Nihilism and existentialism

>The entire discipline is a literal waste of time.

Everything you do in life is a literal waste of time.

So nothing is!

Swerve on absurdism. Do Kierkegaard and Nietzsche first. Do not underestimate the importance of phenomenology in existentialism. The two developed not only simultaneously but concurrently and are inextricably interpenetrating. The ultimate work of existentialism is Being and Nothingness. You're gonna need to cover some ground in metaphysics to get the basis of the important statements. Also definitely read Beauvoir. I actually suggest you start by just skimming Ethics of Ambiguity. I think it's the most practically important piece of existentialist writing.

Existentialism being anthropocentric is its greatest flaw. It must be changed.
Nietzsche predated this nonsense and already did not fall for its sad relativism.

Nietzsche absolutely rejects absurdism.
Read Nietzsche, please.
Meaning is located in body AND earth

>Mixing Kierkegaard with the likes of Sartre and Nietzsche

Fear and Trembling, period

>Therefore it is impossible to justify any belief system objectively and everything is opinions.
This sort of exasperation is symptomatic of learning a bit of philosophy but giving up before learning about positivism. We answer real questions in philosophy all the time. For instance, the commonplace conception of truth as being correspondence to reality was successfully challenged as late as the sixties. A converging dialectic of advances in knowledge is not unthinkable. That you haven't engaged with the actual work of the discipline could be reason to be more charitable.

I don't read Danish and neither do you.

durr durr durtrrr durrrr

Mans, have you read BaN? The primacy of the subject (or the relation of subjects) is not just a trivial component of existentialism; it is it's central component.
>sad relativism
You can beef with Sartre based on pathos alone of that's really what you want. Cry your eyes out. You can't dismiss Sartre's argument that value is intersubjectively determined just because you don't like the consequences. Existentialism is a Humanism, regardless of that it's a nearly criminal overreduction of Sartre's ontology and derived ethics, even does a good job of demonstrating the dubious existence of transcendent value. Would you respond even to the simplified arguments?

Ya'll need Jesus

Unintelligible gibberish

...

I always found existentialism to be the most intuitive philosophy out there and that most normal people adopt it without knowing.
I know it's heavily simplified, but most people would agree that, assuming God doesn't exist and theres nothing above us to give us morals, each and every one has to think for themselves what they value as right and act accordingly. And whatever the consequences of their actions are, they ultimately have to assume responsibility for it. There's more to sartre than this, but his core principles are solid.

>doesn't mean we can't have a good time

Heheh about that...

Go outside, retard

>humans feel instinctive altruism because of God and not because we evolved as highly social animals who live in groups and rely on each other for survival
cool

>he doesn't feel alone in groups
Get a load of this guy.

Come on, you can do better. If you actually come up with arguments I will change my mind about sartre. I'm not married to my limited knowledge of existentialism.

>they ultimately have to assume responsibility for it.

I was with you up to here, most people as a rule categorically do not assume responsibility for anything

>Come on, you can do better.

If existentialist thinking were so intuitive and open to everyone then Kierkegaard would have never addressed his works to his Hiin Enkelte and it would be pointless that 'existentialism' even existed. The whole point is that there are distractions that a majority of people from living authentic or thinking inwardly.

Still, it would be better for everyone if they did.

user, we can frogpost or have an actual conversation. Why does existentialism make you angry? Did I misrepresent it? Let's use this as an opportunity to grow.

that keep a majority*

This, the most telling fact is if you simply look at how people behave instead of looking at what they claim to believe. Anyone may claim to be sympathetic to existentialism when pressed on it but how many actually act appropriately in that knowledge when push comes to shove?

Just listen to what you said
>I always found existentialism to be the most intuitive philosophy out there and that most normal people adopt it without knowing.
>adopt it without knowing
The absolute fucking opposite of existentialism.

Existentialism is humanistic because it is an invalid ideology based in archaic nonsense.
I know far more about this subject than you.

>evolution
Back to plebbit, retard.

OP saved it from Facebook. It's even worse.

>it's a nearly criminal overreduction of Sartre's ontology

Of Sartre? lol that's hilarious

You have cotton for brains

I understood all them reading-words and the brain thoughts they made when I put 'em all together.

-Maybe- you're just not as smart as you think you are and you're riding high on a wave of Dunning–Kruger. Which is fine, most people aren't as smart as they think they are. Hell I'm having trouble digesting Neitzsche and it burns my nipples everytime I think about how much smarter that cocksucker was than I am.

But what do you guys think? Since I have a sub 140 IQ should I hang myself with an electrical cord? Or somehow learn to live with it?

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are the only ones with anything interesting to say. And Heidegger sorta but he wasn't really one.

Ah damn, didn't know it doesn't work that way. All I know about existentialism is through YouTube videos, podcasts and online Lectures. I should probably read Sartre but honestly don't know if it's worth it if my head canon is better than the actual thing.

Kierkegaard is considered the grandpapa of existentialism. He wanted to reintroduce Christianity to Christendom. It wasn't enough for him that people considered themselves good and righteous simply because they followed the law of the land.

And don't read Sartre he is a faggot

Existentialism is like diet nihilism.

Don't listen to this guy. Sartre is the masthead of existentialism.

>Since I have a sub 140 IQ should I hang myself with an electrical cord? Or somehow learn to live with it?
Motivation to be smart followed by actual guided diligence will make you smart. Me, I watch Rick and Morty.

>Kierkegaard is considered the grandpapa of existentialism.
Not everyone agrees on this.

why?

right here

Why? I was born in 1994.

>I know far more about this subject than you.
This isn't a WWE cage match. You don't need to square up. You very well may know more than me. I've, charitably, have critically engaged with about a quarter of Being and Nothingness. However, you just conjured up some vague denunciation followed by a dumb intellectual threat. You probably understand Sartre much better than I do. What are the archaic nothin that you say Sartre's ontology is based around?

*Archaic notions

Piss off, oldfag

Start with l'anomie; ou le tumulte des tapirs

>being a positivist in 2018
lmao @ ur life

Interestingly enough, most every "humanism" such as Catholic humanism is repudiated by existentialism because these certain humanisms treat humanity as belonging to a fixed category of determined being. This is where existentialism opposes Marxism in its liberation project. Marxism treats humanity as historically fixed; value isn't truly intersubjectively determined.

I'm not a positivist. It's roundly been demonstrated to be a failure.

youtube.com/watch?v=QjcGjdouLrU

Anthropocentrism. I already said this.
Sartre tried to extend from Heidegger and thus Nietzsche, but totally misunderstood both.
In Nietzsche, 'intersubjectivity' includes non-human life, and even the earth itself. Humans just most evidently display a will and thus shape it most.

The only good existentialism book is The Nausea. Decadentism was better.

De Beauvoir's 'A Very easy death' is a very nice existential work too.

I'll dip into Nietzsche's account of intersubjectivity and contrast it with the existentialist one. I was under the impression that Sartre developed somewhat alongside Heidegger and both were more independently influenced by Husserl. Anyway, this is all just a bunch of history-of-ideas bullshit. It sounds like I'm describing a martial arts movie. Is there any component of Sartre's account of intersubjectivity that you think clearly fails? I'm sure there must be something for you to object to it so vehemently.

That's one ugly fucking doggo

Take LSD

DELETE THIS NOW.

This picture made me rage hard.

Don't, it's baby's first philosophy.

>In Nietzsche, 'intersubjectivity' includes non-human life, and even the earth itself.
How the hell does this work?

Try reading him

>ctrl-f
>greeks
>0 hits