What is existentialism?

[Shearer]

I've searched around to try and find the axioms of Existentialism, no luck, I then tried searching for Existentialist metaphysics and it's the same answer, no luck.

However I've read some things about that philosophy such as:

'..consciousness is not distinct from its objects, it is an emptyness'

'..the being of consciousness is intrinsic nothingness'

'..directedness of consciousness is not directedness of a thing, since it would have to be an object outside itself'

'Imagination, questioning and doubting are models of human freedom'

'..consciousness is appalled at its own being, which is nothingness'

None of this makes sense to me whatsoever, all but one of those quotes is contradictory, however I did find out that Sartre was a Communist, another Existentialist was a Fascist, some Existentialist philosphers believe in god and some are athiest. So it should follow that they are collectivist-altruist-subjectivist-mystic?

Can someone please tell me its axioms, metaphysics and how they are using the concept of existence.

It seems they are treating nothing as an existent and denying the axioms of existence, identity and consciousness.

[BurgessLau]

I've searched around to try and find the axioms of Existentialism, no luck, I then tried searching for Existentialist metaphysics and it's the same answer, no luck.

...

None of this makes sense to me whatsoever ...

Can someone please tell me its axioms, metaphysics and how they are using the concept of existence.

It seems they are treating nothing as an existent and denying the axioms of existence, identity and consciousness.

If you have already concluded that none of the existentialist "philosophy" makes sense, I think you are on the right track. Following are my provisional notes as a partial answer to your questions. Note, however, that these quick notes are based only on my first (and I hope last) reading of one (550 page) work, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, by one existentialist, in fact the founder of Existentialism, particularly its theistic strain: Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855, Denmark).

The metaphysics of Kierkegaard's "philosophy" (actually anti-philosophy) is God, who is universal and eternal, and the world he created, the world of particulars in time.

The "epistemology" is this: Truth is inside the mind, that is, truth is subjectivity. (Here "subjective" means characteristic of the "subject," the person, as opposed to "objective," which means objects outside the mind.) Thus an existentialist seeks himself and God through looking inside. To reach God he must have enormous doubts that God exists and then take a leap of faith to belief in God. If you are a theistic existentialist you reject rational proofs of God, and instead take a leap of faith.

The reason for enormous doubts about God, Kierkegaard said, is that it is paradoxical and impossible to believe, that an eternal, universal God could appear at a particular time and place -- that is, in the form of Jesus. While your mind boggles on this paradox, you will yourself to take the leap to faith in God. The anguish you feel over being unable to resolve the paradox becomes the central emotion of life: angst.

My inference -- though Kierkegaard doesn't say this -- is that he does not deny the existence of this material world, but he in effect denies its importance compared to looking inside one's own mind and distancing oneself from the outside world. It is the ultimate form of monasticism, that is, living alone "abstracted" (distanced) from the world.

Note on terminology: When Kierkegaard speaks of "existence" he means, I infer from his confusing account, the life of the individual person lived inside that person's head.

[BurgessLau]

...

It seems they are treating nothing as an existent ...

If you are beginning the study of a particular philosophy, you might begin by looking that philosophy up in a single-volume reference, for an overview.

The one I use for my work (which involves history of religion as well as of philosophy) is: W. L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought.

Reese, under "Existentialism," says, in part: "(10) Sartre (q. v.) brings together all of the themes of atheistic existentialism: man's radical freedom, and his position as a 'noughting nought'; the death of God; the invention of value; authenticity; the presence of Angst; and Nothingness as a basic category." The latter confirms your comment about existentialists reifying nothing.

A second step in researching a whole philosophy would be to look it up in a multivolume encyclopedia of philosophy. The one I use, at a local university, is the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It contains substantial articles written and signed by specialists in the history of philosophy, including annotated bibliographies. The articles contain an overview and a history, as well as a discussion of the key issues in a particular philosophy.

[Megan Robinson]

Bad philosopher joke:

Sarte walks into a restaurant and orders coffee. He says to the waitress "I'll have a little sugar, but no cream"

The waitress comes back later and says "I'm sorry Monssiuer Sartre, we're out of cream. How about no milk."

