Jump to content

Talk:Existentialism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Is it a cat, a dog, or something else...?

The purport of the present lead is NOT clear, because it DOES NOT mention, what existentialism actually is, please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is it a cat, a dog, or something else, please?????????????? Sincerely concerned. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to calm down. If you don't like the way it's worded now, start offering your alternatives, here on the talk page. لennavecia 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have (it is an old posting), and offering of alternatives have already begun. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Etiquette Alert

Out of courtesy, I am posting this notification here as the user in question has now edited from a series of different IP numbers, making it impossible to determine which User Talk Page he/she is currently using: [Wikipedia Etiquette Alert]KD Tries Again (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

  • Too bad, but you have to live with it. Verizon changes my IP # at will and I use only one at the time; once it is changed, I cannot use it anymore. Instead of digging dirt I suggest to improve arguing. Sincerely. 141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not need a talk page and I do not wish to be talked to, if possible. I believe that anonymous editors should have the same rights, as register ones, because truth does not depend on, who is telling it. It is enough just to edit and to avoid discussing on talk pages for it seems to be a waste of time. Just do make constructive edits and intelligent editors will deduce, what they do or are to mean.
Btw., your way of defending the position is... terrible, and you do it... in bad faith... with premeditation... to cover up your limitations..., and you have a personal agenda..., and you do not care for a majority of readers, who are just laymen with a high (grammar or middle) school diploma, but also human beings (O.K., it is existentialism, so everyone is responsible for himself... to make it funny), please. It makes me sick, so how can you expect me to be encourage to communicate, please??? Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Anon, regular editors are encouraged to get accounts. For example, right now I can tell that you're from Brooklyn, 40.6594 latitude by -73.9625 longitude near Prospect Park. Registering an account protects your privacy.--Loodog (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, the northern Bronx, and my privacy is protected enough; the rest - I do not care. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Anon, please remember to [assume good faith]> I have no idea what my agenda is - I've simply tried editing the lead based on absolutely standard, reliable sources. I opposed the introduction of technical Heideggerian terminology as inappropriate to a general article on Existentialism, and asked for your sources, which you declined to provide. As for my limitations, I've published on Heidegger, have a PhD in modern European philosophy, and have taught philosophy at a British University. That doesn't make me an "advanced editor" here, of course, but it responds to your comment.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

  • Very well, thanks for the info...; so you are not 15 or 16, but your agenda is - whether or not you see it (that tricky subconsciousness... ha, ha, ha!) - to apply your technical and bookish (Ph.D.'s) standard to... Wikipedia dedicated to... laymen. IT DOES NOT APPLY! You do not write books for children the same way you do for adults, which are also different then ones about philosophy! GOT IT, please? Then, to force your way (agenda) through insisting on sources. It is the same whether you write in an inaccessible way or insist on quoting sources, because one is equivalent to the other. GOT IT, please? ...AND - apparently - despite your Ph.D., you do not have imagination. I have a few such friends, who are always technically right, but... nothing else, so they compensate... in various ways. If you are cold, like fish, and appealing to your empathy (heart) is pointless, because you have none, please, cooperate without believing to see, what happens; be spontaneous a bit for the sake of layman readers, who need Wikipedia, and abandon the bookish and useless here agenda for... your ego. Please, advance above it. Wikipedia has a nice article about Dasein, and such reference might enrich the lead using just one word, but it is not a big deal. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Anon, you're going way beyond what is reasonable here. It's not WP:CIVIL or good faith to accuse someone of an agenda. There's no need to make the attack that another editor is retarded, and it's completely unnecessary to declare a fellow editor lacking in imagination or empathy. Comment on content, not on the contributor.--Loodog (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It is not an attack, but an analysis (free). DK had asked for the agenda, and I have provided it. Does not like it? Too bad, but, please, such is the reality to be faced. The leads are not a place for a Ph.D. dissertation style whether it is imposed directly or through a sources requirement (the effect is the same). The leads are for laymen - simple people, please. It is not the editor, but about them, please. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Attacks don't cease to be attacks because the accuser claims them to be true. In the future, please do not offer "analyses" of fellow editors; talk about the article. This is wikipedia policy.--Loodog (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
You are right, but nothing else had worked (I had mistaken you in the 3rd message above for KD, but my reply above has been corrected). I had to explain a possibility of subconscious or otherwise out of control behavior (resistance) in case it had been unnoticed (nothing personal). I have a neighbor, who cannot help himself, but a "cold shower" from time to time reminds him about controlling... . He always tries to prove that he is right... and technically he is, because he chooses or changes conditions to suit his only ability to be factual also by removing considerations (manipulation), where facts do not play a role, e.g. where synthesis counts. So, my objective was to point out that such mechanism is very visible and detrimental to the simple lead for laymen (nothing personal). It was not about the editor, but about the mechanism, like in an Aesopian tale, where you cannot separate a mechanism from the person, but it is still not about the person. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
1: I think you are underestimating laymen.
2: Not even a layman benefits from being given wrong information, no matter how accessible it is.
3: References to the subconscious is as much a personal attack as anything else, and even more so in this case: You probably do not know anything about psychology either (do you even know the details of any of the theories on the subconscious, the current psychological view on it, etc.?). In any case, what you say could just as easily be applied to yourself, but are you willing to look at yourself in the "mirror?" It wouldn't seem so, considering you don't even stop to think about any of the criticism directed at you from all the other editors you have been arguing with; you are, after all, who they're talking to and about.
4: You rant about synthesis and logics, but you haven't shown a single sign of having understood any of what you're talking about. You haven't been able to point to any single philosopher (using Heideggerian terminology is in no way equivalent to having read Heidegger) or philosophical work in defending your introduction. I'd say it's quite relevant to know your qualifications here, at least when your position is challenged. Did you just read an "obscure book in a foreign language" on Heidegger and decide you had the whole picture? Can you even explain what existentialism is? Do you do anything besides edit the leads of articles?Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
NPA, please. Thanks. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia etiquette alert - arbitrary break

