Intellectual Laziness of 21st Century Existentialists
I could write tomes on this topic. People suffer from “existential predicaments” left and right. Whether explicitly, and using the very vocabulary I’ve used, or in a subtle, more implied way.
I don’t have a clue what’s the “official” definition of existentialism, but the term itself clearly derives from the word “existence.” Added suffix, “-ism,” then simply denotes that existence is, within this framework, the ontological primary.
Or at least it should be, I would say. After all, if it were, instead of whining about perceived meaninglessness in the face of certain death, existentialists would ask the single most important question they could ask: can non-existence, conceived in any way, including humanly inconceivable one, not exist? And if it cannot not exist, is it still non-existence? Well, that was two questions.
Obviously, no matter the answers, it still leaves open the question, how do I know? Moreover, who is that “I” who knows anyway? I? Lol.
In any case. Even more obvious is the fact that the above questions have unambiguous answers. You cannot conceive anything without it existing. What is must exist. Some may even say — expressing an inaccurate value judgment — that existence is cursed to be.
The question, then, arises, where is this existence? Where is this being? And if I am, rather clearly, its expression, who am I who am? Something along those lines…
Anyway, if you struggle with some “existential predicament,” don’t hesitate to ask me for details on why it’s self-refuting :D
