r/Existentialism

Frankl was a former student of Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis. However, he was also deeply influenced by existential philosophers such as Martin Heidegger, Max Scheler, and Karl Jaspers. Existentialism emphasizes individual existence, freedom, and the search for meaning in life. Frankl resonated with these ideas and began to develop his own existential philosophy. His existential approach focused on finding purpose and meaning even in the most challenging circumstances. This perspective became central to his therapeutic work.

This has been bothering me for a while. Im generally an existentialist, but the thought that we only enjoy things because of evolution or some other obscure reason is kind of depressing.

For example, we find nature so beautiful and hold it so dear to us, but we only find it beautiful because we evolved to understand that vegetation=food, among other things.

This has mainly been bothering me with the subject of beauty, as the reason we find anything good looking is due to evolution.

Most things we enjoy are just side effects of evolution that were originally meant to keep us alive. For me, this slightly ruins everything we enjoy.

How do I get past this? Have popular existentialists tackled this subject?

Thought it could be fun for someone to watch to gain a better perspective or perhaps start a discussion on the topic. Hope you enjoy.

sometimes it feels so jarring to read and consume philosophy but only be able to practice it in sections rather than with full freedom. constrains of society and order which i’ll admit is a necessary element of life

disappointing no? i feel so ingenuine, any readings to help?

how can existentialism realistically be practiced

Today I finished reading the stranger and btw I read it very quickly so I might be wrong somewhere but seeing the protagonist I thought that if he thinks so much that nothing matters in the world or to him that how does he take decisions or like overall how can one take decisions in life if he thinks life's absurd, everything happened to Meursault invitation to the dinner, Marie asking him to marry her on which he agreed cuz it does not matter to him How do I decide whether to date someone or not whether to go somewhere or not whether to do something or not if I think life's absurd ?

I’ve been thinking about this kinda thing way more than I probably should, but I don’t feel like it’s really a bad thing. I know the title may be a bit of a bold statement, but just think: all our lives are lived in consciousness. Sure, we sleep and occasionally get knocked tf out, but what inevitably happens? You wake up, and you’re back to living. Before your life, nothing existed. All of history, from the dawn of existence to the day you became conscious of the world around you all happened in an instant, quicker than the blink of an eye. For the first time, you’re here. Thinking, feeling, experiencing. Nothing lasts forever, not even nothingness; the fact that we’re here is proof of that. There’s got to be something, in my eyes, after we close ours for what feels like the final time. Gotta be.

If everyday is pain and all you can reasonably expect is more pain and more suffering, is there any point in continuing?

I agree with existentialism generally but I don’t think it works for everyone.

I guess my question is, is a life of suffering actually worth living? I mean relentless suffering that knocks the wind out of you on a daily basis.

I am trying to be more positive and change my outlook in life but I still want to maintain a level of sanity and not become delusional.

As an example, is the life of a mouse being hunted inside somebody’s home worth living? If it’s entire life consists of anxiously trying to survive whilst being hunted, injured and hungry. That’s all it’s life is. Trying to survive but with no real reason except… just to survive. It suffers and suffers and doesn’t catch a break. And then it dies.

Isn’t it reasonable to cut out the middle man and just die?

Thoughts?

Hi all. I have a research project I’m doing on the free-to-play game economy and need to connect it to Sartre’s concept of Bad Faith. I understand the basics of the philosophy, and my initial argument was that players, especially those who are addicted to these games, operate in bad faith by failing to recognize their ability to disconnect and engage with the real world. They become so caught up in the fierce and unsportsmanlike competition that ensues from the unfair and heavily commodified mechanics of the game that they see victory within it as more than simply a priority, but a necessity. However, I’d like to shift my topic more towards the larger threat of commodification in society from this perspective, and was curious if there was any way / a better way to connect it to Bad Faith.

Thank you in advance! Any help is appreciated!

Hey all, I am doing a phenomenology essay on Sartre's sketch on emotions. I am looking to critique his sketch from the perspective of joy, trying to show it as inherently valuable and not merely an act of bad faith. I was wondering whether anyone had some good readings/sources or advice? Best.

Just helped my mates finish up an assignment and thought these two question sparked really good discussions. I'd love to hear anyone else's perspective on them; they're claims by Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre is knew for his unique writing, what is the easiest way to get to him? Who I read first? I am not reading too much on the past few months so I need something very easy so I can read Sartre with less problems. Basically, explain me Sartre as if I was 5 yo.

