Existentialism

Existentialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The philosophers Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche foreshadowed existentialism.

Existentialism is a term that has been applied to the work of a number of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences,[1][2] took the human subject — not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual[3][4] and his or her conditions of existence — as a starting point for philosophical thought. Existential philosophy is the "explicit conceptual manifestation of an existential attitude"[5] that begins with a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.[6][7] Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.[8][9]

Existentialism emerged as a movement in twentieth-century literature and philosophy, foreshadowed most notably by nineteenth-century philosophers Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, though it had forerunners in earlier centuries. In the 20th century the German philosopher Martin Heidegger influenced other existentialist philosophers such as Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and Albert Camus. Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Franz Kafka also described existential themes in their literary works. Although there are some common tendencies amongst "existentialist" thinkers, there are major differences and disagreements among them (most notably the divide between atheistic existentialists like Sartre and theistic existentialists like Tillich); not all of them accept the validity of the term as applied to their own work.[10]

Contents [hide]
1 Origins
2 19th century
2.1 Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
2.2 Dostoyevsky and Kafka
3 Early 20th century
4 After the Second World War
5 Concepts
5.1 Focus on concrete existence
5.2 Existence precedes essence
5.3 Angst
5.4 Freedom
5.5 Facticity
5.6 Authenticity and inauthenticity
5.7 Despair
5.8 The Other and The Look
5.9 Reason
5.10 The Absurd
6 Types
6.1 Atheistic
6.2 Theistic
7 Relation to Nihilism
8 Criticism
9 Influence outside philosophy
9.1 Cultural movement and influence
9.1.1 Literature
9.1.2 Film
9.1.3 Theatre
9.1.4 Music
9.2 Theology
9.3 Existential psychoanalysis and psychotherapy
10 See also
11 Notes
12 References
13 Further reading
14 External links



[edit] Origins
The term "existentialism" seems to have been coined by the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel around 1943[11][12][13] and adopted by Jean-Paul Sartre who, on October 29, 1945, discussed his own existentialist position in a lecture to the Club Maintenant in Paris. The lecture was published as L'existentialisme est un humanisme, a short book which did much to popularize existentialist thought.[14]

The label has been applied retrospectively to other philosophers for whom existence, and in particular human existence, were key philosophical topics. Martin Heidegger had made human existence (Dasein) the focus of his work since the 1920s, and Karl Jaspers had called his philosophy "Existenzphilosophie" in the 1930s.[15][16] Both Heidegger and Jaspers had been influenced by the Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard, but the first much more by Edmund Husserl. For Kierkegaard the crisis of human existence had been a major theme.[17][18][19] and then he came to be regarded as the first existentialist,[20] and has been called the "father of existentialism".[21] In fact he was the first to explicitly make existential questions a primary focus in his philosophy.[22] In retrospect, other writers have also implicitly discussed existentialist themes throughout the history of philosophy.

Examples include:

the Buddha's teachings,[23]
the Bible in the Book of Genesis,[24] Ecclesiastes,[25] and Job,[25]
Saint Augustine in his Confessions,[26]
Averroes' school of philosophy,
Saint Thomas Aquinas' writings,
Mulla Sadra's transcendent theosophy,
William Shakespeare's Hamlet.[27]

[edit] 19th century

The Søren Kierkegaard Statue in Copenhagen.As early as 1835 in a letter to his friend Peter Wilhelm Lund, the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote one of his first existentially sensitive passages. In it, he describes a truth that is applicable for him:

What I really lack is to be clear in my mind what I am to do, not what I am to know, except in so far as a certain knowledge must precede every action. The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do: the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die. ... I certainly do not deny that I still recognize an imperative of knowledge and that through it one can work upon men, but it must be taken up into my life, and that is what I now recognize as the most important thing.

—Søren Kierkegaard, Letter to Peter Wilhelm Lund dated August 31, 1835, emphasis added[28]
The early thoughts of Kierkegaard would be formalized in his prolific philosophical and theological writings, many of which would later form the modern foundation of 20th century existentialism.[22][29]


[edit] Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
Main article: Kierkegaard and Nietzsche comparisons
Søren Kierkegaard as well as Friedrich Nietzsche were two of the first philosophers considered fundamental to the existentialist movement, though neither used the term "existentialism" and it is unclear whether they would have supported the existentialism of the 20th century. Their focus was on human experience, rather than the objective truths of mathematics and science that are too detached or observational to truly get at human experience. Like Pascal, they were interested in people's quiet struggle with the apparent meaninglessness of life and the use of diversion to escape from boredom. But Pascal did not consider the role of making free choices, particularly regarding fundamental values and beliefs: such choices change the nature and identity of the chooser, in the view of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.[30][31] Kierkegaard's knight of faith and Nietzsche's Übermensch are examples of those who define the nature of their own existence. Great individuals invent their own values and create the very terms under which they excel. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were also precursors to other intellectual movements, including postmodernism, nihilism, and various strands of psychology.


[edit] Dostoyevsky and Kafka
Two of the first literary writers who were important to existentialism were the Czech author Franz Kafka and the Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky[32] Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground details the story of a man who is unable to fit into society and unhappy with the identities he creates for himself. Many of Dostoevsky's novels, such as Crime and Punishment, covered issues pertinent to existential philosophy while offering story lines divergent from secular existentialism: for example in Crime and Punishment one sees the protagonist, Raskolnikov, experience existential crises and move toward a worldview similar to Christian Existentialism, which Dostoevsky had come to advocate.

Kafka created often surreal and alienated characters who struggle with hopelessness and absurdity, notably in his most famous novella, The Metamorphosis, or in his master novel, The Trial. In his philosophical essay The Myth of Sisyphus, the French existentialist Albert Camus describes Kafka's oeuvre as "absurd in principle",[33] although he also finds present the same "tremendous cry of hope" as is to be found in religious existentialists such as Kierkegaard and Shestov, and which Camus himself rejects.[34]


The cover of Kafka's absurdist 1915 novella Die Verwandlung (The Metamorphosis), about a man who is inexpicably transformed into a beetle
[edit] Early 20th century
In the first decades of the 20th century, a number of philosophers – some working independently, but all influenced in varying degrees by Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Dostoevsky – developed positions which were existentialist in all but name.

The Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno y Jugo, in his 1913 book The Tragic Sense of Life in Men and Nations, emphasized the life of "flesh and bone" as opposed to that of abstract rationalism. Unamuno rejected systematic philosophy in favor of the individual's quest for faith. He retained a sense of the tragic, even absurd nature of the quest, symbolized by his enduring interest in Cervantes' fictional character Don Quixote. A novelist, poet and dramatist as well as philosophy professor at the University of Salamanca, Unamuno's short story about a priest's crisis of faith, "Saint Manuel the Good, Martyr" has been collected in anthologies of existentialist fiction. Another Spanish thinker, Ortega y Gasset, writing in 1914, held that the human existence must always be defined as the individual person combined with the concrete circumstances of his life: "Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia" ("I am myself and my circumstances"). Sartre likewise believed that human existence is not an abstract matter, but is always situated ("en situation").

Although Martin Buber wrote his major philosophical works in German, and studied and taught at the Universities of Berlin and Frankfurt, he stands apart from the mainstream of German philosophy. Born into a Jewish family in Vienna in 1878, he was also a scholar of Jewish culture and involved at various times in Zionism and Hasidism. In 1938, he moved permanently to Jerusalem. His best-known philosophical work was the short book I and Thou, published in 1922. For Buber, the fundamental fact of human existence, too readily overlooked by scientific rationalism and abstract philosophical thought, is "man with man", a dialogue which takes place in the so-called "sphere of between" ("das Zwischenmenschliche").[35]

Two Russian thinkers, Lev Shestov and Nikolai Berdyaev became well-known as existentialist thinkers during their post-Revolutionary exiles in Paris. Shestov, born into a Russian-Jewish family in Kiev, had launched an attack on rationalism and systematization in philosophy as early as 1905 in his book of aphorisms All Things Are Possible.

Berdyaev, also from Kiev but with a background in the Eastern Orthodox Church, drew a radical distinction between the world of spirit and the everyday world of objects. Human freedom, for Berdyaev, is rooted in the realm of spirit, a realm independent of scientific notions of causation. To the extent the individual human being lives in the objective world, he is estranged from authentic spiritual freedom. "Man" is not to be interpreted naturalistically, but as a being created in God's image, an originator of free, creative acts.[36] He published a major work on these themes, The Destiny of Man in 1931.

Gabriel Marcel, long before coining the term "existentialism", introduced important existentialist themes to a French audience in his early essay "Existence and Objectivity" (1925) and in his Metaphysical Journal (1927).[37] A dramatist as well as a philosopher, Marcel found his philosophical starting point in a condition of metaphysical alientation; the human individual searching for harmony in a transient life. Harmony, for Marcel, was to be sought through "secondary reflection", a "dialogical" rather than "dialectical" approach to the world, characterized by "wonder and astonishment" and open to the "presence" of other people and of God rather than merely to "information" about them. For Marcel, such presence implied more than simply being there (as one thing might be in the presence of another thing); it connoted "extravagant" availability, and the willingness to put oneself at the disposal of the other.[38]

Marcel contrasted "secondary reflection" with abstract, scientific-technical "primary reflection" which he associated with the activity of the abstract Cartesian ego. For Marcel, philosophy was a concrete activity undertaken by a sensing, feeling human being incarnate — embodied — in a concrete world.[39][40] Although Jean-Paul Sartre adopted the term "existentialism" for his own philosophy in the 1940s, Marcel's thought has been described as "almost diametrically opposed" to that of Sartre.[41] Unlike Sartre, Marcel was a Christian, and became a Catholic convert in 1929.

In Germany, the psychologist and philosopher Karl Jaspers — who later described existentialism as a "phantom" created by the public,[42] — called his own thought, heavily influenced by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche — Existenzphilosophie. For Jaspers, "Existenz-philosophy is the way of thought by means of which man seeks to become himself...This way of thought does not cognize objects, but elucidates and makes actual the being of the thinker."[43]

Jaspers, a professor at the University of Heidelberg, was acquainted with Martin Heidegger, who held a professorship at Marburg before acceding to Husserl's chair at Freiburg in 1928. They held many philosophical discussions, but later became estranged over Heidegger's support of National Socialism. They shared an admiration for Kierkegaard,[44] and in the 1930s Heidegger lectured extensively on Nietzsche. Nevertheless, the extent to which Heidegger should be considered an existentialist is debatable. In Being and Time he presented a method of rooting philosophical explanations in human existence (Dasein) to be analysed in terms of existential categories (existentiale); and this has led many commentators to treat him as an important figure in the existentialist movement.


[edit] After the Second World War
Following the Second World War, existentialism became a well-known and significant philosophical and cultural movement, mainly through the public prominence of two French writers, Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, who wrote best-selling novels, plays and widely-read journalism as well as theoretical texts. These years also saw the growing reputation outside Germany of Heidegger's book Being and Time.

