Existentialism (or: Absurdity)

[Cancer]

According to Existentialist philosophy, existence precedes essence, i. e. the question of life's meaning can't be answered by finding out what is the essence of humanity (as most traditional Western philosophy has aimed to do). Instead, an individual has to create this essence and, with it, meaning. Human beings are both totally free in, and totally responsible for, their actions.

The French writer and philosopher Albert Camus describes this freedom as creating the experience of absurdity (if I interpret him right, that is). Need for meaning plus impossibility to find it in the world prior to human existence leaves a human being with three options: 1. suicide, 2. a "leap of faith" of some kind or 3. embracing absurdity. In his essay The Myth of Sisuphys, Camus declines the first two options and speaks for the third one. Concious revolt against absurdity is, according to him, the only way of life that doesn't diminish human dignity.

What do you think of these ideas? How do they relate to Occultism, Satanism or religious thinking in general? What's good / bad about them and why?

I have a great deal of sympathy for Existentialism, and in my personal philosophical framework it is a secular option for Occult philosophy. It is important to note however that it needn't be secular: for example, Sören Kierkegaard was a Christian and is considered one of the "founders" of Existentialism (alongside Nietzsche). His central problem was - or could easily be interpreted as being - the same as Camus's, but he chose solution number two, moving the focus of his philosophy "out of this world", out of time. I believe that this is precisely what makes his thinking religious.

Feel free to discuss ideas of other Existentialist authors under this topic as well. Sartre, Heidegger, Dostoyevsky...

[Wyrmfang]

A great topic! I too feel today a lot of sympathy towards existentialism in general. First I would say that if existentialism is defined in this very broad way, Schelling should be counted already as an existentialist. It is well known that Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Sartre took influences from Schelling, but contemporary scholarship has quite convincingly shown that the influence of Schelling has been far greater than is usually acknowledged. Schelling had already essentially all the same arguments against classical Western metaphysics (culminating in Hegel) as Heidegger.

One undisputable great achievement of existentialism is its moral psychology (at least in Nietzsche, Schelling, Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard). As far as I know, no other philosophical or religious approach has been able to analyze evil in man to the same depth as these existentialists have done. I also conceive the existentialistic project to be quite the same as "spiritual path"; not only dedication to morality but the search for the "meaning of life".

Some occultists seem to hate existentialism (especially Sartre). Not surprisingly I would say, precisely they should study existentialism. I too once had this mindset ("this is ego-centered modern intellectual narcissism in which there is nothing to learn for someone dedicated to eternal wisdom"), and it was a great benefit for me to confess the fundamental role of faith that existentialism emphasizes (opposed to the kind of false certainty of the idea of an already established unity of science and religion that I find for example in Blavatsky).

What do you think of these ideas? How do they relate to Occultism, Satanism or religious thinking in general? What's good / bad about them and why?

I think existentialism already is a kind of Satanism. It denies the authority of traditional frameworks and emphasizes the individual´s need to find his true self. The aforementioned moral-psychological insights about evil are therefore no coincidence.

The relation to occultism is harder to assess. Occultism is systematic in the way existentialism abhors (with the exception of Schelling), and absurdity of existence seems to be precisely something against which modern occultism has risen. On the other hand, as I said, the idea of spiritual path and the idea of existential process seem to refer to the same thing. Related to this, I don´t think Kierkegaard´s leap of faith is trying to reach "another world" but precisely to unite the finite and the infinite in man much in the same way occultists speak. It is actually the moral stage of existence in Kierkegaard which is unbalanced towards the infinite. The other is always other, and the moral responsibility ultimately exhausts the individual unless he unites the finite (aesthetic) and the infinite (moral) in the leap of faith to a unifying ground which Kierkegaard associates with the Christain God. However, this unification is unification in faith, that has to be renewed every moment.

