Existentialism discussion

Does Existentialism follows 'a peak principle' ?

Comments Showing 1-5 of 5 (5 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Sai (new)

Sai Nair (sainair) I have always wondered if Existentialism follows a 'peak' i.e. Since Aristotle times philosophers have always been amazed by the very notion that one could 'exist and have conscious thought'.Through the centuries that followed there were many postulates on Existentialism at discourse.It seems to me that at present times,only a small portion of the world population seems to be interested in the 'realm of philosophy' let alone Existentialism .Is it possible that one day humans would be in a quasi-state of consciousness ruled by technology ? Thereby,Existentialism would be an obsolete thing since everything can be explained by cause and affect through logic and science.

message 2: by Aimée (last edited Dec 12, 2015 06:32AM) (new)

Aimée | 3 comments I hope not.

I doubt it. Some might joke that they have met some people with but a `quasi-state of consciousness', given you've no explicit indication what you mean by that.

If you mean whether technology would be developed to become more involved in biology, in some direct, physiological, internal way such that it would inhibit/alter some aspect of our consciousness- or how it surfaces/how we think. It's perhaps not impossible in as an inadvertent product of something else, but rather more likely how we perceive and/or define it might be altered (and, thus, how we experience it).

I know very little about philosophy (unfortunately). However, if you take the key phrase for existentialism as, "existence precedes essence", I would say that sounds very much like `cause and affect': `consciousness' -- that essence we have of ourselves -- is a result of some `biological base/existence'-- physiology or physiological interaction with some portions of the external world in varying time and space when we consider its nature at any particular point in time and space. Likely, this is going to contradict in some way with other aspects unbeknown to me in the theory. However, if it does not, this to me sounds like a statement that would be well within the bounds of scientific methodology.

message 3: by Sai (new)

Sai Nair (sainair) Thanks for the reply.What I meant by 'quasi-state' was that they know they exist in literal sense but are devoid of acknowledging the state of consciousness.

message 4: by Aimée (new)

Aimée | 3 comments And, what exactly is the state of consciousness?

message 5: by J (new)

J | 12 comments I think it's California

back to top