Sartre had dealt with existentialist themes in his 1938 novel Nausea and the short stories in his 1939 collection The Wall, and had published a major philosophical statement, Being and Nothingness in 1943, but it was in the two years following the liberation of Paris from the German occupying forces that he and his close associates — Camus, Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and others — became internationally famous as the leading figures of a movement known as existentialism.[45] In a very short space of time, Camus and Sartre in particular, became the leading public intellectuals of post-war France, achieving by the end of 1945 "a fame that reached across all audiences."[46] Camus was an editor of the most popular leftist (former French Resistance) newspaper Combat; Sartre launched his journal of leftist thought, Les Temps Modernes, and two weeks later gave the widely reported lecture on existentialism and humanism to a packed meeting of the Club Maintenant. Beauvoir wrote that "not a week passed without the newspapers discussing us";[47] existentialism became "the first media craze of the postwar era."[48]


French philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de BeauvoirBy the end of 1947, Camus's earlier fiction and plays had been reprinted, his new play Caligula had been performed and his novel The Plague published; the first two novels of Sartre's The Roads to Freedom trilogy had appeared, as had Beauvoir's novel The Blood of Others. Works by Camus and Sartre were already appearing in foreign editions. The Paris-based existentialists had become famous.[49]

Sartre had travelled to Germany in 1930 to study the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger,[50] and he included critical comments on their work in his major treatise Being and Nothingness. Heidegger's thought had also become known in French philosophical circles through its use by Alexandre Kojève in explicating Hegel in a series of lectures given in Paris in the 1930s.[51] The lectures were highly influential; members of the audience included not only Sartre and Merleau-Ponty, but Raymond Queneau, Georges Bataille, Louis Althusser, André Breton and Jacques Lacan.[52] A selection from Heidegger's Being and Time was published in French in 1938, and his essays began to appear in French philosophy journals.

Heidegger read Sartre's work and was initially impressed, commenting: "Here for the first time I encountered an independent thinker who, from the foundations up, has experienced the area out of which I think, Your work shows such an immediate comprehension of my philosophy as I have never before encountered.".[53] Later, however, in response to a question posed by his French follower Jean Beaufret,[54] Heidegger distanced himself from Sartre's position and existentialism in general in his Letter on Humanism.[55] Heidegger's reputation continued to grow in France during the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1960s, Sartre attempted to reconcile existentialism and Marxism in his work Critique of Dialectical Reason. A major theme throughout his writings was freedom and responsibility.




Albert Camus was a friend of Sartre, until their falling-out, and wrote several works with existential themes including The Rebel, The Stranger, The Myth of Sisyphus, and Summer in Algiers. Camus, like many others, rejected the existentialist label, and considered his works to be concerned with people facing the absurd. In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus uses the analogy of the Greek myth to demonstrate the futility of existence. In the myth, Sisyphus is condemned for eternity to roll a rock up a hill, but when he reaches the summit, the rock will roll to the bottom again. Camus believes that this existence is pointless but that Sisyphus ultimately finds meaning and purpose in his task, simply by continually applying himself to it.


French-Algerian philosopher, novelist, and playwright Simone de Beauvoir, an important existentialist who spent much of her life as Sartre's partner, wrote about feminist and existential ethics in her works, including The Second Sex and The Ethics of Ambiguity. Although often overlooked due to her relationship with Sartre, de Beauvoir integrated existentialism with other forms of thinking such as feminism, unheard of at the time, resulting in alienation from fellow writers such as Camus. Frantz Fanon, a Martiniquan-born critic of colonialism, has been considered an important existentialist.[56]


French philosopher and novelist Paul Tillich, an important existential theologian following Søren Kierkegaard and Karl Barth, applied existential concepts to Christian theology, and helped introduce existential theology to the general public. His seminal work The Courage to Be follows Kierkegaard's analysis of anxiety and life's absurdity, but puts forward the thesis that modern man must, via God, achieve selfhood in spite of life's absurdity. Rudolf Bultmann used Kierkegaard's and Heidegger's philosophy of existence to demythologize Christianity by interpreting Christian mythical concepts into existential concepts.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty, an existential phenomenologist, was for a time a companion of Sartre. His understanding of Husserl's phenomenology was far greater than that of Merleau-Ponty's fellow existentialists. It has been said that his work, Humanism and Terror, greatly influenced Sartre. However, in later years they were to disagree irreparably, dividing many existentialists such as de Beauvoir, who sided with Sartre. Michel Foucault would also be considered an existentialist through his use of history to reveal the constant alterations of created meaning, thus proving history's failure to produce a cohesive version of reality.

Colin Wilson, an English writer, published his study The Outsider in 1956, initially to critical acclaim. In this book and others (e.g. Introduction to the New Existentialism), he attempted to reinvigorate what he perceived as a pessimistic philosophy and bring it to a wider audience. He was not, however, academically trained, and his work was attacked by professional philosophers for lack of rigor and critical standards.[57]


Concepts

Focus on concrete existence

Existentialist thinkers focus on the question of concrete human existence and the conditions of this existence rather than hypothesizing a human essence. However, even though the concrete individual existence must have priority in existentialism, certain conditions are commonly held to be "endemic" to human existence.

What these conditions are is better understood in light of the meaning of the word "existence," which comes from the Latin "existere," meaning "to stand out." Man exists in a state of distance from the world that he nonetheless remains in the midst of. This distance is what enables man to project meaning into the disinterested world of in-itselfs. This projected meaning remains fragile, constantly facing breakdown for any reason — from a tragedy to a particularly insightful moment. In such a breakdown, we are put face to face with the naked meaninglessness of the world, and the results can be devastating.

It is in relation to the concept of the devastating awareness of meaningless that Albert Camus claimed that "there is only one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide" in his The Myth of Sisyphus. Although "prescriptions" against the possibly deleterious consequences of these kinds of encounters vary, from Kierkegaard's religious "stage" to Camus' insistence on persevering in spite of absurdity, the concern with helping people avoid living their lives in ways that put them in the perpetual danger of having everything meaningful break down is common to most existentialist philosophers.


Existence precedes essence

Main article: Existence precedes essence

A central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence, which means that the actual life of the individual is what constitutes what could be called his "essence" instead of there being a predetermined essence that defines what it is to be a human. Although it was Sartre who explicitly coined the term, similar notions can be found in the thought of many existentialist philosophers, from Kierkegaard to Heidegger.

It is often claimed in this context that man defines himself, which is often perceived as stating that man can "wish" to be something — anything, a bird, for instance — and then be it. According to most existentialist philosophers, however, this would rather be a kind of inauthentic existence. What is meant by the statement is that man is (1) defined only insofar as he acts and (2) that he is responsible for his actions. To clarify, it can be said that a man who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel man and in that same instance, he (as opposed to his genes, or "the cruel nature of man", for instance) is defined as being responsible for being this cruel man.

As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards." Of course, the more positive, therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: You can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since man can choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things essentially.[58]


Angst
Angst, sometimes called dread, anxiety or even anguish is a term that is common to many existentialist thinkers. It is generally held to be the experience of our freedom and responsibility. The archetypal example is the example of the experience one has when standing on a cliff where one not only fears falling off it, but also dreads the possibility of throwing oneself off. In this experience that "nothing is holding me back", one senses the lack of anything that predetermines you to either throw yourself off or to stand still, and one experiences one's own freedom.

It can also be seen in relation to the previous point how angst is before nothing, and this is what sets it apart from fear which has an object. While in the case of fear, one can take definitive measures to remove the object of fear, in the case of angst, no such "constructive" measures are possible. The use of the word "nothing" in this context relates both to the inherent insecurity about the consequences of one's actions, and to the fact that, in experiencing one's freedom as angst, one also realizes that one will be fully responsible for these consequences; there is no thing in you (your genes, for instance) that acts in your stead, and that you can "blame" if something goes wrong.

Not every choice is perceived as having dreadful possible consequences (and, it can be claimed, our lives would be unbearable if every choice facilitated dread), but that doesn't change the fact that freedom remains a condition of every action. One of the most extensive treatments of the existentialist notion of Angst is found in Søren Kierkegaard's monumental work Begrebet Angest (The Concept of Dread).

Angst is often described as the drama an adolescent troubles with during their developmental years. In pop-culture 'angst' is used to describe a particular attitude, often towards family or governmental systems. In this light, the angst of popular teenage life could be used to describe the often-theorized 'existential crisis' that is adolescence.


[edit] Freedom
The existentialist concept of freedom is often misunderstood as a sort of liberum arbitrium where almost anything is possible and where values are inconsequential to choice and action. This interpretation of the concept is often related to the insistence on the absurdity of the world and that there are no relevant or absolutely good or bad values. However, that there are no values to be found in the world in-itself does not mean that there are no values: each of us usually already has his values before a consideration of their validity is carried through, and it is, after all, upon these values we act.

In Kierkegaard's Judge Vilhelm's account in Either/Or, making choices without allowing one's values to confer differing values to the alternatives, is, in fact, choosing not to make a choice — to flip a coin, as it were, and to leave everything to chance. This is considered to be a refusal to live in the consequence of one's freedom; an inauthentic existence. As such, existentialist freedom isn't situated in some kind of abstract space where everything is possible: since people are free, and since they already exist in the world, it is implied that their freedom is only in this world, and that it, too, is restricted by it.

What is not implied in this account of existential freedom, however, is that one's values are immutable; a consideration of one's values may cause one to reconsider and change them. A consequence of this fact is that one is not only responsible for one's actions, but also for the values one holds. This entails that a reference to common values doesn't excuse the individual's actions: Even though these are the values of the society the individual is part of, they are also his own in the sense that s/he could choose them to be different at any time. Thus, the focus on freedom in existentialism is related to the limits of the responsibility one bears as a result of one's freedom: the relationship between freedom and responsibility is one of interdependency, and a clarification of freedom also clarifies what one is responsible for.


[edit] Facticity
A concept closely related to freedom is that of facticity, a concept defined by Sartre in Being and Nothingness as that "in-itself" of which you are in the mode of not being. This can be more easily understood when considering it in relation to the temporal dimension of past: Your past is what you are in the sense that it co-constitutes you. However, to say that you are only your past would be to ignore a large part of reality (the present and the future) while saying that your past is only what you were in a way that would entirely detach it from you now. A denial of one's own concrete past constitutes an inauthentic lifestyle, and the same goes for all other kinds of facticity (having a body (e.g. one that doesn't allow you to run faster than the speed of sound), identity, values, etc.).

In relation to freedom, facticity is both a limitation and a condition of your freedom. It is a limitation in that a large part of your facticity consists of things you couldn't have chosen (birthplace, etc.), but a condition in the sense that your values most likely will depend on it. However, even though your facticity is "set in stone" (as being past, for instance), it cannot determine you: The value ascribed to your facticity is still ascribed to it freely by you. As an example, consider two men, one of which has no memory of his past and the other remembers everything. They have both committed many crimes, but the first man, knowing nothing about this, leads a rather normal life while the second man, feeling trapped by his own past, continues a life of crime, blaming his own past for "trapping" him in this life. There is nothing essential about his committing crimes, but he ascribes this meaning to his past.

However, to disregard your facticity when you, in the continual process of self-making, project yourself into the future, would be to put yourself in denial of yourself, and would thus be inauthentic. In other words, the origin of your projection will still have to be your facticity, although in the mode of not being it (essentially). Another aspect of facticity is that it entails angst, both in the sense that freedom "produces" angst when limited by facticity, and in the sense that the lack of the possibility of having facticity "step in" for you to take responsibility for something you have done also produces angst.


