Discussion Not believing in existentialism

[kitia973]

I don't really believe in existentialist philosophers at all, because the question of "life is meaningless, should we kill ourselves?" implies two things: that no inherent meaning exists, and there is a "choice" or illusion of autonomy. I don't believe in either, I believe in a natural "way" or Fate in which events unfold (similar to the Dao, which just a "way", not a fixed script or path, an absolute meaning that is partially unknowable). This "way" can be controlled by cosmic entropy (chaotic), natural forces, or impersonal events beyond human agency, where human choice is only a smaller local phenomenon of the larger unfolding of events.

Additionally, in grounded real life, the concept of absolute freedom doesn't work either. Try murdering someone for no specific reason or jumping off a cliff, actions will always have real-world consequences that are not escapable, and simply changing one's attitude cannot override human instincts like the aversion for pain. Some experiences (like torture) will always be "objectively bad" to some extent in the human experience if they can feel pain, regardless of the individual or their mental attitude.

Also, free will and even independent consciousness can be forcibly altered and destroyed by psychological torture and sensory deprivation, such as in historical atrocities ("psychic death") and CIA experiments, or even by just plain late-stage dementia and vegetative states, I'm not sure how existentialists might respond to this. In psychic death the entire ego and the coherent sense of self is completely eroded away, if one says, "we must imagine Sisyphus happy", there needs to be a conscious Sisyphus to begin with, not a void of catatonia and dissociation. A tortured or dementia-ridden person cannot "choose" their mindset; their consciousness may be irreparably fractured. Similarly, a person in deep psychosis may not have a sense of time or self to begin with, so there is no "choice" to make because autonomy is completely fractured.

In summary, absolute freedom is limited by the following:
-Physical laws (you can't will yourself to fly).
-Biological instincts ( pain avoidance).
-Social/political coercion (torture, oppression, consequence).

Existentialism can really seem like a luxury belief system when you look at real-world atrocities and just how fragile the human mind is. The core of "creating meaning" presumes a baseline of cognitive coherence and agency, which can be irreversibly eroded after torture or neurodegenerative disease.


Would love to hear perspectives on this.

 

[sdnlidnc]

Regarding existentialism, I feel that creating meaning in a meaningless world is itself absurd—it's like lying to oneself. The notion of absolute freedom is also strange, because once you bring it down to the physical level, absolute freedom ceases to exist. Moreover, meaninglessness can be meaningful, and meaning can be meaningless. In a way, nihilism and existentialism are unified, since they both start from the same foundation: the world has no inherent meaning. Their opposition lies in how they respond to that meaninglessness. But even discussing how to face meaninglessness is itself meaningless—or perhaps meaningful—so it's all rather baffling. Existentialism seems to contain a paradox in its language game: the idea of creating meaning in a meaningless world. When returning to the real world, existentialism really feels like a self-deceiving lie—or perhaps a self-protective concept created by a biological organism.