But you have an unsoothing narrative, at least on the surface it is unsoothing. For a nihilist there should be no ‘agony of choice in the face of uncertainty’. In fact there isn’t uncertainty, there is ‘no way of knowing’. Nothing to wrestle with. If I am uncertain whether it is good to have an abortion, then there can be agony. I think it is ethical, but I am uncertain. But if I think there is no handhold at all, no way to judge, or in fact no ultimate right choice, I can do what I want. A nihilist is actually rather certain that one cannot know AND/OR there is no right choice. Hence no agony. Now there might be some agony over determining consquences, practical issues, but no ethical uncertainty. It is a category error to a nihilist since it implies probabilities.
De Beauvoir, despite her theoretical nihilism, did resist the Nazis and Sartre judge Camus rather harshly. She argues that she resisted since the Nazis were claiming to have some objective justification. But that’s just BS, because she did not resist other groups that also claimed that, because she did not consider them evil.
But wouldn’t it be fallacious to think that one can modulate such impulses or even that one should, naturally? If the case could even be made?
There need not be misunderstanding on this issue , for there are levels and levels of universalization of the complex issues dealing with this, ranging all the way from simple , archaic to involved and esoteric, and the comingling is probably the basis for differentiating the adherence of the Dasein forming structural division with lingual-positivist analysis, some psychologists talking it to the extreme level of cutting off all nexus by virtue of what they call: ‘rationalization’
In language of philosophy, Husserl and Sartre disagreed over a structural problem that Nietzche foresaw.
Transendentalism was the view that issues remain regardless of whether a third or middle way can be found according to Husserl. The contexts within which one finds ones self inbregards to the conflict of values is reducible , into more elemental logical systems , it need not reduce into the familiar good/bad universal. This is what the positivists are saying with their propositional tie ins.
Are propositions resembling so that they cohere into structural unity, in spite of having to assume certain missing points which may or may not at one point closed the the argument?
Sartre disagrees with this transandence. Into meaning. He sets men free to justify their values upon which their own understanding will be sufficient, they are all self thought and responsibility to themself is justification enough to overcome their sense of doubt over the choices between values they make.
The glue is for Sartre is the extension of responsibility into the social sphere. They are responsible for each other.
Its not a question of the lingual structural problem with philosophy , but the historical movement that raises the bar from the self toward the other. Positivism also does points. to this thinking and also passes on the central concept of the Thing-In-Itself toward the Other.
That Nietzsche set the stage , in my mind, at this time, is of no doubt, but he left open the structural details . He did little else than to open the floodgates to those who come after him, to overcome the gap, the abyss , that Hegel and Kant left.
Existential nihilization is the position where Nietzsche left it, both the so called eidectic and phenomenal reductions have been proved inadequate to move Existence forward , but that does not mean that the implementation of those tools will be left abandoned.
Some accusation toward the language of philosophy losing figurative basis may have some relevance , but meaning,language meta language. have traditionally been the mother load of ideas , and applications and tie ins come up, contextually, wirhout which philosophical movements can be said to be meaningless.
Not ‘cure’ as in ‘eliminating’ such an philosophy.
Existentialism does serves its purposes in finding [diagnose] where the disease is about and talk about it, but not in great depth into the proximate causes, plus it does not prescribe effective solutions to deal with the existential problems it expose.
Therefore existentialism must understand and express its limitations.
The problem with continental existentialists is, while exposing the flaws of their so-called ‘objectivists,’ they do not provide effective solutions plus many think too highly of their version of existentialism and stick to it dogmatically to their own detriment, e.g. Iambiguous.
Animals are basically instinctual and act instantaneously and spontaneously without thinking. If they are on heat, a male animal will just rush to f…k any female within sight or smell.
On the other hand, humans [majority, there are exceptions] on “heat” do not rush to f…k any female on sight because they are modulating their sexual drives.
DNA wise all humans do have a ‘modulating’ function but of different strengths depending on conditions.
Yes, there is a hierarchy [levels and levels] of impulses within the human brain. Most of these impulses [sex, hunger, anger, various emotions] can be modulated by the majority.
