All Things Existentialism?

[hiphophippy]

Meditation, some. Never "left" my body, though. If I did, I'd come closer to believing in souls.

I OBE'ed my first lsd trip it was pretty rad. I don't mean to convince you but there are a lot of different forms of yoga, If you have time I'd try and find a kulandani yoga class because it focuses on chakra stimulation, mind you you'd probably need to do it for awhile to achieve anything noticeable.

If you're looking for a quick intro to waht fucking with your chakra can do and you're single I'd suggest http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/apr1/ankhing.htm breathing out is the most important part you have to right when it cycles back up.
mind you, unless you have an engorged sexual chakra then this probably won't be very extreme.

 

[-=SS=-]

I don't think OBE's necessarily prove a soul or something actually leaving your body at all. I think you can be present/aware without any kind of a form as awareness is what at the base of everything, it needs no form. That and all information is encoded into this hologram/holographic pattern anyway..

 

[voxmystic]

I believe energy is at the base of everything....break matter down far enough and it all really energy....but awareness may only be able to exist in specific circumstances. Or it may be transcendent, and I'm just not awake (in the buddha sense) to perceive it.

 

[panic in paradise]

^its difficult, energy and matter is more and more limited the less empty-space there is to fill -

and there is no empty-space as long as there is matter.

________________
the Buddha is Mercury, Quicksilver, tangible and collective his pool of intellect is eternal, and formless, shifting shape to that which is of the same essence.

 

[voxmystic]

What do you mean when you hyphenate empty-space? Because matter mostly IS empty space. The space between electrons and atomic nuclei is enormous compared with the mass of the particles. And some theories, like superstrings, suggests that at an even more basic level, the particles are really wave functions....pure energy.

 

[panic in paradise]

voxmystic
What do you mean when you hyphenate empty-space? Because matter mostly IS empty space. The space between electrons and atomic nuclei is enormous compared with the mass of the particles. And some theories, like superstrings, suggests that at an even more basic level, the particles are really wave functions....pure energy.

agreed, that empty space is what is able to be filled with energy. the energy one puts into that space reflects how one perceives what they are viewing as a reality.

and so depending on what energy you exert and depend upon, is what the greater portion of w/e subject or object will be viewed as.

 

[hiphophippy]

I don't think OBE's necessarily prove a soul or something actually leaving your body at all. I think you can be present/aware without any kind of a form as awareness is what at the base of everything, it needs no form. That and all information is encoded into this hologram/holographic pattern anyway..

I don't either but it is definitely an interesting experience that may change something foundational in your thought process.

 

[CrackAndScrabble]

hahaha I like how the title says "all things existentialism" and then the forum diverged into essentialist topics.

 

[hiphophippy]

I believe energy is at the base of everything....break matter down far enough and it all really energy....but awareness may only be able to exist in specific circumstances. Or it may be transcendent, and I'm just not awake (in the buddha sense) to perceive it.

Just realized if you want some objective evidence of soul

 

[MyFinalRest]

OP, I'm not sure if you have a full grasp of the existence vs. essence argument. Can you take constructive criticism or are you gonna freak out?

....um.................................NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(freaks out)

By saying you believe essence comes before existence (in man), you are essentially saying that you believe man has a soul or spirit that exists before he has a physical body.

Obviously this has some religious implications, but the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Kierkegaard was a Christian.

That's what I think. I also think that other "energies", "souls", and "entities" exist outside of man and even other sentient creatures.

Does existentialism not reduce religious concepts to mere "man-made-up" systems of philosophy and story-telling? It pretty much invalidates any "myth-like" concepts that many religions are founded on, so those who adopt an existentialist approach are really just reducing the religion to a set of moral guidelines and soothing rituals that are really meaningless in themselves.

True, I don't have a true "existentialist's grasp" on the concept, and that's why I made this thread, so I could hear some opinions on it. I never really understood just what the hell was wrong with guys like Kierkegaard and Sartre. Especially Kierkegaard. What troubled young man...totally not enjoying the "essence of life."

 

[Jerry Atrick]

....um.................................NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(freaks out)



That's what I think. I also think that other "energies", "souls", and "entities" exist outside of man and even other sentient creatures.

