5 Answers

  1. Numerous wars, the development of science and technology (the crisis of bourgeois society) at the beginning of the 20th century, all this led to the fact that previously unbreakable Christian values were questioned. It turned out that the world is not the way Christianity taught us to perceive it. Those values were no longer appropriate for modern society.

    Existentialists were the ones who (among others)tried to make sense of man's position in this new world.

    If there is no one who dictates how to live (absolute values)? The person is free.

    And freedom is a terrible thing, Sartre wrote something like this: “It is absurd that we were born, it is absurd that we will die-this is an escape from death and an escape from being.” It's scary to live: we are walking from nowhere on a road full of dangers in order to die. Fun? Camus, for example, likened man to Sisyphus. This is the negative side of freedom.

    But there is also a positive point. The same Sartre in” Existentialism is humanism “wrote approximately as follows:” We therefore do not know what a person is… that he doesn't become a human being until he creates himself.” In general, the point is that a person can decide for himself what to be, he himself is not good and not bad. And this is a manifestation of freedom.

    In general, existentialism is different, but its essence can be expressed in one expression: existence precedes essence. That is, in the process of existence, a person builds himself, it is a living process. This process is the opposite of when a certain entity (entity) rigidly determines our activity.

  2. It is difficult to say in a nutshell what the essence of existentialism is. Considering that in general, an “entity” is something extremely hidden. But if we try briefly, according to Sartre, only a person has an essence that is separate from existence. That is, only a person has a certain open program of life and there is nothing that would be pre-set. Animals and objects cannot fail to do the things that nature has decreed for them. Man, on the other hand, is free, and only when he realizes this does he seem to be born again. But this freedom creates anxiety and becomes a burden. It gives you the opportunity to choose, but also creates fear of the consequences of this choice (remember “Mr. Nobody” – everything is possible until the choice is made). At the same time, a person is “never complete” – his essence is born in the process of this choice, and will never be final. Man is an open source project.

    This, of course, is entirely in general terms and without details related to specific authors.

  3. The founder of existentialism, Martin Heidegger, once said that man has never presented such a problem as he does now. The situation that has been created in the modern world cannot be called anything other than a crisis of the human personality. Here we can also add the exhaustion of the spiritual component and the crisis of culture as a whole, but we will not focus on this.

    Now it all boils down to the fact that society almost completely suppresses individual freedom. And in no philosophical current is the conflict between the individual and society covered as holistically as in existentialism.

    Existentialism, as a philosophical trend, appeared in Germany, around the 1920s, a period in Europe that was gripped by a general crisis and people needed to occupy their minds with a new worldview. Existentialism can fairly be contrasted with Marxism, as Jaspers says in his Autobiography. Having set the goal of his philosophy in the form of the meaning of being, Heidegger considers the first step towards achieving this goal to be a critique of metaphysics, which was supposed to lead people to realize the complete oblivion of being. Heidegger's existentialism is also directed against the Hegelian understanding of the essence of knowledge, and he takes the position of opposing Marxism. Heidegger believes that man is not what he has already become, as was the case with Hegel , but the main thing in man is what he has not yet become, that is, the possibility of becoming someone becomes the main question. If Hegel is talking about what is real, then Heidegger is talking about what is not yet realized.

    Here it will be interesting to compare the points of view of these two on the task of the historian. According to Hegel, the historian should not be concerned with the consideration of empty possibilities that might have become reality, but ultimately did not become it. The work of a historian is a constant occupation of what has been realized and is really valuable. The task is to show the need for real historical significance. But, Heidegger says otherwise, the true subject of historical consideration is the possibility of realisation, but not realisation.

    In general, we can say that the entire philosophy of Heidegger is built on unconvincing arguments that many will find quite absurd. According to Heidegger, existentialism is based on the possibility that forms the basis of existence, or rather its structure. He avoids in every possible way the concept of “essence” as a term of metaphysics, which he condemns.

  4. In addition to other answers: it seems to me that Sartre himself gave a good answer to your question in his speech “Existentialism is humanism”. scepsis.net it's short, well-written, and with memorable examples. If you do not have a goal to write a scientific treatise on existentialism, but just need to understand what it is and what it is eaten with, this article is enough. And then you can decide whether you're interested in it or not)

  5. In that existentialism renounces essence in favor of existence.

    I.e. briefly and roughly: the man first exists, encounters different experiences in their existence in despair (Kierkegaard), the awareness of their own mortality (Heidegger), the absurdity of life (Camus), absolute freedom, only when he is responsible for who you are and what you do (Sartre), etc. – and all this experience helps him to define their essence (to build it as a project), who he is, what he's a real (genuine) instead of just playing the role in the society (non-genuine).

Leave a Reply

Categories