[edit] Authenticity and inauthenticity
The theme of authentic existence is common to many existentialist thinkers. It is often taken to mean that one has to "find oneself" and then live in accordance with this self, but 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 by authenticity is that in acting, one should act as oneself, not as One, one's genes or any other essence. The authentic act is one that is in accordance with one's freedom. Of course, as a condition of freedom is facticity, this includes one's facticity, but not to the degree that this facticity can in any way determine one's choices (in the sense that one could then blame one's background for making the choice one made). The role of facticity in relation to authenticity involves letting one's actual values come into play when one makes a choice (instead of, like Kierkegaard's Aesthete, "choosing" randomly), so that one also takes responsibility for the act instead of choosing either-or without allowing the options to have different values.

In contrast to this, the inauthentic is the denial to live in accordance with one's freedom. This can take many forms, from pretending choices are meaningless or random, through 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 responsibility, and the extent to which one acts in accordance with this freedom.


[edit] Despair
Commonly defined as a loss of hope,[59] Despair in existentialism is more specifically related to the reaction to a breakdown in one or more of the "pillars" of one's self or identity. If one has invested a lot of oneself in being something, a waiter or an "upstanding citizen," and one finds oneself in a situation in which one has done something or had something happen to oneself that compromises this being-thing, one would normally find oneself in a state of Despair, a hopeless state. An athlete who loses his legs in an accident may despair if he has nothing to "fall back on," for instance.

What sets the existentialist notion of Despair apart from the dictionary definition is that Despair is a state one is in even when one isn't overtly in Despair: As long as one has based one's identity on such pillars so that one is vulnerable to having one's world break down, one is considered to be in perpetual Despair. As Kierkegaard defines it in his Either/or: "Any life-view with a condition outside it is despair."[60] In other words, it is possible to be in despair without despairing.


[edit] The Other and The Look
The Other (when written with a capital "o") is a concept more properly belonging to phenomenology and its account of intersubjectivity. However, the concept has seen widespread use in existentialist writings, and the conclusions drawn from it differ slightly from the phenomenological accounts. The experience of the Other is the experience of another free subject who inhabits the same world as you do. In its most basic form, it is this experience of the Other that constitutes intersubjectivity and objectivity. To clarify, when one experiences someone else, and that this Other person experiences the world (the same world that you experience), only from "over there", the world itself is constituted as objective in that it is something that is "there" as identical for both of the subjects; you experience the other person as experiencing the same as you. This experience of the Other's look is what is termed the Look (sometimes The Gaze).

While this experience, in its basic phenomenological sense, constitutes the world as objective, and yourself as objectively existing subjectivity (you experience yourself as seen in the Other's Look in precisely the same way that you experience the Other as seen by you, as subjectivity), in existentialism, it also acts as a kind of limitation of your freedom. This is because the Look tends to objectify what it sees. As such, when one experiences oneself in the Look, one doesn't experience oneself as nothing (no thing), but as something. Sartre's own example of a man peeping at someone through a keyhole can help clarify this: At first, this man is entirely caught up in the situation he is in; he is in a pre-reflexive state where his entire consciousness is directed at what goes on in the room. Suddenly, he hears a creaking floorboard behind him, and he becomes aware of himself as seen by the Other. He is thus filled with shame for he perceives himself as he would perceive someone else doing what he was doing, as a Peeping Tom. The Look is then co-constitutive of one's facticity.

Another characteristic feature of the Look is that no Other really needs to have been there: It is quite possible that the creaking floorboard was nothing but the movement of an old house; the Look isn't some kind of mystical telepathic experience of the actual way the other sees you (there may also have been someone there, but he could have not noticed that you were there, or he could be another Peeping Tom who just wants to join you). It is only your perception of the way another might perceive you.


[edit] Reason
Emphasizing action, freedom, and decision as fundamental, existentialists oppose themselves to rationalism and positivism. That is, they argue against definitions of human beings as primarily rational. Rather, existentialists look at where people find meaning. Existentialism asserts that people actually make decisions based on the meaning to them rather than rationally. The rejection of reason as the source of meaning is a common theme of existentialist thought, as is the focus on the feelings of anxiety and dread that we feel in the face of our own radical freedom and our awareness of death. Kierkegaard saw strong rationality as a mechanism humans use to counter their existential anxiety, their fear of being in the world: "If I can believe that I am rational and everyone else is rational then I have nothing to fear and no reason to feel anxious about being free."[citation needed] However, Kierkegaard advocated rationality as means to interact with the objective world (e.g. in the natural sciences), but when it comes to existential problems, reason is insufficient: "Human reason has boundaries".[61]

Like Kierkegaard, Sartre saw problems with rationality, calling it a form of "bad faith", an attempt by the self to impose structure on a world of phenomena — "the Other" — that is fundamentally irrational and random. According to Sartre, rationality and other forms of bad faith hinder us from finding meaning in freedom. To try to suppress our feelings of anxiety and dread, we confine ourselves within everyday experience, Sartre asserts, thereby relinquishing our freedom and acquiescing to being possessed in one form or another by "the look" of "the Other" (i.e. possessed by another person — or at least our idea of that other person). In a similar vein, Camus believed that society and religion falsely teach humans that "the Other" has order and structure.[62] For Camus, when an individual's consciousness, longing for order, collides with the Other's lack of order, a third element is born: absurdity.


[edit] The Absurd
Main article: Absurdism
The notion of the Absurd contains the idea that there is no meaning to be found in the world beyond what meaning we give to it. This meaninglessness also encompasses the amorality or "unfairness" of the world. This contrasts with "karmic" ways of thinking in which "bad things don't happen to good people"; to the world, metaphorically speaking, there is no such thing as a good person or a bad thing; what happens happens, and it may just as well happen to a good person as to a bad person. This contrasts our daily experience where most things appear to us as meaningful, and where good people do indeed, on occasion, receive some sort of "reward" for their goodness.

Most existentialist thinkers, however, will maintain that this is not a necessary feature of the world, and that it definitely isn't a property of the world in-itself. Because of the world's absurdity, at any point in time, anything can happen to anyone, and a tragic event could plummet someone into direct confrontation with the Absurd. The notion of the absurd has been prominent in literature throughout history. Søren Kierkegaard, Franz Kafka, Fyodor Dostoevsky and many of the literary works of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus contain descriptions of people who encounter the absurdity of the world. Albert Camus studied the issue of "the absurd" in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus.


[edit] Types

[edit] Atheistic
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009)

Atheistic existentialism is the form of existentialism most commonly encountered in today's society. What sets it apart from theistic existentialism is that it rejects a god and any transcendent will that should in some way dictate how humans should live. It rejects the notion that there is any "created" meaning of life and the world, and that a leap of faith is required of man in order for him to live an authentic life. In this kind of existentialism, belief in a god is often considered a form of Bad Faith.

In this kind of existentialism, the way to face the absurdity of the world is to create a meaning for yourself. This creation of meaning ex nihilo doesn't degrade your meaning as such, as all meaning would be created meaning. In other words, creating a meaning of your own life is completely legitimate, as long as you do not base it in "objective" existence, or let it be the main "pillar" of your life. According to Kierkegaard, one would be in a perpetual state of despair (although it would be an unrealised despair that one would flee from whenever it showed itself) if one had some meaning (It doesn't necessarily have to be one single meaning; even a multitude of meanings is fragile) as the main pillar of one's life.

Two leading 20th century figures among atheist existentialists were Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus.


[edit] Theistic
Theistic existentialism is, for the most part, Christian in its outlook, because the way traced by Kierkegaard, Gabriel Marcel, Karl Barth, Paul Tillich and others is even nowadays quite strong. But there have been existentialists of other theological persuasions, like Islam (see Transcendent theosophy) and Judaism. Unlike atheistic existentialists, they posit the existence of God, and that God is the source of our being. It is generally held that God has designed the world in such a way that we must define our own lives, and each individual is held accountable for his own self-definition.


[edit] Relation to Nihilism
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since May 2008.

Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since May 2008.


This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2008)
This article requires authentication or verification by an expert.
Please assist in recruiting an expert or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details. (July 2008)

Though nihilism and existentialism are distinct philosophies, they are often confused with one another. A primary cause of confusion is that Friedrich Nietzsche is an important philosopher in both fields, but also the existentialist insistence on the absurd and the inherent meaninglessness of the world. Existentialist philosophers often stress the importance of Angst as signifying the absolute lack of any objective ground for action, a move that is often reduced to a moral or an existential nihilism. A pervasive theme in the works of existentialist philosophy, however, is to persist through encounters with the absurd, as seen in Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus, and it is only very rarely that existentialist philosophers dismiss morality or one's self-created meaning: Kierkegaard regained a sort of morality in the religious (although he wouldn't himself agree that it was ethical; the religious suspends the ethical), and Sartre's final words in Being and Nothingness are "All these questions, which refer us to a pure and not an accessory (or impure) reflection, can find their reply only on the ethical plane. We shall devote to them a future work."[63] Hence, existentialists believe that one can create value and meaning, whilst nihilists will deny this.


[edit] Criticism
Herbert Marcuse criticised Existentialism, especially Being and Nothingness (1943), by Jean-Paul Sartre, for projecting anxiety and meaninglessness onto the nature of existence itself: "Insofar as Existentialism is a philosophical doctrine, it remains an idealistic doctrine: it hypostatizes specific historical conditions of human existence into ontological and metaphysical characteristics. Existentialism thus becomes part of the very ideology which it attacks, and its radicalism is illusory".[64] In 1946, Sartre already had replied to Marxist criticism of Existentialism in the lecture Existentialism is a humanism.[65] In Jargon of Authenticity, Theodor Adorno criticised Heidegger's philosophy, especially his use of language, as a mystifying ideology of advanced, industrial society, and its power structure.[citation needed]

In Letter on Humanism, Heidegger criticized Sartre's existentialism:

Existentialism says existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which, from Plato's time on, has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement. With it, he stays with metaphysics, in oblivion of the truth of Being.
In From Descartes to Wittgenstein, Roger Scruton says that Heidegger's concept of inauthenticity and Sartre's concept of bad faith were self-inconsistent; both deny any universal moral creed, yet speak of these concepts as if everyone were bound to abide them. In chapter 18, he says: "In what sense Sartre is able to 'recommend' the authenticity, which consists in the purely self-made morality, is unclear. He does recommend it, but, by his own argument, his recommendation can have no objective force." However, despite the seemingly moral tone present in each, both Heidegger and Sartre stress throughout their respective works that these are not to be taken as evaluative concepts, and if we take their word for this (as Scruton does not), there is no inconsistency in this regard. Both authors appeal to the reader in all regards to decide for him/herself.

Logical positivists, such as Carnap and Ayer, say Existentialists frequently are confused about the verb "to be" in their analyses of "being".[66] They argue that the verb is transitive, and pre-fixed to a predicate (e.g., an apple is red): without a predicate, the word is meaningless. Another alleged confusion, in existentialist metaphysical literature, is that existentialists try to understand the meaning of the word "nothing" (the negation of existence) by presuming it must refer to something. Borrowing Kant's argument[67] against the ontological argument for the existence of God, logical positivists argue that existence is not a property.[citation needed] 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.


[edit] Influence outside philosophy

[edit] Cultural movement and influence
The term existentialism was first adopted as a self-reference in the 1940s and 1950s by Jean-Paul Sartre, and the widespread use of literature as a means of disseminating their ideas by Sartre and his associates (notably novelist Albert Camus) meant existentialism "was as much a literary phenomenon as a philosophical one."[68] Among existentialist writers were Parisians Jean Genet, André Gide, André Malraux, and playwright Samuel Beckett, the Norwegian Knut Hamsun, and the Romanian friends Eugène Ionesco and Emil Cioran. Prominent artists such as the Abstract Expressionists Jackson Pollock, Arshile Gorky, and Willem de Kooning have been understood in existentialist terms, as have filmmakers such as Jean-Luc Godard and Ingmar Bergman.[68] Individual films such as the 1952 western High Noon and Fight Club (1999) have also been cited as existentialist.[69][70] Also, existential theological influence is apparent in Angel's Egg, a Japanese anime feature film produced by Tokuma Shoten in 1985 which blends surrealistic and existentialist qualities.


