Mmm.. Existentialism... Objectivism...

By dushechka · Oct 19, 2007 · ·
Categories:
  1. I've been reading quite a bit about Kierkegaard/Nietzsche and Existentialism. I sort of directed myself that way through Ayn Rand's philosophy. Just a road of random discovery mostly.

    Honestly, I think I am an Existentialist (I'm hoping that's a word...) mostly due to the fact that I believe we create the meanings and truths in our lives. I can't fathom putting the entire faith and essence of myself inside a person or thing. Humans fail, humans cheat and they lie. Whether that sounds selfish or arrogant, I honestly really don't know. And at the same time, I honestly don't care.

    Regarding my own life, there's not a chance in hell I'll forgo my own personal beliefs, my dreams and the essence of myself, in order to make someone else happy and content. Whether it be my parents, siblings, or friendships. Selfish? Probably. But we all live our lives according to our own selfish desires. I'm just blatant about it.

    Regarding Existentialism, the only easy to understand definition I can find is this:

    "A philosophical movement embracing the view that the suffering individual must create meaning in an unknowable, chaotic, and seemingly empty universe."

    "If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be."

    I quite enjoy that quote...

    I suppose my parents are far from Existentialists, as their "meaning", I'm assuming as Christians, comes from God above. I'm torn between knowing if the fact that someone is a Christian can deter them from Existentialism.

    After a quick nice wiki search, it seems Christian Existentialism does indeed exist, mostly professed by Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard. Interesting.

    I have much reading to do on the subject, and I am far from fully understanding.

    I do like how Kafka was an Existentialist. He fascinates me probably more than he should.


    I've jumped back and forth between different stages of thought, and have now come to this conclusion:

    I am not merely an Existentialist, but also an Objectivist.

    From my limited (very limited mind you) understanding, Objectivism is... and I quote wikipedia on this instance:

    "Objectivism holds that there is a mind-independent reality; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings gain objective knowledge from perception by measurement and form valid concepts by measurement omission; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest"; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness."

    "...the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or 'rational self interest.'" and if then followed by Existentialism... "...the suffering individual must create meaning in an unknowable, chaotic, and seemingly empty universe.""

    Taking what I quoted above, I do believe the purpose of my life is to find my own unique happinesses, and in doing that, it will create meaning in an unknowable, chaotic, etc. universe. Whether the two philosophies clash in any major ways, I haven't figured out yet.

    But the essence of my beliefs rest on those two major concepts.


    The Fountainhead is glaring at me; I think I'll read it.


    My random philosophical rants are probably boring to most people, but any comments are always appreciated.
    Categories:

Comments

  1. Eoz Eanj
    I personally find philosophical rants such as these to be very interesting.

    I was thinking something similar the other day, how one can never fathom the universe thus we can never know the universe- we can only ever speculate as to what it is and what makes it up- and even that itself is due to human logic- that for something to exist it needs to be made-up of something. Even seemingly simple concepts like reality are questionable, like what is reality anyway? Reality seems just an identification for what is personally recieved through sensory information and thus it can have many different forms and interpretations; there is no 'correct' reality, which to me seems to make even insane people sane.
    Also, I too prefer not to believe that what an individual or group of individuals do is governed by one superior entity, but by a multitude of other factors, like the natural tendency for humans to create their own ideologies, practices, truthes based on the original primitive instincts like surviving through self-gratification. It's all so complicated.

    Anyway, thanks for the read.

    I like/look forward to/ reading your blogs, they're quite cool.
  2. Stinger
    I think 99% of people are Existentialists. You never think you are someone else because you don't look like when you were 5 years old. Do you? If no, that makes you an Existentialist.

    Anyyyway, I think the king of those guys is Sartre, he really showed us great things.

    Personally... I'm more Existentialism, But my ideas are closer to Bishop Berkley and Baudrillard.
  3. Funny Bunny
    I'm about where you are. I am not too keen on Ayn Rand though, but I have a very good Art Criticism book of her ideas.

    The only thing I disagree with in this regards is assuming that the existentialist/objectivist is actually also a rational person. Is his experience filtered in a healthy way? It seems to be important because I would not want a serial killer deciding what is really real. Also it seems very hard to have any sort of a public discourse/ society/culture without a shared common ground. In a way often someone's reality and experience is subsumed to the so called "greater good" by some "expert." Unfortunately the common ground will exclude people who believe non-typical things.

    The thing that intrests me is that the image that is put forth about what is "normal" is usually not the norm, it is the ideal. In America here, (not sure about other places) the majority of people are actually poor, lower class, or lower middle class. Strangely the TV version of Americans seen by both Americans and by people in other countries is that of Wealthy, or upper middle class. This false image really skews the information package. (The reality can be eeked out of other statistics, but a picture is worth a thousand words, and rarely do you find much interest in actually checking for real facts. (Facts would be the independent reality, not the personal experience).
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice