Existentialism Explained

[@PhilosophyVibe]

For the best introduction to philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology set, available worldwide on Amazon: Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1 Volume 2 - Metaphysics mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2 Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3 ​

[@thephilosophermma8449]

Existentialism is both appealing as well as depressing

[@ludrixte1938]

Perfectly balanced. As all things should be.

[@martinsanchez8910]

Love your videos! Keep it up!!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you very much 😀

[@evanthatkid4223]

Explained it great bro. This helped A LOT. Thanks

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Glad we could help :D

[@venomverse7007]

Make a video on objectivism the philosophy of Ayn

[@lavender132]

great video! very informative.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Glad you enjoyed it.

[@SolomonGrundy42]

Is essentialism the main difference between Husserlian transcendental phenomenology and (Sartrean) existential phenomenology? From what I remember of Ideas I, Husserl tries to uncover essential structures of human consciousness, such as the relations between the subject and objects of consciousness relations. It seems like Sartre would reject such essentialism, no? Would Heidegger? Or would Heidegger's exploration of Being itself constitute an essentialist project?

[@prime_time_youtube]

Very clear, thanks.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome :)

[@Secret5777]

Thankyouu Bro, you've explained it well and smooth😎

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome, glad it helped.

[@kantimakan4056]

Good elucidation. Unfortunately long before we find our “own feet” we are programmed by our parents, teachers, cultural expectations and values, and it is only when we become more critical and are willing to break lose from indoctrination, especially religious, that we can travel along the path of establishing our identities (essence).

[@asadalionly9293]

🎉 keep it up.

[@Dennnis10B]

So. essence is the same as perception

[@vivekchandraundirwade7059]

Awesome. Thanks!!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome!

[@einzelwolf3437]

Isn't that only Sartre's philosophy?

[@Potencyfunction]

yes it s also Da Vinci's terori not only Jean.

[@arneanderson187]

it is certainly consistent with Sartre and there is no consensus among existentialists that existence precedes essence. For some, including Heidegger and arguably Nietzsche, existence is our essence. The notion that they are different phenomena is an illusion.

[@jaretwilly1468]

Provide an example of Existentialism

[@anirbansadhukhan4681]

Genetics belies existentialism. Every man is born with certain physical and mental characteristics.

[@adnannahian8790]

I was reading existensialism and humanism..i got so depressed i stopped reading ..thanks for the video btw

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome, thanks for watching.

[@narutoxborutofanatic]

The mere prospect or thought of existentialism reveals such a solitary, or empty approach to life’s universal meaning

[@johndoe4110]

There is no universal meaning to life.

[@narutoxborutofanatic]

@@johndoe4110 the answer to an absolute, or rather, objective universal meaning to life is impossible to fabricate. However, based on the contents and general information of existentialism in this video; presumably, a “universal meaning” of life, would be blank, a sense of perpetual emptiness to an existentialist as well. If that makes sense? I’m not an expert on existentialism, but I’ll definitely attempt to educate myself furthermore on the philosophy

[@becomingpark]

I personally hold the view that how bleak or depressing something is is not indicative at all of its truthfulness. Existentialism is much less presumptuous than theological arguments despite its "emptyness." Brutal truth or pretty lie?

[@df4250]

The problem I have with "essence" is how far down the rabbit hole do we go in defining "essence". In the chair analogy, there is the general description of the attributes that define a chair, but then one can bring into play the "essence" of an antique chair, or a modern chair, or a sofa. Do such variations hold any philosophical significance ? A person can reasonably be considered to have their own innate "essence" that makes them who they are but on what basis can one say that the essence "preceded" that person? A human is "...born with their essence already programmed..." is a bit suggestive of external factors (perhaps like a God?) doing the programming. I prefer to phrase it by saying that the "essence" of an individual is the sum total of the of all the interactions of genetic and environmental factors throughout the ages. Either way, the individual has to be in existence in order for their "essence" to exist. Any subscription to the belief that "essence" "precedes" the existence of an individual leads almost inevitably to a religious (or theological) argument. Perhaps "essence" can be equated to a theological "soul" if it precedes the existence of an individual? I'd be interested in any comments on the above.