If I may speak as an uninvolved editor here, I think that you (the anon) might feel you are being attacked for editing anonymously. I would submit that you are not seeing the actual issue of concern. I don't think anyone cares if you edit anonymously; some people do it with perfectly valid reasons, and we should assume good faith that the anon is preferring to be such for one of those reasons.
However, assuming good faith doesn't mean overlooking bad behavior. If you wish to edit anonymously, please act anonymous. When you attack your fellow editors, and make it personal, then you invite a level of scrutiny and suspicion that might very well be unwarranted. There are contributors who have been banned from editing by Wikipedia for various reasons, and some try to return and edit anonymously anyway. Usually, their frustration at having been banned/blocked comes through in their edits as incivility and personal attacks, and they are found out sooner rather than later, because they draw attention to themselves through their antisocial behavior.
You are drawing attention to your unpleasant behavior (ergo, the WQA, which will, if unresolved, will usually lead to AN/I and a range block of your IP). I would encourage you to take the time to listen to folk who are trying to help you, and focus on the edits, and not the editor. If you don't want to create an account, fine. Do not expect to enjoy the same level of good faith that the rest of us with accounts are automatically given. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've dropped a warning on his current (as of the latest contribs) talk page of the anon. There were several appropriate templates to choose from, but I went with the NPA template. If disruption continues, a block will surely be issued. لennavecia 16:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I do not feel being attacked as anon. Intentional acts have an objective content that Husserl thought they could be studied systematically, so I had studied the objective content of the insistence on exact quotes. The insistence on exact quotes is not supported by WP:SOURCES, which requires "relying" and not quoting, or by WP:LEAD requiring only "carefully sourced as appropriate ". If WP:SOURCES required quoting instead of "relying", it would be in conflict with the requirement of "a clear, accessible style" (for laymen) required by WP:LEAD in case of sources on the difficult and complex subjects, like existentialism, which are complicated and not clear or accessible to laymen at all. Is it a conflict between clarity and accessibility by WP:LEAD and sourcing by WP:SOURCES? No (only, if you mistake sourcing for quoting), because WP:LEAD requires "carefully sourced as appropriate ". The key word is "appropriate" meaning appropriate for "a clear, accessible style".
  • IN CONCLUSION (it took a while to reach it): "a clear, accessible style" supersedes quoting, because required sourcing is not limited to quoting, but also includes an own, simplified wording with the notion from a source, where it can be checked for originality and details.
  • So, I had tried to simplify the 1st par. of the lead compiled from 4 difficult and incoherent quotations, and several times it was abruptly reverted; once with the edit summary "Corrected lead to comport with sources", which is not consistent with the Wikipedia rules summarized in the conclusion above. Reverting is not constructive, but discouraging and repellent, as to say: you do not belong here. Was it done, because I edit anonymously? I do not know, but I was NOT trying to be personal, only to reach the above conclusion, which took a while, because I did not see or understand the hidden aspects.
  • I made mistakes, for which ?ennavecia gave me a warning (I understand), but her quotations in "What some sources say" are all I have ever asked for. Thanks flying lady. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't wish to argue, but there were no quotations in the lead which you edited (i.e. the current lead), only citations to the sources on which it is based. Since you introduced your own language, while leaving the citations, I observed that the lead no longer comported with the sources cited. I sourced the lead because I understood you to be challenging it.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again.
Regarding the alleged conflict between WP:LEAD and WP:SOURCES; if there is, in fact, a conflict, considering LEAD is a style guideline and SOURCES is part of a policy, then we must adhere to SOURCES. The lead is a summary of the article that should include no information not written in the body. So introducing your own language that leads to a difference in explanation from that in the body also then introduces conflicts between the two (lead and body). Now, sourcing in the lead as appropriate refers to instances of extraordinary claims or otherwise challenged material that, while sourced in the body, should also be sourced at first mention. Hopefully that clears all up. لennavecia 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
One of the strange and problematic things about the article is that the lead has nine citations, the big section on Main doctrines has none (maybe one), and most of the other cites occur in the later sections of existentialism in the movies (etc). I am hoping that if we can get the lead reasonably stable, we can then revise the unsourced philosophical sections and the historical sections.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
  • As far as the clarification by لennavecia goes, it was my position from the beginning (obviously), but to counter the argument, that I cannot summarize in the lead in my own words (obviously not in conflict, but in concordance with the body), I produced the "alleged conflict" argument, which (now) is irrelevant considering that the lead is a summary and does not require quotations per WP:LEAD. Thanks again. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Anon, you're adding comments between existing comments, which can be confusing. Nobody has suggested that the lead should be anything else than a summary* supported by the consensus of editors, and, if challenged, by sources.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Sorry, it is corrected now. Actually, the requirement is: "The lead is a summary of the article". The key word is summary, which is not synonymous with your description, as "words supported by the consensus of editors", in case, when those words were not a summary. Also, your interpretation emphasizes the process (consensus), but summary is about the (quality of) content. If your interpretation were dominant over the actual requirement of summary (in "a clear, accessible style"), then a pretext of lack of consensus (as in the ancient Rome "lese-majeste" or "treason") could be used to obstruct developing a summary the same way my attempts had been hindered. So, the key word is "summary" regardless, how many editors like it. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
About the missing sources in the major concepts part of the article: I'm responsible for most of that, but it was one of the first things I did, so I wasn't really aware of how things were done (and yes: I know they're not complete, but that would take a tremendous effort). It's mainly based on what I've read and worked with throughout the years, but these concrete entries are probably mainly attributable to Being and Nothingess, Existentialism is a humanism, The Concept of Dread, Either-Or, Fear and Trembling, and The Myth of Sisyphus. I'm not sure that it would be possible to find the time to find direct citations for these things (some are referenced in the text, but not in the notes), but wouldn't it work if I just listed them in the "References" section? The only "simple" reference I can think of is the Bad Faith chapter in B&N for Bad Faith, but.. for the others, like the look and facticity, the treatments of these phenomena are very extensive, and they span many books.
Another thing: IP, I would encourage you not to re-arrange and "correct" the discussion pages; discussions are progressive, and if you have made a mistake in an earlier discussion entry, the best way to keep it proper is to acknowledge your mistake in a post while keeping the original mistake intact in the original. Otherwise, a reaction to an entry may seem irrational (reacting to something that is no longer there, for instance) to anyone who were to have a look at this discussion.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(*)Changed "words" to "summary" above which is all I meant in order to avoid wasting further time.

"If your interpretation were dominant over the actual requirement of summary (in "a clear, accessible style"), then a pretext of lack of consensus (as in the ancient Rome "lese-majeste" or "treason") could be used to obstruct developing a summary the same way my attempts had been hindered." Please stop questioning my good faith, as requested several times. Thanks.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I would encourage KD Tries Again to change back "summary" to "words" (see the Der Zeitgeist's reasoning), keep the asterisks, and exceptionally move the asterisked note (signed) just under the pertaining it entry, i.e. above the Der Zeitgeist's entry. The exceptional rearrangement - I have made - actually improves clarity to a significant degree, but I am 100 % with the Der Zeitgeist's reasoning expressed just above.
I do not question your good faith and you seem to be a nice person, but you might not be aware of needs of common people reading Wikipedia (e.g., if you live in a circle of similar people) or else that caused you to insist on sourcing summary of the lead. I can only deduce from your writings. I do not think that letter of law (WP:Verifiability) is the most important, but the people it serves; b.t.w., I have never suggested anything not verifiable, but referencing truisms of summary in the 1st per. of lead seemed always to be too much. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the article, not me. I can't think of a clearer way to express that request.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

So explain to me again why you won't sign up for an account, at least temporarily?

Obviously editors are not required to get an account, so I do not mean to imply that you are in violation of any sort of policy or that you "have to" get an account. But I am very confused about why you are unwilling to, as I suggested at the Wikiquette Alert, get an account just temporarily to assist in straightening out this mess. It will do nothing to compromise your privacy, and if you don't like having an account you can always just abandon it and go back to editing from IP addresses.

Anonymous IPs make productive contributions all the time, and I think that is great. However, in this case, since some amount of conflict and controversy has developed, the fact that your IP changes is creating some technical difficulties in facilitating the discussion and dispute resolution. For practical reasons, it is highly desirable that you create an account, at least temporarily.

Could you explain again what your reluctance is? The only reason you gave previously was that you felt the amount of privacy afforded you be a floating IP was "sufficient". That is all fine and good, but it does not address why you are so reluctant to create a temporary account to facilitate the dispute resolution process. If you don't mind, would you please help me to understand that? Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I had had an account, but it expired... somehow, so I have decided (considering the expiration as silly) not to bother anymore with accounts. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Accounts don't expire. If you forgot your password and did not include an email address, then you would be unable to retrieve the password. Otherwise, there's nothing that would prevent you from signing into your account. What was your account name? لennavecia 18:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I have sent two options via Yahoo mail (let's call them 1 and 2), but I do not support my account there. I think it expired; there was a message from Wikipedia saying, that if I do not use it by xyz (and I did not), it will expire. Thanks. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

LEAD: What some sources say

Lead sentences:

  1. Plato.Stanford.edu - Like "rationalism" and "empiricism," "existentialism" is a term that belongs to intellectual history.
  2. Britannica - [A]ny of the various philosophies dating from about 1930 that have in common an interpretation of human existence in the world that stresses its concreteness and its problematic character.
  3. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition - [A]ny of several philosophic systems, all centered on the individual and his relationship to the universe or to God.
  4. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia - Philosophical movement oriented toward two major themes, the analysis of human existence and the centrality of human choice.
  5. World Encyclopedia - Any of several philosophical systems concerned with the nature of existence or being.
  6. The Oxford Companion to American Literature - European philosophic movement with various schools or attitudes of different eras, including the Christian concepts of Kierkegaard and Maritain, but affecting American literature primarily in terms of an atheistic view shared with or influenced by Sartre and Camus.
  7. The Concise Oxford Companion to English Literature - [T]he name commonly given to a group of somewhat loosely associated philosophical doctrines and ideas which found expression in the work of such men as Sartre, Heidegger, Marcel, Camus, and Jaspers.

