<<>>"Existentialism does not solve the unsolvable, and it cannot destroy reason or logic. "
I've been thinking that too. I took some courses in existentialism in the 1970's and came to the conclusion, the mental gymnastics weren't getting me anywhere. The existentialists seem get bogged down in the ‘is’ exercise. They moved past the idea of Being and in doing so lost the sense of purpose.
The word Being describes a thing, it’s limits, value, distinctions, its connections, etc. It also involves what we think about things.>>
I would disagree. Existentialism cannot be explained in two diminsional concrete thinking. It is an abstract idea. LIke Zen. One can get an a in an existential class and not understand it.
One has to see existentialism in the minds eye. Just like Zen. That is why the master cannot explain Zen, the student has to see it for themselves.
I think existentialism did more than provide a Darwinian response to religion. It elevated the philosophical discussion into the abstract world.
<<When we look at the story of Adam, not necessarily in the religious sense but in the sense of the “What is a man?” question; we get the idea of the original purpose of man, which was to give meaning to things and to be able to provide definition. Moving forward in time we must continue to ask the question, “has this idea of human purpose changed, from an original man idea to a modern human idea?” Lucid Human beings continue to bring new and purposeful definition on a continuing basis which seems to drive society; and, as we continue to provide definition we seem to thrive. Technology has our attention as it has brought tremendous advances. This is one way we provide new definition like the term ‘Social Networking’ which is changing the world for the coming generation. So in this sense, our Human Beings are Social Networking Beings among other things. Being continues to evolve but remains as the original human being thing.>>
This is all probably true, but true in the two diminsional world. |