But there is one fundamental drive, i.e. the existential drive that is not easy to be modulated by all to an effective standard because it pulsate very subliminally beyond the conscious mind.
So my point is, humans should understand the mechanics of the existential problems [as exposed by existentialism and others] and establish effective techniques to modulate these existential impulses effectively.
Continental existentialism only exposes and describe the existential problems but do not provide effective solutions for the individual[s] to deal with the exposed problems.
It’s unclear to me why any existentialist ought to take your advice. It goes against some fundamental concepts of existentialism. You’re proposing a one size fits all solution which was available and rejected as inadequate. I don’t see anything new on the table.
It is a general rule [human nature, instinct, rational] for any known problems to be resolved with solutions.
Iambigous is a good example, i.e. being extricated from his comfort zone of theism* into the frantic states of existentialism without a solution to deal with the exposed problems.
theism is irrational & illusory but it at least provide real psychological comfort and security to the inherent psychological existential crisis.
What I proposed is a generic Problem Solving Technique for any existential problem.
Where is such a point within existentialism? Reference?
or it is your personal view?
which imply if you feel any sexual desire, you can express and relieve it any where [publicly] or how [to the extreme most of perversion] your like?
There are interwoven themes of liberation surrounding freedom to be for Sartre.
On the literary aide of Sartre, he wrote a novel about Jean Genet , a professed homosexual 50 years ago. It was titled “Saint Genet” . So that being the case, may or may not invalidate modulation., as a personal choice.
I believe Existential Morality is along the same lines as the above.
In promotion of freedom and authencity, it would appear that existentialism do not promote a free for all concept.
From what I read of the above, one must have freedom but such freedom must be conditioned to achieve within the optimality of time and circumstances of the present.
E.g. in the above, one is free to practice homosexuality but definitely not performing sexual acts of homosexuality in say a public square or anywhere public.
Free to murder, rape, genocide, torture, kidnap, and the full range of evil acts?
Existentialism as far as I am aware is do not promote the freedom to commit evil acts.
Prove me wrong with references?
Heidegger [supposedly ‘founder’ of existentialism] was a member of the Nazi party but quit when he realized the evil potential of Hitler and the Nazi ideology.
The Abrahamic religions with their dogmas by default expect that.
I don’t believe that is the case.
You are misrepresenting existentialism.
Do you have any reference to support your point?
Rationally I am sure existentialism do not accept rigid moral laws it nevertheless has moral limits to evil acts like genocides, mass rapes, torture, murder, and the likes.
Oh, indeed. Over the years, objectivists of all sorts have basically pointed this out to me. I suffer needlessly. Why? Because they are offering me a way to think about “the human condition” that obviates pain and the suffering by subsuming it in one or another rendition of a “right makes might” world.
Ever and always their own though, not yours.
The “perverts” are in turn ever and always “one of them”. And here they mean you too.
You embrace their conviction that, in the future, objective morality is within our reach; but you fail to grasp it is ever and only theirs.
1] the ontological/teleological: how are we to understand human existence in terms of Existence itself – why something and not nothing? why this something and not another? And then the question of determinism.
2] the either/or world: here what things/relationships are said mean seem basically anchored in an objective truth: mathematics, the laws of nature, empirical fact, the logical rules of language. Nihilism appears moot here. In fact the overwhelming preponderance of human interactions from day to day seem embedded in things that are true for all of us.
3] the is/ought world: once we are able to establish that which appears to be true for all of us in our day to day interactions, we still have conflicting reactions regarding how we ought to behave in order to secure and then to sustain our wants and needs. This is the part I deem pertinent regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Its a gamble . its WORTTH the gamble with choices to go for nihilism , whereupon to try the infeated waters, weighed by enormous uncertainty, to strike another, would be more risky and convoluted, in spite of what may be a ground to aignal some other choice. Better to loose one a gamble then go for a conservative advancement toward more. This ‘more’ may be a choice laden with far more unacceptable loss. The proponents of gain would have it. Minimilism works , as a style even if in spite of a) the possible gain otherwise.