So there's something to work with. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with referring to it as "a term". IP noted that we don't want to make the article too sophisticated, although, his assertion that we are writing for middle-schoolers is not accurate. This is a sophisticated topic, and we're not the Simple English Wikipedia. If "term" seems too "dumbed-down", then there's a few alternatives to run with. لennavecia 16:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Option 7. supports continuing with "term" or "name" (and I think Option 1 supports that more or less). Option 6. supports "movement"; I have reservations, but like I said I can live with it. Option 2 may be Britannica, but post-1930 is at odds with most standard texts, which always trace it to Kierkegaard.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
How, about (exclude <comments>):

Existentialism refers to philosophies <without saying, what it is> emphasizing <or a synonym: "having in common", "centered",...>... <here, something synthetic, what they are about> of a disparate group of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers...(etc.)

--141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That structure is pretty much how the first sentence current stands, except editors felt that my version of <what they are about> was too complicated (i.e. "philosophical thinking begins with the human subject - not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual"). As I said above, something along the lines of Loodog's suggestion might fit there instead (i.e. "shared the belief that that no general account of what it means to be human can be given, since that meaning must be determined through the individual person's life").KD Tries Again (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC) KD Tries Again

Sorry, but the language of your proposals does not resemble even remotely simplicity of any of 7 lead sentences given above by لennavecia.
How about the disregarded Der Zeitgeist's proposal quoted above as: "philosophical system of descriptions of the human conditions and examinations of the modes of existence and spheres of life", which after skipping "of a disparate group of philosophers" as implicit (since philosophies are by philosophers) can result in:
1. Existentialism refers to various 19th and 20th century philosophies bound together by descriptions of the human conditions, and examinations of the modes of existence and spheres of life.
or, even better (descriptions and examinations were skipped too as "empty words"):
2. Existentialism refers to various 19th and 20th century philosophies, all centered on <concerned with> the human conditions and the modes of existence and spheres of life.
or
3. Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on <concerned with> the human conditions and the modes of existence and spheres of life.
--141.155.135.66 (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that "modes of existence and spheres of life" is specific and clear enough in that proposal to distinguish doctrines called "existentialist" from the doctrines of any other philosophy which deals with the human condition. Strip that phrase out and you have:

"Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on <concerned with> the human condition."

I think my proposal and Loodog's each have the merit of describing something distinctive of existentialism.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The problem here is that "the human condition" probably would require a bit of clarification. That "modes of existence and spheres of life" stuff doesn't make sense to anyone who doesn't already know what it means, but simply stating that it is concerned with the human condition isn't satisfactory either.
One of the things one could do, to kind of hint at why it's called existentialism and not conditionalism, would be to write "human existence" instead, but it still remains to qualify such an existence: It could just as well be a natural-scientific world-view, or a purely psychologistic world-view's take on it. "Concrete human existence" would add something, but perhaps not enough. "Concrete human existence as it appears to itself if considered in earnestness" is still not enough, but already here, the sentence is quite possibly getting a bit too complicated and nonsensical as a lead; further qualification is still required.
In short, my point is that instead of trying to figure out the exact wording first, we should probably try to determine what the actual essential aspects of existentialism are, what it is that should be worded exactly. Of course, that's partially what we're doing, but not systematically. Just a thought.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm game. Already on the table:

  • Something about the historical context - 19th/20th C. philosophers.
  • Something about the meaning of to be human can't be given in advance, since that meaning must be determined through a person's life (a lay person's version of existence preceding essence).
  • Philosophy starts with human existence itself, not just as rational but as living, feeling, acting.

Note: As requested, those are not proposals for the wording, just for markers which distinguish existentialism as such. More?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I have improved the template... I think (but maybe I am... not). How about:

"Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on <concerned with> the human existence in the world, as being <list... or> real <concrete or synonym>, individual and problematic <more>. Such existence is shaped <or synonym> by <list... or> freedom and responsibility for making choices that causes <list of chapters of article fulfilling the summary requirement... or> dread and anguish."

CORRECTED /see (*) next/: Maybe the matter is not so serious. Children are taught that storks bring babies and it is not a big deal. We do not know, what the electron actually is, and nobody accuses the science teachers describing it as a revolving small ball, which is not true at all (it can be everywhere at the same time and quantum mechanics deals only with a probability of presence) that they lie, and the same way astronomy deals with the galactic mass only, as expected value. It is only Wikipedia and not a matter of life and death. Big deal, if a small inaccuracy is made... in the summary, which cannot be accurate by definition. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Did you want to be blocked? You acknowledged the warning I gave you on your talk page, so what part of "comment on the content, not the contributor" do I need to clarify? لennavecia 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(*)Ow..., sorry! So, nothing personal at all... O.K.; corrected. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with something more, but so far:

  • I'm still thinking there should be at least a mention of earnestness when mentioning concrete existence.
  • Freedom and responsibility?

Der Zeitgeist (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I share your point. It should be not so "dry", but more detailed and informative. How about:

"Existentialism <deleted by author>."

? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
O.K., not good... yet, but... it flows. How about:

"Existentialism <deleted by author>."

? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I found From Hegel to Existentialism by Robert C. Solomon describing "the existential attitude" in Chapter 14 "An Introduction to Existentialism" on pp. 238 in a clear way, so finally the present 1st par. of the lead can be deciphered. So, after the incorporation, it goes:

"Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on concreteness of human existence in the irreconcilably confused human world, or a self-consciousness living in a "broken world" (Marcel), an "ambiguous world" (de Beauvoir), a "dislocated world" (Merleau-Ponty), a world into which we are "thrown" and "condemned" yet "abandoned" and "free" (Heidegger and Sartre), a world which appears to be indifferent or even "absurd" (Camus) [1] . The existential interpretation begins with a disoriented individual facing a confused world that he cannot accept[1]. It emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of individual experience. Such solitude makes the right condition for freedom of choice, but it also brings anguish of the inseparable responsibility to the individual, who recognizes the futility of existence that must go on without hope or help, and tends to deny his own responsibility and the truth of his freedom. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

--141.155.135.66 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

IP: We're not going to worry about the wording right now. First we're going to decide what the actual content of the intro should be in an orderly manner. If you have any suggestions, they are welcome, but I do not think you are the best choice for writing the lead in any case. Mainly because you do not speak English very well.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

This discussion is a waste of time. One uncooperative anonymous user cannot hold an article hostage because he doesn't like the wording. His claim that he speaks for the "layman" is arrogant, to say the least. Why can't we move on already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.68.18 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Der Zeitgeist (talk), NPA, please; my English has nothing to do with the issue, as I have proven above and by correcting ontology after you. We had already had the system you insist on again, but it has produced... garbage in the 1st per. of the lead. This is the issue. The problem seems to be not in finding content (it is in the examples by لennavecia and all over), but in wording it. Or, let's propose to the 1st par. only the content that is worded (by the editor) or let anyone words content he wants to put in, so nobody will propose something he cannot manage or unmanageable at all with an expectation or a claim that someone else will word it, because such "method" can be abused for creative trolling (see Talk:Existentialism#Vandalizing Lead).
I suggest we work with all proposals simultaneously eventually trying to merge them and do not try to establish a "perfect" program risking that nobody is able to word it, as it has already happened. E.g. the messy phrase `individual's starting point is characterized by [...] "the existential attitude",` attributes the attitude to the individual, whereas Solomon uses it, as the approach of philosopher (i.e. in re: to object, and not subject), or as a synonym for "analysis". The next messy phrase `"the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in...` defines the attitude (etirely), as a sense of disorientation and confusion..., whereas Solomon attributes such sense only, as a beginning of it providing that it is defined as approach (analysis). The whole corrected sentence should read: `In existentialism, the individual's starting point - characterized by "the existential attitude" - is a sense of disorientation and confusion in...` or (even better) `In existentialism, the analysis of the individual starts with a sense of disorientation and confusion in...`. The term "the existential attitude" is too specific for the lead. Solomon defines it in hefty 3 sentences and uses it, as a vehicle, to bind the whole introduction, but it is an enigma without such explanation... and all of that with the subject knowledge and good English... .
My point is, please propose sentences (that have content), and we will be able to process them together; despite my "poor" English I still have a lot to offer that is not so common. Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You see, the problem is that neither in anything you've said above, nor in the "correction" of ontology (thanks for pointing that out, by the way), have you proved that your ability to speak English is irrelevant. The inclusion of the hyphens, for instance, doesn't make any sense at all. Furthermore, pointing out to you that I do not believe that you speak English well enough is not a personal attack. Calling what has been produced so far "garbage," however, is not quite as innocent. The "system" I've proposed, listing essential aspects of existentialism so that concrete things can be discussed concretely, is not something we've "had" already. The point is that so far, both content and wordings have been intermingled because both things have been proposed at the same time by all contributors. Making a list that we all agree on, one that constitutes consensus, so that one editor, preferably one with English as his first language (implying that neither me, nor you, IP, are qualified), can put the content into words, does appear to me as a good idea both because it implies consensus and because the introduction can get a more coherent style.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

