3 ms·

One of the questions I was thinking about when I took that course on existentialism is why might religious existentialism be superior, for lack of a better word

by 50 6y ago

One of the questions I was thinking about when I took that course on existentialism is why might religious existentialism be superior, for lack of a better word, than vanilla existentialism. Research on that question led me to an essay titled "The Other Side of Despair" by Thomas Merton [1]. It's a really good read that I think you'll like. I like the reference and analysis of Kierkegaard's idea of "leveling" - a process "by which the individual person loses himself in the vast emptiness of a public mind" - which is a lot like "alienation" in modern day. Which also reminds me, I should check out Kierkegaard's The Present Age. [1]: https://thevalueofsparrows.wordpress.com/2014/03/29/saturday-reading-the-other-side-of-despair-by-thomas-merton/ https://thevalueofsparrows.wordpress.com/2014/03/29/saturday...

AmericanChopper 6y ago
I’ve always thought it was because living a life with meaning requires faith in one way or another, and the Christian existentialists were simply more comfortable with the concept. The involvement of Christian theology really just muddies the waters imo, because the broader topic is really just about faith, and any effort to impart your own meaning (whether religious or otherwise) to your own life is naturally an act of faith. Kierkegaard was a Christian, but his philosophy revolves primarily around the concept of faith (believing something you can’t prove). Nietzsche was an atheist, but his Death of God was a rejection of faith in general as the basis for providing any meaning to life. The leap of faith as a philosophical concept is not about religion. It’s the concept that a person can provide their own life with meaning, without any rational proof to support such a conclusion. If you find the work of Christian existentialists to be superior, it’s likely because you find the leap of faith to be the superior response to the absurd.

by 50 6y ago

AmericanChopper 6y ago

I’ve always thought it was because living a life with meaning requires faith in one way or another, and the Christian existentialists were simply more comfortable with the concept. The involvement of Christian theology really just muddies the waters imo, because the broader topic is really just about faith, and any effort to impart your own meaning (whether religious or otherwise) to your own life is naturally an act of faith. Kierkegaard was a Christian, but his philosophy revolves primarily around the concept of faith (believing something you can’t prove). Nietzsche was an atheist, but his Death of God was a rejection of faith in general as the basis for providing any meaning to life. The leap of faith as a philosophical concept is not about religion. It’s the concept that a person can provide their own life with meaning, without any rational proof to support such a conclusion. If you find the work of Christian existentialists to be superior, it’s likely because you find the leap of faith to be the superior response to the absurd.