I've wanted to read and understand more about existentialism. So, I read "She Came to Stay" and "The Fall." While I enjoyed both novels, I missed the existentialism part. Would someone care to explain it? Just briefly, I don't want to impose.

BTW, (if my early concept of existentialism is halfway correct) the move "La Dolce Vita" seems to be just reeking of the philosophy. And, in my opinion, the greatest move ever made. I see themes of chaos in the world, the inability to make a true connection with others, the absurdity in much of life like religion and those kids thinking they saw a vision, the flying statue, etc. In the end it (the movie) seems to say we just have to make our own way, the world will be that way, and we can't change it. Does anyone agree about the movie?

thanks!

I've read a lot of the more well-known stuff, but can barely name an obscure work in existentialism, so gimme the good stuff here

I've wanted to read and understand more about existentialism. So, I read "She Came to Stay" and "The Fall." While I enjoyed both novels, I missed the existentialism part. Would someone care to explain it? Just briefly, I don't want to impose.

BTW, (if my early concept of existentialism is halfway correct) the move "La Dolce Vita" seems to be just reeking of the philosophy. And, in my opinion, the greatest move ever made. I see themes of chaos in the world, the inability to make a true connection with others, the absurdity in much of life like religion and those kids thinking they saw a vision, the flying statue, etc. In the end it (the movie) seems to say we just have to make our own way, the world will be that way, and we can't change it. Does anyone agree about the movie?

thanks!

im pretty new to existentialism and im wanting to read a few books on kt. any books that cover any aspect of existentialism are welcome! i dont mind reading translated works either

Just poking some fun in the philosophical nomenclature, be as casual or serious with this as you will.

I read The Outsider by Albert Camus for the first time in hs and it made me sad for a long time. I remember relating to Meursault against my will. and it gave me a deep fear, the kind you get when you wake up to a horrible truth. I wonder if anyone else has felt this way.

For context Meursault is ge main character, an extremely apathetic person who is devoid of emotions or an inner world as some say. The book opens with something like "Mama died yesterday, or today, I don't know".

I flipped through the book today and was surprised to be punched in the gut again. It's like the book peeled back layers of me and revealed a person I don't want to see. It made me realise how little I actually care about people and things around me. I also relate to that Meursault only gains slight pleasure by zoning out on the physical environment, doesn't have emotions or opinions, and accept things whichever way. When I read the book, I regressed to the natural state of numbness, destroying a lot of my efforts to be an emphatic and sensitive person.

I haven't read Camus's other works nor an I familiar with his philosophy. Does he intend for the reader to feel this way? Has he proposed a solution for what Meursault experiences? Anyone else dealt with something similar?

Also, does this mean I have to pretend to care to not be seen as a psychopath? I don't think I'm a bad person but Camus is making me doubt that now...

And, on the day when Rambert told him that he liked to wake up at four in the morning and to contemplate his city, the doctor had no difficulty in deciding, on the basis of his own experience, that this was when Rambert liked to think about the woman he had left behind. This was, actually, the time when he could grasp hold of her. In general, at four in the morning, one does nothing but sleep, even if the night has been one of betrayal. Yes, this is the time when one sleeps and that is reassuring because the great wish of the uneasy heart is endlessly to possess the being that it loves and, when the time of absence arrives, to be able to plunge that being into a dreamless sleep which can only come to an end on that day when the two are reunited.

I have a very confused view of the world and especially humanity, I believe it's corrupt, discriminatory, violent, and I think those things can never change and always will exist. But I am contempt with the world being like this and try to be optimistic of the world anyway and think of it positively, whenever I'm around people or things I enjoy, I can't help but see the flaws in them and see them in negative ways as a human being, but I try being glad about the positive side of them. I also am contempt with how negative people can be as long as there is something positive to them too. I'm not sure what I fit into...

I’m writing a rather lengthy paper for my existentialism course with a topic of our choosing. I’m choosing to write about authenticity and how technological advancements such as social media have diminished the value of authenticity.

In all honestly, I’m struggling quite a bit with this paper and would love recommendations for literature that may add to my argument, as well as any personal opinions you may have about the topic.

Thanks :)