09-05-2004, 03:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-05-2004, 03:34 AM by Chaerophon.)
Ummm... yeah, I know what I'm talking about. Thanks. You're going to have to clarify that before I can comment, but as of right now, I'm thinking that it's pretty much garbage.
Because the existentialist rejects such discourses (i.e. the notion that the task of existence is to realize some fundamental purpose / has been imbued with intrinsic purpose) no such discourse will be acceptable to him or her. Period. The task, instead, is to overcome such discourses. Ethical categorizations such as those involved in characterizing one as "egomaniacal", rely on, for instance, moral/social normative discourses that are incompatible with the existentialist's fundamental goals/reasons.
Quote:One can only 'critique' existentialism in such a way if one accepts the validity of an 'original' discourse.
Because the existentialist rejects such discourses (i.e. the notion that the task of existence is to realize some fundamental purpose / has been imbued with intrinsic purpose) no such discourse will be acceptable to him or her. Period. The task, instead, is to overcome such discourses. Ethical categorizations such as those involved in characterizing one as "egomaniacal", rely on, for instance, moral/social normative discourses that are incompatible with the existentialist's fundamental goals/reasons.
But whate'er I be,
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II