Existentialism often revolves around the idea of “authenticity”. Many existentialists argue that one lives “inauthentically” through one or another rendition of objectivism. In the is/ought world. Hell is other people not because they can make your life miserable, but because they objectify you. They refuse to interact with you subject to subject. I merely probe the existential parameters of the “subject” – “I” – by focusing the beam on the points I raise in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then I tap folks like you on the shoulder and ask them to note how this is not applicable to them. With respect to their own interactions in the is/ought world.
Sans God, in other words, “authenticity” becomes just one more existential contraption. And, by and large, rooted in dasein.
In other words, from my frame of mind there is no “psychological anchor”. At least not for me.
Consequently, your own intellectual contraptions above [and elsewhere] are [from my frame of mind] just another attempt to replace God with one or another secular rendition of a moral/political font.
Why? Because [ironically enough] this affords you the same sort of psychological comfort and consolation that the theists embody through God. It’s just that, unlike them, you scratch the part about immortality and salvation.
So, you are able to convince yourself that we do not live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world. But then there’s this part:
“They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it’s night once more.”
You can’t help but wonder then what Samuel Beckett might have made of this exchange.