IP, if you check the citation actually given for "existential attitude", you'll find it less problematic. If there are no more suggestions for points to be covered in the introduction, I think we can go ahead and find supportable wording for them. Alternatively, as suggested in the unsigned comment above, we could accept the existing language is okay for now, and come back to it once we've worked over the rest of the article. I'd like to start work on improving the historical section.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Der Zeitgeist: In the order of editing: content->structure->syntax (formal logic in English regardless by whom)->style (English as 1st tongue), we can contribute before the style and English as 1st tongue matters.
KD Tries Again: Of course, "existential attitude" in the source is not problematic at all, but it is a Solomon's idiosyncrasy, a private tool, and not a part of the subject per se, but if it were, it should be clear first of all, where it is used. I do not believe it belongs to the 1st par., because the 1st par. should be compact and direct (as everywhere else), and it requires an additional explanation, but its direct meaning can be used without naming it.
The Der Zeitgeist (talk) suggestion to include "concreteness" (I added it to my proposal), "freedom" and "responsibility" is obvious, but there is no smooth and compact structure including "earnestness". The phrase "all center on concrete human existence" seems to be incorrect; it could read "concreteness of human existence", because all human existence is considered with the emphasis on its concreteness, and not only concrete one.
I believe that in my proposal:
  1. "all centered on concreteness of human existence in the irreconcilably confused human world" does the trick, and the subsequent quotation from Solomon (with the names) in a way explains it smoothly and gives a bit of an easy history break (as KD Tries Again wanted, though indirectly).
  2. The last sentence is a standard ending/summary listing the themes/chapters.
  3. The 2nd sentence (from Solomon) is a good introduction as KD Tries Again wanted.
  4. The other two middle sentences suggest content and a flowing (easy) style.
I have a serious problem with an extreme difficulty of the sentences: "existence as it appears to itself if considered in earnestness", "meaning must be determined through a person's life", "a lay person's version of existence preceding essence", and "Philosophy starts with human existence itself". They require long explanations, like "existential attitude". Let's accept only content that can be easily expressed, or - in other words - please, propose content in smooth sentences only (i.e. processed already)... to avoid the danger of trolling.
In conclusion, would you accept my proposal or of it: (5) as a starting point, (6) as the structure, and (7) the two 1st and the last sentences as the syntax (with modifications) or even as the style (withot modification)? (8) Would you propose something for the remaining middle represented by the other two sentences, and (9) do you like their style, please? Sincerely. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "Existential attitude" is not a term exclusive to Solomon - it's common in the literature as a quick online search will show you. I cited Solomon to defend it against your challenges.
  • You've misunderstood the suggestions for topics to be covered in the lead as proposals for "sentences"; they're not.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Whether exclusive or not (I did not say it is, but he could have had followers), it is unnecessary and not well suited for the compact lead (summary)..., please. I did not misunderstand, but the difficulty of sentences bearing them is an indicator of a serious problem with implementation inconsistent with accessibility (as existence is immanent in the world). We all know the content we wish, but not everything we wish can be accessible. Anyway, I apologize for anything offensive, but can we now start dealing with the structure and syntax? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The Existential attitude is hardly a problematic phrase. It could be likened to the theoretical attitude, the scientific attitude or the phenomenological attitude, in other words, those attitudes in which the individual doesn't go about his "daily business" in the regular day-to-day numbness required to function properly. That further explanation is required doesn't mean that you will gain better comprehension or accessibility simply by leaving it out. On the contrary: Underinforming in the name of accessibility to laymen would be a travesty in any encyclopaedia, and remains one on wikipedia. Your championing of accessibility has become quite absurd, leaving the introduction open only to stating the obvious in those kinds of phrases that often mislead people into thinking that existentialism is either a gloomy philosophy for gloomy teenagers (something one can "grow out of") or that it is a cheesy self-help philosophy for housewives and drunkards.
Earnestness isn't hard to implement, as the word actually means something to people, meaning that one simply has to state that "the existential attitude is characterised by earnestness." One needn't mention neither that this earnestness is in opposition to bad faith, distraction or numbness, nor what it actually reveals: The mention of earnestness should in itself suffice to make the point that something is mentioned here, but not elaborated upon until later in the article.
Now, I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of actually editing the article, but a condition of this is that you, IP, settle down, quell your ambitions slightly, and, if you have something to say, set it forth as a proposal for something that would require inclusion in the lead while leaving the wording to someone who actually speaks English.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's make sure we have the content agreed first. (The wide use of the phrase "existential attitude" has nothing to do with Solomon having followers - the phrase was used by Paul Tillich, for example). My strong opinion is that the explanatory phrase, "a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world" will be perfectly clear to an intelligent reader, and there is a limit to the dumbing down Wikipedia requires.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

100 %; the content counts, and not the label, but I still prefer the original "a disoriented individual facing a confused world that he cannot accept", because it is more direct, shorter, and carries more content.
Der Zeitgeist, "the existential attitude" is not problematic at all, but it is inefficient and unnecessary in a tight summary, though perfectly suited just below. No definition quoted by لennavecia uses such indirect tool..., and yes, the initial definition should state the obvious, as the examples show; following that do write anything you want. WP:LEAD (and لennavecia) champions accessibility, not only me; I simply do not understand the current lead, and I am not your common laymen (... your opinion can differ - of course).
Thanks for the info on "earnestness" I would not know without. If you incorporate it skillfully, I will not mind even just to make you happy (one little clause is not a big deal as long as it reflects something from the body of article), but everyone prioritizes "freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment" all over the Internet.
I can gladly shut up for as long as you want, as soon, as you start doing something constructive, and I do not care about the content, as long, as:
  1. the 1st sentence(s) say(s) all (what it is [about]; like in newspapers), as general, as you want, and not necessarily completely, but directly and simply;
  2. all other sentences of the lead, whether or not with Wiki-links, but without external references (especially to printed books; sending readers to libraries would be just too much), are consistent with WP:LEAD and لennavecia; and
  3. you put something simple, as the 1st par. of the lead, even temporary, within a week or so, and then take your time up to the end of the world to improve it, but the current 1st par. disappears for good... soon. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not how editing works here. It works by consensus. The existing language is susceptible of improvement but it's neither inaccurate nor unsourced. Replacing it with something inaccurate and unsourced, without seeking consensus, would be inappropriate. If you have a suggestion for improving it, I wish you'd just spell it out. I can't figure out what you are currently suggesting. Note again that sources are certainly to be included in WP:LEAD where "appropriate". In this case, I would be the first to say that the sources could be removed: they are only there because you - 141.155.135.66 - are challenging the existing lead.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Necessary or sufficient condition of existentialism?