[edit] Literature
In the 20th century, existentialism experienced a resurgence in popular art forms. In fiction, Hermann Hesse's 1928 novel Steppenwolf, based on an idea in Kierkegaard's Either/Or (1843),[specify] sold well in the West. Jack Kerouac and the Beat poets adopted existentialist themes. "Arthouse" films began quoting and alluding to existentialist thought and thinkers. Existentialist novelists were generally seen as a mid-1950s phenomenon that continued until the mid- to late 1970s. Most of the major writers were either French or from French African colonies. Small circles of other Europeans were seen as literary precursors by the existentialists, but literary history increasingly has questioned the accuracy of this perception.

After the 1970s, much cultural activity in art, cinema, and literature contains both postmodernist and existential elements. Books such as Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968) (now republished as Blade Runner in some US editions ) by Philip K. Dick, and Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk all distort the line between reality and appearance while simultaneously espousing strong existential themes. Ideas from such thinkers as Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Foucault, Kafka, Nietzsche, and Eduard von Hartmann permeate the works of artists such as Chuck Palahniuk, Irvine Welsh, Michael Szymczyk, David Lynch, Crispin Glover, and Charles Bukowski, and one often finds in their works a delicate balance between distastefulness and beauty. The novel Hopscotch, by Julio Cortázar depicts the existentialism in its main character, Horacio Oliveira and his absurd life.


[edit] Film
Existential themes have been evident throughout 20th century cinema. Many films portray characters going through the "existential dilemma" or existential problems. Existential movies are those which have plots that deal with subjects such as dread, boredom, nothingness, anxiety, alienation and the absurd. Furthermore, the definition states that movies which "deal with the themes of existential literature seriously are also considered as being existential".[71]

A number of 1940s and 1950s-era films explored existential themes, including the US film noir genre, which explored the ambiguous moral dilemmas of people drawn into the gangster underworld. Film noirs tend to revolve around heroes who are more flawed and morally questionable than the norm, often fall guys of one sort or another. The characteristic heroes of noir are described by many critics as "alienated" and "filled with existential bitterness."[72] Film noir is often described as essentially pessimistic. The noir stories that are regarded as most characteristic tell of people trapped in unwanted situations (which, in general, they did not cause but are responsible for exacerbating), striving against random, uncaring fate, and frequently doomed. The movies are seen as depicting a world that is inherently corrupt. Classic film noir has been associated by many critics with the American social landscape of the era—in particular, with a sense of heightened anxiety and alienation that is said to have followed World War II.

Existentialist themes were also present in other genres. The French director Jean Genet's 1950 fantasy-erotic film Un chant d'amour shows two inmates in solitary cells whose only contact is through a hole in their cell wall, who are spied on by the prison warden. Reviewer James Travers calls the film a "...visual poem evoking homosexual desire and existentialist suffering" which "... conveys the bleakness of an existence in a godless universe with painful believability"; he calls it "... probably the most effective fusion of existentialist philosophy and cinema."[73]

Stanley Kubrick's 1957 anti-war film Paths of Glory "illustrates, and even illuminates...existentialism" by examining the "necessary absurdity of the human condition" and the "horror of war".[74] The film tells the story of a fictional World War I French army regiment which is ordered to attack an impregnable German stronghold; when the attack fails, three soldiers are chosen at random, court-martialed by a "kangaroo court", and executed by firing squad. The film examines existential ethics, such as the issue of whether objectivity is possible and the "problem of authenticity".[75]

On the lighter side, the British comedy troupe Monty Python have explored existential themes throughout their works, from many of the sketches in their original television show, the Flying Circus, to their last major release and the 1983 film The Meaning of Life.[76] Of the many adjectives (some listed in the introduction above) that might indicate an existential tone, the one utilized the most by the group is that of the absurd.

Some contemporary films dealing with existential issues include Fight Club, Waking Life, and Ordinary People[77]. Likewise, films throughout the 20th century such as Taxi Driver, High Noon, Easy Rider, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, A Clockwork Orange, Apocalypse Now, The Seventh Seal, Ikiru, I ♥ Huckabees, and Blade Runner also have existential qualities.[78] Notable directors known for their existentialist films include Ingmar Bergman, François Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, Michelangelo Antonioni, Akira Kurosawa, Stanley Kubrick, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Woody Allen.[79] Charlie Kaufman's Synecdoche, New York focuses on the protagonist's desire to find existential meaning in life as he sees its end.[80]


[edit] Theatre
Jean-Paul Sartre wrote No Exit in 1944, an existentialist play originally published in French as Huis Clos (meaning In Camera or "behind closed doors") which is the source of the popular quote, "Hell is other people." (In French, "l'enfer, c'est les autres"). The play begins with a Valet leading a man into a room that the audience soon realizes is in hell. Eventually he is joined by two women. After their entry, the Valet leaves and the door is shut and locked. All three expect to be tortured, but no torturer arrives. Instead, they realize they are there to torture each other, which they do effectively, by probing each other's sins, desires, and unpleasant memories.

Existentialist themes are displayed in the Theatre of the Absurd, notably in Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot, in which two men divert themselves while they wait expectantly for someone (or something) named Godot who never arrives. They claim Godot to be an acquaintance but in fact hardly know him, admitting they would not recognize him if they saw him. Samuel Beckett, once asked who or what Godot is, replied, "If I knew, I would have said so in the play." To occupy themselves they eat, sleep, talk, argue, sing, play games, exercise, swap hats, and contemplate suicide—anything "to hold the terrible silence at bay".[81] The play "exploits several archetypal forms and situations, all of which lend themselves to both comedy and pathos."[82] The play also illustrates an attitude toward man's experience on earth: the poignancy, oppression, camaraderie, hope, corruption, and bewilderment of human experience that can only be reconciled in mind and art of the absurdist. The play examines questions such as death, the meaning of human existence and the place of God in human existence.

Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is an absurdist tragicomedy first staged at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in 1966.[83] The play expands upon the exploits of two minor characters from Shakespeare's Hamlet. Comparisons have also been drawn to Samuel Beckett's Waiting For Godot, for the presence of two central characters who almost appear to be two halves of a single character. Many plot features are similar as well: the characters pass time by playing Questions, impersonating other characters, and interrupting each other or remaining silent for long periods of time. The two characters are portrayed as two clowns or fools in a world that is beyond their understanding. They stumble through philosophical arguments while not realizing the implications, and muse on the irrationality and randomness of the world.

Jean Anouilh's Antigone also presents arguments founded on existentialist ideas.[84] It is a tragedy inspired by Greek mythology and the play of the same name (Antigone, by Sophocles) from the 5th century B.C. In English, it is often distinguished from its antecedent by being pronounced in its original French form, approximately "Ante-GŌN." The play was first performed in Paris on 6 February 1944, during the Nazi occupation of France. Produced under Nazi censorship, the play is purposefully ambiguous with regards to the rejection of authority (represented by Antigone) and the acceptance of it (represented by Creon). The parallels to the French Resistance and the Nazi occupation have been drawn. Antigone rejects life as desperately meaningless but without affirmatively choosing a noble death. The crux of the play is the lengthy dialogue concerning the nature of power, fate, and choice, during which Antigone says that she is "... disgusted with [the]...promise of a humdrum happiness"; she states that she would rather die than live a mediocre existence.

Critic Martin Esslin in his book Theatre of the Absurd pointed out how many contemporary playwrights such as Samuel Beckett, Eugène Ionesco, Jean Genet, and Arthur Adamov wove into their plays the existential belief that we are absurd beings loose in a universe empty of real meaning. Esslin noted that many of these playwrights demonstrated the philosophy better than did the plays by Sartre and Camus. Though most of such playwrights, subsequently labeled "Absurdist" (based on Esslin's book), denied affiliations with existentialism and were often staunchly anti-philosophical (for example Ionesco often claimed he identified more with 'Pataphysics or with Surrealism than with existentialism), the playwrights are often linked to existentialism based on Esslin's observation.[85]


[edit] Music
This section requires expansion with:
examples and additional citations.

Many solo artists and bands have released existentially themed works ranging from single songs to entire albums. Some of these artists have focused and built their entire careers exploring these themes. Notable examples include Jim Morrison of The Doors, Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, Trent Reznor of the industrial band Nine Inch Nails[86] among others.


[edit] Theology
Main article: Christian existentialism
Christ's teachings had an indirect style, in which his point is often left unsaid for the purpose of letting the single individual confront the truth on their own.[87] This is evident in his parables, which are a response to a question he is asked. After he tells the parable, he returns the question to the individual.

An existential reading of the Bible demands that the reader recognize that he is an existing subject studying the words more as a recollection of possible events. This is in contrast to looking at a collection of "truths" which are outside and unrelated to the reader, but may develop your reality/God.[88] 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. This is the task Kierkegaard takes up when he asks: "Who has the more difficult task: the teacher who lectures on earnest things a meteor's distance from everyday life-or the learner who should put it to use?"[89] Existentially speaking, the Bible doesn't become an authority in a person's life until they authorize the Bible to be their personal authority. Existentialism has had a significant influence on theology, notably on postmodern Christianity and on theologians and religious thinkers such as Nikolai Berdyaev, Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Wilfrid Desan and John Macquarrie.


[edit] Existential psychoanalysis and psychotherapy
Main article: Existential therapy
One of the major offshoots of existentialism as a philosophy is existential psychology and psychoanalysis, which first crystallized in the work of Ludwig Binswanger, a clinician who was influenced by both Freud, Edmund Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre. A later figure was Viktor Frankl, who had studied with Freud and Jung as a young man[citation needed]. His logotherapy can be regarded as a form of existential therapy.

An early contributor to existential psychology in the United States was Rollo May, who was influenced by Kierkegaard. One of the most prolific writers on techniques and theory of existential psychology in the USA is Irvin D. Yalom. The person who has contributed most to the development of a European version of existential psychotherapy is the British-based Emmy van Deurzen.

With complete freedom to decide, and complete responsibility for the outcome of decisions, comes anxiety (angst). Anxiety's importance in existentialism makes it a popular topic in psychotherapy. Therapists often use existential philosophy to explain the patient's anxiety. Psychotherapists using an existential approach believe that a patient can harness his anxiety and use it constructively. Instead of suppressing anxiety, patients are advised to use it as grounds for change. By embracing anxiety as inevitable, a person can use it to achieve his full potential in life. Humanistic psychology also had major impetus from existential psychology and shares many of the fundamental tenets. Terror management theory is a developing area of study within the academic study of psychology. It looks at what researchers claim to be the implicit emotional reactions of people that occur when they are confronted with the knowledge they will eventually die.


