ?ennavecia gave me a warning (I understand), but her quotations in "What some sources say" are all I have ever asked for. Thanks flying lady. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to argue, but there were no quotations in the lead which you edited (i.e. the current lead), only citations to the sources on which it is based. Since you introduced your own language, while leaving the citations, I observed that the lead no longer comported with the sources cited. I sourced the lead because I understood you to be challenging it.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again.

Regarding the alleged conflict between WP:LEAD and WP:SOURCES; if there is, in fact, a conflict, considering LEAD is a style guideline and SOURCES is part of a policy, then we must adhere to SOURCES. The lead is a summary of the article that should include no information not written in the body. So introducing your own language that leads to a difference in explanation from that in the body also then introduces conflicts between the two (lead and body). Now, sourcing in the lead as appropriate refers to instances of extraordinary claims or otherwise challenged material that, while sourced in the body, should also be sourced at first mention. Hopefully that clears all up. لennavecia 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the strange and problematic things about the article is that the lead has nine citations, the big section on Main doctrines has none (maybe one), and most of the other cites occur in the later sections of existentialism in the movies (etc). I am hoping that if we can get the lead reasonably stable, we can then revise the unsourced philosophical sections and the historical sections.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• As far as the clarification by لennavecia goes, it was my position from the beginning (obviously), but to counter the argument, that I cannot summarize in the lead in my own words (obviously not in conflict, but in concordance with the body), I produced the "alleged conflict" argument, which (now) is irrelevant considering that the lead is a summary and does not require quotations per WP:LEAD. Thanks again. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Anon, you're adding comments between existing comments, which can be confusing. Nobody has suggested that the lead should be anything else than a summary* supported by the consensus of editors, and, if challenged, by sources.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Sorry, it is corrected now. Actually, the requirement is: "The lead is a summary of the article". The key word is summary, which is not synonymous with your description, as "words supported by the consensus of editors", in case, when those words were not a summary. Also, your interpretation emphasizes the process (consensus), but summary is about the (quality of) content. If your interpretation were dominant over the actual requirement of summary (in "a clear, accessible style"), then a pretext of lack of consensus (as in the ancient Rome "lese-majeste" or "treason") could be used to obstruct developing a summary the same way my attempts had been hindered. So, the key word is "summary" regardless, how many editors like it. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

About the missing sources in the major concepts part of the article: I'm responsible for most of that, but it was one of the first things I did, so I wasn't really aware of how things were done (and yes: I know they're not complete, but that would take a tremendous effort). It's mainly based on what I've read and worked with throughout the years, but these concrete entries are probably mainly attributable to Being and Nothingess, Existentialism is a humanism, The Concept of Dread, Either-Or, Fear and Trembling, and The Myth of Sisyphus. I'm not sure that it would be possible to find the time to find direct citations for these things (some are referenced in the text, but not in the notes), but wouldn't it work if I just listed them in the "References" section? The only "simple" reference I can think of is the Bad Faith chapter in B&N for Bad Faith, but.. for the others, like the look and facticity, the treatments of these phenomena are very extensive, and they span many books.

Another thing: IP, I would encourage you not to re-arrange and "correct" the discussion pages; discussions are progressive, and if you have made a mistake in an earlier discussion entry, the best way to keep it proper is to acknowledge your mistake in a post while keeping the original mistake intact in the original. Otherwise, a reaction to an entry may seem irrational (reacting to something that is no longer there, for instance) to anyone who were to have a look at this discussion.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(*)Changed "words" to "summary" above which is all I meant in order to avoid wasting further time.

"If your interpretation were dominant over the actual requirement of summary (in "a clear, accessible style"), then a pretext of lack of consensus (as in the ancient Rome "lese-majeste" or "treason") could be used to obstruct developing a summary the same way my attempts had been hindered." Please stop questioning my good faith, as requested several times. Thanks.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I would encourage KD Tries Again to change back "summary" to "words" (see the Der Zeitgeist's reasoning), keep the asterisks, and exceptionally move the asterisked note (signed) just under the pertaining it entry, i.e. above the Der Zeitgeist's entry. The exceptional rearrangement - I have made - actually improves clarity to a significant degree, but I am 100 % with the Der Zeitgeist's reasoning expressed just above.

I do not question your good faith and you seem to be a nice person, but you might not be aware of needs of common people reading Wikipedia (e.g., if you live in a circle of similar people) or else that caused you to insist on sourcing summary of the lead. I can only deduce from your writings. I do not think that letter of law (WP:Verifiability) is the most important, but the people it serves; b.t.w., I have never suggested anything not verifiable, but referencing truisms of summary in the 1st per. of lead seemed always to be too much. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the article, not me. I can't think of a clearer way to express that request.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

So explain to me again why you won't sign up for an account, at least temporarily?

Obviously editors are not required to get an account, so I do not mean to imply that you are in violation of any sort of policy or that you "have to" get an account. But I am very confused about why you are unwilling to, as I suggested at the Wikiquette Alert, get an account just temporarily to assist in straightening out this mess. It will do nothing to compromise your privacy, and if you don't like having an account you can always just abandon it and go back to editing from IP addresses.

Anonymous IPs make productive contributions all the time, and I think that is great. However, in this case, since some amount of conflict and controversy has developed, the fact that your IP changes is creating some technical difficulties in facilitating the discussion and dispute resolution. For practical reasons, it is highly desirable that you create an account, at least temporarily.

Could you explain again what your reluctance is? The only reason you gave previously was that you felt the amount of privacy afforded you be a floating IP was "sufficient". That is all fine and good, but it does not address why you are so reluctant to create a temporary account to facilitate the dispute resolution process. If you don't mind, would you please help me to understand that? Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I had had an account, but it expired... somehow, so I have decided (considering the expiration as silly) not to bother anymore with accounts. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Accounts don't expire. If you forgot your password and did not include an email address, then you would be unable to retrieve the password. Otherwise, there's nothing that would prevent you from signing into your account. What was your account name? لennavecia 18:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have sent two options via Yahoo mail (let's call them 1 and 2), but I do not support my account there. I think it expired; there was a message from Wikipedia saying, that if I do not use it by xyz (and I did not), it will expire. Thanks. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

LEAD: What some sources say

Lead sentences:

1. Plato.Stanford.edu - Like "rationalism" and "empiricism," "existentialism" is a term that belongs to intellectual history.
2. Britannica - [A]ny of the various philosophies dating from about 1930 that have in common an interpretation of human existence in the world that stresses its concreteness and its problematic character.
3. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition - [A]ny of several philosophic systems, all centered on the individual and his relationship to the universe or to God.
4. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia - Philosophical movement oriented toward two major themes, the analysis of human existence and the centrality of human choice.
5. World Encyclopedia - Any of several philosophical systems concerned with the nature of existence or being.
6. The Oxford Companion to American Literature - European philosophic movement with various schools or attitudes of different eras, including the Christian concepts of Kierkegaard and Maritain, but affecting American literature primarily in terms of an atheistic view shared with or influenced by Sartre and Camus.
7. The Concise Oxford Companion to English Literature - [T]he name commonly given to a group of somewhat loosely associated philosophical doctrines and ideas which found expression in the work of such men as Sartre, Heidegger, Marcel, Camus, and Jaspers.

So there's something to work with. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with referring to it as "a term". IP noted that we don't want to make the article too sophisticated, although, his assertion that we are writing for middle-schoolers is not accurate. This is a sophisticated topic, and we're not the Simple English Wikipedia. If "term" seems too "dumbed-down", then there's a few alternatives to run with. لennavecia 16:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Option 7. supports continuing with "term" or "name" (and I think Option 1 supports that more or less). Option 6. supports "movement"; I have reservations, but like I said I can live with it. Option 2 may be Britannica, but post-1930 is at odds with most standard texts, which always trace it to Kierkegaard.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

How, about (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)

That structure is pretty much how the first sentence current stands, except editors felt that my version of <what they are about> was too complicated (i.e. "philosophical thinking begins with the human subject - not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual"). As I said above, something along the lines of Loodog's suggestion might fit there instead (i.e. "shared the belief that that no general account of what it means to be human can be given, since that meaning must be determined through the individual person's life").KD Tries Again (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC) KD Tries Again

Sorry, but the language of your proposals does not resemble even remotely simplicity of any of 7 lead sentences given above by لennavecia.

How about the disregarded Der Zeitgeist's proposal quoted above as: "philosophical system of descriptions of the human conditions and examinations of the modes of existence and spheres of life", which after skipping "of a disparate group of philosophers" as implicit (since philosophies are by philosophers) can result in:

1. Existentialism refers to various 19th and 20th century philosophies bound together by descriptions of the human conditions, and examinations of the modes of existence and spheres of life.

or, even better (descriptions and examinations were skipped too as "empty words"):

2. Existentialism refers to various 19th and 20th century philosophies, all centered on <concerned with> the human conditions and the modes of existence and spheres of life.

or

3. Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on <concerned with> the human conditions and the modes of existence and spheres of life.

--141.155.135.66 (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that "modes of existence and spheres of life" is specific and clear enough in that proposal to distinguish doctrines called "existentialist" from the doctrines of any other philosophy which deals with the human condition. Strip that phrase out and you have:

"Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on <concerned with> the human condition."

I think my proposal and Loodog's each have the merit of describing something distinctive of existentialism.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The problem here is that "the human condition" probably would require a bit of clarification. That "modes of existence and spheres of life" stuff doesn't make sense to anyone who doesn't already know what it means, but simply stating that it is concerned with the human condition isn't satisfactory either.

One of the things one could do, to kind of hint at why it's called existentialism and not conditionalism, would be to write "human existence" instead, but it still remains to qualify such an existence: It could just as well be a natural-scientific world-view, or a purely psychologistic world-view's take on it. "Concrete human existence" would add something, but perhaps not enough. "Concrete human existence as it appears to itself if considered in earnestness" is still not enough, but already here, the sentence is quite possibly getting a bit too complicated and nonsensical as a lead; further qualification is still required.

In short, my point is that instead of trying to figure out the exact wording first, we should probably try to determine what the actual essential aspects of existentialism are, what it is that should be worded exactly. Of course, that's partially what we're doing, but not systematically. Just a thought.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm game. Already on the table:

• Something about the historical context - 19th/20th C. philosophers.
• Something about the meaning of to be human can't be given in advance, since that meaning must be determined through a person's life (a lay person's version of existence preceding essence).
• Philosophy starts with human existence itself, not just as rational but as living, feeling, acting.

Note: As requested, those are not proposals for the wording, just for markers which distinguish existentialism as such. More?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I have improved the template... I think (but maybe I am... not). How about:

"Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on <concerned with> the human existence in the world, as being <list... or> real <concrete or synonym>, individual and problematic <more>. Such existence is shaped <or synonym> by <list... or> freedom and responsibility for making choices that causes <list of chapters of article fulfilling the summary requirement... or> dread and anguish."

CORRECTED /see (*) next/: Maybe the matter is not so serious. Children are taught that storks bring babies and it is not a big deal. We do not know, what the electron actually is, and nobody accuses the science teachers describing it as a revolving small ball, which is not true at all (it can be everywhere at the same time and quantum mechanics deals only with a probability of presence) that they lie, and the same way astronomy deals with the galactic mass only, as expected value. It is only Wikipedia and not a matter of life and death. Big deal, if a small inaccuracy is made... in the summary, which cannot be accurate by definition. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you want to be blocked? You acknowledged the warning I gave you on your talk page, so what part of "comment on the content, not the contributor" do I need to clarify? لennavecia 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(*)Ow..., sorry! So, nothing personal at all... O.K.; corrected. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with something more, but so far:

• I'm still thinking there should be at least a mention of earnestness when mentioning concrete existence.
• Freedom and responsibility?

Der Zeitgeist (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I share your point. It should be not so "dry", but more detailed and informative. How about:

"Existentialism <deleted by author>."

? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K., not good... yet, but... it flows. How about:

"Existentialism <deleted by author>."

? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I found From Hegel to Existentialism by Robert C. Solomon describing "the existential attitude" in Chapter 14 "An Introduction to Existentialism" on pp. 238 in a clear way, so finally the present 1st par. of the lead can be deciphered. So, after the incorporation, it goes:

"Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on concreteness of human existence in the irreconcilably confused human world, or a self-consciousness living in a "broken world" (Marcel), an "ambiguous world" (de Beauvoir), a "dislocated world" (Merleau-Ponty), a world into which we are "thrown" and "condemned" yet "abandoned" and "free" (Heidegger and Sartre), a world which appears to be indifferent or even "absurd" (Camus) . The existential interpretation begins with a disoriented individual facing a confused world that he cannot accept. It emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of individual experience. Such solitude makes the right condition for freedom of choice, but it also brings anguish of the inseparable responsibility to the individual, who recognizes the futility of existence that must go on without hope or help, and tends to deny his own responsibility and the truth of his freedom. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

--141.155.135.66 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

IP: We're not going to worry about the wording right now. First we're going to decide what the actual content of the intro should be in an orderly manner. If you have any suggestions, they are welcome, but I do not think you are the best choice for writing the lead in any case. Mainly because you do not speak English very well.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

This discussion is a waste of time. One uncooperative anonymous user cannot hold an article hostage because he doesn't like the wording. His claim that he speaks for the "layman" is arrogant, to say the least. Why can't we move on already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.68.18 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Der Zeitgeist (talk), NPA, please; my English has nothing to do with the issue, as I have proven above and by correcting ontology after you. We had already had the system you insist on again, but it has produced... garbage in the 1st per. of the lead. This is the issue. The problem seems to be not in finding content (it is in the examples by لennavecia and all over), but in wording it. Or, let's propose to the 1st par. only the content that is worded (by the editor) or let anyone words content he wants to put in, so nobody will propose something he cannot manage or unmanageable at all with an expectation or a claim that someone else will word it, because such "method" can be abused for creative trolling (see Talk:Existentialism#Vandalizing Lead).

I suggest we work with all proposals simultaneously eventually trying to merge them and do not try to establish a "perfect" program risking that nobody is able to word it, as it has already happened. E.g. the messy phrase `individual's starting point is characterized by [...] "the existential attitude",` attributes the attitude to the individual, whereas Solomon uses it, as the approach of philosopher (i.e. in re: to object, and not subject), or as a synonym for "analysis". The next messy phrase `"the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in...` defines the attitude (etirely), as a sense of disorientation and confusion..., whereas Solomon attributes such sense only, as a beginning of it providing that it is defined as approach (analysis). The whole corrected sentence should read: `In existentialism, the individual's starting point - characterized by "the existential attitude" - is a sense of disorientation and confusion in...` or (even better) `In existentialism, the analysis of the individual starts with a sense of disorientation and confusion in...`. The term "the existential attitude" is too specific for the lead. Solomon defines it in hefty 3 sentences and uses it, as a vehicle, to bind the whole introduction, but it is an enigma without such explanation... and all of that with the subject knowledge and good English... .