If one never has a "disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world", or loses that sense, or in some way overcomes it (but still realizes that there are few to no certainties to guide decision-making), is one disqualified from being an exitentialist? --JimWae (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by the question. The claim is that the so-called "existential attitude" is a "starting point". It strikes me that the sources are right to identify that starting point as a theme common to many prominent existentialist philosophers (Kierkegaard's "I stick my finger in the soil of existence", Heidegger's uncanniness, Shestov's obsession with the irrational, Sartre/Camus nausea/absurdity, Unamuno's tragic sense...). Of course the religious existentialists, in particular, think they overcome it; surely that's the point?KD Tries Again (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

If you never have that sense, you're basically in trouble. I don't think the christian existentialist overcome it: To Kierkegaard, for instance, faith is faith in the world (cf. Fear and Trembling), and the world remains what it is even with faith.. faith is simply the only way to mange if you live in the confrontation with the conditions of existence; it is, according to Kierkegaard, impossible to remain in the ethical for very long.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The JimWae's professional question is rhetorical. I have asked him for help, and he has made a suggestion. After incorporating it and removing my garbage, whereas his modified sentence detailes the 1st one (so, there is a duplication - maybe unnecessary), my proposal may read, as:

(E) "Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on concreteness of human existence in the irreconcilably confused human world, or a self-consciousness living in a "broken world" (Marcel), an "ambiguous world" (de Beauvoir), a "dislocated world" (Merleau-Ponty), a world into which we are "thrown" and "condemned" yet "abandoned" and "free" (Heidegger and Sartre), a world which appears to be indifferent or even "absurd" (Camus) [1] . Existentialism emphasizes the difficulty of humans, who must make choices, but they rarely (or possibly never) have certainty that their choices are based on anything that is known to be correct. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

or

(D) "Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all emphasizing the difficulty of humans in the world, who must make choices, but they rarely (or possibly never) have certainty that their choices are based on anything that is known to be correct. In general, existentialism is concerned with concreteness of human existence in the irreconcilably confused human world, or a self-consciousness living in a "broken world" (Marcel), an "ambiguous world" (de Beauvoir), a "dislocated world" (Merleau-Ponty), a world into which we are "thrown" and "condemned" yet "abandoned" and "free" (Heidegger and Sartre), a world which appears to be indifferent or even "absurd" (Camus) [1] . The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

After removing the duplication (his modified sentence - practically - can stand alone), the proposal may read, as:

(C) "Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all emphasizing the difficulty of humans in the world, who must make choices, but they rarely (or possibly never) have certainty that their choices are based on anything that is known to be correct. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

Now, I shut up. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lead: Another Attempt

This attempts to take account of suggestions for content and simplification:

(A) Existentialism refers to a number of common themes in the work of some late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers. These themes include: that the meaning of human existence cannot be theoretically pre-determined; that human individuals must take responsibility for freely creating meaning in their lives; and that the realization of this responsibility is typically characterized by a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world. Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.

Or it can be turned around like this:

(B) Existentialism is the belief that the meaning of human existence cannot be theoretically pre-determined, but that human individuals must take responsibility for freely creating meaning in their lives. The realization of this responsibility is typically characterized by a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world. These themes were common to a number late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers. Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.

This can be supported by reliable sources if challenged for accuracy; otherwise, I don't care whether we include citations or not. I think it takes account of all the constructive suggestions, except that I can't see an easy way of including "earnestness" without making it too wordy. Suggestions for improvements are welcome. Note: however it's phrased, I do believe it's necessary to keep some reference to the existential state or attitude before the world, otherwise the rest of the "definition" is interchangeable with self-help, self-reliance doctrines. Samuel Smiles was not an existentialist.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I may analyze, but not propose (my poor English). There it goes my critique:
(A) Existentialism refers to <it should say, what it is> *a number of common themes in the work of some late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers. These themes include:* <can be replaced by just "centered on" or "concerned with" with exception of "19th and 20th century"> *that* <unnecessary word> *the meaning of human existence cannot be theoretically pre-determined* <a negative; no need to say, what it is not>; *that* <unnecessary word> *human individuals must take responsibility for freely creating meaning in their lives* <not common - I think? - detail and anyway unnecessary in the 1st par. of the summary>; and *that* <unnecessary word> *the realization of this responsibility is typically characterized* <sense does not clearly characterize realization; Solomon's original is much shorter and better> by *a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world* <already nailed down by JimWae>. *Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience* <a negative and insignificant>.
(B) Existentialism is the *belief* <not true> that *the meaning of human existence cannot be theoretically pre-determined* <a negative; no need to say, what it is not>, but that *human individuals must take responsibility for freely creating meaning in their lives* <not common - I think? - detail and anyway unnecessary in the 1st par. of the summary>. *The realization of this responsibility is typically characterized* <sense does not clearly characterize realization; Solomon's original is much shorter and better> by *a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world* <already nailed down by JimWae>. These themes were common to a number late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers. *Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience*<a negative and insignificant>.
Sorry for the straight honesty (the JimWae's one was subtle, as, if he was from the US South), but... apparently I am not subtle. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than wrangling about both proposals, do you have a preference? I don't see any substantive factual objections there. If you have any, perhaps you could clarify them; and you'll need to support what you say by reference to sources. I can easily add citations to support the proposal(s), but you constantly complain about citations in the lead.

JimWae asked whether an enduring experience of the existential attitude was a necessary or sufficient condition of being an existentialist, but since that claim isn't made here, that remains a side issue. KD Tries Again (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Okay, we now have the IP User proposal, which I'll label accordingly. Any other editors have a preference among the three current contenders?

(C) Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all emphasizing the difficulty of humans in the world, who must make choices, but they rarely (or possibly never) have certainty that their choices are based on anything that is known to be correct. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc

Stylistic points - "commonly" and "somewhat" and "popularly" are unnecessary padding. I don't think the concluding list of topics, with no explanation, will tell the newcomer to the subject anything at all. Philosophical point: The problem with the core of the proposal is that the epistemological and moral "difficulty" identified is common to many, many philosophies (I could cite any number of philosophers who are not existentialists but address the same "difficulty" - Kant and Hume are obvious examples); the proposal therefore loses what is distinctive about existentialism. If we don't say anything about philosophy beginning with the disoriented and confused individual who finds no pre-given meaning in existence and must create his/her own (whether in relation to God or not), then it's impossible to have a lead which is specifically relevant to existentialism.
This was the purpose of discussing the content of the lead above. IP User has omitted the content identified.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The point about creating meaning: I think it would be more accurate as well as more encompassing to say that what one is responsible for is sustaining or carrying one's meanings. In fact, I believe the notion of a free individual freely creating meaning ex nihilo would directly contradict Kierkegaard, for instance, and I'm not even sure you could get Sartre behind it. Meanings and values are facticity, at least in the sense that any individual will discover himself already in the world with these meanings and values (plus the fact that Sartre calls values facticity somewhere around p. 2-300 in B&N) and much of facticity is not something you create, but still something you are responsible for in the sense that you can establish different relations to it and in that you still "carry it." Other than that, at least for now, A is the best way to go, though it still could use slightly more work.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, but would it not be better dealt with in the detailed part of the article, especially since there are such nuances among the various existentialists? I could happily go with deleting "freely" before creating if that helps.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
It was not intended, as "wrangling", but my way to say "no" and why ("I do not like it" is not an intelligent answer). The adjectives ("commonly", "somewhat", "popularly") are a waste indeed, but they were to emphasize a lack of uniformity of the subject (see Stanford Encyclopedia).
How about using the (C) <or (D) or (E) above> proposal (corrected and maybe with the last sentence moved down to the 3rd/4th par.), as the 1st par., and (A) or (B) or (A/B) (after a modification and eventually merger), as the 2nd par., because they do not exclude each other, but rather complement, please? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology: "wrangling" was not meant to connote something negative, but I should have chosen a better word. Sticking with C, I know the central statement was a gift from JimWae, but you haven't responded to my specific objection to it: which is that many philosophers who have nothing to do with existentialism are skeptical about epistemological and/or moral certainty. C omits all the characteristic and distinguishing features of existentialism. Under C, Hume, Derrida and C.S. Peirce would be existentialists. Granted, anyone familiar with existentialism already will guess what it means - but I thought we were concerned with non-expert readers too.