[edit] See also
Abandonment
Angst
Anguish
Existential humanism
Existential crisis
Existential phenomenology
Existential meaning
Existentiell (Heideggerian terminology)
List of major thinkers and authors associated with existentialism
Existential therapy
Psychodrama
Lightness
Meaning of Life
Colin Wilson
The Ister (film)
Human, All Too Human (TV series)

[edit] Notes
^ John Macquarrie, Existentialism, New York (1972), pages 18–21.
^ Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich, New York (1995), page 259.
^ John Macquarrie, Existentialism, New York (1972), pages 14–15.
^ D.E. Cooper Existentialism: A Reconstruction (Basil Blackwell, 1999, page 8)
^ Solomon, Robert C. (1987). From Hegel to Existentialism. Oxford University Press. pp. 238. ISBN 0195061829. http://books.google.com/books?id=3JA3vyj4slsC&pg=PA238.
^ Robert C. Solomon, Existentialism (McGraw-Hill, 1974, pages 1–2)
^ D.E. Cooper Existentialism: A Reconstruction (Basil Blackwell, 1999, page 8).
^ Ernst Breisach, Introduction to Modern Existentialism, New York (1962), page 5
^ Walter Kaufmann, Existentialism: From Dostoevesky to Sartre, New York (1956), page 12
^ Walter Kaufmann. Existentialism: From Dostoevsky to Sartre. (Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1956) 11
^ D.E. Cooper Existentialism: A Reconstruction (basil Blackwell, 1999, page)
^ Thomas R. Flynn, Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2006, page 89
^ Christine Daigle, Existentialist Thinkers and Ethics (McGill-Queen's press, 2006, page 5)
^ L'Existentialisme est un Humanisme (Editions Nagel, 1946); English Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism (Eyre Methuen, 1948)
^ John Potevi, A Dictionary of Continental Philosophy (Yale University press, 2006, page 325)
^ Thomas R. Flynn, Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2006, page 89
^ S. Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, "A First and Last Declaration": "...to read solo the original text of the individual, human-existence relationship, the old text, well known, handed down from the fathers, to read it through yet once more, if possible in a more heartfelt way."
^ Michael Weston, Kierkegaard and Modern Continental Philosophy (Routledge, 2003, page 35)
^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
^ Christine Daigle, Existentialist Thinkers and Ethics (McGill-Queen's press, 2006, page 5)
^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
^ a b Ferreira, M. Jamie, Kierkegaard, Wiley & Sons, 2008.
^ Mulder Jr., Jack. Mystical And Buddhist Elements in Kierkegaard's Religious Thought, Edwin Mellen Press, 2006
^ Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling, Penguin Classics, 1985
^ a b Kierkegaard, Søren. Works of Love, Princeton University Press, 1998.
^ Storm, D. Anthony. Søren Kierkegaard: A Primer
^ Kaufmann, Walter. From Shakespeare to Existentialism. Princeton University Press, 1980
^ Kierkegaard, Søren. The Essential Kierkegaard, edited by Howard and Edna Hong. Princeton, 2000
^ Marino, Gordon. Ed. Basic Writings of Existentialism. Modern Library, 2004.
^ Luper, Steven. "Existing". Mayfield Publishing, 2000, p.4–5
^ Ibid, p. 11
^ Hubben, William. Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Kafka, Scribner, 1997.
^ Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (Trans. Justin O'Brien, Hamish Hamilton, 1955, page 104)
^ Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (Trans. Justin O'Brien, Hamish Hamilton, 1955, page 107)
^ Maurice S. Friedman, Martin Buber. The Life of Dialogue (University of Chicago press, 1955, page 85)
^ Ernst Breisach, Introduction to Modern Existentialism, New York (1962), pages 173–176
^ Samuel M. Keen, "Gabriel Marcel" in Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Macmillan Publishing Co, 1967)
^ John Macquarrie, Existentialism (Pelican, 1973, page 110)
^ John Macquarrie, Existentialism (Pelican, 1973, page 96)
^ Samuel M. Keen, "Gabriel Marcel" in Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Macmillan Publishing Co, 1967)
^ Samuel M. Keen, "Gabriel Marcel" in Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Macmillan Publishing Co, 1967)
^ Karl Jaspers, "Philosophical Autobiography" in Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.) The Philosophy of Karl Jaspers (The Library of Living Philosophers IX (Tudor Publishing Company, 1957, page 75/11)
^ Karl Jaspers, "Philosophical Autobiography" in Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.) The Philosophy of Karl Jaspers (The Library of Living Philosophers IX (Tudor Publishing Company, 1957, page 40)
^ Karl Jaspers, "Philosophical Autobiography" in Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.) The Philosophy of Karl Jaspers (The Library of Living Philosophers IX (Tudor Publishing Company, 1957, page 75/2 and following)
^ Ronald Aronson, Camus and Sartre (University of Chicago Press, 2004, chapter 3 passim)
^ Ronald Aronson, Camus and Sartre (University of Chicago Press, 2004, page 44)
^ Simone de Beauvoir, Force of Circumstance, quoted in Ronald Aronson, Camus and Sartre (University of Chicago Press, 2004, page 48)
^ Ronald Aronson, Camus and Sartre (University of Chicago Press, 2004, page 48)
^ Ronald Aronson, Camus and Sartre (University of Chicago Press, 2004, chapter 3 passim)
^ Rüdiger Safranski, Martin Heidgger — Between Good and Evil (Harvard University Press, 1998, page 343
^ Entry on Kojève in Martin Cohen (editor), The Essentials of Philosophy and Ethics(Hodder Arnold, 2006, page 158); see also Alexandre Kojève, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit (Cornell University Press, 1980)
^ Entry on Kojève in Martin Cohen (editor), The Essentials of Philosophy and Ethics(Hodder Arnold, 2006, page 158)
^ Martin Hediegger, letter, quoted in Rüdiger Safranski, Martin Heidgger — Between Good and Evil (Harvard University Press, 1998, page 349)
^ Rüdiger Safranski, Martin Heidgger — Between Good and Evil (Harvard University Press, 1998, page 356)
^ William J. Richardson, Martin Heidegger: From Phenomenology to Thought (Martjinus Nijhoff,1967, page 351)
^ Macey, David. Franz Fanon: a Biography. New York City: Picador, USA. p. 129–130.
^ K. Gunnar Bergström, An Odyssey to Freedom University of Uppsala, 1983, page 92;Colin Stanley, Colin Wilson, a Celebration: Essays and Recollections Cecil Woolf, 1988, page 43)
^ Baird, Forrest E.; Walter Kaufmann (2008). From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-158591-6.
^ http://www.tfd.com/despair
^ http://books.google.com/books?id=GJHlYmo7kXEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=either-or&ei=VMizSaryPKeGzgSjsLHtCg#PPA531,M1
^ Soren Kierkegaard's Journals and Papers Vol 5, p. 5
^ Camus, Albert. "An Absurd Reasoning"
^ Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, Routledge Classics (2003).
^ Marcuse, Herbert. "Sartre's Existentialism". Printed in Studies in Critical Philosophy. Translated by Joris De Bres. London: NLB, 1972. p. 161
^ Text at marxists.org
^ Carnap, Rudolf, Uberwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Spache [Overcoming Metaphysics by the Logical Analysis of Speech], Erkenntnis (1932), pp.219–241. Carnap's critique of Heidegger's "What is Metaphysics".
^ Kant, Critique of Pure Reason A:595–602. B:623–627
^ a b Steven Crowell entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by 2004-08-23
^ Kavadlo, Jesse (2005). "The Fiction of Self-destruction: Chuck Palahniuk, Closet Moralist" (PDF). Stirrings Still, the International Journal of Existential Literature. http://www.stirrings-still.org/ss22.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-05-10.
^ The Western Narrative, University of San Diego
^ What is an Existential Movie?
^ Silver, Alain, and Elizabeth Ward, eds. (1992). Film Noir: An Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style, 3d ed. Woodstock, N.Y.: Overlook Press. ISBN 0-87951-479-5
^ © James Travers 2005 http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:iPYJjAhhAuMJ:filmsdefrance.com/FDF_Un_chant_d_amour_rev.html
^ Holt, Jason. "Existential Ethics: Where do the Paths of Glory Lead?". In The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick. By Jerold J. Abrams. Published 2007. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 081312445X
^ Holt, Jason. "Existential Ethics: Where do the Paths of Glory Lead?". In The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick. By Jerold J. Abrams. Published 2007. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 081312445X
^ "amazon.com's Films with an Existential Theme". http://www.amazon.com/Films-with-an-Existential-Theme/lm/2XUY93GON1RKW. Retrieved on 2009-02-02.
^ Existential & Psychological Movie Recommendations
^ Existentialism in Film
^ Existentialist Adaptations - Harvard Film Archive
^ "Review: 'Synecdoche, New York'". http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-synecdoche24-2008oct24,0,5252277.story. Retrieved on 2008-11-17.
^ The Times, 31 December 1964. Quoted in Knowlson, J., Damned to Fame: The Life of Samuel Beckett (London: Bloomsbury, 1996), p 57
^ Cronin, A., Samuel Beckett The Last Modernist (London: Flamingo, 1997), p 391
^ Michael H. Hutchins (14 August 2006). "A Tom Stoppard Bibliography: Chronology". The Stephen Sondheim Reference Guide. http://www.sondheimguide.com/Stoppard/chronology.html. Retrieved on 2008-06-23.
^ Wren, Celia (12 December 2007). "From Forum, an Earnest and Painstaking 'Antigone'". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121102254.html. Retrieved on 2008-04-07.
^ Kernan, Alvin B. The Modern American Theater: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
^ "The Existential Notion that "God is Dead" in Industrial Music". http://facweb.stvincent.edu/academics/religiousstu/writings/rodkey1.html. Retrieved on 2009-02-02.
^ Palmer, Donald D. Kierkegaard For Beginners. 1996. Writers And Readers Limited. London, England. p.25
^ Hong, Howard V. "Historical Introduction" to Fear and Trembling. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. 1983. p. x
^ Kierkegaard, Soren. Works of Love. Harper & Row, Publishers. New York, N.Y. 1962. p. 62

[edit] References
Razavi, Mehdi Amin (1997), Suhrawardi and the School of Illumination, Routledge, ISBN 0700704124
Albert Camus Lyrical and Critical essays. Edited by Philip Thody (interviev with Jeanie Delpech, in Les Nouvelles litteraires, November 15, 1945). pg 345.

[edit] Further reading
Appignanesi, Richard; and Oscar Zarate (2001). Introducing Existentialism. Cambridge, UK: Icon. ISBN 1-84046-266-3.
Cooper, David E. (1999). Existentialism: A Reconstruction (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-21322-8.
Luper, Steven (ed.) (2000). Existing: An Introduction to Existential Thought. Mountain View, California: Mayfield. ISBN 0-7674-0587-0.
Marino, Gordon (ed.) (2004). Basic Writings of Existentialism. New York: Modern Library. ISBN 0-375-75989-1.
Szymczyk, Michael (2004). Toilet: The Novel. Bloomington: Authorhouse (USA). ISBN 978-1418423865.
Solomon, Robert C. (ed.) (2005). Existentialism (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-517463-1.
Appignanesi, Richard (2006). Introducing Existentialism (3nd ed.). Thriplow, Cambridge: Icon Books (UK), Totem Books (USA). ISBN 1-84046-717-7.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism and Humanism.
Rose, Eugene (Fr. Seraphim) (1994). Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age. Saint Herman Press (1 September 1994). ISBN 0-938635-15-8.

