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.
My own translation of this: If all the other moral objectivists come to understand the use of Problem Solving Techniques as I do they too will eventually come to choose progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future.
In the interim, however, let’s at least be sure that they are defining the meaning of these words as I do too.
iambiguous is uncomfortable because he still believes his dilemma is a reasonable manner in which to construe human interactions in the is/ought world. In a No God world.
I’m not uncomfortable because I simply avoid bringing my general descriptions down to earth by noting how my own moral narrative has nothing to do with dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
If only theoretically up in the scholastic clouds where truths are [pedantically] analyzed into existence.
Re point 1, that is only a belief.
Since it is only a belief related to a philosophical dilemma there is no need for you to feel uncomfortable with it. If you disagree with Hume’s or any others’ view, it would be dumb to feel uncomfortable merely you disagree with them.
I will agree if you believed based on evidence X is trying to harm you and thus you feel uncomfortable with that knowledge.
Re 2, if you do not feel uncomfortable with it, there is then no personal issue at all.
The discomfort revolves around being among those who are in fact able to convince themselves that there is an optimal frame of mind that rational/virtuous people are obligated to embrace [re conflicting goods] if they wish to thought of as rational and virtuous people. As “one of us” in other words.
Not only am I not able to take sides in an similar manner, I suggest in turn that in taking sides others are not able to grasp the manner in which such convictions are just existential contraptions.
They become perturbed by my frame of mind precisely because I remind them that it may well be applicable to them too.
After all, the emtional and psychological succor they crave is embedded in a narrative that allows them to ground “I” in one or another holistic sense of reality.
Sure, as long as what you believe succeeds in comforting and consoling you, you can think yourself into believing that “I” is in sync with that – as rationally it should be – and not derived from a particular constellation of existential variables out in a particular world historically and culturally. Construed subjectively/subjunctively such that the is/ought world is not only apprehendable but “in the future” will evolve into a world where all come to grasp “Middle-Way progressive” behaviors and, thus, for all practical purposes, dissolving conflicting goods altogether.
Mere mortals in a No God world today merely have to figure out a way to live that long.
Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose your own chances are?