As you say, not liking A or B is neither here nor there. I'd ask again if you have any basis for believing them to be inaccurate or unverifiable.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

"John Doe lives at..." is accurate and verifiable, but it does not mean that it would be consistent with WP:LEAD (and the examples by لennavecia) to write: "Existentialism is... and John Doe lives at...". In other words, your demand for accuracy and verifiability meets the criteria of creative trolling (see Talk:Existentialism#Vandalizing Lead). Despite that your proposal is not accessible - to say the least - it does not mean - unfortunately - that the middle sentence of (C) is appropriate (accessible), i.e. mainstream and without problems you pointed out or... implied.
How about my "original" proposal for the 1st par. modified per JimWae's criticism:

(C2) "Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated 19th and 20th century philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on concreteness of human existence in the irreconcilably confused human world, or a self-consciousness living in a "broken world" (Marcel), an "ambiguous world" (de Beauvoir), a "dislocated world" (Merleau-Ponty), a world into which we are "thrown" and "condemned" yet "abandoned" and "free" (Heidegger and Sartre), a world which appears to be indifferent or even "absurd" (Camus) [1] . The existential interpretation begins with a disoriented individual facing a confused world that he cannot accept[1]. It emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of individual experience. Such solitude makes the right condition for freedom of choice, but it also brings the inseparable responsibility to the individual, who tends to deny his own responsibility and the truth of his freedom. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

...and "all the characteristic and distinguishing features of existentialism" in par. 2-4? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so now we have a few proposals. Still: I'll stick with A. When it comes to the point we were discussing, yeah, I think it could be done in the article, and that's where the details should be, but I'd still say that if it is possible, the lead should at least contain the formulation so that it isn't misunderstood on the basis of that; if the sentence confirms a bias, it's more likely to be sustained as a false belief. In short, simply replacing "creating" with "carrying" or "sustaining" would be enough to (1) not misrepresent the issue at hand and (2) possibly inspire people who believe existentialism is about what it currently says to investigate further.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

KD Tries Again (talk) and Der Zeitgeist (talk), I am reminding you again that لennavecia gave 7 examples, which style (simplicity and accessibility per WP:LEAD) is to be followed, but you again insist on the old style inconsistent with her examples (but with creative trolling; see Talk:Existentialism#Vandalizing Lead) by proposing the (A) and (B), which do not even remotely resemble the required simplicity and accessibility allowing an unprepared reader to understand, which she additionally spelled out. Also, the (A) does not say, what existentialism is, please! E.g., the (A) uses the following erroneous/unclear phrases/clauses: "meaning of [...] existence", "meaning [...] cannot be [...] pre-determined", "theoretically pre-determined", "creating meaning in [...] lives", "realization of [...] responsibility", "realization [...] is typically characterized", "realization [...] is [...] characterized by a sense", "philosophy [...] too abstract [...] from [...] experience", "philosophy [...] too [..] remote from [...] experience".
After months of work, you have got two extremely poor and completely inadequate modifications of quotations taken out of context also full of logical errors/language mistakes that indicate no progress or chance to meet the required standard. Please, give up editing the 1st par. for the (A) and (B) are completely inadequate, or I will ask لennavecia to intervene again, please. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your concerns are duly noted - I'm still sticking with A.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How about the following 1st par. compromise:

(C2) <modified> "Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on the concreteness of human existence in the world full of problems, or a self-consciousness living in a "broken world" (Marcel), an "ambiguous world" (de Beauvoir), a "dislocated world" (Merleau-Ponty), a world into which we are "thrown" and "condemned" yet "abandoned" and "free" (Heidegger and Sartre), a world which appears to be indifferent or even "absurd" (Camus) [1] ." (A) <modified> "Some late 19th and 20th century philosophers stressed that: human existence cannot have any objective meaning or purpose; human individuals create freely meaning of their lives; they must take responsibility for this freedom of choice; this responsibility is a burden on disoriented individuals facing a confused world that they cannot accept; and they tend to deny their own responsibility and the truth of their freedom. But traditional philosophy - for many existentialists - was also too abstract and too remote from human concreteness. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Too many words to say one thing plus bad English. Why do you feel you have to be the one to put this stuff into words anyway?Der Zeitgeist (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You've now accused other editors of trolling four times since you were last warned to address the article and not editors' motives. I am still waiting for you to point out anything which is wrong, or more importantly unverifiable in A or B. Far from being "trolling", this is the way Wikipedia works. The existing lead is accurate, verifiable and fully sourced. We are looking for an alternative because editors have asked for something clearer. But there's no need to replace it with something which is ambiguous ("world full of problems"?), clumsy ("the truth of their freedom"?), inaccurate ("cannot" have meaning or purpose?) and even more wordy.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

O.K., I am: verifiability (of summary) is secondary per WP:LEAD and لennavecia; the (A) and (B) proposals are not clear or accessible (see the لennavecia's 7 examples) due to the language using doubtful logical constructions, e.g. "realization [...] is typically characterized by a sense", i.e. they do not belong to the 1st par. of the lead. That was the initial problem that still persists. In re: to "cannot have objective meaning or purpose", the key word "objective" is an accessible equivalent to "theoretically pre-determined". Thanks for the pointers.
So, after correcting, there it goes:

(F) "Existentialism commonly refers to somewhat loosely associated philosophical doctrines and ideas, all centered on the concreteness and problematic character of human existence in the world, or a self-consciousness living in a "broken world" (Marcel), an "ambiguous world" (de Beauvoir), a "dislocated world" (Merleau-Ponty), a world into which we are "thrown" and "condemned" yet "abandoned" and "free" (Heidegger and Sartre), a world which appears to be indifferent or even "absurd" (Camus) [1] . Some late 19th and 20th century philosophers stressed that: there is no objective or predestinated pre-defined meaning of human existence; human individuals create freely meaning of their lives; they must take responsibility for this freedom of choice; this responsibility is a burden on disoriented individuals facing a confused world that they cannot accept[1]; they tend to deny their own responsibility for making choices, and to pretend that they are not really free and the truth of their freedom. But traditional philosophy - for many existentialists - was also too abstract and too remote from human concreteness. The themes, popularly associated with existentialism, include: freedom, dread, bad faith, the absurd, nothingness, alienation, boredom, commitment, etc."

--141.155.135.66 (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know in what language "objective" is equivalent to "theoretically pre-determined," but it sure isn't English. Now, are you just going to keep incessantly posting nonsense, or are you going to do something constructive?Der Zeitgeist (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am until everything is proper, simple and accessible per WP:LEAD; above, I replaced "objective or predestinated" with "pre-defined" and made other corrections. The rest seems to be O.K. unless... . --141.155.135.66 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No consensus on changes to lead

Since the anonymous user's approach has attracted no support from other editors, let alone consensus, and he/she won't support other proposals here, I suggest we move on to other parts of the article. The lead can always be revised to reflect the article as edited. Does anyone have a strong objection to moving the historical sections to come before the thematic sections? That would seem more logical to me.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes, I object since the initial reason for the lead correction (a lack of simplicity and accessibility per WP:LEAD) remains, and I propose my corrected (F) version above. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I object to the anonymous user's continued disruption of this article. I agree with KD Tries Again that the lede should be left as it is and that we move on. This has received a great deal of discussion, and a great deal of patience and understanding have been shown, but the objections of one editor cannot be allowed to dictate the wording of the article due to the good faith of others. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I concur. I do not mind that the historical overview is moved up. We should also make it a bit more coherent (it appears to be very fragmented right now), but I've never taken much interest in the historical stuff, so I'm not sure if I could contribute too much to that unless it's about something like tracing a concept from one philosopher to another.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that you responded constructively to the concern of a lead's lack of simplicity and accessibility your that is contrary to WP:LEAD and the 7 examples by لennavecia; your (A) and (B) proposals do not differ in such lack from the existing lead, but my modified proposal (F) above does; and since when my participation in the discussion on the talk page has prevented anyone from editing anything or doing more than one thing in a parallel manner, please? --141.155.135.66 (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
You need to find some editors who agree with you about the superiority of your draft. Otherwise, we're at an impasse.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
  • I think perhaps we need to determine if there is agreement that Existentialism cannot really be defined. It would appear to be a historical movement, but its core appears to be more a "feeling" than a philosophical position. (For this reason, I think it is doomed to disappear from philosophy, except in history books). It is most clearly outlined by what it opposes (objectivity, "systems"). While it generally opposes Kantian ideas, its context depends on his antinomies for its acknowledgement of (at least) doubt about the existence of a supreme God. Also at its core is doubt about ever attaining certainty about what is moral, leaving it up to each person to "authentically"(?!?) determine what is "right" for him, and denies not only that such decisions are universalizable, but that they are in any way transferrable to similar persons or even similar situations. --JimWae (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd venture that virtaully all "existentialists" were formerly theists who also at one time thought the existence of a supreme God could be proven (metaphysically) - and that the "feeling" of loss is the loss of that metaphysical certainty. --JimWae (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As to your first point, that's much what the current lead tries to capture. I'd add that it was largely defined retrospectively (the "ism" was coined by Marcel as late as the 1940s). It's a term which came to be used to define a group of philosophers who had some themes, and especially a particular "mood" in common. I am struggling a little with the moral point - on the one hand, you don't have to be an existentialist to hold a view roughly like that; nor am I convinced all existentialists hold that view. Do any of the standard texts have a version of that point?