My point is, please propose sentences (that have content), and we will be able to process them together; despite my "poor" English I still have a lot to offer that is not so common. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You see, the problem is that neither in anything you've said above, nor in the "correction" of ontology (thanks for pointing that out, by the way), have you proved that your ability to speak English is irrelevant. The inclusion of the hyphens, for instance, doesn't make any sense at all. Furthermore, pointing out to you that I do not believe that you speak English well enough is not a personal attack. Calling what has been produced so far "garbage," however, is not quite as innocent. The "system" I've proposed, listing essential aspects of existentialism so that concrete things can be discussed concretely, is not something we've "had" already. The point is that so far, both content and wordings have been intermingled because both things have been proposed at the same time by all contributors. Making a list that we all agree on, one that constitutes consensus, so that one editor, preferably one with English as his first language (implying that neither me, nor you, IP, are qualified), can put the content into words, does appear to me as a good idea both because it implies consensus and because the introduction can get a more coherent style.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

IP, if you check the citation actually given for "existential attitude", you'll find it less problematic. If there are no more suggestions for points to be covered in the introduction, I think we can go ahead and find supportable wording for them. Alternatively, as suggested in the unsigned comment above, we could accept the existing language is okay for now, and come back to it once we've worked over the rest of the article. I'd like to start work on improving the historical section.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Der Zeitgeist: In the order of editing: content->structure->syntax (formal logic in English regardless by whom)->style (English as 1st tongue), we can contribute before the style and English as 1st tongue matters.

KD Tries Again: Of course, "existential attitude" in the source is not problematic at all, but it is a Solomon's idiosyncrasy, a private tool, and not a part of the subject per se, but if it were, it should be clear first of all, where it is used. I do not believe it belongs to the 1st par., because the 1st par. should be compact and direct (as everywhere else), and it requires an additional explanation, but its direct meaning can be used without naming it.

The Der Zeitgeist (talk) suggestion to include "concreteness" (I added it to my proposal), "freedom" and "responsibility" is obvious, but there is no smooth and compact structure including "earnestness". The phrase "all center on concrete human existence" seems to be incorrect; it could read "concreteness of human existence", because all human existence is considered with the emphasis on its concreteness, and not only concrete one.

I believe that in my proposal:

1. "all centered on concreteness of human existence in the irreconcilably confused human world" does the trick, and the subsequent quotation from Solomon (with the names) in a way explains it smoothly and gives a bit of an easy history break (as KD Tries Again wanted, though indirectly).
2. The last sentence is a standard ending/summary listing the themes/chapters.
3. The 2nd sentence (from Solomon) is a good introduction as KD Tries Again wanted.
4. The other two middle sentences suggest content and a flowing (easy) style.

I have a serious problem with an extreme difficulty of the sentences: "existence as it appears to itself if considered in earnestness", "meaning must be determined through a person's life", "a lay person's version of existence preceding essence", and "Philosophy starts with human existence itself". They require long explanations, like "existential attitude". Let's accept only content that can be easily expressed, or - in other words - please, propose content in smooth sentences only (i.e. processed already)... to avoid the danger of trolling.

In conclusion, would you accept my proposal or of it: (5) as a starting point, (6) as the structure, and (7) the two 1st and the last sentences as the syntax (with modifications) or even as the style (withot modification)? (8) Would you propose something for the remaining middle represented by the other two sentences, and (9) do you like their style, please? Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Existential attitude" is not a term exclusive to Solomon - it's common in the literature as a quick online search will show you. I cited Solomon to defend it against your challenges.
• You've misunderstood the suggestions for topics to be covered in the lead as proposals for "sentences"; they're not.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Whether exclusive or not (I did not say it is, but he could have had followers), it is unnecessary and not well suited for the compact lead (summary)..., please. I did not misunderstand, but the difficulty of sentences bearing them is an indicator of a serious problem with implementation inconsistent with accessibility (as existence is immanent in the world). We all know the content we wish, but not everything we wish can be accessible. Anyway, I apologize for anything offensive, but can we now start dealing with the structure and syntax? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Existential attitude is hardly a problematic phrase. It could be likened to the theoretical attitude, the scientific attitude or the phenomenological attitude, in other words, those attitudes in which the individual doesn't go about his "daily business" in the regular day-to-day numbness required to function properly. That further explanation is required doesn't mean that you will gain better comprehension or accessibility simply by leaving it out. On the contrary: Underinforming in the name of accessibility to laymen would be a travesty in any encyclopaedia, and remains one on wikipedia. Your championing of accessibility has become quite absurd, leaving the introduction open only to stating the obvious in those kinds of phrases that often mislead people into thinking that existentialism is either a gloomy philosophy for gloomy teenagers (something one can "grow out of") or that it is a cheesy self-help philosophy for housewives and drunkards.

Earnestness isn't hard to implement, as the word actually means something to people, meaning that one simply has to state that "the existential attitude is characterised by earnestness." One needn't mention neither that this earnestness is in opposition to bad faith, distraction or numbness, nor what it actually reveals: The mention of earnestness should in itself suffice to make the point that something is mentioned here, but not elaborated upon until later in the article.

Now, I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of actually editing the article, but a condition of this is that you, IP, settle down, quell your ambitions slightly, and, if you have something to say, set it forth as a proposal for something that would require inclusion in the lead while leaving the wording to someone who actually speaks English.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's make sure we have the content agreed first. (The wide use of the phrase "existential attitude" has nothing to do with Solomon having followers - the phrase was used by Paul Tillich, for example). My strong opinion is that the explanatory phrase, "a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world" will be perfectly clear to an intelligent reader, and there is a limit to the dumbing down Wikipedia requires.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

100 %; the content counts, and not the label, but I still prefer the original "a disoriented individual facing a confused world that he cannot accept", because it is more direct, shorter, and carries more content.

Der Zeitgeist, "the existential attitude" is not problematic at all, but it is inefficient and unnecessary in a tight summary, though perfectly suited just below. No definition quoted by لennavecia uses such indirect tool..., and yes, the initial definition should state the obvious, as the examples show; following that do write anything you want. WP:LEAD (and لennavecia) champions accessibility, not only me; I simply do not understand the current lead, and I am not your common laymen (... your opinion can differ - of course).

Thanks for the info on "earnestness" I would not know without. If you incorporate it skillfully, I will not mind even just to make you happy (one little clause is not a big deal as long as it reflects something from the body of article), but everyone prioritizes "freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment" all over the Internet.

I can gladly shut up for as long as you want, as soon, as you start doing something constructive, and I do not care about the content, as long, as:

1. the 1st sentence(s) say(s) all (what it is [about]; like in newspapers), as general, as you want, and not necessarily completely, but directly and simply;
2. all other sentences of the lead, whether or not with Wiki-links, but without external references (especially to printed books; sending readers to libraries would be just too much), are consistent with WP:LEAD and لennavecia; and
3. you put something simple, as the 1st par. of the lead, even temporary, within a week or so, and then take your time up to the end of the world to improve it, but the current 1st par. disappears for good... soon. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not how editing works here. It works by consensus. The existing language is susceptible of improvement but it's neither inaccurate nor unsourced. Replacing it with something inaccurate and unsourced, without seeking consensus, would be inappropriate. If you have a suggestion for improving it, I wish you'd just spell it out. I can't figure out what you are currently suggesting. Note again that sources are certainly to be included in WP:LEAD where "appropriate". In this case, I would be the first to say that the sources could be removed: they are only there because you - 141.155.135.66 - are challenging the existing lead.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Necessary or sufficient condition of existentialism?

If one never has a "disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world", or loses that sense, or in some way overcomes it (but still realizes that there are few to no certainties to guide decision-making), is one disqualified from being an exitentialist? --JimWae (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by the question. The claim is that the so-called "existential attitude" is a "starting point". It strikes me that the sources are right to identify that starting point as a theme common to many prominent existentialist philosophers (Kierkegaard's "I stick my finger in the soil of existence", Heidegger's uncanniness, Shestov's obsession with the irrational, Sartre/Camus nausea/absurdity, Unamuno's tragic sense...). Of course the religious existentialists, in particular, think they overcome it; surely that's the point?KD Tries Again (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

If you never have that sense, you're basically in trouble. I don't think the christian existentialist overcome it: To Kierkegaard, for instance, faith is faith in the world (cf. Fear and Trembling), and the world remains what it is even with faith.. faith is simply the only way to mange if you live in the confrontation with the conditions of existence; it is, according to Kierkegaard, impossible to remain in the ethical for very long.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The JimWae's professional question is rhetorical. I have asked him for help, and he has made a suggestion. After incorporating it and removing my garbage, whereas his modified sentence detailes the 1st one (so, there is a duplication - maybe unnecessary), my proposal may read, as:

(E) "Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on concreteness of human existence in the irreconcilably confused human world, or a self-consciousness living in a "broken world" (Marcel), an "ambiguous world" (de Beauvoir), a "dislocated world" (Merleau-Ponty), a world into which we are "thrown" and "condemned" yet "abandoned" and "free" (Heidegger and Sartre), a world which appears to be indifferent or even "absurd" (Camus) . Existentialism emphasizes the difficulty of humans, who must make choices, but they rarely (or possibly never) have certainty that their choices are based on anything that is known to be correct. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

or

(D) "Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all emphasizing the difficulty of humans in the world, who must make choices, but they rarely (or possibly never) have certainty that their choices are based on anything that is known to be correct. In general, existentialism is concerned with concreteness of human existence in the irreconcilably confused human world, or a self-consciousness living in a "broken world" (Marcel), an "ambiguous world" (de Beauvoir), a "dislocated world" (Merleau-Ponty), a world into which we are "thrown" and "condemned" yet "abandoned" and "free" (Heidegger and Sartre), a world which appears to be indifferent or even "absurd" (Camus) . The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

After removing the duplication (his modified sentence - practically - can stand alone), the proposal may read, as:

(C) "Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all emphasizing the difficulty of humans in the world, who must make choices, but they rarely (or possibly never) have certainty that their choices are based on anything that is known to be correct. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

Now, I shut up. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lead: Another Attempt

This attempts to take account of suggestions for content and simplification:

(A) Existentialism refers to a number of common themes in the work of some late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers. These themes include: that the meaning of human existence cannot be theoretically pre-determined; that human individuals must take responsibility for freely creating meaning in their lives; and that the realization of this responsibility is typically characterized by 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.

Or it can be turned around like this:

(B) Existentialism is the belief that the meaning of human existence cannot be theoretically pre-determined, but that human individuals must take responsibility for freely creating meaning in their lives. The realization of this responsibility is typically characterized by a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world. These themes were common to a number late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers. Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.

This can be supported by reliable sources if challenged for accuracy; otherwise, I don't care whether we include citations or not. I think it takes account of all the constructive suggestions, except that I can't see an easy way of including "earnestness" without making it too wordy. Suggestions for improvements are welcome. Note: however it's phrased, I do believe it's necessary to keep some reference to the existential state or attitude before the world, otherwise the rest of the "definition" is interchangeable with self-help, self-reliance doctrines. Samuel Smiles was not an existentialist.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I may analyze, but not propose (my poor English). There it goes my critique:

(A) Existentialism refers to <it should say, what it is> *a number of common themes in the work of some late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers. These themes include:* <can be replaced by just "centered on" or "concerned with" with exception of "19th and 20th century"> *that* <unnecessary word> *the meaning of human existence cannot be theoretically pre-determined* <a negative; no need to say, what it is not>; *that* <unnecessary word> *human individuals must take responsibility for freely creating meaning in their lives* <not common - I think? - detail and anyway unnecessary in the 1st par. of the summary>; and *that* <unnecessary word> *the realization of this responsibility is typically characterized* <sense does not clearly characterize realization; Solomon's original is much shorter and better> by *a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world* <already nailed down by JimWae>. *Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience* <a negative and insignificant>.

(B) Existentialism is the *belief* <not true> that *the meaning of human existence cannot be theoretically pre-determined* <a negative; no need to say, what it is not>, but that *human individuals must take responsibility for freely creating meaning in their lives* <not common - I think? - detail and anyway unnecessary in the 1st par. of the summary>. *The realization of this responsibility is typically characterized* <sense does not clearly characterize realization; Solomon's original is much shorter and better> by *a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world* <already nailed down by JimWae>. These themes were common to a number late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers. *Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience*<a negative and insignificant>.

Sorry for the straight honesty (the JimWae's one was subtle, as, if he was from the US South), but... apparently I am not subtle. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than wrangling about both proposals, do you have a preference? I don't see any substantive factual objections there. If you have any, perhaps you could clarify them; and you'll need to support what you say by reference to sources. I can easily add citations to support the proposal(s), but you constantly complain about citations in the lead.

JimWae asked whether an enduring experience of the existential attitude was a necessary or sufficient condition of being an existentialist, but since that claim isn't made here, that remains a side issue. KD Tries Again (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Okay, we now have the IP User proposal, which I'll label accordingly. Any other editors have a preference among the three current contenders?

(C) Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all emphasizing the difficulty of humans in the world, who must make choices, but they rarely (or possibly never) have certainty that their choices are based on anything that is known to be correct. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc

Stylistic points - "commonly" and "somewhat" and "popularly" are unnecessary padding. I don't think the concluding list of topics, with no explanation, will tell the newcomer to the subject anything at all. Philosophical point: The problem with the core of the proposal is that the epistemological and moral "difficulty" identified is common to many, many philosophies (I could cite any number of philosophers who are not existentialists but address the same "difficulty" - Kant and Hume are obvious examples); the proposal therefore loses what is distinctive about existentialism. If we don't say anything about philosophy beginning with the disoriented and confused individual who finds no pre-given meaning in existence and must create his/her own (whether in relation to God or not), then it's impossible to have a lead which is specifically relevant to existentialism.

