What’s wrong with the philosophy of existentialism?
In this short article, I’ll be going over some of the main criticisms associated with existentialism, specifically the type of existentialism detailed by the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre.
First, let’s go over what existentialism is, so we know what we’ll be critiquing.
Existentialism is a diverse school of thought that includes different philosophers dating back to the 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. For the most part, existentialists believe that the world intrinsically has no objective meaning, but through a combination of free will, awareness, and personality responsibility, we can create our own subjective meaning.
Postgenderists argue that gender roles, social stratification, and gender differences are generally bad for people and society. We can and should liberate people from their biological and psychological gender inclinations through a combination of advanced technologies, allowing individuals to explore gender, including masculine and feminine characteristics.
For example, this could include, for instance, allowing biological males to carry a pregnancy to term. In this article, I’ll go over what postgenderists believe and then analyze what I think of this philosophy.
One of the first expressions of postgenderism comes from Shulamith Firestone in her book “The Dialectic of Sex” which states…
Should transgender females, or individuals who previously were assigned the gender male at birth but now identify as women, be allowed to compete in female sports, including those in high school?
A commenter wanted to know my thoughts about this issue and if I could go over the recent executive order by President Biden.
On January 20th, newly elected President Joe Biden issued an executive order titled ‘Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation’.
This order stated,
“Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to…
What’s the difference between nihilism and absurdism? Is there any? Upon an initial reading, both philosophies may sound similar since both have to do with a lack of meaning and purpose in the world. But, there are some considerable and essential differences, which I’ll cover in this short article.
First, I’ll go over what existential nihilism associated with the philosophy of Fredrick Neitzche is and what absurdism associated with the philosopher Albert Camus is. Then, I’ll compare and contrast them so you can see the differences.
A medium commenter recently asked me what the difference was between nihilism and existentialism. So, in this short article, I will explain the difference between the two and give you some background on both.
Just to be clear, I’ll be focusing on existential nihilism associated with the philosophy of Fredrick Neitzche, and the existentialism associated with the 20th-century philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who popularized the term.
Why is there anything at all?
What if the answer to the question, is that no answer is needed? That there is a brute fact within existence that explains all of existence and itself needs no explanation?
Why is there something, rather than nothing? In this article, I’ll go over what I think the best response is to what Martin Heidegger called the fundamental question of metaphysics.
Before I dive into my answer let’s do a quick analysis of the fundamental question and the categories of all the possible responses to it.
First, there are two ways to ask the question
Version A. Why does anything at all exist, rather than nothing?
Version B. Why does anything at all exist?
Both questions assume something exists, but version A presupposes that the concept of nothing is a necessary…
Why is there something rather than nothing, or, better put, why is there anything at all? What if the best response to this question is that it’s unanswerable?
I’ll explore a variety of unanswerable responses to the question, including analyzing if the question itself makes sense and if it’s meaningful or not meaningful.
First, we can divide the “unanswerable response” to the fundamental question into two categories: Those who think the question is meaningless and those who think it is meaningful but still unanswerable.
Why is there something rather than nothing, or better put, why is there anything at all? Could the answer to one of the most fundamental questions in all of philosophy be that abstract objects actually explain existence? This sounds very strange but some very respected philosophers and physicists actually think so.
Think of the concept of ‘nothing’ as having different levels.
“Why is there something rather than nothing?” Or better put, “Why is there anything at all?”
This article will focus on the best necessitarian-theistic answers to this fundamental philosophical question. Specifically, it will review the cosmological arguments put forth by polymath Gottfried Leibniz and the kalām cosmological argument revitalized by Christian apologist William Lane Craig.
As you’ll see, these necessitarian-theistic responses claim that the answer to this fundamental question is that something, in this case God, necessarily has to exist, therefore making the concept of complete nothingness impossible.