I'm looking for some existential lit with a little edge that is suitable for an angsty 20-something year old...

I suggest masturbating and seeing if you feel better afterwards

Satre was a shitty playwright. As for his philosophy, nothing more than the extrapolation of serious misinterpretations of Heidegger's Being and Time.

If you want to know true despair, navigate to lookism.net

>20-something

That's too big of a range, to be honest, son.

I don't see why you didn't post your real age.

Since you didn't use a trip, we'll never know if any clarifications are really you.

Don't waste your time on philosophers is my advice.

Carl sagan's cosmos, to get a good sense of size and scale and how a person willing to test hypotheses and subject his opinions to the light of actual scrutiny by defining his terms and being willing to be wrong.

Then the selfish gene by dawkins for a good sense of what organic "Life" actually is at it's core.

After you've got a good foundation of nicely defined terms and workable systematics with which to think about and discuss what "Life" is and means to you, without mugging up your discussion with the ambiguous and interchangeable terminologies that philosophers and social scientists apply loosely to anything but directly to nothing, go back to carl sagan and hit up "Dragons of eden" for a good sense of human nature as it evolved since we separated from earlier hominids on the evolutionary tree. If you're still unsatisfied with the way you think about life, yourself, meaning, purpose, and direction, then start choosing subjects/trades/skills to master and pick up the "For dummies" on those topics. Find a marketable way to contribute to life and the best of luck to you. Philosophy is a waste of time and you're only going to be very frustrated that you took the easy way out by reading a bunch of dead aimless pontificators making excuses not to leave their rooms.

my diary desu

I'm noticing a lot of spillover from /b/ today.

>Sagan.
>Dawkins.

Fuck off pseud.

I'd be a pseud if I pretended to know more than I did, but i'm not. I'm saying frame your worldview with defined terms and not professional bullshitting. I don't know of any writers of sciences who've done more for the common person's understanding of the universe around them and their place in it. Certainly no philosopher on your list, that's for goddamn sure.

See OP, this is roughly what i'm talking about. user here isn't very capable of constructing real arguments that would stand up against the levels of scrutiny that someone more oriented in the sciences would be perfectly at home in. user here could probably tell you about the gnostics all day and how the ideological themes made their way through the christians and all the way to jung and chomsky and how we've been recycling the same symbols for millennia. And he would almost be right, except he's living a self-fulfilling prophecy. He buries himself in ambiguous and interchangeable terminologies which would apply loosely to anything but directly to nothing, and watches dead bullshitters throw that language at the nature-nurture line until one or another of the readers' philosophical or theological predispositions gets validated. Then he learns a thousand ways to talk about his little belief, and zero ways to question it and he doesn't grow or change or become more satisfied with his sense of his own place in the world (Which is roughly what you want, right OP?) because he's actually learned nothing substantial.

I'm a positive negativist.