Ba dum ching!!!!

OK, OK, one more...

Descartes walks into a bar and has a few drinks. The bar tender asks him later if he'd like another. Descartes says "I think not" and disappears in a puff of smoke.

Hehehehe...sorry....back to serious discussion now:

The inconsistancy in existentailism always amused me. We read No Exit in a lit class once. My teacher asked me to sum up existentialism in a sentnce for those who didn't know what it was...i merely replied:"confusion."

[Philo]

Existentialism is not a systematic philosophy or school, like Stoicism or Epicureanism, so it does not have any "basic axioms."

Authors are often grouped together under the label by virtue of exhibiting certain common motifs and concerns in their writing. In the popular mind, those motifs are the sense of anxiety and dread that one's search for the meaning of life can awaken. This popular perception can be misleading. People group Nietzsche, Max Stirner, and Ayn Rand together as philosophical egoists, but I doubt members of this forum would share much interest in what the other two writers had to say about what a proper devotion to self entails.

As for the meaning of the quotations you provided, I think most of them are from early Sartre. The basic idea is analagous to Aristotle's definition of intellect as "pure potentiality"--the ability of the mind to take on the form or actuality of its objects, which defines knowledge for him. The related idea for Sartre is that consciousness is always consciousness of something; it has no essence prior to its coming into existence and encountering the objects of the world. The normative point of this observation is supposed to be that the values we choose to live under are not given; they must be constructed out our choices as these arise in our encounter with the world. That is the nature of our freedom, which can be subjectively denied, but not objectively avoided.

[punk]

"Existentialism" as it is normally used is one of those nice catch-all categories academics like so much so they can classify a bunch of people as being of a similar mind and not bother to actually read (or view them for visual artists, or listen to them for musicians) them in depth.

Strictly speaking the only one of them who actually called himself an "existentialist" was Sartre, the rest (at least those alive when the label came into existence) refused it.

The gist of their ideas is:

1. A realization that most of what comprises and bounds an individual's view of the world are merely social norms and have no absolute validity

2. A realization of the absolute freedom the above implies and a stark terror of this freedom

3. A feeling that there is no absolute meaning to assuage this terror, and that the only meaning that is left is what the individual chooses to give to things

4. A resolve to face this now meaningless existence in all honesty without hiding from it

[ModernArchitect]

I have been aware of existentialism for a few years now and something just doesn't sit well with me. The only problem I can find is this. The belief that you must never hinder the freedom of others? Ever action has an equal or opposite reaction correct? So, how can this belief system be followed on just that alone?

I know that there are more things wrong with the philosophy and I've been wondering what (if any) problems you see with it.

[Hal]

I have been aware of existentialism for a few years now and something just doesn't sit well with me. The only problem I can find is this. The belief that you must never hinder the freedom of others? Ever action has an equal or opposite reaction correct? So, how can this belief system be followed on just that alone?

I know that there are more things wrong with the philosophy and I've been wondering what (if any) problems you see with it.

Existentialism, as the term is normally used, is a bit of a pseudo-concept since it tends to group together a wide variety of thinkers who really have very little in common. The only person I can think of who held a belief similar to "you must never hinder the freedom of others" would be Jean Paul Sartre. He believed that since there is no such thing as a universal human nature, it is up to the own individual to both define himself and choose his own self-interpretation. Supposedly, this also necessitates choosing a vision for humanity as a whole (in a sense this is similar to the Kantian "act as if your actions would be universal law for all man"). One of the examples Sartre uses is that if I choose to get married, this means that I believe that being married is the best choice for all humans. Sartre doesn't really make any arguments to support this claim - I think he thought that it was self-evident but I'm not entirely sure why, since it seems obviously wrong. But anyway, this provided the grounds for his 'act to increase the freedom of others' statement. Since an authentic life involves the resolute acceptance of one's own freedom (according to Sartre), choosing freedom for myself automatically means choosing freedom for humanity as a whole. And since, apparently, the best way to guarantee my freedom is to live amongst men who are also free, I should act so as to promote the freedom of others. Personally I think this whole idea was probably tied to his Marxism, at least subconsciously - he wanted to lay down _some_ moral maxims in order to justify fighting for Communism, but Existentialism almost by definition prevents one from doing this. Hence his having to resort to fairly dodgy reasoning in order to support his position.