This was the purpose of discussing the content of the lead above. IP User has omitted the content identified.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The point about creating meaning: I think it would be more accurate as well as more encompassing to say that what one is responsible for is sustaining or carrying one's meanings. In fact, I believe the notion of a free individual freely creating meaning ex nihilo would directly contradict Kierkegaard, for instance, and I'm not even sure you could get Sartre behind it. Meanings and values are facticity, at least in the sense that any individual will discover himself already in the world with these meanings and values (plus the fact that Sartre calls values facticity somewhere around p. 2-300 in B&N) and much of facticity is not something you create, but still something you are responsible for in the sense that you can establish different relations to it and in that you still "carry it." Other than that, at least for now, A is the best way to go, though it still could use slightly more work.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, but would it not be better dealt with in the detailed part of the article, especially since there are such nuances among the various existentialists? I could happily go with deleting "freely" before creating if that helps.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It was not intended, as "wrangling", but my way to say "no" and why ("I do not like it" is not an intelligent answer). The adjectives ("commonly", "somewhat", "popularly") are a waste indeed, but they were to emphasize a lack of uniformity of the subject (see Stanford Encyclopedia).

How about using the (C) <or (D) or (E) above> proposal (corrected and maybe with the last sentence moved down to the 3rd/4th par.), as the 1st par., and (A) or (B) or (A/B) (after a modification and eventually merger), as the 2nd par., because they do not exclude each other, but rather complement, please? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology: "wrangling" was not meant to connote something negative, but I should have chosen a better word. Sticking with C, I know the central statement was a gift from JimWae, but you haven't responded to my specific objection to it: which is that many philosophers who have nothing to do with existentialism are skeptical about epistemological and/or moral certainty. C omits all the characteristic and distinguishing features of existentialism. Under C, Hume, Derrida and C.S. Peirce would be existentialists. Granted, anyone familiar with existentialism already will guess what it means - but I thought we were concerned with non-expert readers too.

As you say, not liking A or B is neither here nor there. I'd ask again if you have any basis for believing them to be inaccurate or unverifiable.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

"John Doe lives at..." is accurate and verifiable, but it does not mean that it would be consistent with WP:LEAD (and the examples by لennavecia) to write: "Existentialism is... and John Doe lives at...". In other words, your demand for accuracy and verifiability meets the criteria of creative trolling (see Talk:Existentialism#Vandalizing Lead). Despite that your proposal is not accessible - to say the least - it does not mean - unfortunately - that the middle sentence of (C) is appropriate (accessible), i.e. mainstream and without problems you pointed out or... implied.

How about my "original" proposal for the 1st par. modified per JimWae's criticism:

(C2) "Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on concreteness of human existence in the irreconcilably confused human world, or a self-consciousness living in a "broken world" (Marcel), an "ambiguous world" (de Beauvoir), a "dislocated world" (Merleau-Ponty), a world into which we are "thrown" and "condemned" yet "abandoned" and "free" (Heidegger and Sartre), a world which appears to be indifferent or even "absurd" (Camus) . The existential interpretation begins with a disoriented individual facing a confused world that he cannot accept. It emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of individual experience. Such solitude makes the right condition for freedom of choice, but it also brings the inseparable responsibility to the individual, who tends to deny his own responsibility and the truth of his freedom. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

...and "all the characteristic and distinguishing features of existentialism" in par. 2-4? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so now we have a few proposals. Still: I'll stick with A. When it comes to the point we were discussing, yeah, I think it could be done in the article, and that's where the details should be, but I'd still say that if it is possible, the lead should at least contain the formulation so that it isn't misunderstood on the basis of that; if the sentence confirms a bias, it's more likely to be sustained as a false belief. In short, simply replacing "creating" with "carrying" or "sustaining" would be enough to (1) not misrepresent the issue at hand and (2) possibly inspire people who believe existentialism is about what it currently says to investigate further.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

KD Tries Again (talk) and Der Zeitgeist (talk), I am reminding you again that لennavecia gave 7 examples, which style (simplicity and accessibility per WP:LEAD) is to be followed, but you again insist on the old style inconsistent with her examples (but with creative trolling; see Talk:Existentialism#Vandalizing Lead) by proposing the (A) and (B), which do not even remotely resemble the required simplicity and accessibility allowing an unprepared reader to understand, which she additionally spelled out. Also, the (A) does not say, what existentialism is, please! E.g., the (A) uses the following erroneous/unclear phrases/clauses: "meaning of [...] existence", "meaning [...] cannot be [...] pre-determined", "theoretically pre-determined", "creating meaning in [...] lives", "realization of [...] responsibility", "realization [...] is typically characterized", "realization [...] is [...] characterized by a sense", "philosophy [...] too abstract [...] from [...] experience", "philosophy [...] too [..] remote from [...] experience".

After months of work, you have got two extremely poor and completely inadequate modifications of quotations taken out of context also full of logical errors/language mistakes that indicate no progress or chance to meet the required standard. Please, give up editing the 1st par. for the (A) and (B) are completely inadequate, or I will ask لennavecia to intervene again, please. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your concerns are duly noted - I'm still sticking with A.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How about the following 1st par. compromise:

(C2) <modified> "Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on the concreteness of human existence in the world full of problems, or a self-consciousness living in a "broken world" (Marcel), an "ambiguous world" (de Beauvoir), a "dislocated world" (Merleau-Ponty), a world into which we are "thrown" and "condemned" yet "abandoned" and "free" (Heidegger and Sartre), a world which appears to be indifferent or even "absurd" (Camus) ." (A) <modified> "Some late 19th and 20th century philosophers stressed that: human existence cannot have any objective meaning or purpose; human individuals create freely meaning of their lives; they must take responsibility for this freedom of choice; this responsibility is a burden on disoriented individuals facing a confused world that they cannot accept; and they tend to deny their own responsibility and the truth of their freedom. But traditional philosophy - for many existentialists - was also too abstract and too remote from human concreteness. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Too many words to say one thing plus bad English. Why do you feel you have to be the one to put this stuff into words anyway?Der Zeitgeist (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You've now accused other editors of trolling four times since you were last warned to address the article and not editors' motives. I am still waiting for you to point out anything which is wrong, or more importantly unverifiable in A or B. Far from being "trolling", this is the way Wikipedia works. The existing lead is accurate, verifiable and fully sourced. We are looking for an alternative because editors have asked for something clearer. But there's no need to replace it with something which is ambiguous ("world full of problems"?), clumsy ("the truth of their freedom"?), inaccurate ("cannot" have meaning or purpose?) and even more wordy.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

O.K., I am: verifiability (of summary) is secondary per WP:LEAD and لennavecia; the (A) and (B) proposals are not clear or accessible (see the لennavecia's 7 examples) due to the language using doubtful logical constructions, e.g. "realization [...] is typically characterized by a sense", i.e. they do not belong to the 1st par. of the lead. That was the initial problem that still persists. In re: to "cannot have objective meaning or purpose", the key word "objective" is an accessible equivalent to "theoretically pre-determined". Thanks for the pointers.

So, after correcting, there it goes:

(F) "Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on the concreteness and problematic character of human existence in the world, or a self-consciousness living in a "broken world" (Marcel), an "ambiguous world" (de Beauvoir), a "dislocated world" (Merleau-Ponty), a world into which we are "thrown" and "condemned" yet "abandoned" and "free" (Heidegger and Sartre), a world which appears to be indifferent or even "absurd" (Camus) . Some late 19th and 20th century philosophers stressed that: there is no objective or predestinated pre-defined meaning of human existence; human individuals create freely meaning of their lives; they must take responsibility for this freedom of choice; this responsibility is a burden on disoriented individuals facing a confused world that they cannot accept; they tend to deny their own responsibility for making choices, and to pretend that they are not really free and the truth of their freedom. But traditional philosophy - for many existentialists - was also too abstract and too remote from human concreteness. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

--141.155.135.66 (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know in what language "objective" is equivalent to "theoretically pre-determined," but it sure isn't English. Now, are you just going to keep incessantly posting nonsense, or are you going to do something constructive?Der Zeitgeist (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am until everything is proper, simple and accessible per WP:LEAD; above, I replaced "objective or predestinated" with "pre-defined" and made other corrections. The rest seems to be O.K. unless... . --141.155.135.66 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No consensus on changes to lead

Since the anonymous user's approach has attracted no support from other editors, let alone consensus, and he/she won't support other proposals here, I suggest we move on to other parts of the article. The lead can always be revised to reflect the article as edited. Does anyone have a strong objection to moving the historical sections to come before the thematic sections? That would seem more logical to me.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes, I object since the initial reason for the lead correction (a lack of simplicity and accessibility per WP:LEAD) remains, and I propose my corrected (F) version above. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I object to the anonymous user's continued disruption of this article. I agree with KD Tries Again that the lede should be left as it is and that we move on. This has received a great deal of discussion, and a great deal of patience and understanding have been shown, but the objections of one editor cannot be allowed to dictate the wording of the article due to the good faith of others. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I do not mind that the historical overview is moved up. We should also make it a bit more coherent (it appears to be very fragmented right now), but I've never taken much interest in the historical stuff, so I'm not sure if I could contribute too much to that unless it's about something like tracing a concept from one philosopher to another.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that you responded constructively to the concern of a lead's lack of simplicity and accessibility your that is contrary to WP:LEAD and the 7 examples by لennavecia; your (A) and (B) proposals do not differ in such lack from the existing lead, but my modified proposal (F) above does; and since when my participation in the discussion on the talk page has prevented anyone from editing anything or doing more than one thing in a parallel manner, please? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to find some editors who agree with you about the superiority of your draft. Otherwise, we're at an impasse.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• I think perhaps we need to determine if there is agreement that Existentialism cannot really be defined. It would appear to be a historical movement, but its core appears to be more a "feeling" than a philosophical position. (For this reason, I think it is doomed to disappear from philosophy, except in history books). It is most clearly outlined by what it opposes (objectivity, "systems"). While it generally opposes Kantian ideas, its context depends on his antinomies for its acknowledgement of (at least) doubt about the existence of a supreme God. Also at its core is doubt about ever attaining certainty about what is moral, leaving it up to each person to "authentically"(?!?) determine what is "right" for him, and denies not only that such decisions are universalizable, but that they are in any way transferrable to similar persons or even similar situations. --JimWae (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd venture that virtaully all "existentialists" were formerly theists who also at one time thought the existence of a supreme God could be proven (metaphysically) - and that the "feeling" of loss is the loss of that metaphysical certainty. --JimWae (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As to your first point, that's much what the current lead tries to capture. I'd add that it was largely defined retrospectively (the "ism" was coined by Marcel as late as the 1940s). It's a term which came to be used to define a group of philosophers who had some themes, and especially a particular "mood" in common. I am struggling a little with the moral point - on the one hand, you don't have to be an existentialist to hold a view roughly like that; nor am I convinced all existentialists hold that view. Do any of the standard texts have a version of that point?

I can't agree with the last comment as stated: Buber, Unamuno, Kierkegaard, Shestov, Berdyaev - former theists?KD Tries Again (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I was just looking at David Cooper's book, another standard text, and he identifies three things as common to the existentialists: the mood of disorientation which he prefers to call "alienation", the conviction that human existence is concerned with itself in a way that thing-like existence isn't, and engagement with the real world as a precondition for theoretical understanding. Again, consistent with what we have - although the distinction between human and thing-like existence strikes me as something better address in the main part of the article.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Given the ongoing lack of progress, it would seem to me high time to request further outside comment on this page. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Banno (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• All were formerly metaphysical theists. Some remained theists, but were still disappointed to not have metaphysical certainty. --JimWae (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really a problem with defining existentialism, but any such definition, to be complete, would have to be really long and complex. That the term for the most part has been used after the fact doesn't really affect much; many terms have been applied to things only in retrospect, and it's still possible to determine what one is talking about. That it is usually best described using negatives doesn't only suit it in a sense, but also doesn't come to bear upon the fact that it is still possible to define it, although not necessarily completely, in a wiki article on it. The rest of what you say is point of view.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• You miss the point. Whether existentialism can be defined or not is irrelevant to the lead for it has to be a (constructive) summary, not a definition or a prove of possibility or impossibility (belonging to the body anyway), and "my" proposal (F) above incorporates your proposal (A) in a slightly summarized (simplified) way to meet the standard of WP:LEAD, as other encyclopedias/dictionaries have done also illustrated in the 7 examples above by لennavecia. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(F) is longer than (A) (nearly three times as long), much harder for an English reader to follow, incorporates a list of unexplained terms and is packed with unnecessary quotations. As far as I can see, every editor here opposes it.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• I concede defeat. Goodbye. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Structure

I would like to revise the history section, but I'd also suggest the sequence should be: history, main concepts/themes, types of existentialism, criticism and then the extra-philosophy stuff. Any problems with that? The history can be tidied up quite quickly, then we can use that as a check to make sure the next section mentions concepts from all the important existentialists rather than just Sartre.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I agree with this plan, KD. Well formulated. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead!Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have edited the first history section, now called "Origins of Existentialism", starting with the term actually being used and popularized. This first paragraph is fully sourced. I removed the third paragraph which was a mixture of the same information and details which are better located in later sections. I left the second paragraph which claims bits of early theology/philosophy and literature for existentialism: I have no big objection to any of this, but it needs citations. It probably all comes from the same source, but who knows which one? (Actually, the sentences on Pascal are a bit clumsy.) The following sections are a bit thin, and I'll work on them later.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

"Other Existentialists" is a work in progress. I will add cites, and in each case as succinct a summary as I can of what is existentialist in their work. I have also made the names in the history sections bold to help readers.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Anyone think we need to keep a reference to Foucault among the French existentialists? Not sure about Fanon - I'll try to check the source.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Outstanding. This page should be referenced as to why existentialism emerged-the futility of using language and another human's perceptions to develop a uniquely personal sense of existence and what to do with it. Existence comes from the senses and memory-the use of concepts, definitions, and logic contradict the intent. The arrogant human attempt to define what has no meaning is the eternal folly of our species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.110.156.20 (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Good, so now we're getting somewhere. I noticed a few things when reading the section. I'll just mention it and you can see what you think.

• The use of the word "seems" in the first sentence: Wouldn't "was most likely" sound better, i.e. less "subjective?" At least to me, seems entails a sort of "it seems to me," but that could just be me.
• I linked the article on existentialism is a humanism.
• Perhaps merging the part about Kierkegaard and Nietzsche with Origins of Existentialism, and instead of saying something about mathematics, which is wholly irrelevant, one could mention an opposition to for instance Hegel and systems of the type he developed. The link on Kierkegaard and Nietzsche comparisons could be moved to the "See also" section.
• German and French existentialism could be turned into something along the lines of Modern Existentialism or Later existentialism, and should probably be less point-by-point.
• Other existentialists.. I'm not sure what to think of this, but it could possibly be merged with the stuff on the literary existentialists, although keeping them separate could also be defended. Extending it to "and related theorists" could be helpful as we could then include Hannah Arendt, who, although she can't be said to have an overtly existentialist approach to things still retain certain thoughts on freedom and authenticity which are closely related to existentialism.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of that. I didn't like "seems" either - maybe I'll just delete it as the sources say what they say - nobody seems to want to say definitively that he and nobody else coined the term. Don't worry about the point-by-point style; it's still a work in progress. I'll try and do a philosopher a day if I can, and hopefully the final version will flow. I don't have a strong feeling against merging Kierk. and Nietz. with the Origins - I just wonder if readers will be scanning the page expecting to see a section on them. Some of the pages we link to - Gabriel Marcel for example - are really thin.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Changes to the major concepts

I'm considering a few things for the major concepts, but I just thought I should run them by you. These are mainly some quick thoughts that spring to mind while I'm reading through it.