Does existentialism not reduce religious concepts to mere "man-made-up" systems of philosophy and story-telling? It pretty much invalidates any "myth-like" concepts that many religions are founded on, so those who adopt an existentialist approach are really just reducing the religion to a set of moral guidelines and soothing rituals that are really meaningless in themselves.

True, I don't have a true "existentialist's grasp" on the concept, and that's why I made this thread, so I could hear some opinions on it. I never really understood just what the hell was wrong with guys like Kierkegaard and Sartre. Especially Kierkegaard. What troubled young man...totally not enjoying the "essence of life."

Glad we're on the same page

A good place to start to learn about existentialism is a book called Irrational Man by William Barrett. One of my old profs turned me on to existentialism by loaning me this book.

The first half of the book gives a good history and overview of the philosophy. The second half has brief excerpts and lots of commentary on Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre. Barrett mentions many more authors and philosophers than those four, they are just the ones he spends the most time on. If you are serious about existentialism you will want to read the primary sources. But Irrational Man is a good place to start to familiarize yourself with the concepts before taking on the daunting task of reading the primary sources.

 

[construct]

True, I don't have a true "existentialist's grasp" on the concept, and that's why I made this thread, so I could hear some opinions on it. I never really understood just what the hell was wrong with guys like Kierkegaard and Sartre. Especially Kierkegaard. What troubled young man...totally not enjoying the "essence of life."

This is true, Kierkegaard was tormented throughout his life, particularly with religious questions. While Kierkegaard was certainly the father of existentialism, he is not an existentialist as it would be known in the twentieth century by way of thinkers like Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir, etc., with one of the main reasons being Kierkegaard was a Christian, whereas the other existentialists (except Jaspers and Dostoevsky) were atheists. Additionally, Kierkegaard predated the 'essence vs. existence' question. Kierkegaard was concerned, among many other things, with the paradox of faith, particularly in the biblical case of Abraham: God commands Abraham to kill his only son--Isaac--even though Isaac is his only heir, Abraham takes his son to the Mt. Moriah to sacrifice him, an angel pops in at the last second and commands Abraham to stop. Kierkegaard says we are all in Abraham's position (that is, confronted by an absurd situation) on a daily basis, and the only way to escape it is through a subjective, personal affirmation of the absurdity of existence, or 'leap', as Kierkegaard's position has come to be called. Sartre and Camus offer similar solutions to the absurd, meaningless nature of the world, although they are decidedly non-religious affirmations.

Anyway, what I want to get at is the essence you are interested in. Although you said you couldn't give an adequate explanation for it, what does it mean to you? To Sartre, something like a paper-weight has an essence. It was created by humans with the conscious intention of being a paper-weight. However, because there is no God (based on Sartre's argument that something can't be simultaneously totally free [humans] and completely fixed [matter and everything but human consciousness], which is the definition he sets forth for God), humans weren't created and thus don't have essences. Or, in the case of humans, the waiter at a restaurant or the student at school may be convinced that he essentially is a 'waiter' or 'student', but the truth is the only thing keeping him in that position is his continued free choice.

I am sympathetic to essences, however, and would like to hear your views more. What sort of evidence do you have? Is it a feeling or intuition? To Sartre that probably wouldn't be enough, because feelings and intuitions are products of human experience, and not part of the thing itself.

Ultimately, I've personally found some utility from existential philosophy, if only because I seem to be confronted by an almost incomprehensibly complex reality every day. Although I'm not sure if I want to say that reality is by nature absurd, there are elements which seem absurd: I didn't choose to be born, no one else tells me what to do, how to act, who to be, etc. and there doesn't seem to be any completely sufficient answers to these questions.

 

[DeathDomokun]

I didn't write this nor do I take credit for it, but I like what's said and thought I'd post it for you guys.
"If you are to look at most Western skeptic ideology and contrast them with Vedic traditions you will find many glaring similarities.
Each is dealing with the same problem, however, their solutions vary.
You have propositions such as the 'unknowability' of objective reality. For instance, in Buddhism, there exists an objective reality, but it is unknowable, or empty. Attempting to understand or perceive this reality is essentially moving you further from an coherent actualization of objective reality.
Absurdism, and the rest of western skeptics essentially says the same thing. Vedic traditions, however, explored it deeper (at least in my interpretation).
As a result of the lack of spirituality in Western thought (presumably), they never conceived embracing the void, or the absence. Absurdist, nihilists, existentialists, say that the absolute understanding does not exist, or is unknowable, Buddhists, Jains, Brahmans etc. would agree, but it is not something to be "known".
They all acknowledge our human tendency/desire to ignore the emptiness or "void".
In regards to meaning, they all are on similar ground. The all more or less agree that there is no intrinsic meaning. Absurdism deviates the most from this notion, but in my opinion, only remains logically allowable because of the nature of its position (ie. claiming uncertainty).
Once again, it is their way of dealing with these actualities which makes them distinct. Each expressing their own "way" "path" or ideology etc."

