Existentialism as I see it. One has to bifurcate existentialism between the abstract concept (that is difficulat to see) and how the word is used in a concrete manner.
For example, the main stream media uses the word to mean "real" e.g. Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
Philosophers use the word to refer to the subjective nature of existence i.e. each person experiences the world in their own unique manner.
And of course existentialism as an ideology. Camus denied being an existentialist, but we all know the thesis of his books were existential.
What I am talking about is more like going from 2 diminsions to 3 diminsions. It is more like Plato's idea of forms.
It cannot be explained, like Zen, it can only be understood becasue each person has to see it for themselves.
But trust me, the abstract image, is as real as a tree. Just invisable to most people.
One might challenge that idea and it would make sense. But one can see it is real more clearly, by using a very primitive tribe in the amazon or New guinea as an example.
You will find no one with any understanding of existentialism, whatsoever, in very primitive tribes.
My own feeling is that it takes a critical mass of knowledge before the unconsciousness mind forms the software which enables one to see the existential world.
Why few young people can understand it. They simply do not know enough.
<<"Existentialism has been misunderstood a lot, IMO, because it is such a hard concept for humans to grasp.",
Existentialism is not difficult to understand Koan.
Its as simple as the ponderence of existence, what 'IS?'
Many questions spring off that original question, mostly to give one's personal experience meaning. I would agree that it could get very deep and complex for people who seek scholarship in the field of Existentialism because with all the mental gymnastics, the effort very quickly becomes a zen paradox. However, the idea of existentialism is easy. |
