No, no, what you are saying is correct. I agree with you. I was not saying what you think I was saying. Existential behavior is totally subjective. In fact that is the point. One creates their reality.
And we have more or less become an existential world (happened post 60's). But being an existentialist is different from understanding it. It is the understanding most people don't get, IMO.
As I said, it requires one change how they see the world in their minds eye. So a Morman or ghetto gangster would need to understand, more or less, what Sartre and Camus were getting at and see it in their minds eye. That is a tall order to change ones view of the world in their minds eye. Most ghetto gangsters and Mormons have a very different minds eye view of reality -g.
The irony is, the ghetto gangster is probably living an existential life more or less, but not the Mormon. I am an existentialist, but I doubt BOTW is-lol.
<<<What I get here, from Koan, is an idea that existentialism leads to one place. IMO that makes no sense at all. You and Koan could both be existentialists, and come to completely different POVs. I mean if the whole thing is based upon the individual, than it's going to be subjective. So you can't really tell other people they aren't being existential enough, or they aren't doing it "right" or that they got "lost"- especially not when the existentialist philosophers themselves often seem to disagree. |