 

[MyFinalRest]

The existentialist path has been adopted widely into western culture, and has led to, I think, an absolute absorbtion in one's self. The self is no longer looking to societal traditions, religion, or institutions for meaning, so ultimately the only thing he/she can find meaning in is in her most basic sense of personal pleasure and desire. The new pleasure seeking existentialist has reached new levels of selfishness and absurdity by disregarding all the "external" elements of his environment that prevented him from acting on desires that could be harmful to others.

Buddhist thought also sought to remove much of the world's external trappings, but with an emphasis on the elimination of the ego and it's desires rather than the existentialist who seems to be left with nothing but his ego and confounded desires. By going far enough to remove the ego along with other external "absurdities", Buddhism allows the real true self to emerge, and that true self is a being of endless compassion and eternal peace.

 

[DeathDomokun]

Existentialism isn't all that popular in Western culture, selfishness always has been. Getting over basing our identity/self in society and arbitrary traditions, more arbitrary traditions we call religion, and institutions,would be a great thing. Unfortunately, that is far from the case in my opinion. There has been, and will continue to be, a massive emphasis on society playing a big part in your self. In Australia at least, religion isn't too rampant, but I know there are places that have a deep grounding in religion and it is a big part of their ego. Institutions are depended on more than ever, for getting a job is much harder than it used to be, often relying on pieces of paper from an institution to value yourself, and show that value to an employer.
There's nothing in Buddhism saying the "true self is a being of endless compassion and eternal peace"

 

[construct]

The existentialist path has been adopted widely into western culture, and has led to, I think, an absolute absorbtion in one's self. The self is no longer looking to societal traditions, religion, or institutions for meaning, so ultimately the only thing he/she can find meaning in is in her most basic sense of personal pleasure and desire. The new pleasure seeking existentialist has reached new levels of selfishness and absurdity by disregarding all the "external" elements of his environment that prevented him from acting on desires that could be harmful to others.

Buddhist thought also sought to remove much of the world's external trappings, but with an emphasis on the elimination of the ego and it's desires rather than the existentialist who seems to be left with nothing but his ego and confounded desires. By going far enough to remove the ego along with other external "absurdities", Buddhism allows the real true self to emerge, and that true self is a being of endless compassion and eternal peace.

That's not true! Although Sartre seems to satirize humanism early in his career, he embraces it later in life (see "Existentialism is a Humanism"). Look also at Camus, The Plague in particular, in which an atheist doctor is quarantined inside a city and, although presented with a seemingly evil and meaningless situation, he risks his life and works twenty hours a day to help the victims instead of succumbing to apathy and hopelessness. He creates his meaning in a meaningless universe. This doesn't rule out compassion! Additionally, de Beauvoir writes about sexism in the mid-twentieth century, something uncommon at the time and probably largely unmotivated by selfishness.

An existentialist is not necessarily a nihilist. Although he has no positive philosophy regarding inherent meaning in the universe, he can create these philosophies.

 

[MyFinalRest]

There's nothing in Buddhism saying the "true self is a being of endless compassion and eternal peace"

In fact that is what it's all about.
*Far from being possessed of the negative attributes of the mundane ego, the Buddhic or nirvanic Self is proclaimed by the Buddha of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra to be characterised by "great loving-kindness, great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity" (see: the four Brahmavihāras).*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atman_(Buddhism)#Developing_the_self

construct
That's not true! Although Sartre seems to satirize humanism early in his career, he embraces it later in life (see "Existentialism is a Humanism").