[Cancer]

I don´t think Kierkegaard´s leap of faith is trying to reach "another world" but precisely to unite the finite and the infinite in man much in the same way occultists speak. It is actually the moral stage of existence in Kierkegaard which is unbalanced towards the infinite. The other is always other, and the moral responsibility ultimately exhausts the individual unless he unites the finite (aesthetic) and the infinite (moral) in the leap of faith to a unifying ground which Kierkegaard associates with the Christain God. However, this unification is unification in faith, that has to be renewed every moment.

This is a plausible and very clear formulation of the idea of existence stages; clearer in fact than anything I've read by Kierkegaard himself . What I should have added is that I spoke of Kierkegaard's "otherworldliness" form Camus's point of view. In The Myth of Sisuphys, Camus criticizes Kierkegaard for "wanting to be cured", for running away from absurdity. The critique isn't systematic and doesn't go into much detail, but I think it's still valuable.

So leap of faith means reconciliation of the aesthetic and the moral, the personal and the universal. This can be done only by believing that for God anything is possible, that, for example, even if I have to sacrifice the most important thing that I have because of moral responsibility, all hope is not lost for me; the aesthetic and the moral need not conflict. There is no explanation for this, except for the impossibility of explanation. One must simply give up ones reason and believe.

Camus holds that this is dishonest. Reason, or the need for clarity and understanding, is what makes a human being ask for life's meaning in the first place, so the answer should not involve giving it up. If the only thing that can be ascertained by means of reason is the absurdity of existence, then one should stick to that. This might mean that there is an unresolved conflict between the aesthetic and the moral - that there are, for example, situations in which morality compels one to sacrifice oneself and it is certain that no compensation will be received - but, Camus asks, so what? Is it really impossible to live knowing that everything might go wrong?

It's definitely a matter of debate wether the critique is valid, but I find it fascinating because it leaves everything so uncertain. In a way, this is precisely what it aims to do. Kierkegaard's faith might provide too much certainty for life really to go on - for wouldn't life become a bit artificial if it was totally certain that all will be well? Kierkegaard of course emphasizes that having faith is a passion, not like knowing some fact, and that it has to be renewed every moment, as you point out. According to Camus however this pursuit already counts as a kind of certainty, and life would actually be better without even the hope that Kierkegaard is willing to grant the individual, because accepting this hope would, again, be dishonest.

As a summary I'd say that Camus is trying to take Kierkegaard's subjective project even further.

[Wyrmfang]

What I should have added is that I spoke of Kierkegaard's "otherworldliness" form Camus's point of view. In The Myth of Sisuphys, Camus criticizes Kierkegaard for "wanting to be cured", for running away from absurdity.

Yeah, I didn´t notice this. There is definitely point in Camus´ critique.

It's definitely a matter of debate wether the critique is valid, but I find it fascinating because it leaves everything so uncertain. In a way, this is precisely what it aims to do. Kierkegaard's faith might provide too much certainty for life really to go on - for wouldn't life become a bit artificial if it was totally certain that all will be well? Kierkegaard of course emphasizes that having faith is a passion, not like knowing some fact, and that it has to be renewed every moment, as you point out. According to Camus however this pursuit already counts as a kind of certainty, and life would actually be better without even the hope that Kierkegaard is willing to grant the individual, because accepting this hope would, again, be dishonest.

Perhaps it could be said that Kierkegaard´s view corresponds to what we conceive as the right hand path emphasizing faith and Camus´ view to the left hand path emphasizing intelligence.

I haven´t read Camus, but his view seems to be closer to me. I don´t deny the possibility of absolute religious knowledge (in the sense that one knows he believes) but it feels impossible for me personally.

[Wyrmfang]

Autohors like Sartre seem to be extreme hostile to psychoanalytical thought. This puzzles me because I find the moral psychological insights of existentialists to be exactly the same as those of psychoanalysts. Is the point that, according to Sartre, one should not create a systematic theory of it?

[Cancer]

Autohors like Sartre seem to be extreme hostile to psychoanalytical thought. This puzzles me because I find the moral psychological insights of existentialists to be exactly the same as those of psychoanalysts. Is the point that, according to Sartre, one should not create a systematic theory of it?