[edit] External links
Introductions
Friesian interpretation of Existentialism
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Existentialism
"Existentialism is a Humanism", a lecture given by Jean-Paul Sartre
Bioexistentialism
The Existential Primer
Journals and articles
Stirrings Still: The International Journal of Existential Literature
[1] Existential Analysis published by The Society for Existential Analysis
Existential psychotherapy
An Introduction to Existential Counselling
International Society for Existential Therapy
HPSY.RU — Existential & humanistic psychology History of existentially-humanistic psychology's development in formerly Soviet nations
[show]v • d • ePhilosophy

Eastern philosophy · Western philosophy

History Ancient Buddhist · Chinese · Greek · Hellenistic · Hindu · Indian · Jain · Persian

Medieval Christian · Early Islamic · Islamic · Jewish · Judeo-Islamic

Modern Empiricism · Rationalism

Contemporary Analytic · Continental


Lists Basic topics · Topic list · Philosophers · Glossary of philosophical isms · List of philosophical theories · Movements · more

Branches Aesthetics · Ethics · Epistemology · Logic · Metaphysics

Philosophy of Action · Biology · Chemistry · Education · Economics · Environment · Geography · Information · Healthcare · History · Human nature · Humor · Language · Law · Literature · Mathematics · Mind · Music · Being · Philosophy · Physics · Politics · Psychology · Religion · Science · Social science · Technology · War

Schools Aristotelianism · Averroism · Avicennism · Critical theory · Cynicism · Deconstructionism · Deontology · Dialectical materialism · Dualism · Egoism · Epicureanism · Epiphenomenalism · Existentialism · Feminist · Functionalism · Hedonism · Hegelianism · Hermeneutics · Humanism · Idealism · Kantianism · Kyoto School · Individualism · Logical positivism · Marxism · Materialism · Monism · Naturalism · Neoplatonism · New Philosophers · Nihilism · Ordinary language · Particularism · Peripatetic · Phenomenology · Platonism · Positivism · Posthumanism · Postmodernism · Poststructuralism · Pragmatism · Presocratic · Process · Solipsism · Realism · Relativism · Scholasticism · Skepticism · Stoicism · Structuralism · Thomism · Utilitarianism

Portal · Category listings

[show]v • d • eMetaphysics

Topics Time · Experience · Causality · Principle · Will · Quality · Value · Self · Action · Intention · Matter · Meaning · Essence · Subject · Object · Unity · Truth · Mind · Necessity · Pattern · Type · Motion · Freedom · Form · Idea · Modality · Substance · Properties · more... ·


Ontology Being · Category of being · Change · Cogito ergo sum · Dualism · Embodied philosophy · Entity · Existence · Existentialism · Identity · Physical object · Properties · Reality · Relativism · Scientific realism · Subjectivism · Substance theory · Universal · Unobservables · Teleology


Big Questions What is the nature of the universe? · What is the meaning of life? · What is being? · What is time? · What is experience? · What is causality? · What are principles? · What is value? · What is the self? · What is action? · What is will? · Whats is matter? · What is meaning? · What are types? ·


Metaphysical theories Platonic idealism · Hindu idealism · Scientific materialism · Cartesian dualism · Phenomenalism · Existentialism · Nihilism · Realism · Anti-realism · Determinism · Solipsism · Physicalism · MOQ


Metaphysicians Aristotle · Thomas Aquinas · George Berkeley · Donald Davidson · René Descartes · Georg W. F. Hegel · Martin Heidegger · Immanuel Kant · Saul Kripke · Gottfried Leibniz · John Locke · George Edward Moore · Isaac Newton · Plato · Plotinus · Hilary Putnam · Willard V. O. Quine · Bertrand Russell · Parmenides · Jean-Paul Sartre · Arthur Schopenhauer · John Duns Scotus · Baruch Spinoza · Alfred N. Whitehead · Ludwig Wittgenstein ·


This page was last modified on 16 April 2009, at 16:28 (UTC). All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers

Twitter.com/dgbainsky

I am just in the process of trying to figure out how to 'twitter'...For anyone who would like to engage me in this way -- for example, to ask questions and/or give me feedback about Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy -- you can reach me at twitter.com/dgbainsky. You might have to enter twitter.com first before you can access my dgbainsky twitter site. As I say, I am just starting to learn how this process works.

My wish here is to create more 'dialectic-democratic' engagement between my readers and me. Perhaps there are equally good ways of doing this on blogger.com that I haven't figured out yet. Perhaps I should take some ideas from some other blogger sites in this regard that are probably doing this feedback process better than I am.

We will work both avenues. But for now, I will see if this twitter site can come alive or not...

-- dgb, April 18th, 2009.

A DGB Response To Niki Raapana at 'Living Outside The Dialectic'

From a DGB perspective, 'the dialectic' is all about difference, opposition, opposites, opposite perspectives, dualism, dualing dualisms, dialogue, discussion, debate, rhetoric....and about attempting to 'integrate', 'conquer', and/or 'set oneself apart from' these differences, these human conflicts, self and social.

This is what I mean, and what DGB Philosophy means, when I use the term dialectic.

Thus, when someone says that 'I am living outside the dialectic' -- I ask myself, 'How is this possible?' We all must live within the dialectic in some fashion, regardless of what we believe or don't believe, and how we choose to live our life or don't choose to live our life.

Thus, for someone, in this case you Ms. Niki, from your philosophical blogsite, 'Living Outside the Dialectic', to say that you are living outside the dialectic, for me, as a 'post-Hegelian-dialectic-democratic-humanistic-existential philosopher' to read and/or hear this is about as nonsensical as someone saying: 'I am living my life outside of life.' Indeed, even this too, by definition, would also involve a real or imagined dialectic. Living life outside life would seem to imply its dialectic polarity or opposite -- death.

Having said this, I fully realize that different philosophers from different philosophical blogsites are fully used to using their own language and terminology in the way that they do -- and just believe that the whole world of blogsite readers who visit your philosophical blogsite are all of a sudden, in the space of a few minutes, going to understand all of the terminology and inter-connected language that you use -- as if in an 'Enlightenment' flash from God.

Having had some degree of experience with building my own network of blogsites here at 'Hegel's Hotel', I know for sure that readers, unless they are experienced philosophical readers who for example, already have a background in Hegelian language and logic, are not going to fully understand everything I say in the space of a few essays, let alone a few paragraphs.

Probably the best piece of advice I got about writing the essays that I have on Hegel's Hotel about three or four years ago was from my dad. He basically said to me -- and my dad is an intelligent man -- 'Simplify your language, David. Simplify your language. I keep reading these essays that you write and your words just keep spinning around in my head without delivering any meaning to me. I still don't know what Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy is all about.'

My dad said that to me about three or four years ago when I was just starting up Hegel's Hotel. I think that since then -- and to be sure I have been far from perfect in this regard -- I have done my best to simplify my language, to acknowledge that some of my readers may be newcomers to the subject of philosophy- psychology and they need to be able to understand what I am writing about.

This is actually the first time in my three years of writing on Hegel's Hotel that I have actually tried to get into a serious, professional debate with a writer from another philosophical blogsite. I know how quickly these kind of debates can turn into a useless waste of time if tempers rise, unprofessional language starts getting used which at its worst -- I call 'trash-talking'. It is no different than in a heated sports match, a heated political and/or legal debate, or an underlying philosophical debate. People get locked into their own respective points of view, like a horse with blinders on -- they get into these 'Us' vs. 'Them' rhetorical battles (or worse) -- and all attempt to 'intelligently understand each other' come to a grinding halt. You might as well stop the debate right there and then because nothing of any positive significance is likely to be gained from any further 'blind and deaf verbal toxicity'... One plus one continues to equal one plus one. There is no sense talking about 'two' except an 'alienated two' that wish to progress no further than one plus one equally one plus one. No mutual understanding. No arrived at area of 'commonality' and 'compatibility' and dare I say it -- 'unified community'.

I can look 'Communitarianism' on the internet and post it in two minutes....

...............................................................................

From Wikipedia...the free encyclopedia...



Communitarianism, as a group of related but distinct philosophies, began in the late 20th century, opposing in its opinion exalted forms of individualism while advocating phenomena such as civil society. Not necessarily hostile to social liberalism or even social democracy, communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Terminology
2 Origins
3 Philosophical communitarianism
4 Ideological communitarianism
4.1 Communitarian political philosophy
4.1.1 Social capital
4.1.2 Positive rights
4.2 Comparison to other political philosophies
4.2.1 Authoritarianism
5 Communitarian movement
5.1 Influence in the United States
6 Criticism
7 See also
8 Notes
9 External links
9.1 Critical communitarianism
9.2 Communitarian organizations
9.3 Opposition
9.4 Articles on communitarianism



[edit] Terminology
Though the term communitarianism is of 20th-century origin, it is derived from the 1840s term communitarian, which was coined by Goodwyn Barmby to refer to one who was a member or advocate of a communalist society. The modern use of the term is a redefinition of the original sense. Many communitarians trace their philosophy to earlier thinkers. The term is primarily used in two senses:

Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds. Unlike classical liberalism, which construes communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, it emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized resp. grounded in liberal theories of justice.
Ideological communitarianism is characterized as a radical centrist ideology that is sometimes marked by leftism on economic issues and moralism or conservatism on social issues. This usage was coined recently. When the term is capitalized, it usually refers to the Responsive Communitarian movement of Amitai Etzioni and other philosophers.

[edit] Origins
Early communitarians begun from analyses of classical republicanism, usually ancient Greek and Classicist writers. Since the beginnings of 1990's they incorporated post-modern cocept of civil society. Soon they started to treat Tocqueville as their primary ancestor. Thus they engaged in direct clash with neo-liberal theory since Tocqueville was liberal not republican theorist, giving new impetus to their work[2].


[edit] Philosophical communitarianism
Communitarian philosophers are primarily concerned with ontological and epistemological issues, as distinct from policy issues. The communitarian response to John Rawls' A Theory of Justice reflects dissatisfaction with the image Rawls presents of humans as atomistic individuals. Although Rawls allows some space for benevolence, for example, he views it merely as one of many values that exist within a single person's head.

Communitarians claim values and beliefs exist in public space, in which debate takes place. They argue that becoming an individual means taking a stance on the issues that circulate in the public space. For example, within the United States debate on gun politics, there are a number of stances to be taken, but all of these stances presuppose the existence of a gun politics debate in the first place; this is one sense in which the community predates individualism. Similarly, both linguistic and non-linguistic traditions are communicated to children and form the backdrop against which individuals can formulate and understand beliefs. The dependence of the individual upon community members is typically meant as descriptive. It does not mean that individuals should accept majority beliefs on any issue. Rather, if an individual rejects a majority belief, such as the historic belief that slavery is acceptable, he or she will do so for reasons that make sense within the community (for example, the Judeo-Christian conception of the imago Dei, or reasons deriving from secular Enlightenment humanism) rather than simply any reason at all. In this sense, the rejection of a single majority belief relies on a deep tradition of other majority beliefs.

The following authors have communitarian tendencies in the philosophical sense, but have all taken pains to distance themselves from the political ideology known as communitarianism, which is discussed further below.

Alasdair MacIntyre – After Virtue
Michael Sandel – Liberalism and the Limits of Justice
Charles Taylor – Sources of the Self
Michael Walzer – Spheres of Justice
Christos Yannaras – A Greek philosopher and theologian whose ideas tend to view communitarianism from a theological and ontological perspective.

[edit] Ideological communitarianism

[edit] Communitarian political philosophy

[edit] Social capital
Beginning in the late 20th century, many authors began to observe a deterioration in the social networks of the United States. In the book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam observed that nearly every form of civic organization has undergone drops in membership exemplified by the fact that, while more people are bowling than in the 1950s, there are fewer bowling leagues.