Seen it. Sure, the original philosphy doesn't advocate selfishness and nihilism, but in most people's interpretation, that's what it leads to. Unlike the Buddhist, who doesn't try to seek meaning in the material world, the existentialist usually does. Don't doubt the effect academia has on culture. I once did, but no, I now see it as having a huge amount of influence. Of course the original concepts become mutated as they pass along, but that can be seen as a failure of the original philosophy too.

In the context of our modern world, trying to create meaning in concepts like compassion quickly begins to seem meaningless to those who try. Perhaps things like the supernatural aspects of religion are still necessary to encourage people to find meaning in things like compassion.

I still think our shitty modern and pop culture is very much a product of this European academic thought, drawing heavily on Freud, Marx, Nietzche, and the Existentialists. Of course, the originals would be horrified at what it has become, but I think the responsibility lies with them for "opening this can of philosophical worms."

Additionally, de Beauvoir writes about sexism in the mid-twentieth century, something uncommon at the time and probably largely unmotivated by selfishness.

She always struck me as being very selfish. I think her super-radical feminism was very much about her experiences.

 

[panic in paradise]

MyFinalRest
Unlike the Buddhist, who doesn't try to seek meaning in the material world, the existentialist usually does

Buddhist gain that insight of this material world through what some call existentialism (westernology;-)... by separating the mind&ego from the body, one loses sight of materialistic earthly/psychics/elemental values. and is then able to ascend to what is commonly referred to as a 6th 7th + state of cellular vibration/awareness.

 

[MyFinalRest]

^Well, at least certain "eastern" philosophies actually find ways to "solve intellectual puzzles" while western philosophies are really good at complicating things and making people miserable even though that's not the intention.

 

[construct]

She always struck me as being very selfish. I think her super-radical feminism was very much about her experiences.

This is an odd sentiment. She wasn't a radical feminist as it would be known in the 70s. She was radical in the sense that almost no writers were writing on the subject in the early twentieth century, but she was subdued compared to those who come later. Furthermore, so what if it's about her experiences? That's kind of like saying Martin Luther King Jr. was wrong in advocating equality because he was a product of American post-slavery subjugation.

Overall, I'm having a hard time understanding your stance. You say there's something inherently wrong with the existentialist philosophy that will inevitably lead toward meaninglessness and nihilism? That may be a potential product, but I don't see how relying on the 'fairy tales' of religion is a better substitute for meaning. It would certainly be simpler--particularly in our complex, globalized, and confusing world--to dogmatically put your faith into some sort of religion, but is that really a better model for living? Or may that lead to rigid, black and white decisions about moral actions? Maybe if 'essence' existed unequivocally, but I'm not so sure if it does or how exactly we would know. Also, you seemed to imply that if someone followed existentialism they would invariably fall into selfishness, whereas if they followed Buddhism they would not. Do you think that Buddhism is such a pure religion that it is free from misinterpretation? Zen was used in Japan in World War II as a system to support Japanese nationalism, and it was used as justification in Sri Lanka during conflicts with the Hindus there. Buddhism is not a perfect religion that is free from misinterpretation, so I don't see how that point can apply to existentialism.

^Well, at least certain "eastern" philosophies actually find ways to "solve intellectual puzzles" while western philosophies are really good at complicating things and making people miserable even though that's not the intention.

I don't see how eastern philosophies (I'll use Buddhism as the example since that's what you've been referencing) find any ways to solving intellectual puzzles. The Buddha specifically said that he was not interested in questions about God or metaphysics, but rather only in the question of suffering. Buddhism is not a system for solving intellectual puzzles in the way that western philosophy attempts to be one, and some schools, such as Zen, are rather radically anti-metaphysical and anti-epistemological.

Lastly, in many ways, Buddhism in general can be seen as rather anti-metaphysical and, at its heart, an existential system. It seems the only real truth is nonduality. Everything else in Buddhism (the mythology, the 'metaphysics' of Nagarjuna and the more philosophically-minded Indians, even the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path) seems to be upaya, or 'expedited means', toward the single truth of nonduality. I'd honestly be hard pressed to even call Buddhism a moral system; that seems largely to be a western addition. Maybe you can say that action sprouting from a state of nonduality is moral, but even that's rather unclear. Maybe you could say the Mahayana addition of the Bodhisattva is an ideal of selfless compassion, but again, our western conception of the Bodhisattva is probably different than a 10th century Tibetan's conception.