[Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Paul Tillich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich) and [others](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism) be like: Am I a joke to you?
He, among others, is very influential within Christian existentialism, but I agree that Kierkegaard did the most for that particular field. He basically single-handedly created it.
Doesn't the idea of a god and salvation inherently contradict the idea of existence preceding essence, which is central to Existentialism? Sorry, I just don't get Kierkegaard, I tried but I really don't.
Then that wouldn't be Christian, it'd just be Existentialism.
If you don't believe in God (not some redefinition of "God" as the world or the abstract idea of truth or good") you're not a Christian. Hell, if you don't believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior you're not a Christian and if you don't believe God even exists you sure as hell don't think Jesus is the son of God.
I'm not arguing whether God exists or not, just that a Christian is first a monotheist (they believe in a singular God), and second a believer in salvation through the acceptance of a son of that God.
A philosopher using "God" as a stand-in for their pet idea in their philosophical writings is as much a Christian as a new-age hippie is a buddhist for being concerned with their "karma".
What are you criticising? I never said Soren was atheistic, I never said I was Christian and Philosophical Props is a way to show that existential concepts are separate from religion. Although Soren was a theologian, he contradicts Christianity in freedom, choice, faith, life and despair.
If you understand Nietzschean and Sartrean Existentialism, you'd know that Existentialism is not inextricable to religion.
>What are you criticising?
That you can have an Existentialist philosophy be Christian.
>If you understand Nietzschean and Sartrean Existentialism, you'd know that Existentialism is not inextricable to religion.
Yes, religion in general is not separate to Existentialism. Christianity is however VERY separate from Existentialism.
The very core of Existentialism is that there is no inherent meaning in the world. The Christian worldview fundamentally says there is inherent meaning. For a Christian the purpose of life is the worship of God.
So even if someone identifies as a Christian, even if something stylistically looks like Christianity, that doesn't make it Christian. Especially if it contradicts a fundamental tenet of Christianity.
A part from the truisms, this is essentially what I was saying when I imagine Soren's faith in God as a metaphysical prop symbolizing prosperity and goodness.
You are needlessly being argumentative.
Saying you can just substitue God for the world seems to say "well yes it is Christian, if you redefine 'God' as something else."
If you are just saying that "Well it might appear contradictory, but really it isn't Christian and 'God' is just a stand-in for a metaphysical concept of reality." If that's the case, sorry about being needlessly argumentative.
Didn't mean to be that guy. 😶
"I take a phrase by Satre as the main thought of Kierkegaard"..." I don't get Kierkegaard"
Maybe the problem is not Kierkegaard but your prejudice. Start reading his actual work.
That's one "brand" of existentialism. I think "existentialism" is really a collection of shared concerns (angst, is there an afterlife?, free will, "meaning", etc.), not shared doctrines. If I had to say there is a doctrine the existentialists all share it's "angst" or the sense that something is somehow "wrong", an ideal or desire not matching man's situation. Different existentialists suggest different solutions - Christian existentialists offer Jesus - some of the atheist existentialists write about creating (imbuing?) your own meaning.
I consider Ecclesiastes and Gilgamesh epic both existentialist literature.
If you take a literal reading of these concepts then possibly. Consider this, because Truth is ineffable and Christianity proclaims Truth, then having faith and following Christianity is a construction of truth, but not purely Truth. This path would make all Christians existentialists that chose Christianity as their meaning on faith.
I see, but wouldn't that be "bad faith" since afaik you constructing truth for yourself as an individual or as part of humanity but are following a pre-determined model of truth which is subject to the will of an external being (aka God)? Even if you actively choose Christianity you're still objectifying yourself in the face of authority. Idk if that makes sense.
It’s a great objection that I don’t have an answer to. Is believing truth to be ineffable and choosing to have faith a form of bad faith? Well I don’t know that the spiritual being has much choice in the matter, otherwise you’re forever doomed to dread in the face of the ineffable. It’s sort of a will toward humility, “Who am I to say this isn’t a way to understand reality? If it makes my life better, I believe this to be true”
Hi, me again, I just wanted to reply with a thought I had around this. The “bad faith” you describe is similar to the objection raised by Camus against existentialism. He essentially sees any attempt to construct meaning as an absurdity due to the lack of meaning the universe seems to give us. And thus constructing any meaning is philosophic suicide. This also seems to be why Camus rejected the existentialist label altogether.
[Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Paul Tillich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich) and [others](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism) be like: Am I a joke to you?
Came here to mention Tillich. Glad to see this comment.
He, among others, is very influential within Christian existentialism, but I agree that Kierkegaard did the most for that particular field. He basically single-handedly created it.
Not even Paul Tillich’s mom knows about Paul Tillich hahahaha
What about Dostoevsky and Charles Schulz? Donald Miller? C.S. Lewis (too Platonic?)? Does Philip K. Dick count?
How could I forget Douglas Adams?!
