The lectures can be found: HERE.
Existentialism is a cop-out.
That's actually Stoicism.
Sartre defined Existentialism as the philosophy in which existence precedes essence. That's as short and accurate a phrase as has ever been used to define Existentialism.
Professor Solomon could learn a lot from an introduction to philosophy textbook.
and there it is...
Some moderates are. They spend a fair amount of time in Absurdistan.
There have been attempts in the past to draft Nietzsche and Heidegger. Mostly unsuccessful and bizarre. Back when National Review was still conservative, the Randroids, who sometimes frequent the same clubs and conventions as Nietzscheans, were banned largely because they were kooks. Although her mustache probably didn't help either.
Sartre, of course, was a Communist. But he denied being an Existentialist. Sometimes. It is hard to keep the story straight. When there is no truth and nothing has a nature things tend to get a little confusing.
Conservatives are essentialists. They are not existentialists or nominalists.
Nominalism is the root of the Western Schism, the French Revolution and all modern totalitarianism, and modern liberalism.
Actually, sex addiction is the root of REALLY modern liberalism—i.e., it is sex addiction that leads to the “need” for abortion.
Russel Kirk’s definition of conservatism works fine for me: “Conservatives prize liberty over equality.”
That would be Leon "Shovelhead" Descartes at the local biker bar.
He is considered the father of modern biker-bar philosophy.
Beauty lives,
though lilies die.
...Kirk was fond of that bit...and stressed the first principle as a belief in an enduring moral order, for God and Man, and for the state.
Existentialism is not about conservatism, it is one bowl of the metaphysical stew that Burke constantly warned about.
There was a cadre of Christian Existentialists and you can dig up writings in that genre, but it will get you no where you want to go.
God is the initiator -- and man the responder, and if you don't get that right, you are going to waste a lot of time in life.
This requires every individual to be Superman. "Responsible for the way the world is"? That's a very broad responsibility. A thing must be limited to be achievable, hence limited government among other things. Surely a smaller scope is necessary.
This evokes the self-creating individual of Romanticism. This individual is incapable of gratitude and lacks sympathy for the weak who cannot fulfill these alleged responsibilities.
But underlying the varying definitions is an assumption of individual choice.
I don't think that's right. The quality of individual choices can often be rationally judged, though it's not necessarily the govt.'s place to do that judging. "Individual choice" is a mantra for many who simply can't respond to criticism of their choices, because their choices are rationally unjustifiable.
Further, I'm not sure why choice is such a great thing. Take the choice between seeing clearly, and sticking a fork in one's eye. Not very noble, eh?
Choice is tragic, because it is a sign we do not know, or refuse to know, our true good in a given situation or even in the whole course of our life.
The accurate translation is: "I stink, therefore, I am."
A cursory study of sanitation in Europe is further proof of the legitimacy of this fresh understanding of Descartes thought and works.
And then goes on to say:
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
WikiProject Philosophy or the Philosophy Portal may be able to help recruit one.
If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.
I just think this is hiliarous.
BTTT
The movement cannot be defined. That is basic logic. Nothing empirical can be defined. It can be described, but a one sentence description would probably not meet everyone's needs.