SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
Recommended by:
S. maltophilia
To: koan who wrote (480377)9/30/2021 5:04:22 PM
From: cosmicforce1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 541253
 
>>The idea of existentialism is that the person defines reality based on their own experiences and the context

If a everyone is an Existentialist (knowing or not knowing) because they live life through their senses, then we have a weak platitudinous definition -
Plato is an Existentialist because he is Plato and lived through his senses.
Platonic realism is the philosophical position that universals or abstract objects exist objectively and outside of human minds. If this is true, there is some aspect that does does not comport with physical human agency. That is not patently atheistic or humanist but is certainly not Existentialist. Absurd has a classical meaning of "poorly reasoned".

A set that is a set of all things, including itself, is not particularly useful set. For instance math can only be done on some objects - and not others - we can't add a "cat" and a "dog" unless we group them in a set.

Only then can we say there are "two animals" because we have made them interchangeable in this context.

We might as well call your Existentialism a "thingamajig" because it has properties that deny large areas of historical Existentialism and assigns ones you personally prefer instead . An Existentialist gives value to human lives only through participating the human condition. This can involve God or not, based upon the judgment of the person evaluating the evidence of their thoughts and senses.

A number of Existentialists (Kierkegaard, Unamuno) were clearly religious. You would like to declare them not Existentialists because you are an Atheist - that is sort of like saying someone who lives in Georgia isn't a Georgian because they are not racist.

You have never provided the "necessary and sufficient" metrics you use to put someone in the Existentialist bucket. It apparently involves people who clearly would not self-declare such - by you doing it for them, it is pretty "absurd".
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News