Is there any critique of Nietzsche or critique of existentialism in general?
I'm so into existentialism right now, I need a repressor to get sane on.
I know that Heidegger was critical to Nietzsche, but I think it was more like Heidegger's Nietzsche than Nietzsche.
I've heard Georg Lukács criticized existentialism and Nietzsche but I don't know what the book is.
I mean there's a ton of arguments against specifically Nietzsche, but most of them are by other existentialists. Camus is one example, but existentialism is a pretty wide umbrella. That makes pointing out specific objectors difficult I feel.
Camus is not an existentialist though user, I get why people associate him with it, but his absurdism is basically nihilist, he doesn't think meaning can be created at all, we are just supposed to somehow still 'rebel' against this situation and act as though it could exist. Camus always maintained he wasn't an existentialist.
I mean if that's how you define existentialism sure. Most philosophy scholars list him as one, but to me the specific labeling is pretty arbitrary. He is someone from a pretty similar school of thought, so not really a unilateral opposition was my point.
Both he and Sartre agreed he was not an existentialist, because the 'existence precedes essence' thing requires that essence does in fact exist, and Camus didn't think it did. Camus thought humans had a particular sort of nature, and it was at odds with the universe, because it desired a meaning it would never attain. The existentialists saw humans as basically infinitely malleable through self-creation, and they thought we could create meaning for ourselves in some way.
When I became an adult I grew out of existentialism pretty quickly
Klossowski and, later, Cioran have the same critique of Nietzsche, though it's not wholly a negative one in either case: he wrote his philosophy as a sort of therapy for his afflicted--physically, mentally, socially--condition. Most poignantly, that he was a weakling prone to instability so posited superiority of certain dispositions and the infinite, cyclical nature of existence.
Most Marxists disavow Sartre and de Beauvoir because any ontology based on the individual and their freedom sounds anathema to their cut and dry dogmas
>t. read the Manifesto in high school and watched a few Borban Beterson videos
I'm not even a marxist but good god this shit is annoying
Same here.
Everytime I see this picture I'm reminded of the pornography in A Confederacy of Dunces.
explain it then retard
say why he's wrong
Nietzsche is the most difficult to refute imo. Sartre is easy to throw away because of his universalism, egalitarianism, and inability to justify any real action outside of action itself.
Kirkegaard (and arguably Dostoevsky) can be taken to task on their desire to retreat into a religious morslity which one knows to be socially constructed.
Nietzsche doesn't give a fuck about convention and straight up acknowledges people are happiest when they overcome struggle, so embrace the struggle. If I had to go against him I'd cite Griffith from Berserk. Struggle requires sacrifice and failure can bring too high a cost.
Does 'existence precedes essence' thing applied to Kierkegaard?
or Nietzsche?
kierkegaard believed in the Christian God so yes, his leap of faith is basically going from existence to essence
There are authors in fucking Marxists.org that do exactly what I described there. Probably a lot more resources than that, but then again I'm not so interested in the subject
Devolution is possible
Why do pretentious roasties like Sartre and Camus so much?
But that's not Socrates.
Le cool french men with pipes and peacoats on black and white photographs.
les*
curious to know your current worldview. don't say christianity cause I will fuck u up
GK Chesterton tried. I'd thru reading him.
Camus is not an existentialist to the extent that he isn't actually a philosopher, which is the maximum of that factor.
Not quite correct there, user.
Camus not caring about the intentionality principle is what disqualifies him as an existentialist.
The claim that existence precedes essence is possible because of the intentionality principle.
Camus does not possess that level of systematicity. This is the root cause of him being a complete meme because you cannot dig into a system which is missing. Camus is not oriented towards the history of philosophy, period, and nobody is going to do the work doing that to preserve or justify some really banal conclusions.
If by existentialism you literally mean Sartre, the best general argument against him is that it's a Kant fanfic that is inferior to the original because it cannot account for the noumenal and is forced to handwave it. Ditto the inferiority of Sartrean acconts of spontaneity to Kantian ones, although at least Sartre can handle spontaneity to a degree instead of having to handwave.
I've got some:
Nihilism is at least a choice (unlike being a pussy atheist) but it's still inferior to theism and all the benefits theism comes with.
He was a great thinker, but realize he was bitter at life. Therefor he has justification anyone else who isn't can't wholly identify with.
>theism
theism is unjustifiable
there’re some good philosophical arguments for the existence of god (like the first cause), but they don’t justify theism for sure (only deism)
Who are you to say he's not a philosopher?
Read some neo-existentialism
- Ferraris
Otherwise read some real philosophers like
- Markus Gabriel
You can be an existentialist and believe in god like kierkegaard tho
Christianity necessitates existentialism. It wouldn't make sense.