Existentialism and Nihilism

[slicingbike]

I'm confused. I thought existentilists generally didn't believe in God, yet Dostoevsky is considered (according to Wikipedia) to be a founder of existentialism, even though he was a devout christian. It seemed to me that the beliefs of existentialism are more related to those of nihilism than to those of christianity. I read most of the posts on Nihilism and Existentialism but I haven't come up with a definite answer. What are the differences between existentialism and nihilism that make Dostoevsky so much more critical of the latter. Any clarity or the location of previous posts that answered this would be really helpful.

[omahaha]

I don't know if Dostoevsky would have considered himself an existentialist, which is a pretty broad term. Soren Kierkegaard is considered a founder of existentialism as well, even though he was also a devout Christian. Neo-orthodox theology today is very much influenced by Kierkegaard. So, and maybe some other posters can help me out on this one, I don't think existentialism primarily became associated with atheism until after D's death. And it was atheism and nihilism that he was primarily concerned about.

[Suvorov]

I am not a great expert on existentialism but I think both Dostoevsky and Kirkgaarde are known as Christian existentialists, meaning they tried to define existence within the parameters of Christianity.

[DODD666]

But how can you really fully explore the boundaries of reality if you are bound by a belife in somehting you can't prove exists? Is that truth? Or is that a figment of someones imagination, backed by coincidental support.

[slicingbike]

where'd everything go?

[Childe Harold]

Good question. I had this big response written out--among other things, to omahaha fatuous talk about the totalitarian belief in reason (which doesn't even make sense)--but couldn't post it becuase I couldn't connect to the site. (I thought underworld had finally blocked me!)

[Childe Harold]

To respond to what you deleted post slicing, I never said that belief in God was moronic. I know it can be a very dignified, even though I disagree with it. In my post I purposely made sure to include Christian perspective on existentialism. If you disagree, that's all well and good. As a matter of fact you shouldn't accept anyone's authority on this site. In that case, I'd suggest teaching yourself the old fashioned way: Read a book. Here's a link to one that looks decent enough (and boasts a very cool cover).

http://www.amazon.com/Writings-Existentialism-Modern-Library-Classics/dp/0375759891/sr=8-2/qid=1163189744/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-5071128-4632953?ie=UTF8&s=books

[omahaha]

Good question. I had this big response written out--among other things, to omahaha fatuous talk about the totalitarian belief in reason (which doesn't even make sense)--but couldn't post it becuase I couldn't connect to the site. (I thought underworld had finally blocked me!)

Post anyway. Perhaps totalitarian reason would have been a better way to phrase it. So, hopefully your long response wasn't all about mincing words. And hopefully you have an answer for D's thoughts on "profane" thinking existentialists, such as you put it.

[omahaha]

To respond to what you deleted post slicing, I never said that belief in God was moronic. I know it can be a very dignified, even though I disagree with it. In my post I purposely made sure to include Christian perspective on existentialism. If you disagree, that's all well and good. As a matter of fact you shouldn't accept anyone's authority on this site. In that case, I'd suggest teaching yourself the old fashioned way: Read a book. Here's a link to one that looks decent enough (and boasts a very cool cover).

http://www.amazon.com/Writings-Existentialism-Modern-Library-Classics/dp/0375759891/sr=8-2/qid=1163189744/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-5071128-4632953?ie=UTF8&s=books

Childe, practice what you preach. Read "The Demons" and tell me what D would have thought of your existentialism.

[Childe Harold]

In fact if I have my response to omaha saved, why not paste in here.

Omhaha this is long overdue but let me point out your phrase "totalitarian belief in reason" is meaningless. How can a belief be totalitarian? It can't. You really mean "absolute belief in reason" or "total belief". Instead you use totalitarian to refer to the form of government that you think reason engenders. Well then yes,The Soviet Union was based on communism, which is in turn grounded in reason. Well done. But giving me one instance of a reason-based government going awry doesn't prove anything. Remember the Enlightenment? That was kind of based on reason too. And yes, it produced Jacobinism, but it also produced the American Constitution and laid the ground for liberal democracy. Are you telling me the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the idea of the social contract aren't based on reason omaha? They are and they are the pillars of civil society. Without them, in other words if we had stuck to the clericalism and religious absolutism of the Dark Ages (called dark because unreason=ignorance), where would we be? Oh and to use your confused phrase, would you say National Socialism held a totalitarian belief in reason? Of course it didn't. It held the opposite: contempt for reason and rationality. Just like contemporary jihadism does. Is this your preference? It's somewhat of a trite point, but more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other cause.