This results in a decline in "social capital", described by Putnam as "the collective value of all 'social networks' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other". According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy.

Communitarians seek to bolster social capital and the institutions of civil society. The Responsive Communitarian Platform described it thus[3]:

"Many social goals . . . require partnership between public and private groups. Though government should not seek to replace local communities, it may need to empower them by strategies of support, including revenue-sharing and technical assistance. There is a great need for study and experimentation with creative use of the structures of civil society, and public-private cooperation, especially where the delivery of health, educational and social services are concerned."

[edit] Positive rights
Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution.

A common objection is that by providing such rights, they are violating the negative rights of the citizens, rights to not have something done for you. For example, taking money in the form of taxes to pay for such programs as described above deprives individuals of property. Proponents of positive rights, by attributing the protection of negative rights to the society rather than the government, respond that individuals would not have any rights in the absence of societies, and are thus obligated to give something to it. Some have viewed this as a negation of natural rights. However, what is or is not a "natural right" is a source of contention in modern politics; for example, whether or not universal health care can be considered a birthright, or how far the government can go to protect the environment.

Alternatively, some agree that negative rights may be violated by a government action, but argue that it is justifiable if the positive rights protected outweigh the negative rights lost. In the same vein, supporters of positive rights further argue that negative rights are irrelevant in their absence. Moreover, some communitarians "experience this less as a case of being used for others' ends and more as a way of contributing to the purposes of a community I regard as my own"[4].


[edit] Comparison to other political philosophies
Communitarianism cannot be classified as being wholly left or right, and many theorists claim to represent a sort of radical center. Liberals in the American sense or social democrats in the European sense generally share the communitarian position on issues relating to the economy, such as the need for environmental protection and public education, but not on cultural issues. Communitarians and conservatives generally agree on cultural issues, such as support for character education and faith-based programs, but communitarians do not support the laissez-faire capitalism generally embraced by American conservatives.


[edit] Authoritarianism
Some people have argued [5] that communitarianism's focus on social cohesion raises similarities with nationalistic communism, or various forms of authoritarianism, although supporters contend that there are substantial differences between communitarianism and authoritarianism.

Authoritarian governments often embrace extremist ideologies and rule with brute force, accompanied with severe restrictions on personal freedom, political and civil rights. Authoritarian governments are overt about the role of the government as director and commander. Civil society and democracy are not generally characteristic of authoritarian regimes. For the most part, communitarians emphasize the use of non-governmental organizations in furthering their goals.


[edit] Communitarian movement
This article's external links may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links.

The modern communitarian movement was first articulated by the Responsive Communitarian Platform, written in the United States by a group of ethicists, activists, and social scientists including Amitai Etzioni, Mary Ann Glendon, and William Galston.

The Communitarian Network, founded in 1993 by Amitai Etzioni, is the best-known group advocating communitarianism. One of the network's many initiatives to reach out to a broader public is the transnational project Diversity within Unity, which advocates a communitarian approach towards immigration and minority rights in today's diversifying societies. The project is endorsed by a diverse and international group of supporters, including current Dutch prime-minister Jan-Peter Balkenende from the Christian Democratic Appeal, Rita Süssmuth from the Christian Democratic Union; the Hungarian dissident and philosopher György Bence; the renowned British political scholar David Miller, and many more.[6]

A think tank called the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies is also directed by Etzioni. Other voices of communitarianism include Don Eberly, director of the Civil Society Project and Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone.


[edit] Influence in the United States
Reflecting the dominance of liberal and conservative politics in the United States, no major party and few elected officials advocate communitarianism. Thus there is no consensus on individual policies, but some that most communitarians endorse have been enacted.

President Bill Clinton was open about his support for much of Amitai Etzioni's philosophy, though whether this reflected on his actual policy program is debatable. It has also been suggested that the "compassionate conservatism" espoused by President Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign was a form of conservative communitarian thinking, though he too failed to implement it in his policy program. Cited policies have included economic and rhetorical support for education, volunteerism, and community programs, as well as a social emphasis on promoting families, character education, traditional values, and faith-based projects.

Dana Milbank, writing in the Washington Post, remarked of modern communitarians, "There is still no such thing as a card-carrying communitarian, and therefore no consensus on policies. Some, such as John DiIulio and outside Bush adviser Marvin Olasky, favor religious solutions for communities, while others, like Etzioni and Galston, prefer secular approaches." [1]


[edit] Criticism
There has been very little systematic criticism of ideological communitarianism, if only because its exact premises and policy consequences are difficult to pin down. Those wary of it tend to be individualist thinkers who argue that communities are already naturally most benefitted when everyone is free to act in their individual self-interest and that self-described communitarians are actually stealth collectivists; or, more plausibly, that the main effect of well-intentioned communitarian rhetoric is to provide cover for collectivists with a much farther-reaching and harsher agenda than most communitarians intend.[citation needed]

Conversely, many on the Left would see communitarianism as a nostalgic form of communism.[citation needed]

Liberal theorists such as Simon Caney[7] disagree that philosophical communitarianism has any interesting criticisms to make of liberalism. They reject the communitarian charges that liberalism neglects the value of community, and holds an "atomized" or asocial view of the self. If they are correct in this, then communitarian doctrine reduces to little more than traditionalism and cultural moral relativism.

According to scholar Peter Sutch, the principal criticisms of communitarianism are:

That communitarianism leads necessarily to moral relativism.
That this relativism leads necessarily to a re-indorsement of the status quo in international politics, and
That such a position relies upon a discredited ontological argument that posits the foundational status of the community or state.[8]
However, he goes on to show that such arguments cannot be leveled against the particular communitarian theories of John Rawls, Michael Waltzer and Mervyn Frost.


[edit] See also
Christian democracy
Civics
Civil religion
Collectivism
Communalism (South Asia)
Communalism before 1800
Identity politics
Public sphere
Radical center
Republicanism
Social conservatism
Singaporean communitarianism
Third Way
Earlier theorists
Martin Buber
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Niccolò Machiavelli
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Alexis de Tocqueville
Contemporary theorists
Benjamin Barber
Gad Barzilai
Robert Bellah
Amitai Etzioni
Alexander Lee
Costanzo Preve
Robert Putnam
Jose Perez Adan
Michael Walzer



[edit] Notes
^ CPN - Tools
^ Zaleski, Pawel (2008). "Tocqueville on Civilian Society. A Romantic Vision of the Dichotomic Structure of Social Reality". Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte (Felix Meiner Verlag) 50.
^ The Communitarian Network, Responsive Communitarian Platform Text.
^ Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, 143.
^ Simons, R. (1996) A Community of Freedoms. Aust. Q. 68(1): 31-42
^ List of sponsors of the 'Diversity in Unity" platform: http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/dwu_endorse.html
^ 'Liberalism and communitarianism: a misconceived debate'. Political Studies 40, 273-290
^ Peter Sutch, Ethics, Justice, and International Relations, p.62

[edit] External links
Look up communitarianism in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

[edit] Critical communitarianism
Gad Barzilai, 2003,Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Critical communitarianism combines epistemology, theories of sociopolitical power, theories of identities, and human rights studies. It offers to look into non-ruling communities in order to better comprehend state-society relationships. Theoretically, it shifts the attention from the state as the sole venue of political power and drills into theorizing state-society relations through looking into alternative and challenging locations of political power. Consequently, it invites new insights into the classical questions of what are the boundaries between state and society; what is a 'collective' good, and where and how human beings are shaping their consciousness, identities and practices. Normatively, it generates normative questions about relative morality and encourages us to empower cultural relativism and yet to acknowledge the existence of some cosmopolitical values. Empirically, it fosters empirical studies that examine internal conflicts, institutions, and power struggles within non-ruling communities in the context of local, regional, and global forces. Accordingly, it challenges the domination of liberalism and liberal jurisprudence as the hegemonic paradigm for explication, theorization, and substantiation of human virtues. Instead, it invites to include liberalism alongside elements of communitarianism as relative ways to both challenge symbolic power and to foster protection of non-ruling communities in order to achieve justice and peace.


[edit] Communitarian organizations
Communitarian Policy Institute
The Communitarian Network
The Italian Communitarian Network
Asociacion Iberoamericana de Comunitarismo AIC
Casa Pueblo Puerto Rico
Foundacion Cabo San Francisco
U'wa Town Hall Center of Communitarian Development
Sustainable Communitarian Development in the Sierra La Laguna Biosphere Reserve
MONTE AZUL COMMUNITARIAN ASSOCIATION
The Buenos Aires Association of Communitarian Development
Center for Global Justice
International Society for MacIntyrean Philosophy
Christian Socialist Party USA

[edit] Opposition
Bruce Frohnen - author of The New Communitarians and the Crisis of Modern Liberalism (1996)
Charles Arthur Willard - author of Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy, University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Anti-Communitarian League
Dr. Edward Younkins
Dr. Kelly Ross Ph.D.
Dr. Madeline Cosman Ph.D., JD

[edit] Articles on communitarianism
Some potentially useful references, transported from the Sourcewatch, which also links additional articles of relevance to this topic:

GW Bush, a Communitarian?
Communitarianism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Daniel Bell
Articles on communitarianism ((ita icon))
"Communitarianism", Infed Encyclopedia.
Fareed Zakaria, The ABCs of Communitarianism. A devil's dictionary, Slate, July 26, 1996.
Robert Putnam, Communitarianism, National Public Radio, February 5, 2001: "The term 'Third Way' was used to describe President Clinton's form of liberalism. Now 'Communitarianism' is being used in the same way to describe President Bush's form of conservatism. They're both an attempt to create a middle ground...an alternative to the liberal-conservative paradigm."
"Civil Practices Network"


Political ideologies

Anarchism · Christian democracy · Communism · Communitarianism · Conservatism · Fascism · Feminism · Green politics · Liberalism · Libertarianism · Nationalism · Social democracy · Socialism


This page was last modified on 11 April 2009, at 00:37 (UTC). All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers


..............................................................................

DGB...continued...

So where do I go with this? Nowhere. Not right now anyway. I don't wish to argue a subject which:

1. I don't know much about except what I have just read here.

2. I don't have a huge amount of interest in -- and that, at this time, is not high on my value priority list.


However, I will return to some of the particular dynamics, Ms. Niki, of our somewhat 'heated tit for tat' (no sexism or sexuality intended). Right now, I am responding to a paragraph aimed at me from your last mini-article at the top of your cover page, 'Living Outside The Dialectic'.

...........................................................................

From the blogsite, 'Living Outside the Dialectic', by Niki Raapana


On a related note, here's David over at Hegel's Hotel using his superior Hegelian miseducation to show how many different ways he can insult me. Some of his names for me are pretty funny really, besides all the normal slander (see above), I'm labled everything from "trash talking" to a religious fanatic. He admits he knows nothing about communitarianism but thinks anti communitarianism and communitarianism are basically the same thing! http://hegelshotel-mostrecentpapers.blogspot.com/2009/03/hegels-hotel-dgb-philosophy-is-not.html

(DGB editorial: For the record, Ms. Niki, if you go back to my last essay, I don't think you will find anywhere in the essay that I labeled you as a 'religious fanatic'. Why would I? I had no reason to. Now relative to 'trash-talking', that is a different matter. 'If the shoe fits, then wear it!' As for me allegedly finding all these different ways of insulting you -- I didn't insult you -- I insulted your own seeming arrogancy, your own seeming sense of superiority, and your own style of insulting other writers/philosophers. So I guess we could say that that is like 'The pot calling the kettle black!')