[@becomingpark]

Perhaps the essence of a human being is their "mind." In other words, what makes me unique is the fact that I am me? That is my essence, my "meness". Of course my meness doesn't exist before I'm born (or probably even a bit after that), besides, what are the characteristics of this meness anyway? Also, if consciousness can be explained in purely materialistic terms (which seems likely considering that it would be ridiculous that the mind has to exist in some magical realm) then even my meness is not unique after all. In that sense, there is no essence to who I am. Perhaps my humanness gives me some essence? My genes perhaps? I didn't get to choose to be a heterosexual male, nor to have brown skin, nor to be born in Africa, yet these things affect my identity and limit the amount of freedom I have in determining who I am. In that sense, I don't really have complete freedom and my essence is partly determined when I'm born. It is also entirely possible that I don't understand what "essence" means as an existentialist term.

[@df4250]

@@becomingpark One interpretation/definition of essence is "the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, which determines its character." I find that such "vague" definitions which use virtually undefinable words such as "intrinsic nature", "Indispensable quality" and "character" and even consciousness make it virtually impossible to really nail down a definitive description of one's essence. When one considers the astronomical odds of any one person existing today, given the odds of fertilisation of the eggs that gave rise to that person, the environmental factors involved and the chances of one's ancestors meeting and so many other factors, that's only one set of parameters contributing to one's "essence". On top of that is the chance life experiences that one goes through, these all contribute. I tend to be scientific in my thought processes and I'm inclined to think that without a systematic ordering and understanding of these factors, we're left guessing the answer in much the same way that the ancients, with their limited knowledge of the universe, tried (fancifully) to describe the universe they live in and came up with the concept of "gods". In other words, too little is known about the concepts of "intrinsic nature", "Indispensable quality" and "character" and even consciousness to arrive at any viable conclusions.

[@becomingpark]

@@df4250 I agree. It feels like we are making the same mistake that Plato and the Greeks did with the world of forms. We are looking at this in light of so little information that we might be asking the wrong questions here.

[@df4250]

@@becomingpark Definitely agree. From the "biblical" analogy I made, I hope that this sort of thing doesn't go in the same direction that of ancient religious scriptures. What amazes me is that it's still debated in philosophical circles without (as far as I know - and I could be wrong) anyone bringing up the points I raised. If anyone knows of anyone else who has, I'd be interested in having a read of their thoughts.

[@SolomonGrundy42]

Essentialism isn't necessarily Platonic or theological, as long as the ontogeny of the essences isn't totally outside humanity itself. Husserl (and probably Kant) would consider essences of an object like a chair to be intrinsic to the interaction between the subject and the nebulous outside substance that becomes the chair in human consciousness. Likewise, the "chair" essence would also interact with the essences of "antique" or "modern" or "leather." So the essence of a "chair" would be predefined prior to a given human's existence but would also be intrinsic to human existence itself. Obviously going into the particulars could lead to an infinite description of essences, so transcendental phenomenology tends to focus on the essences of global states of consciousness (e.g. dreaming, meditation, memory, emotions) that intend objects rather than the particular objects themselves. The point is that a Husserlian would likely say existence and essence are intertwined, with nothing preceding the other. On the other hand, Plato would say essences are predefined and prior to (i.e. outside of) human existence, and as such essence precedes existence. Whereas Sartre seems to reject essentialism outright as a phenomenological paradigm and would say existence precedes essence, existence itself explains phenomenology. I don't know too much about Sartre yet however and am still exploring more about 20th century phenomenology.

[@mccormyke]

I essentially disagree

[@sophiafake-virus2456]

I need cartoons because I am a moron..

[@Secret5777]

In short, Existentialism Precedes Essence (I got i!)

[@arneanderson187]

there is no consensus regarding that definition. for some, such as Heidegger, existence is our essence.

[@drkmwinters]

There is no essence

[@arneanderson187]

or as Heidegger would say, existence is our essence.