Talk:Existentialism

Values

I'm going to add one more concept subsection (I believe we'll have a complete list afterwards): on values. I'll be drawing heavily from here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/#IdeVal I'm looking for some input from interested editors before I proceed. Byelf2007 (talk) 14 December 2012

Aristotle/Aquinas

Perhaps it would be helpful if, when noting that Sartre states that existence is before essence for human beings, it were noted that this is in contradistinction to what Aristotle and Aquinas held. I'm just thinking that, if someone is familiar with the theories of either of these philosophers, it will help them see more clearly how existentialism is going against the historical grain of the argument.

Major Readability Problem

Large chunks of this article are inaccesibly wordy & drowning in jargon. Can I propose some serious rewriting? Wikipedia articles & existential philosophy should be easy to understand WP:MTAU.

For example, the section on facticity:

Facticity is defined by Sartre in Being and Nothingness (1943) as the in-itself, which delineates for humans the modalities of being and not being.

I know it's hard to use translate the convoluted terminology coined by Sarte et al into simple terms, but in no way is the rest of the paragraph "more easily undertood":

This can be more easily understood when considering facticity in relation to the temporal dimension of our past: one's past is what one is, in that it co-constitutes oneself. However, to say that one is only one's past would ignore a significant part of reality (the present and the future), while saying that one's past is only what one was, would entirely detach it from oneself now. A denial of one's concrete past constitutes an inauthentic lifestyle, and also applies to other kinds of facticity (having a human body—e.g., one that does not allow a person to run faster than the speed of sound—identity, values, etc.).

Keen to see what other people think, and depending on responses, I might have a go at simplifying it in a week or so. --Zapprobiskia (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me.Phlsph7 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but see below on Heidegger and Sartre. "Facticity" was Heidegger's baby, via Husserl, and only picked up by S. Later authors who employ the term are oriented to H. not S. The present article's sub-section on term doesn't reflect this at all. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:48D5:B5F1:9B54:DB55 (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Dostoevsky and Sartre

I removed Sartre from the heading of this section, as he's dealt with in detail under "After the Second World War" further down the page. I also removed the debate about the misattribution of a statement to Dostoevsky: it's a controversial claim that the statement is not to be found in Dostoevsky's work, so would really need to be discussed in more detail: but it's not important enough to warrant lengthy treatment here.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Heidegger and Sartre

It seems today Sartre is much less a topic in academic publishing than Heidegger. Sartre's insights -- whatever they may be -- are seen as derivative Heidegger. In other words, I think this article may give a mistaken impression of Sartre's significance. OR... I'm just adequately familiar with the Sartre literature. Dreyfus reports that in his interview with H., Sartre was described as "Dreck." 2601:405:4A80:9E50:547D:22FF:F89F:5077 (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

distorted introduction

The introductory paragraph contains this text: "...a form of philosophical inquiry that explores the problem of human existence."

What problem? None is identified, so this sentence needs to be reworded for the section to make sense. LarryWiki115 (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

By saying "the problem of human existence" the article implies that there is such a problem, which is not neutral as between existentialists and those who think it is all pseudo-philosophy dealing with a pseudo-problem. I suggest the words "the problem of" should come out. Those who can find some meaning in the writings of existentialists might perhaps like to advise whether the word "human" should stay, or come out as too narrowing. Seadowns (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

A philosophical problem is different than a practical problem – a philosophical problem is a premise supported by argument resulting in a conclusion. Whether or not the premises, arguments and conclusions are True and/or Valid, it is still a philosophical problem. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The term "problem" can have several meanings. I think the meaning in this context is something like "question" or "issue", e.g. see [1]. It does not mean "argument", as User:Epinoia suggested, in its philosophical sense or otherwise. Philosophers ask questions about all kinds of things, including about human existence. This is specifically what existentialists do, see [2]. There is controversy about whether the answers they give are correct, but not about the fact that they ask this kind of question. Here I agree with Epinoia. So I don't see a good reason to remove this expression.Phlsph7 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I can't agree that a premise is supported by argument. A premise is what a form of argument, such as a syllogism, starts from. Then surely a problem is, to most people, something that calls for a solution, and even if there are senses that do not connote this, there is a danger that it will usually be taken in this way by readers of the article. I don't see what would be lost by taking it out. Seadowns (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The introduction should express somehow that existentialist philosophy is concerned with the topic of human existence. I don't see an issue with the current version but if there is an equally good alternative formulation that does not contain the term "problem" then that would be fine with me. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my inaccurate definition - I should have written something like, "a philosophical problem is a premise, or set of premises, followed by argument supporting a conclusion." Whether or not anyone thinks existentialism is nonsense or not is irrelevant, it's still a philosophical problem - there is no supporting source or citation for changing the current wording - we can't change it based on opinion - unsupported opinions count as original research in Wikipedia - WP:NOR - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

What I suggest is that it should read "explores human existence", which is true, and is exactly what Phlsph7 seeks. It does not import the unsupported opinion that human existence is a problem, which opinion, if Epinoia is right, would constitute original research and is therefore better removed. My suggestion would be more neutral, which is desirable in Wikipedia. Note that it is not existentialism that is called a problem, as you say it is, perhaps rightly, Epinoia, but human existence which is so called (other existences do not seem to matter), and existence does not fit your definition of a problem. Seadowns (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

- it's not that human existence is a problem, it's that human existence raises a number of questions, attempts by philosophers to answer these questions makes it a philosophical problem requiring premise, argument & conclusion - we are dealing with a specialized type of problem here, a philosophical problem - there is no reason to change the article other than personal opinion, no citations have been presented to support the change or to show that it is not a philosophical problem - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm neutral between the change proposed by Seadowns and keeping it as it is, so I'll leave the decision to the remaining participants of the discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

With all respect, Epinoia, I do not think one can profitably discuss questions of this sort with you. You do not seem to be a close reader or a rigorously exact thinker. In spite of your name, I have a feeling that you don't know Greek, since it is a language that requires strict attention to words. What I suggest does not insert my personal opinion, it merely ceases to imply that human existence is a problem, without stating that it is not a problem. Anyway, I give up, since I think existentialism has ceased to be a fashionable diversion for the semi-educated and isn't worth further attention. Seadowns (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)