• Existence: I'm thinking it would be a good idea to mention how the word etymologically stems from a notion of "standing out." It is, after all, a common theme across the existentialist philosophers that human existence is an "ekstasis," or at least that it is characterised by a certain distance to the world. The point ties in to the point about how our regular lives normally appear meaningful, but that this meaning isn't grounded in the world in-itself.
• Dread: First of all, this concept has so many translations that it could get confusing. I'd prefer to stick with Angst, to stay in touch with Kierkegaard, but if the traditional translation is dread, then we should probably stick with dread. Related to this, I do not believe that it is going to be particularly helpful to define each conception of dread with its particlarities; a general overview of its essential characteristics should be sufficient.
• A related point about fear is that it also usually entails some notion of dread of being something (of course not literally) as well as the dread of being nothing, but it doesn't seem to me like there are any easy ways of explaining this. Furthermore, the definition of dread as the fear of no thing was meant to be temporary, and an elimination of the definition in terms of fear (which has an object) needs to be effected.
• Also related to the two preceding points: Nothingness. It seems to me that a definition of nothingness in an article on existentialism in general would be as out of place as a definition of Kierkegaard's notion of spirit (or whatever the English translation is; Aand, Ånd). It remains problematic, however, to retain it in the section on dread without a definition. Would it suffice to link an article on it, or should we try to eliminate it from the description?
• Existence precedes essence: The sentence about "being who, not what" is problematic: A who could be interpreted as being as essential as a what in the determining sense, as if one would only need to find one's who, and then the job would be done; "I will forever coincide with myself!." However, there is little doubt that at least in Kierkegaard, very likely in Heidegger, and, I believe, even in Sartre, there is a sense of who, although not an essential one. I stand by the rest of the definition - that existence preceding essence doesn't entail a freedom of abstract self-making, but rather that one is "made" as one acts (exists) - but there could quite possibly be a better way of saying it.
• Bad faith: The title is Sartre's, but the text refers to all the conceptions of it. Should we change the title? If so: To what? Of course, the concept itself needs a bit of elaboration as well, but that will take some thought.
• Any thoughts on freedom?
• Facticity: The concept of facticity is too linked to Sartre. The concept appears in other philosophers, but they do not necessarily call it facticity. However, Sartre's definition seems like a good start for explaining it. Is there any way of making it clear that the concept belongs to other philosophers as well without making it into a list of "who said what?"
• The Look and the Other: This probably needs a bit of clearing up, elimination of the phenomenological "standard" account of it, but at the same time, it is less of a common theme. It isn't particularly emphasised in Kierkegaard's thought (perhaps in the Works of Love, but I'll have to read it again, I think, and I believe it would only be in relation to one's own look upon the other). Yet, it has close ties to facticity and existence preceding essence, and I would consider it a concept that belongs in an article on existentialism.
• Are there any easy ways of explaining the conflicts inherent in the Look? How love and hate, etc., always are failing processes, etc.? Would it be necessary to do so in a wiki article? I'm not sure.
• Reason: I'm not sure what to think of this section. On the one hand, some of what it says fits the image, but on the other, it doesn't really seem like a necessary concept. Parts of it could probably be expressed under existence precedes essence or something. Otherwise, one would have to think of it in relation to Kierkegaard's notion that reason can only bring you so far, and after this point, faith is the only salvation. Of course, the secular way of seeing it is probably preferable, but Kierkegaard's account remains one of the clearest, at least to me.
• The Absurd: Any ideas?
• Are there missing or superfluous concepts?

Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here are just a few reactions off the top of my head (if I skip any, it just means I don't have any clear thought right now):

• Dread - we certainly need to get angst in there, even if just as an alternative. Connects Kierkegaard and Heidegger.
• Do we need something on fear, separate from dread, at all?
• I'd keep nothingness: Heidegger/Sartre.
• Ek-statis - yes, I agree.
• I didn't know if any existentialist other than Sartre had much to say about bad faith. I'll check.
• Facticity is a hugely important for Heidegger (and he uses the German equivalent of the term). I can contribute on that; I'll have to remind myself of connections/differences between Heidegger and Sartre.
• The Look/The Other: they don't strike me as very important either. If we made it a section about relationship to the other, then Marcel and Buber can join the party. The details about the Look are surely better in an article on Sartre.
• Reason: let me think about that. Certainly Shestov, Unamuno, Buber and in his way Heidegger are highly critical of certain forms of reason.
• I can probably make some suggestions for additions to the list as I work through the history. (I can help supplying cites to secondary sources too).KD Tries Again (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Ok.

• A small update to existence precedes essence: Removed the "who, not what," exchanged "Sartre's own account" for "most existentialist philosophers" and emphasised "being." I also put existence above it because it seems more reasonable to explain existence before explaining how existence precedes essence.

• Existence: I tried incorporating the sense of distance as well as the notion of projection/projects without going into too much detail.

• I updated Angst, but I still do not feel that it is complete. There should at least be a mention of the kind of angst related to the "conflict" of freedom and facticity, the angst that, on the one hand, manifests itself because one is free while wishing not to be (determinism; perhaps already covered in the stuff about genes), and on the other hand, the angst that manifests itself because one is no longer free (facticity; being guilty, etc.) while wishing to be so... the problem is to make a concise and meaningful statement about it. I made a short note on nothingness, but it isn't the easiest concept in the world to handle.. a bit more thought is required.

• Bad Faith is covered by most of the other existentialists, but it would perhaps be better if we called it in/authenticity? In Kierkegaard, for instance, as freedom is a part of one's self, to deny oneself one's freedom is considered "abstract," which is clearly inauthentic (or "in bad faith"). Paul Tillich is almost too obvious -- the courage to be, etc. I've only read Ich und Du by Buber, and although I feel it needs another read-through, one could say that a sort of concept of authenticity (at least in relations to others) is hinted at, so I wouldn't be surprised if he had written something on it elsewhere. I'm no Heidegger expert, but I'm pretty sure the same could be said for him based on what I've read. The only problem I have with the word authenticity is that it has come to mean so many other things, most notably in connection with exactly that which it isn't -- a pre-determined self that one just has to "find" somewhere in-between jumping off a cliff and jet-setting off to Paris. Perhaps something could be said for the difference between bad faith and inauthenticity, but I'd still say that, for a general article, subsuming bad faith under inauthenticity isn't a bad compromise.

• Facticity: Yeah, I simply meant that the text here was too linked to Sartre. An addition from Heidegger would probably broaden the scope a bit.

• The Other/The Look: Perhaps mentioning it in relation to facticity would be enough?

Der Zeitgeist (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we add alienation? That would create a place for the Look as well... Der Zeitgeist (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated existence again. I believe it is clearer now, but see what you think.

I've also been thinking a bit about the structure of the rest of the key concepts. Many of the concepts are explicitly related to the ekstatic nature of existence.. freedom and angst, for instance. However, I'm not really sure if the best way to tie it all together would be to just mention some of these key concepts briefly under existence, or to add their explicit relation to the ekstasis under each concept heading.

If I were to add something on freedom and angst to the existence heading, it could look something like "Another central theme related to existence's ecstatic nature is that this distance is what enables us to posit ideal objects and states (goals) which we are able to strive for through action. Action involves freedom and thus responsibility, and this is what is experienced in the experience of angst." Each concept wouldn't need a full explanation, as they would be explained below, but just to tie them in to the ekstases. Any thoughts?Der Zeitgeist (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I started writing an entry on facticity, but then I figured I should run it by you first because I find that I do not feel satisfied with it, and that it could be easily misunderstood. Thus, I feel more comfortable suggesting it here first.

Alienation

Alienation in existentialism refers to the experience of oneself as not belonging. This can manifest itself in two main ways, one related to the world, and one related to one's self. In relation to the world, one can understand it in the sense of the Heideggerian unheimlich (from German, often translated with "uncanny," but better understood in the sense that heim means home. In other words, the un-homely). The world, being absurd, doesn't allow one to feel at home in it: One's projects are constantly threatened by the adversity of the world, and although one's projected meaning manifests a world, there is no way to ground this projected meaning in the in-itself.

In relation to the self, alienation points to the fact that while one experiences oneself as fundamentally free, as freedom, one also experiences one's facticity through the Other: Freedom is situated in this world, and this world is a world in which you are the person who has done this or that, you are the person with this place of birth, this body, etc. Of course you apprehend yourself as being able to escape this facticity towards the future, but it is still this facticity you are escaping from. In Sartre's words, your facticity haunts your existence.

In addition, I started reworking bad faith into Authenticity and Inauthenticity.

Authenticity and inauthenticity

Authenticity is often taken to mean that one has to "find oneself" and then live in accordance with this self. In one sense, if one considers the self to be substantial or "fixed," that the self truly is some thing you can find if you look hard enough, this is a misunderstanding.

What is meant is that in acting, one should act as oneself, not as One, or as one's Genes, or according to The Nature Of Man, or any other essence. The authentic act is one that is in accordance with one's freedom.

In contrast to this, the inauthentic is the denial to live in accordance with one's freedom. This can take many forms, from convincing oneself that some form of determinism is true, to a sort of "mimicry" where one acts as "one should." How "one" should act is often determined by an image one has of how one such as oneself (say, a bank manager) acts. This image usually corresponds to some sort of social norm, but this does not mean that all acting in accordance with social norms is inauthentic: The main point is the attitude one takes to one's own freedom, and the extent to which one acts in accordance with this freedom. In other words, you wouldn't necessarily be able to distinguish between an authentic person and an inauthentic person by looking at their acts.

Inauthenticity seems to take the form of lying to oneself, which might appear impossible or contradictory. In his treatment of Bad Faith, Sartre denies the subconscious the power to do this, and he claims that the person who is lying to himself has to be aware that he is lying - that he isn't determined, or this "thing" he makes himself out to be. In this sense, the inauthentic life has to be continually chosen.

Der Zeitgeist (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to History

Throwing out a suggestion here. Instead of the geographical division, it might be more interesting and appropriate to do it chronologically. Working through the minor figures has really brought home to me the fact that Marcel, Shestov, Berdyaev, Buber and Unamuno had all arrived at substantive "existentialist" positions (and written some of their major works) by the early 1920s. By the end of the decade, you can add Jaspers and Heidegger. I could divide the history into "Introduction" (the material I recently provided about where the term came from), "Nineteen century", "Early twentieth century", "1920s/1930s" and "After World War 2" (can improve those headings, of course). Then we could show the simultaneous development of the themes across different countries. In any case, I can try it, and it will be the easiest thing to revert back to German, French, Other if it doesn't work out.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I agree, but I wouldn't make it too specific based on time. Perhaps simply the introduction Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Pascal, etc., then all those who were not directly related to the "modern" or "Sartrean" movement (Heidegger could lead from these pre-modern/pre-war to the modern version), and then Modern? Too many headings could make it seem like time is particularly important...

I was also thinking that instead of having separate headings for atheistic and theistic existentialists, we could just mention it in the history section in relation to each important philosopher, or as separate sub-headings?Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think maybe those last sections can go altogether, once the key figures are properly explained.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Real life has been keeping me away, but I finally made the proposed structural changes to the history section and continued to develop the thumbnail accounts of some of the pre-Sartre existentialists. I will improve these and add cites, then work either on Kierkegaard/Nietzsche or the post-WW2 section. I think it's useful to make the chronology explicit in this way rather than have all the thinkers who actually preceded Heidegger/Sartre end up as a footnote to the better known writers.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The final sub-section under history needs to be deconstructed. I think Dostoevsky must be mentioned earlier, alongside Kierk. and Nietzsche (I am not sure about Kafka), and the other bits about the Beats should be dropped down to the cultural section later in the article. Dostoevsky was a fundamental influence on the first 20th century existentialists.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think all four should be in together; What about Nineteenth century, with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as one sub, and Dostoyevsky and Kafka as another? I'll make the changes to see how it pans out. 204.209.209.129 (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful - although I think the stand-alone quote from Kierkegaard should be merged into the Kierkegaard/Nietzsche section (I don't mind if that section is re-titled Nineteenth Century, or similar). I have some good material on the explosion of existentialism as a popular phenomenon in France between 1945 and 1947 and will amend that section accordingly - hopefully tomorrow. I also just added a bit from Camus' remarks on Kafka.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Added a new paragraph on the developments in Paris after Second World War. Will rewrite the following paragraphs accordingly, and also add something about Heidegger's reception in France.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I agree: That quote seems out of place, and doesn't really add much...Der Zeitgeist (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Will get back to all this soon; busy with real life.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Angst, despair and all that jazz

I'm not really sure how these concepts are translated, and I am aware that angst is not despair, etc., but I'm also not sure that this article would benefit from stressing the distinction too much... they are quite similar concepts after all, and all are quite important. A full exegesis would be quite large...Der Zeitgeist (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nihilism Does Not Belong under Types of Existentialism

The section on Nihilism contains what I would call poorly done independent analysis, not to mention factual errors. Nietzsche isn't a nihilist, although he is frequently called one by people who don't understand his work. What he says is that you must create your own meaning. He does indeed reject the notion of an afterlife, but that does not make him a nihilist because in the next breath he urges the reader to create new values now, in *this* life. Clearly he finds tremendous meaning in the here and now... go read for example about the ubermensch.

Nietzsche might argue that Christians and many like them are the true nihilists, by sacrificing huge swaths of their real lives in the hope of maybe receiving some other one later from the God on high. He wants to shove the responsibility back on to the individual for creating a Heaven on Earth. This is bound to make him unpopular with the God fearing folks, but a nihilist it does not make.

It would be nice to get a professional to improve this section. My hunch is that it could be much improved simply by removing the whole Nihilism subsection. 148.87.1.169 (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I totally agree: nihilism is not a form of existentialism, and Nietsche was not a nihilist. Nihilism is the underlying crisis for which Existentialism is a response towards new forms of meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.216.37 (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In a sense you're right. The section's first sentence is: "Though nihilism and existentialism are distinct philosophies, they are often confused with one another." In other words, the text agrees with you: Nihilism isn't existentialism.