Fine. Every individual only gleaning meaning through him or herself is absurd. It is solipsistic. Of course everyone gains meaning from the people around them, even clergy men, if the meaning gained is that clergyman are fools.

Omaha you don't know what the word solipsism means. There's a difference between counting yourself as the only thing that's real and discovering meaning in life personally.

[Childe Harold]

Childe, practice what you preach. Read "The Demons" and tell me what D would have thought of your existentialism.

I read C&P omahah so think I have a pretty good idea of how D felt about nihilism. The thing is you don't understand existentialism, so I would caution you against invoking writers who you think have inveighed against it--you will be thinking of two different things. In this case nihilism and existentialism. The difference is pretty god damn clear. Please just look it up on Wikpedia or something. Look it up in the dictionary even!

[Childe Harold]

Good question. I had this big response written out--among other things, to omahaha fatuous talk about the totalitarian belief in reason (which doesn't even make sense)--but couldn't post it becuase I couldn't connect to the site. (I thought underworld had finally blocked me!)

Post anyway. Perhaps totalitarian reason would have been a better way to phrase it. So, hopefully your long response wasn't all about mincing words. And hopefully you have an answer for D's thoughts on "profane" thinking existentialists, such as you put it.

Can't remember where exactly I used profane; I know I did though. Know that I use it in the secular or earthly sense of the word. (It actually means "outside the temple" in Latin. No question the people in the temple gave it its bad name.)

P.S Is anyone esle having trouble connecting to the forum?

[omahaha]

In fact if I have my response to omaha saved, why not paste in here.

Omhaha this is long overdue but let me point out your phrase "totalitarian belief in reason" is meaningless. How can a belief be totalitarian? It can't. You really mean "absolute belief in reason" or "total belief". Instead you use totalitarian to refer to the form of government that you think reason engenders. Well then yes,The Soviet Union was based on communism, which is in turn grounded in reason. Well done. But giving me one instance of a reason-based government going awry doesn't prove anything. Remember the Enlightenment? That was kind of based on reason too. And yes, it produced Jacobinism, but it also produced the American Constitution and laid the ground for liberal democracy. Are you telling me the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the idea of the social contract aren't based on reason omaha? They are and they are the pillars of civil society. Without them, in other words if we had stuck to the clericalism and religious absolutism of the Dark Ages (called dark because unreason=ignorance), where would we be? Oh and to use your confused phrase, would you say National Socialism held a totalitarian belief in reason? Of course it didn't. It held the opposite: contempt for reason and rationality. Just like contemporary jihadism does. Is this your preference? It's somewhat of a trite point, but more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other cause.

You have poor logic for someone with faith in reason.

Childe, you are just being pedantic because your arguments suck. You  haven't refuted my point one bit. D was writing against the  revolutionary ideas of the time that became the basis for the Soviet  communist state. Totalitarianism (that is, the Stalinist kind) sets itself up on reason that  excludes any atagonism. Hence a totalitarian belief in reason.

Reason itself is not totalitarian. You put  those words in my mouth. You invoking the enlightenment is just empty  sophistry.
 

[omahaha]

Fine. Every individual only gleaning meaning through him or herself is absurd. It is solipsistic. Of course everyone gains meaning from the people around them, even clergy men, if the meaning gained is that clergyman are fools.

Omaha you don't know what the word solipsism means. There's a difference between counting yourself as the only thing that's real and discovering meaning in life personally.

Again, more pedantry. Of course everyone discovers meaning personally. That doesn't mean they are creating their own meaning apart from everyone else. That is impossible and absurd and akin to believing nothing exists outside the self.

[omahaha]

Childe, practice what you preach. Read "The Demons" and tell me what D would have thought of your existentialism.

I read C&P omahah so think I have a pretty good idea of how D felt about nihilism. The thing is you don't understand existentialism, so I would caution you against invoking writers who you think have inveighed against it--you will be thinking of two different things. In this case nihilism and existentialism. The difference is pretty god damn clear. Please just look it up on Wikpedia or something. Look it up in the dictionary even!

Childe, you are again trying to make your ignorance look like a shining light. Which writers have I invoked against existentialism. I said read "The Demons" and you will see that it is very prescient of the thinkers to come. And I don't believe he would have made "the pretty god damn clear" distinction that you claim.