[ModernArchitect]

Thanks, I read "The Emotions" and heard Sartre's 1946 speech and something wasn't clicking. I understand the absurdity of it now.

[Hal]

Thanks, I read "The Emotions" and heard Sartre's 1946 speech and something wasn't clicking. I understand the absurdity of it now.

What speech do you mean, Existentialism as a Humanism? Here's the relevant parts:

When we say that man chooses himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not one which is not creative, at the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. To choose between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen; for we are unable ever to choose the worse. What we choose is always the better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all. If, moreover, existence precedes essence and we will to exist at the same time as we fashion our image, that image is valid for all and for the entire epoch in which we find ourselves. Our responsibility is thus much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. If I am a worker, for instance, I may choose to join a Christian rather than a Communist trade union. And if, by that membership, I choose to signify that resignation is, after all, the attitude that best becomes a man, that man's kingdom is not upon this earth, I do not commit myself alone to that view. Resignation is my will for everyone, and my action is, in consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind. Or if, to take a more personal case, I decide to marry and to have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation, from my passion or my desire, I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.

For I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen that values depend upon himself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thing, and that is freedom as the foundation of all values. That does not mean that he wills it in the abstract: it simply means that the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate significance, the quest of freedom itself as such. A man who belongs to some communist or revolutionary society wills certain concrete ends, which imply the will to freedom, but that freedom is willed in community. We will freedom for freedom's sake, and in and through particular circumstances. And in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own. Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as mine. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim.

I've not read Being and Nothingness so I'm not sure if he develops this idea further in there (or at least gives arguments for it), but as it stands, I think the first passage is ludicrous. The second passage seems to make sense at first, since you could interpret Sartre as saying that my political freedom depends on the political freedom of others (eg it is to my advantage to live in a society where there is not political coercion), but this is not the sense in which Sartre normally uses the term freedom and its extremely unlikely that this is how he is using it here.

[jlew]

Its just another boondoggle to tie men together. "No one's actions are their own. No one's life is their own." It remindes me of the society in AR's Anthem, or the plight of the sighted in The Day of the Triffids.

If, through the choice of my own freedom, my responsibilty is to all of mankind, for how long do you expect me to continue to choose freedom? If you expand it and say, "I choose to be rich and successful," if (as Sartre says) "...my action is, in consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind...," how many people are going to choose to be rich and successful? Why would you put in the effort if someone else's choice to be rich and successful is just as good for you?

I dabbled with Sartre and the existentialists, but could never get beyond the obtuseness of their writing. Being confused - and being happy in that confusion - was something I never liked or understood.

[Hal]

If, through the choice of my own freedom, my responsibilty is to all of mankind, for how long do you expect me to continue to choose freedom? If you expand it and say, "I choose to be rich and successful," if (as Sartre says) "...my action is, in consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind...," how many people are going to choose to be rich and successful? Why would you put in the effort if someone else's choice to be rich and successful is just as good for you?

I think he means that you've chosen riches and success as being the ideal for mankind, rather than saying that you're responsible for everyone else choosing to be rich and successful. In other words, Sartre means that youre choosing for mankind in the sense that Christians believe that everyone should try to be like Jesus, or Ayn Rand thought people should try to be like John Galt (sort of, you get the idea). If humans have no fixed essence then (according to Sartre), if I choose something for myself, it must mean that I believe that this is the best way for man to live - all the actions I perform create my vision of "man as he could and should be", whether I want them to or not.

At least, that's how I read him.

[jlew]

punk...I was trying to neatly summarize Existentialism for a post in another thread. (And if you've ever read what most Existentialist have written, you understand how tough that can be.) What you've written above helps a lot. Thanks.