Furthermore, Nietzsche is mentioned as being a central philosopher both in existentialism and in nihilism, which he was, even though he wasn't a pure nihilist nor a pure existentialist. Nietzsche isn't mentioned after that. The section is about nihilistic existentialism, which is described in it.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Repaired introduction

I tried to clean up the opening paragraphs of the article, which had been stable for a couple of months. Some comments had been introduced about compilations of theories and refining writings which didn't make much sense to me. Also, after much discussion, I thought we'd achieved consensus that Existentialism is not "a position" in philosophy.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• • I will change it back again. If an editor wants to state that existentialism is "a position", the right way to do it is to find a really convincing supporting citation. All the sources I have emphasize that there is no one position called "existentialism". What is the position exactly? Is there a cite to support the claim that existentialism is an "explicit conceptual manifestation..." etc? Difficulties are created when editors change the text of the article while leaving the sources unchanged; the sources support the old version, not the new version.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Webster's Dictionary: "position - one's attitude toward or opinion on a subject; stand [his position on foreign aid]". Hence, "sharing belief" = position. --162.83.222.192 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We know. So what is the position taken by existentialists? It's not a "movement" either in any clear sense. Most of the philosophers described as "existentialists" in the literature were working quite independently of each other, and as the article rightly says, the term was applied retrospectively to many of them by later writers. Again, it's not appropriate to just change a sentence which is supported by citations; it gives the appearance that the authors cited say something they in fact don't say.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Since "sharing belief" = "position" and they "shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject" then they held the position "that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject". In other words, describing existentialism by the meaning of "position" defines it as a position. Hence, existentialism is that position being the characteristic element eventually recognized as such. --162.83.222.192 (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can eliminate the problem simply by removing any allusion to there being some kind of shared belief or common position in which these philosophers stand? It seems to me that it would be more accurate to describe the existentialist philosophers' relationships as incidental. Perhaps something in the vein of "Existentialist philosophers take the human subject and its conditions of existence as a starting point for philosophical thought?"Der Zeitgeist (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with Der Z.'s suggestion above. I would distinguish between sharing a belief about the starting-point for philosophy and sharing an actual philosophical position. As we know, the existentialists, despite some common themes and attitudes, arrived at startlingly different philosophical positions.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

O.K., so "Existentialism is a term that has been applied to the work of a group of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences,[1][2] took the human subject — not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual[3][4] - and his conditions of existence as a starting point for philosophical thought." for the first sentence? --162.83.222.192 (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Loose "group." Perhaps just "a number of?" Other than that, go for it!Der Zeitgeist (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. O.K., the latter; a repetition in the 2nd sentence removed, but...?

2. If the existentialists took the human object... as a starting point... then they shared that starting point as... = they shared the belief that the starting point is... = they held the position that... . As it was said above, describing existentialism by the meaning of "position" defines it as a position. Hence, existentialism is that position being the characteristic element eventually recognized as such. In other words, any commonality of thinking means a position. Hence, existentialism and any philosophy is a position... at least. --71.247.6.158 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Philosophers can agree on a methodological approach without sharing the same position. Is the phrase "explicit conceptual manifestation" a quote or very close paraphrase of Solomon, because otherwise I think it has to go? If it doesn't have support, it's O.R. (and it seems pretty meaningless).KD Tries Again (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

1. Do you mean that, if "explicit conceptual manifestation" is a Solomon's quote or close, then it is O.K., but, if it is not a quote, then it "seems pretty meaningless", right?

2. If: "position - one's attitude toward or opinion on a subject; stand" (Webster's Dictionary), hence, "sharing belief" = position,

then, how agreeing on a methodological approach cannot be sharing position on that approach? --71.247.6.158 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the phrase indicates an affiliation between the existentialist philosophers that isn't there: While some of them have been influenced by preceding existentialist philosophers, each develops his own theory. While there are certain similarities in the assumptions underlying their philosophical works, this does not constitute sharing a position. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd recommend User 71.247.6.158 to open a Wikipedia account [[5]], otherwise it makes communication and following his/her edits very difficult. Although I don't know what Solomon means by that phrase, it is indeed his, so I withdraw my objection as to the citation. I am not sure the casual reader will get it outside of the original context.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

1. No "affiliation between", but "to" or "with", so I reckon "connection between"? The phrase does not indicate an affiliation, because it only relates the philosophy to the attitude while being neutral on the content of the relation, i.e. it does not suggest any comparison between properties of such relations in regard to the different philosophers. But, considering the concern that it might be misconstrued as an affiliation (doubtfully) and to strengthen the original context, the meaningless phrase "a term that has been applied to the work" was substituted by the word "attitude" in the 1st sentence. So?

2. If, "sharing belief" = position (Webster's Dictionary), then sharing an attitude (which is a belief) is a position per formal logic: if a=b and b=c, then a=c. --70.107.168.124 (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the meanings of neither "position" nor "attitude" or "belief" coincide in a way that makes it acceptable to equate them with each other (least of all using formal logic), the problem is with "sharing", not with "position". Der Zeitgeist (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean correspond with (match) each other? ...they do not, but "position" ~= "sharing attitude" ~= "sharing belief". Since "sharing" is problematic then "position" is too (the primitive arithmetic was to get rid of "sharing"). Then, describing existentialism as an attitude, as Solomon did it, fits nicely? --70.107.168.124 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this without taking part, largely because it seemed that KD and Der Z were working towards a sensible position. I am getting irritated by having to reverse attempts by IP addresses to directly edit the article while a discussion is taking place here when they clearly do not have agreement. Would one of the two named please summarise where they think we are on this? --Snowded (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we have arrived at a satisfying lead in this discussion yet - at least not one that is better than the one currently there. When it comes to the current proposition, that it should be termed "an attitude," I would say that first of all, there's a difference between talking about existentialist philosophy (the subject of the article) and existentialism as an "attitude."

As a philosophical field, it is very heterogeneous, and the works considered existentialist have mainly been called existentialist by people other than the philosophers themselves. As such, it seems more accurate to have the introduction contain some sort of indication of these facts. Thus far, I think this is best done by referring to "existentialism" as a term (a word which etymologically speaking has connections to boundaries, from Latin, terminus, akin to "terminal," etc.; calling it a "term" points towards the word being used to delimit (or "group together," which in this case means the same) something that doesn't have its own inherent limits).

When it comes to existentialism as an attitude, of course this is (or can be) something that has been largely influenced by existentialist philosophers, but it is more of a personal "philosophy of life" kind of thing, a general attitude towards life. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Der Z; I'd just add that "existentialism" is a very unusual case in the history of philosophy simply because the term was coined in the 1940s, then retrospectively applied to various authors working in different countries over the previous one hundred years. These authors hadn't regarded themselves as members of a movement, or thought of their philosophy as "existentialism". Thus it's quite unlike "logical positivism" or "phenomenology" or "neo-Kantianism" or "Oxford philosophy" or "post-structuralism", etc., where philosophers would have known that they were participating (or not) in a movement.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

1. Since every word in a dictionary or encyclopedia is a term, and usually the standard phrase "xxx is a term that means..." is abbreviated there by "xxx - ...", how calling existentialism a term is nothing else that an empty phrase?

2. Since any philosophy implies attitude then calling existentialism an attitude is correct and supported by the citation of Solomon, hence it is better than nothing or the empty phrase of "existentialism is a term".

3. How the above statements: "it seems more accurate to have...", "Thus far, I think this is best done by..." even slightly resemble an attempt to meet the requirements of not providing arbitrary and personal opinions, but objective arguments that additionally have to be supported by a citation?

4. How a historic aspect has and can have anything to do with defining existentialism as an attitude that does not refer to time and is historically entirely neutral? In other words, what the historic background has to do with the 1st defining word that describes the discipline (meaning) in general? --70.107.168.124 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1: Not every word is a term. There are concepts, conjunctives, question words, etc. A term is a specific word for designating a particular kind of limiting.

2: As I said, there's a difference between the existentialist attitude and existentialist philosophy and literature.

3: Because I am not editing the page, but arguing for a position; we have to reach consensus before editing the page.

4: The thing is that existentialism isn't a discipline, it isn't a single set of statements about something, nor a method. It is simply a way of retrospectively grouping a bunch of philosophers together because one can find similarities or lines of influence if one looks.

Are you the same IP user from before? Der Zeitgeist (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Not every word is a term, but every entry in encyclopedia or dictionary is since (!)term [is] a word or phrase having a limiting and definite meaning in some science, art, enc. ["tergum" is a zoological term] synonymous with "a name"(!) (Webster's Dictionary). Hence, terms (or names) for concepts, conjunctives, question words, etc.

2. Nobody questions a difference between the existentialist attitude and existentialist literature, but Solomon calls existentialist philosophy (existentialism) an attitude... that constitutes a recognized quotation required for defining terms in Wikipedia (superseding arbitrary and personal opinions). Where is an argument contradicting the contention that calling existentialism a term is meaningless since every entry in encyclopedias is a term by definition?

3. The implication: "Because I am not editing the page, but arguing for a position; we have to reach consensus before editing the page." is false, because there is no relation between the assumption and the conclusion; is the citation of Solomon not enough or is it questionable in any way?

4. The Solomon's definition of existentialism as an attitude just embraces that "It is simply a way of retrospectively grouping a bunch of philosophers together because one can find similarities or lines of influence if one looks". Doesn't it? --16:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.168.124 (talk)

By the way, now the first sentence of the introduction is correctly punctuated, it is evident that the comment about "conditions of existence" is unsupported by citation; does it really add anything?KD Tries Again (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

To out IP user. Just because you have a citation that uses a form of words, it does not make that truth (especially as you are reading it out of context) neither does it address issues of WP:WEIGHT. Basically you need to learn a simple lesson, which is that Wikipedia is based on a series of rules of which citation is one, but consensus and weight are others. At the moment you do not have support for your edits and you should cease if you don't want to be treated as a vandal. --Snowded (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• KD, yes, it does, namely, it adds the human world (existence) aspect as a necessary condition, i.e. "the individual in the world" instead of just "the individual"; the phrase "and his or her conditions of existence" could be replaced by "or self-consciousness living in the human world" after Solomon...? --70.107.168.124 (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Snowded, it seems that your advise can be beneficial to... the author!!!

1. There is no context (condition) to "existentialism is an attitude" for it is unconditional (always true), nobody questions it (some may dislike its generality), and it is supported by the citation from Solomon, where it is unconditional too!

2. The current "existentialism is a term" is an empty phrase (platitude) not found in any (none whatsoever) encyclopedia (read: incompetent), and "existentialism is an attitude" is true and supported by reputable quotation, so how the WP:WEIGHT stands: behind the empty, incompetent phrase or the one that is truthful and supported?

3. The consensus pertains only to proposals with basis and not to baseless ones! Where is a basis for disagreement with the Solomon's "existentialism is an attitude". In other words, citations, consensus, weight, and other Wikipedia rules apply simultaneously. --70.107.168.124 (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Existentialism&action=edit&section=26

Sometimes you just have to accept that other people don't agree with you and that you are not the sole judgement of what is or is not "baseless". Just repeating your arguments ad nausium is not helpful, neither is a seeming dependence on a single source. I am sure the opening phrase can be improved, but your proposal not. Of course any philosophy is an"attitude" not just existentialism and for a source to use "attitude" does not mean that it is the appropriate word for the lede. I suggest you go back to the welcome message and its links. Unless you have a new argument I think this is over. --Snowded (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (the google books link), Solomon doesn't characterise existentialist philosophy as an attitude (that just wouldn't make sense). He says something like "existentialist philosophy is the explicit conceptual manifestation of an existential attitude." In other words, existentialist philosophy is, according to Solomon, different from existentialist philosophy in that existentialist philosophy is the conceptual manifestation of the existential attitude. And that is the context, the thing you are missing. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Where is your basis for the disagreement, as DK asked in the original proposal? You quote some rules and regulations, but where is a substance as Der Z. just provided above?

The statement "Sometimes you just have to accept that other people don't agree with you..." is a dogma and not an argument (read: an implication). I repeated my argument just to make it easier to respond (to eliminate a need to jump back) and to point to a construction of argument... politely (see the following). --70.107.168.124 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Der Z., you meant "existentialist philosophy is [...] different from existential attitude". Not necessarily. In the construction "xxx is a manifestation of yyy" xxx can differ from yyy, if they are not synonyms, e.g. "achievements are manifestation of wisdom", but they can also be synonyms, e.g. "sharing beliefs is a manifestation of a position". In other words, the construction is not an indicator of a difference between its components xxx and yyy. So, do we have an indicator of what Solomon meant on page 238? If only nouns are taken under consideration, then - no, but with pronouns - yes. Solomon wrote: "It is an attitude that...", where "It" stands for "Existentialist philosophy" from two preceding sentences, and that constitutes the missing link... prima facie. Good effort... though! --70.107.168.124 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the "It" refers to "existential attitude," not "existential philosophy" see original passage; but why the obsession - is anyone proposing a change here?KD Tries Again (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

In your dreams; the subject from the beginnig (of the page 238 and chapter 14 of Solomon's) is existentialist philosophy (existentialism). If "It" referred to "existential attitude" then the sentence would be: "Existential attitude is an attitude that...". Who defines anything by itself... morons? E.g. "Brown dogs are dogs that...". Did you participate in the discussion not knowing its subject? The subject is to replace "Existentialism is a term that has been applied to the work of..." with "Existentialism is an attitude of..." (see current). --70.107.168.124 (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

STOP editing against consensus. i have placed a vandalism warning on your talk page. If this continues then the warnings will escalate and you will be reported to ANI. Please note that the 3RR rule is not limited to one day where the changes are persistent. --Snowded (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, for every case of a manifestation, it is such that the manifestation is manifestly different from the thing it is a manifestation of. Manifestation simply means "the way in which something becomes clear," but there is always a difference between "the way in which" and the thing that becomes clear; an illness becomes clear in its symptoms, but the symptoms are not the illness. If so, one could simply cool a person with a fever down to cure him of his disease.

When it comes to arguing over an "it," it just seems a bit futile; Solomon may have been more worried about style than content when he wrote those sentences (it seems that way to me, 'cause there's no other way to reconcile the two following sentences otherwise). Der Zeitgeist (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Existential attitude is an attitude that...". That's precisely what Solomon means - he's explaining what an "existential attitude" is; there's really no doubt about it. On a different point, if we are retaining the phrase about an "explicit conceptual manifestation...", I believe it should be presented as a quotation from Solomon; it's such a distinctive phrase, that to leave it as it is would amount to plagiarism.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• Der Z., thank God you can construct an argument, so we can have a discussion. Subject of manifestation does not have to differ from the object of manifestation, e.g. "water is manifestation of moisture" and "moisture is manifestation of water", because "water"="moisture". Object of manifestation can also have a broader meaning than its subject, e.g. "existentialism is manifestation of philosophy", but "philosophy is not manifestation of existentialism", because not every philosophy is existentialism. Hence, if object/=subject, then object of manifestation can be used to define subject, because it has a broader meaning, e.g. "existentialism is a philosophy". From your example that "fever is manifestation of an illness" we can define fever as an illness and say that "fever is an illness", but not otherwise, as you said it. Since Solomon said that "existentialist philosophy is the explicit conceptual manifestation of an existential attitude" on p. 238 then certainly a function of existential attitude defines existentialist philosophy, and it is safe to say that "existentialism is an attitude that... (function)". (B.t.w., the word explicit suggests that "existentialist philosophy" is "existential attitude", but it is just a digression.)

I think you underestimate Solomon for a self-serving reason. Because you did not think that "xxx is manifestation of yyy" => "xxx is a yyy function", you could not blame Solomon for a lack of diligence and effectively... intelligence. What about you accepting that new thought and becoming somebody enriched? "It" on p. 238 has to stand for "existentialist philosophy", as shown above, and everything on p. 238 is strict and logical. Solomon was not a moron. Hence, we can correct the definition of existentialism accordingly. ==70.107.168.124 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• DK, it is impossible to argue with “there's really no doubt about it”; you need to produce an implication. Quotation marks are owed… always. --70.107.168.124 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm sorry, there's no way those sentences are correct. Firstly, moisture doesn't mean the same as water (you have to differentiate between meaning and reference; if you're sailing on the ocean, you wouldn't say you're in the middle of a lot of moisture), and you cannot define fever as the illness (that would land you right back in the trap I mentioned where you attempt to cure the illness (let's say you have pneumonia) by cooling the body). I think you can investigate those sentences on your own.

Secondly, nowhere has it been claimed that existentialism is a manifestation of philosophy, nor that philosophy as such is a manifestation of existentialism. Existentialist philosophy, however, is a philosophical manifestation of the existentialist attitude; the existentialist attitude precedes philosophy by being an attitude we can take towards our lives as they are lived and experienced. Following Pascal, for instance, the existentialist attitude is allowing oneself to focus on those uncomfortable things, angst, despair, etc., instead of keeping oneself distracted with parties. Allowing oneself to focus on them allows one to investigate them, to theorise about them. This theorising is different from allowing oneself to focus on them; I doubt very much that Kierkegaard wrote Begrepet Angest while in a state of perpetual angst, and even if he did, it wouldn't help his theoretical investigation of it; the work is a theoretical investigation of something that, strictly speaking, has no theoretical dimension; angst as an experience is a pure experience, a mute experience that doesn't have an inherent meaning to the person experiencing it while he's experiencing it. This is why simply reading Begrepet Angest isn't going to help a person that suffers from anxiety fight off the anxiety while being in its grip, but it may help him handle it in other respects. That the experience is mute doesn't, however, exclude the possibility of theorising about it, and it doesn't mean you can never be right about it. It simply means that what you say about the experience is not the same as what the experience actually is as experienced.

To sum up, then, the existentialist attitude is more of a pre-theoretical attitude, it's something for each individual. Existentialist philosophy, however, is a theoretical approach to these things, trying to get them to "speak" about their meaning. If we add to this the plethora of sources provided below, I do not think we need to discuss this issue much further. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Skiing is a pleasant distraction that improves the focus:

1. The present 1st sentence of the lead follows the unsupported by any established and quotable standard (but the personal preference) choice of the first word defining existentialism as: or a very close synonym with the meaning limits exactly as existentialism, or a meaningless and - so - safe phrase, whereas Solomon - in opposition to such personal preference - successfully used a quite sophisticated and subtle method of defining existentialism.

2. He said ingeniously that: "Existentialism is not simply a philosophy... ." So, he said it is a subset of philosophy while also having an additional meaning, whereas you claim that existentialism cannot be called philosophy, because of that additional meaning, which contradicts the Solomon's definition calling it philosophy (apart from something else) in the words "not only philosophy".

3. Once Solomon defined existentialism as a philosophy, he then used the compound term of "existentialist philosophy" as a replacement for existentialism.

4. Based on 2 and 3, it is safe to call existentialism a philosophy following Solomon instead of using the present "a term that has been applied to the work of" - an empty, meninges phrase.

5. Then Solomon says that "existentialist philosophy [existentialism] is the explicit conceptual manifestation of an existential attitude".

6. Hence, following Solomon, it is safe to say in the 1st sentence of the lead that "Existentialism is not simply a philosophy, but a manifestation of an existential attitude".

7. I agree that philosophy is not an attitude and withdraw my assertion; disagree that "manifestation is the way..." for "it is itself making clear" without considering any aspect of such making, e.g. the way, though there is no need to dwell on it anymore.

8. B.t.w., the sentence "I am sailing in liquefied moisture collected in the middle of the geographic depression" is correct, because it is correct to replace any word by its definition in any sentence, as it has been attempted in the 1st sentence except that the chosen phrase is empty. Fever means (1) a body temperature that is higher than normal...; (2) any of various diseases characterized by a high fever; or (3) excitement... (Webster's Dictionary), but you try to limit meaning of words to just one, as in the case of "manifestation", resulting in difficulty following Solomon. Since manifestation means also (3) a form in which a being manifests itself (Webster's Dictionary), hence we could say that "existentialism is manifestation of philosophy" as being one of its form. A digression: doesn't an objective correlate provide a theoretical dimension?

9. Following 6, I suggest the lead to read as:

Existentialism is not simply a philosophy, but "the explicit conceptual manifestation of an existential attitude" applied to the work of a number of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences, took the human subject — not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual and his or her conditions of existence — as a starting point for philosophical thought. Existential attitude begins with 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.

--71.247.227.185 (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoration and addition

I restore the very good edit of 151.59 although anonymous --Athex50 (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And, above all, largely well-known and confirmed --Athex50 (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed it, since it appears to be original research, which Wikipedia rules don't allow us to publish. If you do have a reliable source, though, feel free to restore it with the source cited. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not blogs, real reliable sources, like a significant book or a journal article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I think you are wrong, but don't insist neither argue about. Only I pray you to gather evidence, and after that I hope you'll restore. By --Athex50 (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The text in question is false. First of all, Sartre considered the peculiar state of man to be for-itself, not by-itself, and this condition wasn't put into relief against animals, but rather as anything that could be said to be in-itself, most explicitly, at one point in Being and Nothingness, a statue, depicting a "perfect sadness" (I think it was sadness, at least). He doesn't mention animals. The rest of that first paragraph makes close to no sense. The paragraph on Camus is uninformative and written poorly, and I do not believe Michel Onfray is an existentialist philosopher. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Murakami?

Can we find a citation to support putting Murakami in the introduction? It's not so much that I disagree, but you could insert hundreds of novelists for the same reason. I think Dostoevsky and Kafka are special cases, because the existentialist philosophers write about them, you'll find them in existentialist anthologies, and they're obvious examples of the point being made. But if Murakami, why not Musil or Proust or Cervantes or Lewis Carroll? For Le Neant was a boojum, you see.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Looks like it can't be supported, then?KD Tries Again (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

To the Anonymous IP User

It's evident that you are the same IP User who was warned repeatedly by administrators and other editors last year about civility and about working together with other editors to achieve a consensus. You forced debate about the precise wording of the introduction for weeks on end, ultimately accepting that you had nothing further to offer[[6]]. You now seem to want to repeat the debate, but I am still not clear what positive contribution you have to make. I would contact you via your talk page, but you have had four different IP numbers (at least) this year already, so it is impossible to maintain communication with you via a talk page. You have been advised by more than one administrator that there are good reasons to open an account, but you still haven't done so. Although the changing IP numbers make it difficult to trace your Wiki history, it is still fairly easy to put together a record which calls into question your good faith. Please stop questioning other editors competence and challenging other contributions as "baseless". And as Snowded advised, please learn to let go when there is no support for your position. Thanks. KD Tries Again (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

You waist your time on the personal attack. We managed to eliminate significant mistakes from your original proposal, where you wrote: "please explain the basis for any disagreement", and we will continue to do so for the benefit of Wikipedia. --70.107.168.124 (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not a personal attack, its a polite request for you either to create an ID, or use the same IP address. You need to address the basics of good wikipedia behaviour, something which is also present in the request above. Please address the issues of your identity, its not difficult. --Snowded (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the original proposal was "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." I am not sure what significant mistakes were eliminated. I am very much in favor of improving the existing article.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Sources for use on the lead

One of WP's core policies on reliable sources is turning to tertiary reference sources. The seven sources listed several months ago by JennaVecia are inadequate as very few or none of them appear to be drawn from reference sources written by the appropriate experts -- in this case, professional philosophers. I suggest at least the following sources:

Macintyre, "Existentialism" in Edwards, Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Flew, A Dictionary of Philosophy

Guignon, "Existentialism" in Craig, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Cooper, "Existentialist Ethics" in Craig, ibid.

McBride, "Existentialism" in Audi, Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy

Baldwin, "Existentialism" in Honderich, Oxford Companion to Philosophy

Now, to just address the absurdly overwrought discussion of the genus of existentialism (as in, "existentialism is ..."), here's what the above sources say:

Macintyre: "doctrine"; "a historical movement"

Flew: "a philosophical trend or attitude"

Guignon: "a loosely connected group of thinkers"; "a backlash against philosophical and scientific systems that ..."

Cooper: "a tradition"

McBride: "a philosophical and literary movement"

Baldwin: "a loose term for the reaction ... against the abstract rationalism of Hegel's philosophy"

If we add introductory monographs, we could include

Warnock: "a kind of philosophical activity [with] common interests, common ancestry, and common presuppositions"

Cooper: "a relatively systematic philosophy"

Flynn: "a tradition"; "a philosophical movement"

So, in light of multiple reliable secondary and tertiary sources by experts, can we agree on something very close to "philosophical movement or tradition"? 271828182 (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comment on Jennavecia's suggestions. The above quotes are interesting, but I am not sure what conclusion you draw from them. It strikes me that Flew, Guignon, Baldwin and Warnock are pretty consistent with what we have (we could add them as cites). MacIntyre - "doctrine"? I think I need to see the context (I'll look for it). Agreed, some say it's a "movement." I the suggestion that we add that to what we have? (edit: we do call it a movement in the second paragraph)KD Tries Again (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Okay, putting MacIntyre's "doctrine" in context: "Ex. is not easily definable...It has been alleged in our time to be the doctrine of writers as various as M. de Unamuno and Norman Mailer. At first sight, characteristics of the doctrine are almost as various...Consequently, to define ex. by means of a set of philosophical formulas could be very misleading. Any formula sufficient broad to embrace all the major ex.ist tendencies would necessarily be so general and so vague as to be vacuous...(E)ven if two writers whgo are both rightly called ex.ist differ enormously in doctrine, they can be placed in the same family tree." (emphasis added) Enough copy-typing, I think MacIntyre is consistent with our approach, right down to profound doctrinal differences.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The only conclusion I was advancing was the justified use of "tradition" or "movement" (or some equivalent) to put an end to the disagreements over the opening sentence. While Flew (and Solomon) could be marshaled on behalf of "attitude", theirs seems a minority usage, and elsewhere in their discussions they adopt the tradition notion to narrow the field of definition. Time permitting, and if we can agree on this as a way to constructively solidify the lead, we can continue by discussing what each of these sources say about the differentia that identify existentialism. (Much of this is already in the lead, but evidently we need to make a concerted effort to scrupulously secure it with the best possible sources.) 271828182 (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As I noted, it is referred to as a "movement" in the article, just not in the first sentences. We need to proceed with care with the sources: I happened to have the long MacIntyre essay right to hand, and he certainly doesn't call it a "doctrine" or a "historical movement" in any direct way. He, Mary Warnock, Guignon, Cooper (I believe), as well as Solomon, recognize that this is a loosely connected set of thinkers. MacQuarrie is in that camp too. I think it's hasty to dismiss this as a minority view.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Similarly for Flynn; do you have a page reference so I can get the context? In the preface to his little book, he described Ex. as a "manner of doing philosophy" and relates it to the "concrete individual". Not too far from what we are saying. Cooper says: "In short, existentialism was not only a philosophy but, as any potted history of our century will point out, a 'movement' and a 'fashion'." (The quotes around movement are his - the context is the black sweater/pants uniform of the Parisian intellectuals). I used Cooper for the current introduction; as he says, the term was coined during the war, "stuck on" writers, and the "next stage was to rake through the remoter philosophical past" and stick it on some more. Cooper repeatedly refers to existentialism as a "label." That's what I've tried to say, in more encyclopaedic language. Page 6, he agrees that existentialism is sometimes regarded as a "tendency" rather than a coherent philosophy; without minimizing "the differences" between writers, he wants to argue that there is a definable philosophy of existentialism. So within Cooper, who has his own position, there's a balanced recognition of views. I can support a balanced presentation of views. One difficulty I have with beginning the article with a phrase like "Existentialism is the philosophical position (or doctrine, or school which believes) that..." is I think we'll have a hell of time trying to complete that sentence. It's the view that man creates the meaning of his own existence and that God is the sole creator of meaning? That we are thrown into a meaningless world and responsible for our freedom and that we must make a leap of faith? The problem with this topic is that there's a massive chasm right in the middle, and it's easier to deal with if we start from the initial (and historically accurate) premise that "existentialism" was a term applied retrospectively to a very varied set of philosophers. Maybe we can then say it came to be thought of as a movement?KD Tries Again (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Images

A lot of images have been added to the article lately. Most are relevant, but I question the relevance of Gödel, Trent Reznor, the Edward Lear Cartoon under Absurdity, and the need for both individual photos and a photo of Sartre and Beauvoir together (it would perhaps be better to keep the one with both of them and loose the individual ones, as that would save some space? The images are taking up a lot of space, and shifting the links for editing the heading). Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, its approaching litter like proportions --Snowded (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I will wait a bit before changing it, though... I want to know if anyone has any more ideas on what pictures to keep and what pictures to remove. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For me, Lear, Godel and Reznor can go.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

They're gone. Now what about Sartre+Beauvoir vs Sartre and Beauvoir? Der Zeitgeist (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nihilism

The Nihilism section has seen some changes, but I wonder if we should change it from being under "types" to its own heading along the lines of "relations to nihilism" or something? Also, I don't know how one decides whether or not the "issues" related to it have been resolved or not. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion between the two in the current wording. A separate section makes sense and the "relations to" heading would mitigate the possibility of confusion --Snowded (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then, that's done. Now the section just needs some expansion. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Godel's theorems refuting positivism

I have removed the claim in the criticism section that Godel's incompleteness theorems 'epistemologically refute positivism'. I have no idea what it is for a claim to be refuted epistemologically but, those worries aside, the claim that Godel's theorems refute positivism is ridiculous. And yet, despite myself and someone else removing the claim, it has twice been restored with the suggestion that we read an article cited which says nothing to support the claim WHATSOEVER!