I'm not familiar with Sartre, but I think it might be because psychoanalysis can be seen as a modern myth or religion, a way to explain everything and fit the world into one reference-frame, which conflicts with the subjectivism of Existentialists.

I've often come across this opinion in discussions about literature. Many intellectual people see psychological realism, which influenced and was influenced by psychoanalysis, as a stagnated or just boring way to represent reality. Around the time of Sartre there was in France also a group of novelists who sought to write as "un-psychologically" as possible, since they thought that standard psychological explanations were part of the dominant ideology.

[Jiva]

Nietzsche and Dostoevsky are the most important Existentialists to me, although in all honesty I don’t think I’ve ever read anything else on the subject. I think both were incredibly honest with themselves and therefore weren’t afraid of changing their minds or actively presenting problems which challenged their views and which they also couldn’t resolve, i.e. embracing the absurd or at least the contradictory. In my opinion, the best example is Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor chapter in The Brothers Karamazov.

Nietzsche is one of my favourite philosophers and also one I think is misunderstood by a lot of people, perhaps due to his sister’s insertion of anti-Semitism into some of his works, but I think mostly due to his fiercely polemical style and – I guess one could anachronistically say – his tabloid-friendly book titles, aphorisms and general terminology. I think this makes his work seem very doctrinal to some, although I would obviously disagree; he just emphasised a personal approach within a context he created and described a possibly unobtainable goal. In other words, to become the ultimate “yes man” and be able to affirm to every possible situation, something which is perfectly absurd.

The French writer and philosopher Albert Camus describes this freedom as creating the experience of absurdity (if I interpret him right, that is). Need for meaning plus impossibility to find it in the world prior to human existence leaves a human being with three options: 1. suicide, 2. a "leap of faith" of some kind or 3. embracing absurdity. In his essay The Myth of Sisuphys, Camus declines the first two options and speaks for the third one. Concious revolt against absurdity is, according to him, the only way of life that doesn't diminish human dignity.

Slightly off topic, but I wonder what you would think of something like Pascal’s Wager regarding whether to make a leap of faith or to create one’s own raison d’être although one that involves a degree of contradiction? I’m not expert on Dostoevsky, but my impression is that his conversion to Christianity was based on a similarly utilitarian choice which necessarily involved some sort of embrace of – but also struggle with – contradictory values.

[Cancer]

Slightly off topic, but I wonder what you would think of something like Pascal’s Wager regarding whether to make a leap of faith or to create one’s own raison d’être although one that involves a degree of contradiction? I’m not expert on Dostoevsky, but my impression is that his conversion to Christianity was based on a similarly utilitarian choice which necessarily involved some sort of embrace of – but also struggle with – contradictory values.

I'm sorry, somehow I just forgot about this thread.

I don't think that Pascal's Wager is relevant to this question, since in it believing or not believing in God is considered on a basis of gain/loss, whereas in Kierkegaard's and Camus' thought the desicion is made "just because". This exemplifies the big difference that there is between modern and pre-modern philosophy of religion. In older times, people experienced God/meaning as something that's outside the self in the same sense as physical objects are, while later they've more often been seen as something else than things existing in the world.

[Insanus]

I don't understand how conscious revolt against absurdity is "embracing it".

[Cancer]

I don't understand how conscious revolt against absurdity is "embracing it".

Now, this is a conversation we already had, but maybe it would be useful to clarify some points in written form (and perhaps let other nerdy philosophers participate as well...).

Absurdity can in fact only be embraced if it is fought against, because what the concept involves is an imbalance between 1. the human need for clarity and 2. the worlds inability to provide it. To "live absurdly" one has to maintain this imbalance. This means that one has to yearn for meaning constantly and yet know that there is none. Absurdity is not something that can be accepted, because the moment one accepts it, it ceases to exist.

If I remember correctly, you said that Camus' revolt should be seen as a variation of Kierkegaard's most intense form of despair (the "demonic wrath" or whatever), the one that "wants to be a mistake in God's plan". First I found this idea implausible, but on giving it a closer thought it turned out to be interesting. Could you elaborate it here?