I can't agree with the last comment as stated: Buber, Unamuno, Kierkegaard, Shestov, Berdyaev - former theists?KD Tries Again (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I was just looking at David Cooper's book, another standard text, and he identifies three things as common to the existentialists: the mood of disorientation which he prefers to call "alienation", the conviction that human existence is concerned with itself in a way that thing-like existence isn't, and engagement with the real world as a precondition for theoretical understanding. Again, consistent with what we have - although the distinction between human and thing-like existence strikes me as something better address in the main part of the article.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Given the ongoing lack of progress, it would seem to me high time to request further outside comment on this page. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Banno (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really a problem with defining existentialism, but any such definition, to be complete, would have to be really long and complex. That the term for the most part has been used after the fact doesn't really affect much; many terms have been applied to things only in retrospect, and it's still possible to determine what one is talking about. That it is usually best described using negatives doesn't only suit it in a sense, but also doesn't come to bear upon the fact that it is still possible to define it, although not necessarily completely, in a wiki article on it. The rest of what you say is point of view.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  • You miss the point. Whether existentialism can be defined or not is irrelevant to the lead for it has to be a (constructive) summary, not a definition or a prove of possibility or impossibility (belonging to the body anyway), and "my" proposal (F) above incorporates your proposal (A) in a slightly summarized (simplified) way to meet the standard of WP:LEAD, as other encyclopedias/dictionaries have done also illustrated in the 7 examples above by لennavecia. --141.155.135.66 (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(F) is longer than (A) (nearly three times as long), much harder for an English reader to follow, incorporates a list of unexplained terms and is packed with unnecessary quotations. As far as I can see, every editor here opposes it.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Proposed Changes to Structure

I would like to revise the history section, but I'd also suggest the sequence should be: history, main concepts/themes, types of existentialism, criticism and then the extra-philosophy stuff. Any problems with that? The history can be tidied up quite quickly, then we can use that as a check to make sure the next section mentions concepts from all the important existentialists rather than just Sartre.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I agree with this plan, KD. Well formulated. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead!Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have edited the first history section, now called "Origins of Existentialism", starting with the term actually being used and popularized. This first paragraph is fully sourced. I removed the third paragraph which was a mixture of the same information and details which are better located in later sections. I left the second paragraph which claims bits of early theology/philosophy and literature for existentialism: I have no big objection to any of this, but it needs citations. It probably all comes from the same source, but who knows which one? (Actually, the sentences on Pascal are a bit clumsy.) The following sections are a bit thin, and I'll work on them later.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

"Other Existentialists" is a work in progress. I will add cites, and in each case as succinct a summary as I can of what is existentialist in their work. I have also made the names in the history sections bold to help readers.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Anyone think we need to keep a reference to Foucault among the French existentialists? Not sure about Fanon - I'll try to check the source.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Outstanding. This page should be referenced as to why existentialism emerged-the futility of using language and another human's perceptions to develop a uniquely personal sense of existence and what to do with it. Existence comes from the senses and memory-the use of concepts, definitions, and logic contradict the intent. The arrogant human attempt to define what has no meaning is the eternal folly of our species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.110.156.20 (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Good, so now we're getting somewhere. I noticed a few things when reading the section. I'll just mention it and you can see what you think.

  • The use of the word "seems" in the first sentence: Wouldn't "was most likely" sound better, i.e. less "subjective?" At least to me, seems entails a sort of "it seems to me," but that could just be me.
  • I linked the article on existentialism is a humanism.
  • Perhaps merging the part about Kierkegaard and Nietzsche with Origins of Existentialism, and instead of saying something about mathematics, which is wholly irrelevant, one could mention an opposition to for instance Hegel and systems of the type he developed. The link on Kierkegaard and Nietzsche comparisons could be moved to the "See also" section.
  • German and French existentialism could be turned into something along the lines of Modern Existentialism or Later existentialism, and should probably be less point-by-point.
  • Other existentialists.. I'm not sure what to think of this, but it could possibly be merged with the stuff on the literary existentialists, although keeping them separate could also be defended. Extending it to "and related theorists" could be helpful as we could then include Hannah Arendt, who, although she can't be said to have an overtly existentialist approach to things still retain certain thoughts on freedom and authenticity which are closely related to existentialism.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of that. I didn't like "seems" either - maybe I'll just delete it as the sources say what they say - nobody seems to want to say definitively that he and nobody else coined the term. Don't worry about the point-by-point style; it's still a work in progress. I'll try and do a philosopher a day if I can, and hopefully the final version will flow. I don't have a strong feeling against merging Kierk. and Nietz. with the Origins - I just wonder if readers will be scanning the page expecting to see a section on them. Some of the pages we link to - Gabriel Marcel for example - are really thin.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


Changes to the major concepts

I'm considering a few things for the major concepts, but I just thought I should run them by you. These are mainly some quick thoughts that spring to mind while I'm reading through it.

  • Existence: I'm thinking it would be a good idea to mention how the word etymologically stems from a notion of "standing out." It is, after all, a common theme across the existentialist philosophers that human existence is an "ekstasis," or at least that it is characterised by a certain distance to the world. The point ties in to the point about how our regular lives normally appear meaningful, but that this meaning isn't grounded in the world in-itself.
  • Dread: First of all, this concept has so many translations that it could get confusing. I'd prefer to stick with Angst, to stay in touch with Kierkegaard, but if the traditional translation is dread, then we should probably stick with dread. Related to this, I do not believe that it is going to be particularly helpful to define each conception of dread with its particlarities; a general overview of its essential characteristics should be sufficient.
  • A related point about fear is that it also usually entails some notion of dread of being something (of course not literally) as well as the dread of being nothing, but it doesn't seem to me like there are any easy ways of explaining this. Furthermore, the definition of dread as the fear of no thing was meant to be temporary, and an elimination of the definition in terms of fear (which has an object) needs to be effected.
  • Also related to the two preceding points: Nothingness. It seems to me that a definition of nothingness in an article on existentialism in general would be as out of place as a definition of Kierkegaard's notion of spirit (or whatever the English translation is; Aand, Ånd). It remains problematic, however, to retain it in the section on dread without a definition. Would it suffice to link an article on it, or should we try to eliminate it from the description?
  • Existence precedes essence: The sentence about "being who, not what" is problematic: A who could be interpreted as being as essential as a what in the determining sense, as if one would only need to find one's who, and then the job would be done; "I will forever coincide with myself!." However, there is little doubt that at least in Kierkegaard, very likely in Heidegger, and, I believe, even in Sartre, there is a sense of who, although not an essential one. I stand by the rest of the definition - that existence preceding essence doesn't entail a freedom of abstract self-making, but rather that one is "made" as one acts (exists) - but there could quite possibly be a better way of saying it.
  • Bad faith: The title is Sartre's, but the text refers to all the conceptions of it. Should we change the title? If so: To what? Of course, the concept itself needs a bit of elaboration as well, but that will take some thought.
  • Any thoughts on freedom?
  • Facticity: The concept of facticity is too linked to Sartre. The concept appears in other philosophers, but they do not necessarily call it facticity. However, Sartre's definition seems like a good start for explaining it. Is there any way of making it clear that the concept belongs to other philosophers as well without making it into a list of "who said what?"
  • The Look and the Other: This probably needs a bit of clearing up, elimination of the phenomenological "standard" account of it, but at the same time, it is less of a common theme. It isn't particularly emphasised in Kierkegaard's thought (perhaps in the Works of Love, but I'll have to read it again, I think, and I believe it would only be in relation to one's own look upon the other). Yet, it has close ties to facticity and existence preceding essence, and I would consider it a concept that belongs in an article on existentialism.
  • Are there any easy ways of explaining the conflicts inherent in the Look? How love and hate, etc., always are failing processes, etc.? Would it be necessary to do so in a wiki article? I'm not sure.
  • Reason: I'm not sure what to think of this section. On the one hand, some of what it says fits the image, but on the other, it doesn't really seem like a necessary concept. Parts of it could probably be expressed under existence precedes essence or something. Otherwise, one would have to think of it in relation to Kierkegaard's notion that reason can only bring you so far, and after this point, faith is the only salvation. Of course, the secular way of seeing it is probably preferable, but Kierkegaard's account remains one of the clearest, at least to me.
  • The Absurd: Any ideas?
  • Are there missing or superfluous concepts?

Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here are just a few reactions off the top of my head (if I skip any, it just means I don't have any clear thought right now):

  • Dread - we certainly need to get angst in there, even if just as an alternative. Connects Kierkegaard and Heidegger.
  • Do we need something on fear, separate from dread, at all?
  • I'd keep nothingness: Heidegger/Sartre.
  • Ek-statis - yes, I agree.
  • I didn't know if any existentialist other than Sartre had much to say about bad faith. I'll check.
  • Facticity is a hugely important for Heidegger (and he uses the German equivalent of the term). I can contribute on that; I'll have to remind myself of connections/differences between Heidegger and Sartre.
  • The Look/The Other: they don't strike me as very important either. If we made it a section about relationship to the other, then Marcel and Buber can join the party. The details about the Look are surely better in an article on Sartre.
  • Reason: let me think about that. Certainly Shestov, Unamuno, Buber and in his way Heidegger are highly critical of certain forms of reason.
  • I can probably make some suggestions for additions to the list as I work through the history. (I can help supplying cites to secondary sources too).KD Tries Again (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Ok.

  • A small update to existence precedes essence: Removed the "who, not what," exchanged "Sartre's own account" for "most existentialist philosophers" and emphasised "being." I also put existence above it because it seems more reasonable to explain existence before explaining how existence precedes essence.
  • Existence: I tried incorporating the sense of distance as well as the notion of projection/projects without going into too much detail.
  • I updated Angst, but I still do not feel that it is complete. There should at least be a mention of the kind of angst related to the "conflict" of freedom and facticity, the angst that, on the one hand, manifests itself because one is free while wishing not to be (determinism; perhaps already covered in the stuff about genes), and on the other hand, the angst that manifests itself because one is no longer free (facticity; being guilty, etc.) while wishing to be so... the problem is to make a concise and meaningful statement about it. I made a short note on nothingness, but it isn't the easiest concept in the world to handle.. a bit more thought is required.
  • Bad Faith is covered by most of the other existentialists, but it would perhaps be better if we called it in/authenticity? In Kierkegaard, for instance, as freedom is a part of one's self, to deny oneself one's freedom is considered "abstract," which is clearly inauthentic (or "in bad faith"). Paul Tillich is almost too obvious -- the courage to be, etc. I've only read Ich und Du by Buber, and although I feel it needs another read-through, one could say that a sort of concept of authenticity (at least in relations to others) is hinted at, so I wouldn't be surprised if he had written something on it elsewhere. I'm no Heidegger expert, but I'm pretty sure the same could be said for him based on what I've read. The only problem I have with the word authenticity is that it has come to mean so many other things, most notably in connection with exactly that which it isn't -- a pre-determined self that one just has to "find" somewhere in-between jumping off a cliff and jet-setting off to Paris. Perhaps something could be said for the difference between bad faith and inauthenticity, but I'd still say that, for a general article, subsuming bad faith under inauthenticity isn't a bad compromise.
  • Facticity: Yeah, I simply meant that the text here was too linked to Sartre. An addition from Heidegger would probably broaden the scope a bit.
  • The Other/The Look: Perhaps mentioning it in relation to facticity would be enough?

Der Zeitgeist (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we add alienation? That would create a place for the Look as well... Der Zeitgeist (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated existence again. I believe it is clearer now, but see what you think.

I've also been thinking a bit about the structure of the rest of the key concepts. Many of the concepts are explicitly related to the ekstatic nature of existence.. freedom and angst, for instance. However, I'm not really sure if the best way to tie it all together would be to just mention some of these key concepts briefly under existence, or to add their explicit relation to the ekstasis under each concept heading.

If I were to add something on freedom and angst to the existence heading, it could look something like "Another central theme related to existence's ecstatic nature is that this distance is what enables us to posit ideal objects and states (goals) which we are able to strive for through action. Action involves freedom and thus responsibility, and this is what is experienced in the experience of angst." Each concept wouldn't need a full explanation, as they would be explained below, but just to tie them in to the ekstases. Any thoughts?Der Zeitgeist (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I started writing an entry on facticity, but then I figured I should run it by you first because I find that I do not feel satisfied with it, and that it could be easily misunderstood. Thus, I feel more comfortable suggesting it here first.

Alienation

Alienation in existentialism refers to the experience of oneself as not belonging. This can manifest itself in two main ways, one related to the world, and one related to one's self. In relation to the world, one can understand it in the sense of the Heideggerian unheimlich (from German, often translated with "uncanny," but better understood in the sense that heim means home. In other words, the un-homely). The world, being absurd, doesn't allow one to feel at home in it: One's projects are constantly threatened by the adversity of the world, and although one's projected meaning manifests a world, there is no way to ground this projected meaning in the in-itself.

In relation to the self, alienation points to the fact that while one experiences oneself as fundamentally free, as freedom, one also experiences one's facticity through the Other: Freedom is situated in this world, and this world is a world in which you are the person who has done this or that, you are the person with this place of birth, this body, etc. Of course you apprehend yourself as being able to escape this facticity towards the future, but it is still this facticity you are escaping from. In Sartre's words, your facticity haunts your existence.


In addition, I started reworking bad faith into Authenticity and Inauthenticity.

Authenticity and inauthenticity

Authenticity is often taken to mean that one has to "find oneself" and then live in accordance with this self. In one sense, if one considers the self to be substantial or "fixed," that the self truly is some thing you can find if you look hard enough, this is a misunderstanding.

What is meant is that in acting, one should act as oneself, not as One, or as one's Genes, or according to The Nature Of Man, or any other essence. The authentic act is one that is in accordance with one's freedom.

In contrast to this, the inauthentic is the denial to live in accordance with one's freedom. This can take many forms, from convincing oneself that some form of determinism is true, to a sort of "mimicry" where one acts as "one should." How "one" should act is often determined by an image one has of how one such as oneself (say, a bank manager) acts. This image usually corresponds to some sort of social norm, but this does not mean that all acting in accordance with social norms is inauthentic: The main point is the attitude one takes to one's own freedom, and the extent to which one acts in accordance with this freedom. In other words, you wouldn't necessarily be able to distinguish between an authentic person and an inauthentic person by looking at their acts.

Inauthenticity seems to take the form of lying to oneself, which might appear impossible or contradictory. In his treatment of Bad Faith, Sartre denies the subconscious the power to do this, and he claims that the person who is lying to himself has to be aware that he is lying - that he isn't determined, or this "thing" he makes himself out to be. In this sense, the inauthentic life has to be continually chosen.


Der Zeitgeist (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i Solomon, Robert (1989). From Hegel to Existentialism. USA: Oxford University Press. p. 238. doi:Chapter 14. ISBN 0-19506-182-9. An Introduction to Existentialism. {{cite book}}: Check |doi= value (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Existentialism/Archive_4&oldid=1136713444"