The two incompleteness theorems demonstrate that 1) for any formal system T (sufficient to capture arithmetic), there are truths in T which cannot be proved from T's axioms and a corollary, 2) T cannot prove its own consistency. The positivists were not in the business of creating formal systems of any kind! The only view which could be said to have been 'refuted' by Godel's theorems that I can think of is Formalism; and even that has modern proponents. The article cited in support of this claim is an interview with Rebecca Goldstein in which the claim that Godel's theorems refute positivism does not appear even once!

In short, it should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about positivism and Godel's theorems that this claim is patently false. Is there some way that this absurd claim could be prevented from being added to this page again?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.10.59 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And even if it wasn't nonsense, this is an article on Existentialism. I have posted a message at the editor's talk page. We don't even get to the question of whether the point is valid or not: I'd want to see a citation making a direct connection with existentialism, otherwise it's just not notable enough for this article.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It is not nonsense, assume good faith. If positivism is a refuted position then it too has no place in this article. If it as an invalid approach to existence it should not be included, as positivism is no longer pertient. Here is another example of [7]

And also what can be seen in this bookreview..

"It is Goldstein’s conceit that Gödel fell in love with Platonism in 1925 in an introductory course on the history of philosophy. According toher, this put him at complete odds with the logical positivists when he attended theirmeetings. ‘Gödel’s audacious ambition to arrive at a mathematical conclusion that would be a metamathematical result supporting mathematical realism was precisely whatyielded the incompleteness theorems.’ Goldstein claims that by 1928 this ambition had driven him to begin work on the proof of the first incompleteness theorem, ‘which he interpreted as disproving a central tenet of the Vienna Circle . . . He had used mathematical logic, beloved of the logical positivists, to wreak havoc on the positivistantimetaphysical position.’"

[8] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is a section of the chapter of Goldsteins' book which she was discussing in the Edge article that I used as a source. [9] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of of your comments above this is an article on Existentialism not Positivism unless you can show a link and some appreciation of [[WP:WEIGHT] then the material has no place in the article. --Snowded (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

---

"Gödel claimed that he killed logical positivism---and this may be so---and in my own rejection of the position I have at the very least one thing in common with him."[10]

---

Again why is a position that has been epistemelogically disproven called logical positivism or positivism included in this article at all. And if it is included why is it's weigh implicit as being pertient. I added the comment and section to show how completely invalid the inclusion of logical positivism is to this article. As far as I can tell existentialism has not been invalidated, but positivism has. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is incoherent. Why do you think a claimed invalidation of positivism has any relevance to an article on Existentialism? --Snowded (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what I think. What matters is that Godel scientifically dispproved logical positivism. If the position is invalidated scientifically (think about how rare a philosophical position gets scientifically invalidated). Then why is anything about positivism being critical or invalidating another position let alone existentialism included in the article. Go read my comment that the anonymous editor is removing. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I put the comment in because as the article stands it gives positivism a implicit weigh to be critical of existentialism that positivism does not hold in the scientific and or academic.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
If a criticism of existentialism is going to be included in this article about existentialism a critism of existentialism from the position of logical positivism then the read who may not know needs to understand that logical positivism take on the understanding of "to be" has been epistemologically disproved. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A sort of meaning starts to emerge, but its not easy. I think you are saying that (i) a logical positivist criticism of existentialism in in the article (ii) that logical positive has been disproved by Godel and therefore (iii) the section on Godel should be in the article. I response to that I would say that proposition (ii) has not been established by you or your citation and that even if it had then it would not be relevant. The article is about Existentialism, therefore the criticism of another school (LP) should be listed. Unless you can come up with something new I suggest this ends. You certainly do not have any consensus to insert the material in the article so please don;t --Snowded (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

BINGO on Godel. Existentialism is a valid philosophical position. Positivism is not. Why.....
Because positivism's ontology or "to be" of an object is "incomplete". This is what Godel proved scientifically with his "Incompleteness theorems". Positivisms should not be in this article at all as it is just taking up space and invalid. It is a bad thing to leave the article worded as it is now without a clarification on the invalidated positivistics definition of "to be". LoveMonkey (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, the Godel quote does not invalidate positivism, its a position you support not a proven fact. The edit you propose has no place here and you have no support that I can see. Unless other editors engage, or you come up with something new this is over. --Snowded (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Godel's theorems show no such thing! What utter nonsense. Godel, as a Platonist, would certainly disagree with positivism but it is certainly not a result of his theorems that positivism is false. Unless you can say exactly what it is about the incompleteness theorems that refutes positivism, you should cease and desist. 86.15.10.59 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Here I'll let Stephen Hawking instead.

"What is the relation between Godels theorem, and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe, in terms of a finite number of principles. One connection is obvious.aCcording to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory, is a mathematical model.sO if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted. One example might be the Golbach conjecture.gIven an even number of wood blocks, can you always divide them into two piles, each of which can not be arranged in a rectangle.tHat is, it contains a prime number of blocks".

[11] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

---

And again Godel himself (albeit via Philip J. Davis though)...........

"Gödel claimed that he killed logical positivism---and this may be so---and in my own rejection of the position I have at the very least one thing in common with him."[12]

---

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop inserting all these lines in your comments - basic editing. I think otherwise the most appropriate comment is "cease and desist" this is going no where. --Snowded (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

---

PS Snowded you'll have to also remove him from the Logical positivism article since it also valdiates what I am saying.

"Logical positivists' response to the first criticism was that logical positivism is a philosophy of science, not an axiomatic system that can prove its own consistency (see Gödel's incompleteness theorem)."

Poor Professor Rebecca Goldstein. Good to see the WP:OR rules the day. As for going no where the anoymous editor is edit warring with a 3RR. I was quoting Professor Rebecca Goldstein's work. You guys are now calling her wrong. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Stephen Hawking is not a philosopher. Secondly, all he has done is reformulate the Goldbach conjecture using blocks; that doesn't make it an empirical theory to be verified by the physical sciences. Thirdly, the positivists (as with all verificationists) claim that there are no truths which transcend our ability to verify them, so if you came up with a problem which could not be verified or falsified by the empirical sciences, they would simply reject it as meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.10.59 (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Professor Rebecca Goldstein in her book on the subject seems to think that Einstein sure didn't. And if that is the case then Hawking I bet wouldn't either. This is an article about a metaphysical subject.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure didn't what? Reject anything that wasn't either analytic or verifiable? Of course not, that was the view of the positivists and Einstein wasn't a positivist. What exactly is your argument here? A bunch of clever people weren't positivists, thefore positivism is false? You still haven't provided anything cogent to support the idea that Godel's theorems refuted positivism. I think you're misunderstanding a lot of what's going on here and I was going to be rude about it but I'll restrain myself and suggest that you read 'Godel's Proof' by Nagel and Newman and 'Language, Truth and Logic' by Ayer for accessible introductions to Godel's theorems and positivism respectively. I'm outta here. Ruby Gottlob (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is that Godel scientifically dispproved logical positivism. If the position is invalidated scientifically (think about how rare a philosophical position gets scientifically invalidated). Then why is anything about positivism being critical or invalidating another position let alone existentialism included in the article. Go read my comment that the anonymous editor is removing.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the criticism of existentialism by Carnap in particular is notable. Not right, not wrong, just notable. And the view that Carnap can't advance valid criticism of another philosopher's position because he was associated with positivism is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Removed Positivist criticism per WP: undue weigh

Since discussion is over according to Snowden, I removed the contested section according to undue weight. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I reinstated it. You really need to learn how to edit and work with other people. Every other editor involved has disagreed with you, you have no support and yet you are still editing the main article. --Snowded (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is a difference between, on the one hand, (a) valid criticism and (b) invalid criticism, and on the other, (c) relevant criticism and (d) irrelevant criticism.

• a: Valid criticism is a critique that actually points out some error or inconsistency in what is said, either with regard to the criticised item itself or with regard to its relation to the world. In short, this critique can stand up to critique.
• b: Invalid criticism is a failed critique. In other words, it doesn't point out any errors or inconsistencies. In other words, this critique cannot stand up to critique.
• c: Relevant criticism is criticism that has importance to the position criticised. Criticism can be of importance to the position in many ways, for instance by being clarifying; you read the criticism and you understand the position that is criticised better. In this respect, the criticism can be both (a) and (b); even invalid criticism can help one to understand the position better.
• d: Irrelevant criticism is criticism that is so off the mark that it simply doesn't matter at all. How one decides what is irrelevant criticism will vary, but an example would be an existentialist critique of using formal logic as a tool for representing statements in a formal language.

The matter at hand here is not whether or not a critique of existentialism is (a) or (b), but rather if it is (c) or (d). If you can make the case that Carnap's critique of Heidegger's use of the word "nothing" is _irrelevant_, you may have a case, but that is not done by "disproving" logical positivism; even the failed physics of times gone by have to be mentioned in a history of science; phlogistone is relevant to the understanding of science, but not _valid_ as a scientific statement. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to represent history and not revise it. Carnap's criticism of Heidegger is famous, widely cited, and needs to be mentioned regardless of the status of Carnap's own work. As I said above, I don't think we even need to be debating this unless someone produces an authoritative reference linking a critique of positivism by Godel directly to existentialism. On a more substantive matter, the last part of the paragraph is not good: "Existentialists would respond to both claims by an appeal to the reader's intuitive understanding on the matter, which is guided to this end through the descriptive content of their works. They treat the matter as beyond the scope of argument and logic." As far as Heidegger is concerned, he explicitly agrees with Kant that being is not a property (in Basic Problems). The critics' knowledge of Heidegger is cursory. Now I just need to find a cite to support that.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

No opposition to the proposal for changing the intro

Since there has been no opposition to the change of the intro, as proposed at the bottom of the Repaired introduction section or the text on green background, I intend to implement it. --71.247.227.185 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's some opposition for you. You haven't responded to our arguments at all, so I know I'm getting a bit tired, and I'm guessing everyone else is as well. You do not have consensus on your proposed changes, and the changes are disputed. I would urge you to not make them, and I'll let you know that if you do, they will be changed back. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Der Zeitgeist and if you do implement them against clear consensus you will be subject to an ANI report --Snowded (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the change. All it seems to do is make the sentences longer and state, awkwardly, that the "attitude" is somehow "applied" (how?) to the thinkers in question. I am surprised to see the IP editor suggest we begin by saying existentialism is not something. I thought his/her objection had always been that we were failing to say what it 'is'.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Opposed also. Sorry I haven't had time to develop any of the suggestions I made above w.r.t. sourcing the lead, or supply the page numbers. I hope it's of use to the editors trying to improve this page. 271828182 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

DZ, I did respond to all, though certain arguments analyzing Solomon were not on the subject of utilizing the already existing material. The relation between existentialism and the existential attitude has not been questioned, but a lack of clarity and consistency of the language and a bad progression of the lead that does not require discussing the meaning of the word manifestation, the existential attitude, etc, but only using the existing material. The lead is confusing, because you took only a part of construction of the definition by Solomon and skipped the phrase "is not only a philosophy" in reference to existentialism. Without that phrase the definition does not work! Then, the existential attitude should be clearly described. I suggest the following progression of the lead:

Existentialism "is not simply a philosophy", but "the explicit conceptual manifestation of an existential attitude". "The existential attitude begins with a disoriented individual facing a confused world that he cannot accept." Since 1940s, the term existentialism has been applied to the work of a number of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences, took the human subject — not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual and his or her conditions of existence — as a starting point for philosophical thought. Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.

--

71.247.227.185 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"not simply a philosophy" - What does that mean? --Snowded (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Robert Solomon, From Hegel to Existentialism (p238), but it's taken out of context. It follows two sentences which explain that existentialism is in part a continuation of certain themes in philosophy, and in part a revolt against philosophy. Then it says, it's not "simply" a philosophy. I think the quote from Solomon about the "attitude" is fine, but I don't see any need to paraphrase his introduction extensively.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• You cannot separate the 1st clause "Existentialism is not simply a philosophy," from the 2nd clause "but the explicit conceptual manifestation of an existential attitude" that explains it. The two sentences that Solomon preceded the 1st clause standing there separately, and - so - needing their support, are substituted by the 2nd clause eliminating a need for them. The 2nd clause explains existential attitude as a 'predilection' of existentialism Der Z. was talking about before accusing me above of not responding (I have considered, what he said).
• The present lead is faulty. It is not say what existentialism is. It starts from the sentence that is partially empty and partially containing non-prime info. Next, the clause "existential attitude[5] that begins with a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world" is badly written, because "that begins" may be confused as referring to "Existential philosophy" at the beginning of the sentence, and it does not say whose "sense of disorientation..." is referred to.
• Finally, the DK's statement "I think ..., but I don't see..." is not an argument, but... (De gustibus non est disputandum). It contradicts the Solomon's different point of view and suggests that a personal opinion can be superior to established quotations from prime authors. Sorry man. --71.247.227.185 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I know that this is contrary to all the wiki guidelines, but now that I look at it again, I think all this quoting of authorities has rendered the entire introduction damned near unreadable (nine quotations in the first paragraph?!). Furthermore, I think we're better off formulating a looser definition for the introduction rather than a more "accurate" one (zoom in too close, and you get pixels) — that's what the rest of the article is for. Perhaps we should move away from the philosophers and rather focus on the kinds of problems dealt with in the introduction, as that would remove the problems related to different authors calling it different things according to what field they're writing from, to and in? The philosophers call it a philosophy, the literary people call it a current, the historians call it a concept or term, the idea-historians call it an idea, and so-on. What is common across all these "definitions" is not the people working within the fields defined (Kierkegaard in one, Kafka in another, Sartre in a third, etc.), but rather the themes they deal with. In other words, if we were to go in the direction of "Existentialism is a term," and if you read past these first three words, IP, you will see that your recurring "objection" ("It is not say [sic] what existentialism is.") is invalid, "that has been applied to a loosely defined field of themes, problems and concepts mainly within philosophy and literature, but also in psychology [here referring to Yalom, May, etc.] and other arts [Munch, for instance, is said to have dealt with existentialist themes in his paintings, and theatre is not the same as literature]. These themes are" etc., etc. I'm not going to write it all out here and now, as I'm just suggesting a general direction we may want to consider. In any event, we cannot continue along this fruitless path of attempting to respond to a nonresponsive (there's a difference between responding and simply waving one's arms around to divert attention) IP. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You wanted to have everything from citations, you have got that. The citations appeared, because of your (mainly of DK's) insistence. Every dictionary, encyclopedia, and Solomon states what existentialism is and nobody calls it "a term", because all entries are terms. It means the the beginning of the lead is bad. Everybody knows application of existentialism (emphasized and more by "is not simply a philosophy") and deals with that, but not in the first sentence (first - what, and only then - where). These are serious deficiencies I try to remedy.

Your statements I know that this is contrary to all the wiki guidelines, but [...] I think..., I think we're better off formulating a looser definition for the introduction rather than a more "accurate" one, etc. are not arguments (see the same about DK above). You need serious and relevant citations in support that complement each other and are not taken out of context. Accusing me of diverting attention is a personal attack. I produced a consistent and complete lead proposal per the standard you insisted upon, and now you cannot accept it! Since you ran out of arguments, just do accept the proposal... and then discuss how to improve it, because for now it is the best wherther you like it or not, and you have no valid arguments against. --71.247.227.185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC).

No, not everything. We wanted support for the sentences from citations, but there are limits (we may even soon start to infringe on copyrights); the article is supposed to be an article in its own right, and not a patchwork of citations from other authors. The way the citations have become so dominant cannot be said to be anyone's fault, as they have appeared in connection with editing sentences without looking at the whole.

When you say that "nobody calls it a term," that's both a false statement and an example of how you don't respond to what we say: Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy calls it "a term that belongs to intellectual history," and the philosophy dictionary calls it "A loose title for various philosophies that emphasize certain common themes." Furthermore, if you look at the section called "sources for use on the lead" above, you will see that what is said there is compatible with calling it a term. When it comes to not responding, the issue is that you are not reading past the word "term," so you're not really saying anything: It is defined as "a term that is applied to [...]"

Your argument that my arguments are not arguments is useless, and simply point to the fact that you do not know what arguments are: You attempt to latch on to a phrasing in an attempt to score some sort of rhetorical point, but the difference between "I think we're better off" and "we're better off" is negligible, even though the "I think" is what you're latching on to. The same goes for your attempt to construe this as a personal attack (an activity you're not entirely alien to yourself): I'm pointing out in what ways you are not actually responding to what we say. Furthermore, accusing us of running out of arguments, and then not managing anything better than "it is the best wherther you like it or not" is, simply put, pathetic. You talk about being constructive, but you simply want it your own way first, and then you may agree to certain cosmetic changes. I'm not going to go into another long, pointless "argument" with you over this, however, so this ends here. When you want to be constructive, and when you've learned how to speak proper English you may want to make a contribution, but up until then I would implore you to refrain from making edits to the English wikipedia. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest it's unnecessary to engage in protracted dialogue with the IP user. He/she has been proposing re-writes to the first sentence of the article since October last year. That's six months on the same sentence, without ever bothering to open a Wiki account, and through several etiquette warnings. He/she is now reverting to [inappropriate personal remarks again], and also indulging in the old game of reversing my initials (a form of [indirect criticism]). As other editors have said above, there is no consensus for the changes proposed thus far. I think we should either leave it at that, or encourage these exceptionally prolonged dialogues be taken to users' talk pages.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• KD, don't be so touchy about reversing your initials (it is a typo caused by a keyboard sending some letters faster than others not caught by a spellchecker) especially when discussing bad language in the lead, which you wrote; not knowing your age I have no base of making fun of it. Again KD (that is a pun), your statements "I would suggest...", "I think we should..." are not arguments and do not belong is a discussion especially demanding one. Your recent change replacing is with is characterized by what has been called cannot be considered an achievement.
• DZ, you can do better than attacking my English; I agree that the text should be as original as possible and not only a patchwork of citations, and - so- maybe a little longer that a most efficient patchwork of shortest citations. I disagree that citations from one source tend to be mutually incompatible and contribute to a disregard of the whole picture, but on a contrary.

The full sentence Like "rationalism" and "empiricism," "existentialism" is a term that belongs to intellectual history. clearly indicates (by a direct implication) that existentialism is a philosophy (the lead is lacking), and the sentence is a base for the following and supporting it sentences, without which it does not work. The lead mixes fragments taken out of context from different and mutually incompatible definitions with very different constructions that indicates a lack of understanding of their progression: connections between the sentences or their mutual dependencies.

The current phrase existential attitude"... begins with a sense of disorientation and confusion [whose?] in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world misses the object (individual) making it unnecessarily difficult and much inferior to the snappy and brisk original The existential attitude begins with a disoriented individual facing a confused world that he cannot accept.

My proposal above was intended as a compact framework containing all necessary ingredients, connections between sentences and progression distilled from Solomon - an established author. We could elongate it, but not the KD's way replacing "2+2=4" with "2+2 is characterized by what has been called 4". It is a constructive step to a relatively original lead without elementary omission or empty phrases. Let's improve it. --71.247.227.185 (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Since there is no more opposition, I am implementing it. --71.247.227.185 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is opposition, you are the only one supporting it if you implement it then I will reverse it and report you for edit warring --Snowded (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Existentialism and positivism, historically.

Maybe it should be noted that existentialism was first propounded by the German physicist Gustav Kirchhoff, and later taken up with greater authority by Richard Avenarius and then Ernst Mach, as a reaction to Kant's thing-in-itself and Hegel's metaphysics for their fundamental failure to account for psychology. The slant taken was positivistic and had a great influence on a number of scientists, including psychologists, and philosophers, including Moritz Schlick and the Vienna Circle, John Dewey, William James, Charles Peirce, and F.C.S. Schiller.

At first blush, the relationship between Existentialism, the school of agony, and Logical Positivism may look strained. Nevertheless, although the main content of their themes diverge considerably, both rely on direct experience and discount as fanciful anything that cannot be identified positively.

Although Kierkegaard is now regarded as the patron saint of Existential devotions unto despair, melancholy, and the preoccupation with death, his work was little known outside of Denmark and Germany until well into the twentieth century and not well known within, until he was 'discovered' by those who were already calling themselves 'existentialists'. By contrast, the trend established by Avenarius was famous. Only later did he come to be forgotten and retired to the dusty aisles of the used book shops.

This, of course, brings up the side notion of what history really consists in, but that has to be saved for another day.

Uniquerman (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this is your first Wiki edit, so we should welcome you. However, I think you would need to direct us to some supporting evidence for that summary. As far as I can see, Kirchoff did some work in graph theory, but Peirce's existential graphs are tools in modal logic, and have nothing to do with existentialism. Have I misunderstood? Kierkegaard was being read and cited by Unamuno and Ortega before 1914, and was being studied and taught by Jaspers and Heidegger by the early 1920s.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The best capsule account can be found in the Dictionary of Philosophy, Dagobert D. Runes, 1942 Ed., abstract written by Sigmar von Fersen. I'm not making a big point, and I certainly didn't intend to imply that Peirce, Dewey, et al., are existentialists. But, like many things, what starts out one way turns another. At one time, the words 'subjective' and 'objective' had meanings virtually opposite to their current use. Subjective meant pertaining to the subject at hand and objective meant having an object in mind. We're seeing this right now with the phrase 'in the tank [for]', which used to mean (not so long ago) 'losing without making an effort' and now means 'solidly in support [of]'. Kierkegaard was not well known outside of Germany and Denmark until well into the 20th century unless you wanted to read him in Danish or German. English and other translations were not at all common until the nineteen-thirties. Thus, Heidegger and Jaspers would have had no problems, and Unamuno and Ortega may have read German. I don't know. 74.95.93.186 (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Rationalism and the Spanish school.

Although it is now taken for granted that psychology and epistemology are partially interdependent disciplines, it was not always the case, and existentialism is partly responsible. The Spanish school, exemplified by Jose Ortega y Gasset and Julian Marias, took it a step further, attempting to reconcile classical realism and Cartesian idealism into a unitary whole, bringing epistemology to the point where it meets ontology.

In his History of Philosophy, Marias made a frank but undeveloped try at melding realism and idealism into existentialism, especially in the person of Ortega, who was working toward a sort of neo-Platonic formalism of this world (rather than a shadow one) with his expression, 'me and my circumstances'. By this he did not mean circumstances accreted to the individual, but the definition of the circumstances as integral to the person. If you turn this around from the person to the world, you infer the existential moment ('reality') as an event whose veridical identity comes from neither the place or the thing nor the concept or the mind but the interdependence of person and world.

This is a strain of existentialist metaphysics which is not always recognized and is certainly not well enough explored. Hints of it can be found in the writings of the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss and the semiological aspects of the work of the French linguist de Saussure and more fully developed expositions in the essays of the American theoretical anthropologist Barbara Lee and the teachings of the nearly unknown American philosopher and anthropologist Mickey Gibson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.93.186 (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 74.95.93.186 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) signed 74.95.93.186 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC) uniquerman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.93.186 (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that none of the standard textbooks on existentialism I've ever seen have much to say about Avenarius or Levi-Strauss or Saussure.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Since when has a standard textbook done anything but cover the conventional wisdom? It is not the conventional wisdom that existentialism could have a rationalist conception of metaphysics, either, since much of it disavows metaphysics completely and a great deal of it downgrades reason in favor of direct impression, but there it is in the person of Ortega. The standard textbooks aren't going to cover his breakdown of Descartes very well or the re-integration of Cartesian principles into his own system of thought, and not only because he doesn't seem to be in the mainstream. It's not always easy to see what he's getting at, and very few seem to have mastered it. For instance, most people think the The Rebellion of the Masses is a diatribe against institutional groupthink. They don't see its deeper implications. Same with Levi-Strauss, only more so. It's a dense subject to tackle and takes a lot of heavy wading. Same with Heidegger. Being and Time was not translated into English until 1962, and I doubt that many people have read it either way. Most people have read what other people say about it, and I suspect that there's a great deal of misunderstanding about it.71.191.25.34 (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's kind of hard to get at your point: What are you getting at here? Do you want the article to mention these things? The problem with your argument, as far as I can tell, is that it makes "Existentialism" a too inclusive term; sure, if you look at philosophers through the ages, you will find people who deal with certain phenomena in this or that way, and this way may appear to be, or may actually be, the same as some existentialist philosopher's way. The problem is that this does not make their philosophy existentialist; Hegel inspired Kierkegaard, both positively and negatively, and he dealt with some of the same subjects., He's also probably _the_ most mentioned philosopher throughout all the Existentialist philosophers' works (both Sartre, Beauvoir, Kierkegaard (although sometimes covertly) and Heidegger mentions him quite often), but Hegel still isn't an existentialist philosopher. When it comes to the Logical Positivists, for instance, they were _quite clearly_, explicitly even, opposed to the ideas of existentialism; Carnap's attempt at a critique of Heidegger would extend to most, if not all, of the other existentialists as well; the notion of [intet, nichts, neant, nothingness] is one of the most central notions of existentialist philosophy. When it comes to the influence of Kierkegaard, I know for a fact that Unamuno read Danish, that he taught himself Danish _in order to_ read Kierkegaard, so his influence cannot have been as small as you make it out to be; Unamuno must have known about him in order to have wanted to teach himself Danish so as to read Kierkegaard in the original language. I think you're mistaking the _general_ popularity of Kierkegaard for his influence in relation to the specifically existentialist philosophers; existentialist philosophy is, and has always been, a limited field of philosophy, so for each age, even if all philosophers haven't heard of some philosopher, he may still be important in existentialist philosophy; even if the logicians didn't bother with Kierkegaard, the existentialist philosophers may have. Der Zeitgeist (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite appearances to the contrary, I'm not the least bit interested in a doctrinal debate on Kierkegaard's standing in the existential hierarchy.

What I am saying is that, if one is interested in a historical presentation of the notion, existentialism, and the use of the word, then Kirchhoff, Avenarius, and Mach, who were greatly interested in incorporating the science of psychology into philosophy, ought to be represented, if only in passing. If, on the other hand, the main interest is in the formal relation between the ideas of Heidegger, Jaspers, Ortega, Unamuno, Sartre, and others to the ideas of Kierkegaard, then the historicity has little bearing on the subject. Conflating the content with the process takes place at the expense of clarity.

For this issue, documentation is not the limiting factor. Emphasis is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquerman (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If the 1942 edition of the Dictionary of Philosophy [Runes] incorporates a section on Existentialism, then neither the word nor the notion can have been coined in 1943, as has been alleged in another comment, and the subjects of that section, Kirchhoff, Averanius, and Mach, cannot be completely ruled out.Uniquerman (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rune's dictionary has an entry on existentialist philosophy; he doesn't call it existentialism. So the term was probably coined after that. When it comes to the kind of philosophy, sure, it was plain to see for everyone that Kierkegaard and Unamuno had influenced Heidegger, etc. The definition of existentialist philosophy in that dictionary is, however, just plain weird:

"Existential Philosophy: Determines the worth of knowledge not in relation to truth but according to its biological value contained in the pure data of consciousness when unaffected by emotions, volitions, and social prejudices." Link: http://www.ditext.com/runes/e.html Der Zeitgeist (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at Runes, and not found it helpful in the past. As for what the standard source say, for better or worse that is precisely what Wikipedia is supposed to represent. I can give you a long list of what Wiki would consider reliable, authoritative sources on existentialism (Barrett, Macquarrie, Solomon, Kaufmann, Cooper), as well as standard encyclopaedia articles (Britannica, Macmillan) - all of which offer the conventional account of existentialism developing from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Wikipedia isn't the place to offer an alternative account. We can only add information to the article which can be supported. The fundamental question is whether there's sufficient support for the claim that Avenarius and Mach, for example, were important for the development of existentialism. I suspect not. The article in Runes is out on a limb, and I'd oppose giving much weight to it.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Heidegger's Influences

I removed the comment that Heidegger was influenced "much more" by Husserl than by Kierkegaard. Heidegger worked as Husserl's assistant, but the extent to which his work shows Husserl's influence is controversial; Husserl himself regarded Heidegger as having completely abandoned phenomenology. But more important, so what? Heidegger was probably influenced more by Aristotle than he was by Kierkegaard, but the only purpose of the sentence is to indicate why Heidegger has been regarded (rightly or wrongly) as an existentialist. One of the (few) common factors among the so-called existentialists was a debt to Kierkegaard.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again