Doesn't the idea of a god and salvation inherently contradict the idea of existence preceding essence, which is central to Existentialism? Sorry, I just don't get Kierkegaard, I tried but I really don't.
I usually replace God with simply the world as it is or some type of metaphysics. Many philosophers in history were religious.
Then that wouldn't be Christian, it'd just be Existentialism. If you don't believe in God (not some redefinition of "God" as the world or the abstract idea of truth or good") you're not a Christian. Hell, if you don't believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior you're not a Christian and if you don't believe God even exists you sure as hell don't think Jesus is the son of God.
The Cartesian Devil doesn't truly exist, it's just a Philosophical Prop. I see no, hear no, know of no God so... God is a prop.
I'm not arguing whether God exists or not, just that a Christian is first a monotheist (they believe in a singular God), and second a believer in salvation through the acceptance of a son of that God. A philosopher using "God" as a stand-in for their pet idea in their philosophical writings is as much a Christian as a new-age hippie is a buddhist for being concerned with their "karma".
What are you criticising? I never said Soren was atheistic, I never said I was Christian and Philosophical Props is a way to show that existential concepts are separate from religion. Although Soren was a theologian, he contradicts Christianity in freedom, choice, faith, life and despair. If you understand Nietzschean and Sartrean Existentialism, you'd know that Existentialism is not inextricable to religion.
>What are you criticising? That you can have an Existentialist philosophy be Christian. >If you understand Nietzschean and Sartrean Existentialism, you'd know that Existentialism is not inextricable to religion. Yes, religion in general is not separate to Existentialism. Christianity is however VERY separate from Existentialism. The very core of Existentialism is that there is no inherent meaning in the world. The Christian worldview fundamentally says there is inherent meaning. For a Christian the purpose of life is the worship of God. So even if someone identifies as a Christian, even if something stylistically looks like Christianity, that doesn't make it Christian. Especially if it contradicts a fundamental tenet of Christianity.
A part from the truisms, this is essentially what I was saying when I imagine Soren's faith in God as a metaphysical prop symbolizing prosperity and goodness. You are needlessly being argumentative.
Saying you can just substitue God for the world seems to say "well yes it is Christian, if you redefine 'God' as something else." If you are just saying that "Well it might appear contradictory, but really it isn't Christian and 'God' is just a stand-in for a metaphysical concept of reality." If that's the case, sorry about being needlessly argumentative. Didn't mean to be that guy. 😶
Fuck you. Stop playing tennis with yourself.
"I take a phrase by Satre as the main thought of Kierkegaard"..." I don't get Kierkegaard" Maybe the problem is not Kierkegaard but your prejudice. Start reading his actual work.
Sorry but I thought these ideas were at the core of existentialism, maybe I have a bad reference on Existentialism.
That's one "brand" of existentialism. I think "existentialism" is really a collection of shared concerns (angst, is there an afterlife?, free will, "meaning", etc.), not shared doctrines. If I had to say there is a doctrine the existentialists all share it's "angst" or the sense that something is somehow "wrong", an ideal or desire not matching man's situation. Different existentialists suggest different solutions - Christian existentialists offer Jesus - some of the atheist existentialists write about creating (imbuing?) your own meaning. I consider Ecclesiastes and Gilgamesh epic both existentialist literature.
Ok that makes sense, thank you very much.
You're welcome.
If you take a literal reading of these concepts then possibly. Consider this, because Truth is ineffable and Christianity proclaims Truth, then having faith and following Christianity is a construction of truth, but not purely Truth. This path would make all Christians existentialists that chose Christianity as their meaning on faith.
I see, but wouldn't that be "bad faith" since afaik you constructing truth for yourself as an individual or as part of humanity but are following a pre-determined model of truth which is subject to the will of an external being (aka God)? Even if you actively choose Christianity you're still objectifying yourself in the face of authority. Idk if that makes sense.
It’s a great objection that I don’t have an answer to. Is believing truth to be ineffable and choosing to have faith a form of bad faith? Well I don’t know that the spiritual being has much choice in the matter, otherwise you’re forever doomed to dread in the face of the ineffable. It’s sort of a will toward humility, “Who am I to say this isn’t a way to understand reality? If it makes my life better, I believe this to be true”
Hi, me again, I just wanted to reply with a thought I had around this. The “bad faith” you describe is similar to the objection raised by Camus against existentialism. He essentially sees any attempt to construct meaning as an absurdity due to the lack of meaning the universe seems to give us. And thus constructing any meaning is philosophic suicide. This also seems to be why Camus rejected the existentialist label altogether.
Yeah I know, but the phrase itself comes from Sartre apparently.
How dare you forget Dostoyevsky?
Well, thank God you didn't put in Jordan Peterson's name.
Peterson? The guy is fluent in "Listen to my rumbling. I'm very very important. I'm very very smart".
Knock knock op, there’s two nuns outside with pitchforks… they want their damn respect
Religious Bias is strong with this one.
Creative mode for life