................................................................................

And no, I do not believe 'communitarianism' and 'anti-communitarianism' are the same thing. Speak against me if you wish -- preferrably in a rational and professional manner -- but don't speak for me, don't put words in my mouth that don't belong to me.

My argument is that 'communitarianism' can mean a thousand different things to a thousand different 'intellects' -- and it means nothing in an intellectual discussion or debate until two individuals discussing the concept, first discuss -- and come to an agreement, on a pragmatically and functionally concrete level, as to what is meant by the term 'communitarianism' in the context of the 'here and now philosophical debate'.

If I offer this DGB 'dialectical definition of 'Communitarianism':

'Dialectic-Democratic-Humanistic-Existential Communitarianism in the context of Hegel's Hotel means a state of homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance where there is both room for individual diversity in the context of a partly unified, partly disagreeing social and political community on all levels of existence -- municipal, regional, federal, international -- where neither community values, rights, freedoms, and responsibilities come to dominate individual values, rights, freedoms, and responsibilities -- nor the reverse.

If I use this as my working definition of 'communitarianism' within Hegel's Hotel, then at this moment, and not before, using this language, and no one else's, I am fully ready to declare myself a 'post-Hegelian, dialectic-democratic-humanistic-existential communitarian' -- nothing more, nothing less.

Even still -- I neither like the term 'communitarianism' or its reverse, 'anti-communitarianism'. This is an argument i was at least partly 'dragged into'. Without you venturing into Hegel's Hotel, Ms. Niki Raapani, I would have gladly stayed away from this type of argument. But now that I am here, I will make the best and the most of it.

Now using this 'DGB' definition and dialectic-democratic, humanistic-existential rendition of 'Communitarianism'...

If you, Niki, wish to take the opposite side of the argument I have just set up here, and wish to declare yourself an 'anti-DGB-Hegel's-Hotel-dialectic-democratic-humanistic-existential-communitarian' -- try saying this all at once! -- then we have an argument, and I will respond in this fashion.

If by declaring yourself in such fashion, you mean that you 'metaphorically spit on anyone who doesn't agree with your language, your terminology, your meaning, your philosophy -- and that includes me and my network of philosophical opinions, then I say, 'That is fine, Ms. Niki, you do your thing and I will do mine. We are at a dialectic-democratic impasse here with this argument and are stuck here. Stuck in the dialectic mud -- even if you declare yourself as 'living outside of the dialectic mud'. If this is the situation, then plain and simple, it doesn't make any sense for us to try to proceed any further with this argument.

However, Ms. Niki, if as an 'anti-Dialectic-Democratic-Communitarian', you say to me: 'David, I live in a tent in Alaska -- and I love the way I am living my life' -- I say: 'All the power to you, Niki. Go girl. Do what you want to do. That is what I believe life should be all about -- within reasonable community boundaries. Obviously, the further you live away from other people, the less you probably have to worry about 'clashing boundaries'.

Unless you want to enter into a 'Blogsite War'. Which you at least partly have, Ms. Niki. I didn't even know that you existed until you 'borrowed' one of my essays for your blogsite -- presumably to flog, and/or state your philosophical disdain for something that didn't fit within your very tight 'Anti-Communitarian Philosophical Box'.

My beef with you then can be summarized as this: Don't pretend that you understand my Hegel's Hotel philosophy blogsite -- and stereotype it in with a thousand and one other philosophies out there that may or may not use the name that you try to dialectically and divisively 'lump under one label' -- 'Communitarianism' -- and then verbally spit on it when you don't have a clue what you are verbally spitting at -- except for some obscure, abstractified, label. What you are essentially doing is 'building straw philosophical houses from other philosophers blogsites, label it, stereotype it, denigrate and discrimite against it. and 'blow the house down'.

Wow! What a rhetorical accomplishment! Pick a real debating partner, Ms. Niki -- which you at least partly have. One that is alive and breathing and capable of giving you a good, real argument back in your face -- not a self-contrived 'weak duckling'. Or a duck that is lumped together in the same pond with a thousand and one other ducks -- and pronounced to be exactly the same -- for no other reason than the fact that you can't -- or choose not to -- recognize their individual differences.

Hegel once said that any theory, any philosophy, any characteristic, carried too far to the extreme will result in self-destruction.

And so it is with you, Ms. Niki. From my admittedly very limited knowledge of you, in dealing with you, I see your philosophical hypocrisy as this:

You set yourself up as being some philosophical champion of 'individual rights' and 'individual freedoms'...and yet the more you champion these rights, the more you tend to totally denigrate the philosophies of others -- and their individual rights and freedoms. Your greatest strength -- your protectionism of individual rights and freedoms -- is also your greatest weakness as you try to rhetorically steamroll over the philosophical rights and freedoms of others.

Readers accuse you of 'arrogance', 'attitude' and 'trash-talking' on your blogsite because that's what you do -- and that is how you present yourself to your reader. You present yourself as being 'philosophically -- epistemologically, ethically, and morally -- far above the madding crowd.'

People -- meaning your readers, or at least many of them -- get turned off of your writing by your arrogance, your attitude, your 'superiority complex' and your 'holier than thou' arguments -- including your inferred 'conspiracy theories' --before they even get past the first paragraph. Rather than wanting to delve deeper into your philosophical work and your lifestyle, they 'exit stage right'. And come back at you with harsh words if you have attacked their various blogsites before you even fully understood -- or tried to understand -- what you were attacking.

Tit for tat.

You trash-talk my blogsite. I'll trash-talk yours.

Back to elementary school again -- and schoolyard fights.

You look for philosophical enemies. You find them -- or so you believe. You trash them. And then you play the 'victim', the 'martyr' the 'self-defender' when they come back at you with harsh words. I don't call that self-defense. I call it a 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. 'You reap what you sew.' In the words of the now infamous Reverend Jeremy Wright -- 'Your chickens have come back to roost' 'What goes around, comes around'.

Need I go on.


Don't pick some fictitious debating partner from 'high in the sky' -- play the part of your adversary, yourself -- and 'declare yourself a winner in a debate where you have played both yourself and your adversary' We see that done in politics all the time. The Republican Party stereotypes the 'perceived and/or embellished weakest link' of the Democrat Party -- and then trashes the 'Democrat Party' on the basis of this 'straw house argument'. Same with the Democrat Party and what they do back to The Republican Party. Negatively stereotype your debating partner -- then flog this negative stereotype. Woopee, I won the debate!!!


To end on a more positive note...


I just brought up another one of your websites...

...................................................................

from the internet....see niki raapana....

What does it mean to live outside the dialectic?


It means looking at all the options & then choosing a course of action that appeals to your sensibilities.

It ultimately means living up to, and with, as much of the courage of your convictions as you can muster.


Welcome to the Tent Lady's ongoing research project.

Here you will find information about:
Rebuilding Community - Community "visionings"
Sustainable Development - UN Local Agenda 21
World Heritage Sites, Buffer Zones, and Scenic Byways
The Wildlands Project & Wilderness Designations
Importing and Exporting Democratic Ideals
Grant funded research and development incentives


Global-to-local community updates and regional progress reports are posted offsite at:


www.nikiraapana.blogspot.com

My blog features up-to-date, local coverage of:
USA-United Nation's Local Agenda 21 integration progress, the Wildlands Project,
case law & legal balancing acts, revised local codes, upcoming meeting/seminar schedules,
occassional live, on-the-scene coverage of sustainable planning meetings that includes
document research, analysis, opinion pieces, and outside reports from various sources.

My Community Outreach includes:
Gathering local perspectives on ongoing efforts to achieve Local Agenda 21 goals in Alaska.
Global to local research on how the plan is progressing in other states and throughout the world.
Beginning in October, 2007. (An international group blog will be added for this purpose.)
Blog comments from visitors around the globe are welcome, and very much appreciated.
Please feel free to share information about your community's sustainable development efforts.

........................................................................


Ms. Niki, I have absolutely no problem in terms of the meaning of your ideas here on this website; indeed, I quite like and support them. Meaning i support the ideals that you are philosophically and life-style wise -- chasing.


Indeed, I imagine that there are probably thousands, indeed millions, of people who would support your ideas here. Again,

............................................................................

What does it mean to live outside the dialectic?


It means looking at all the options & then choosing a course of action that appeals to your sensibilities.

It ultimately means living up to, and with, as much of the courage of your convictions as you can muster.


............................................................................

Except excuse me if I don't agree with what you are labelling this philosophy as -- 'living outside the dialect'.

To me, you are not 'living outside the dialectic'; rather, you are living one side of a philosophical dialectic that seems to take you just about as far away from civilization as you can get.

In classic Hegelian terminology:

Thesis: Civilization....practically everyone else except Niki Raapana and your fellow 'anti-communitarians'...

Anti-thesis: 'Anti-civilization', 'anti-communitarianism'....Niki Raapana...A person, not unlike the rest of us, who is trying to come to terms with the debilitating effects of 'self and/or social alienation' See Doestevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietsche, Camus, Sartre...and 'romantic philosophy-wise', ...Rousseau...



How is this movement away from urban civilization to be considered 'living outside the dialectic'?

It's not.

'Living outside of civilization' -- yes. (Although it is obvious, Niki, that you still like social contact -- even if it is negative -- a tremendous amount of your energy is channeled into your blogsite(s) each and every day and puts you into different contact situations with different people all over the earth. Socially, you are no hermit -- just a partial hermit declaring your social and political protest against the violation and transgression of individual rights by governments claiming its for the 'good of community'. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But you have a worthy argument -- assuming this is indeed your argument -- and you have my full support on it. I'm not quite ready to live in a 'tent' yet...been there, done that. I like the amenities of my townhouse. Anyways, if you want to rhetorically and dialectically step into Hegel's Hotel, to steretype it and denigrate it, then expect that I in turn, will return the favor, and do my best to 'deconstruct' your own particular brand of 'anti-communitarianism' -- i.e. specifically, the 'inflammatory, transgressing, hypocritical, anti-community' part of it.)

'Living outside the dialectic' -- no.

Ms. Rapani, you are dead square in the centre -- or at least on one extreme polar edge -- of a philosophical dialectic of your own making.

Good luck!

On a side note. I have been to Alaska once as a young teenager traveling with my family. Up Alberta to Dawson Creek. Up the Alaska Highway, blown tire and all. Great scenery! Great wildlife! Over to Haines, Alaska, and onto the car ferry. Out into the Pacific Ocean. Whale watching. Great stuff! Beautiful mountains and more awesome scenery. A borderline hurricane that almost sent my younger brother flying overboard when my dad and him shouldn't have been on deck in the first place. My brother rescued at the last moment by my reaching dad, and brought inside. An almost traumatic tragedy and disaster in the middle of the 'most perfect holiday'.

Life is precarious and precious.

Let's live life that way but not in the wrong way -- not as if we are walking on eggshells, or over bombs (unless you are living and/or working in Pakistan, Afghanastan, or Iraq) -- but rather as a 'dialectic-democratic engagement between ourselves and our fellow man' in a way that allows us both to understand, appreciate and respect our individual differences; as well as a 'dialectic-existential engagement between ourselves -- using our sensibilities including our senses, our intellect, and our emotions as our 'bridge' -- and the beauty of all life, and in particular, all nature.

-- dgb, April 15th, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain