4 ms·

Existialism, obviously, has been around long before Sartre in Eastern (originally Indian) philosophy and partially in the philosophy of Schopenhauer. Actually,

Existialism, obviously, has been around long before Sartre in Eastern (originally Indian) philosophy and partially in the philosophy of Schopenhauer. Actually, what Sartre called existentialism is the Asian way of life, at least in societies influenced by the original Hindu philosophy (Upanishads) and its Buddhist derivatives and finally the Gita.

llamaz 10y ago
Sartre did not consider himself an existentialist, in the same sense as Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Kierkegaarde. He considered himself an absurdist, whatever that means. Also, Nietzsche was explicitly opposed to bhuddism, although this was most likely based on a flawed understanding of bhuddism, as was common at the time. I'm basing all of this on memory of something I've read long ago, but with enough google fu you might be able to find the references for these claims.
- nappy 10y ago
  I thought Sartre considered himself an existentialist and Camus was an absurdist.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    William Barrett, in his classic book on existentialism, Irrational Man, says that existentialism is the attempt to respond to the loss of universal religious faith in the modern era.
  - llamaz 10y ago
    no you're right, I was thinking of Camus. The lineage is Schopenhauer -> Nietzsche -> Heidegger -> Sartre, with Camus and Kierkegaarde by themselves. Some criticism: Sartre isn't as respected as the others in academic philosophy (in popular culture, it's another story). Heidegger was an unrepentant Nazi who turned on his Jewish mentor after Hitler came to power, and Schopenhauer was considered a hypocrite by Bertrand Russell. Nietzsche is clean, and pretty much practiced what he preached.
pmoriarty 10y ago
Schopenhauer is considered to be a pessimist, not an existentialist (though he did influence Nietzsche, who was an early existentialist, but Nietzsche's thought is significantly different from Schopenhauer's). What evidence is there that the Asian philosophies you mention were anything like Sartre's existentialism?
- dschiptsov 10y ago
  I am not sure that classification of philosophies and philosophers is of any use. What's more important is the principles formulated and less wrong generalizations about certain aspects of reality being made. It should be called Ideas, but idealism (the notion that there is nothing exist but Ideas) is as wrong as a disconnected from reality metaphysics. So, the seers of Upanishads and non-lamaist sects of Buddhism (Hinayana), being seekers after truth with emphasis on seeing things as they are have described most significant principles of philosophy of the mind and moral philosophy something about 6 century BC, if we consider philosophy of the Buddha as culmination of that epoch. There is the famous two volume work by Radhakrishnan which gives obviously a Hindu centered overview of the philosophy of Indian civilization. All the fundamental ideas are there, including the notion that all phenomena are devoid of any absolute essence, are mere appearances to the senses of different aspects of what they call the whole - Brahman. Some later Buddhist sects have rejected the notion of Brahman and maintain that the real nature of all phenomena is void. To put it simple - Hindus got the fundamental principles right few thousand years before West.
  - ppod 10y ago
    I don't think "getting it right" is a good way of phrasing it. The aspects of Eastern philosophy you mention seem more relevant to Western ideas like phenomenology, monism or pantheism. The identifying feature of existentialism, as distinct from phenomenology, is the focus on the inescapable responsibility that our individual freedom places on us to create our own meaning in life and accept our own ethical behaviour and value system. It is an individualistic and atheistic perspective. The phenomenological aspects are more psychological than the Eastern works you mention, which are more metaphysical. You say "I am not sure that classification of philosophies and philosophers is of any use", but you raised the issue of the classification and its origin.

llamaz 10y ago

Sartre did not consider himself an existentialist, in the same sense as Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Kierkegaarde. He considered himself an absurdist, whatever that means. Also, Nietzsche was explicitly opposed to bhuddism, although this was most likely based on a flawed understanding of bhuddism, as was common at the time. I'm basing all of this on memory of something I've read long ago, but with enough google fu you might be able to find the references for these claims.

nappy 10y ago
I thought Sartre considered himself an existentialist and Camus was an absurdist.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  William Barrett, in his classic book on existentialism, Irrational Man, says that existentialism is the attempt to respond to the loss of universal religious faith in the modern era.
- llamaz 10y ago
  no you're right, I was thinking of Camus. The lineage is Schopenhauer -> Nietzsche -> Heidegger -> Sartre, with Camus and Kierkegaarde by themselves. Some criticism: Sartre isn't as respected as the others in academic philosophy (in popular culture, it's another story). Heidegger was an unrepentant Nazi who turned on his Jewish mentor after Hitler came to power, and Schopenhauer was considered a hypocrite by Bertrand Russell. Nietzsche is clean, and pretty much practiced what he preached.

pmoriarty 10y ago

Schopenhauer is considered to be a pessimist, not an existentialist (though he did influence Nietzsche, who was an early existentialist, but Nietzsche's thought is significantly different from Schopenhauer's). What evidence is there that the Asian philosophies you mention were anything like Sartre's existentialism?

dschiptsov 10y ago
I am not sure that classification of philosophies and philosophers is of any use. What's more important is the principles formulated and less wrong generalizations about certain aspects of reality being made. It should be called Ideas, but idealism (the notion that there is nothing exist but Ideas) is as wrong as a disconnected from reality metaphysics. So, the seers of Upanishads and non-lamaist sects of Buddhism (Hinayana), being seekers after truth with emphasis on seeing things as they are have described most significant principles of philosophy of the mind and moral philosophy something about 6 century BC, if we consider philosophy of the Buddha as culmination of that epoch. There is the famous two volume work by Radhakrishnan which gives obviously a Hindu centered overview of the philosophy of Indian civilization. All the fundamental ideas are there, including the notion that all phenomena are devoid of any absolute essence, are mere appearances to the senses of different aspects of what they call the whole - Brahman. Some later Buddhist sects have rejected the notion of Brahman and maintain that the real nature of all phenomena is void. To put it simple - Hindus got the fundamental principles right few thousand years before West.
- ppod 10y ago
  I don't think "getting it right" is a good way of phrasing it. The aspects of Eastern philosophy you mention seem more relevant to Western ideas like phenomenology, monism or pantheism. The identifying feature of existentialism, as distinct from phenomenology, is the focus on the inescapable responsibility that our individual freedom places on us to create our own meaning in life and accept our own ethical behaviour and value system. It is an individualistic and atheistic perspective. The phenomenological aspects are more psychological than the Eastern works you mention, which are more metaphysical. You say "I am not sure that classification of philosophies and philosophers is of any use", but you raised the issue of the classification and its origin.