[jlew]

Hal, you're right. I was reading it wrong.

However - and I may be guilty of pulling some quotes out of context - when I read phrases like...

"...nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all."

"Our responsibility is thus much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole."

"I am thus responsible for myself and for all men..."

"...freedom is willed in community..."

"...in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own."

"I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as mine. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim."

...I start breaking out in the cold sweats.

Sartre believed that existence in and of itself was unknowable to man. I remember reading in Nausea the scene in the park when the main character finally sees reality for what it is (how does he "see" it?), and he is repulsed by the squirming, squggling entities he sees.

If reality is unknowable how can anyone make a correct choice? How can anyone know what is "the good"? What can man base his decisions upon? If I choose freedom, what does that entail? Freedom from what? For whom? To what end?

What you're left with in Existentialism are just a bunch of free floating phrases - the good, freedom, man - without anything to base them upon. If you take away reality - according to Sartre - then all you are left with is man. Man alone and suffering. So, if I choose freedom, it isn't because its the way I want to live in harmony with reality, but the way I want to live with other men. Its like a reverse golden rule: do unto myself, as I would have others do unto themselves. It still ties men together falsely; its another form of second-handedness.

[ModernArchitect]

I just got done reading Kierkegaard's Journals, I am not saying that I agree or would want to follow his philosophy but I believe his idea of a theological existentialism has a little more backbone in comparison to Sartre.

[BurgessLau]

I just got done reading Kierkegaard's Journals, I am not saying that I agree or would want to follow his philosophy but I believe his idea of a theological existentialism has a little more backbone in comparison to Sartre.

What do you mean by "backbone"?

Do his Journals reveal the basics of his philosophy? If so, what are they, especially his metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics?

After struggling once through Concluding Unscientific Postscript, I would say tentatively that they are:

1. Metaphysics: Two worlds, ours less real than the Other World (not only in the Christian sense, but also in the Plato-Plotinus sense -- God is more real than what we live day to day).

2. Epistemology: We can experience God but not know him.

3. Ethics: The highest value in life here on earth is experiencing God by looking inward and giving ourselves up to him totally.

[punk]

One thing about Kierkegaard is that he wrote things under pseudonyms. Another thing is that these pseudonymic personas don't entirely agree with each other.

"Concluding Unscientific Postscript" is an addendum to "Philosophical Fragments" which were written under the pseudonym "Johannes Climacus" (i.e. John of the Ladder). John of the Ladder was a real guy was was a Christian mystic who lived in the Sinai in the late classical period and wrote a book known as "The Ladder". The result of all this is that "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" becomes a Christian mystic's take on the problems Kierkegaard was trying to deal with, but that the answers the Christian mystic comes up with might not be something Kierkegaard would have espoused as his own answers.

Kierkegaard is trying to come to terms with the situation within which he finds himself, and is much less concerned with trying to find an intellectual framework to describe reality than is someone doing philosophy after the example of Rand.

If you dont find yourself in the same situation as Kierkegaard he is going to be very difficult to understand.

As long as I am here, another thinker that is often grouped with the existentialists and has a habit of writing things down that aren't his own personal view of things is Nietzsche. There is a great deal of irony in Nietzsche which often isn't picked up on. I suspect some other existentialists do this as well.

[BurgessLau]

One thing about Kierkegaard is that he wrote things under pseudonyms.  [...]

If you dont find yourself in the same situation as Kierkegaard he is going to be very difficult to understand. [...]

The preliminary question in these situations is this: Is writer X philosophizing or not? If he isn't philosophizing, then what is he doing? With Kant (Critique of Pure Reason), Kierkegaard (CUP), and Derrida (I have "read" only On Grammatology), for example, if you can't be sure "he really meant it" then that fact itself cries out for philosophical detection: What sort of ontology, epistemology, and ethics underlies the efforts of someone who does the philosophical equivalent of "speaking in tongues" and rolling on the floor?

No reader is obliged to go through contortions trying to figure out "what he really meant." If his supposed surface message is gobbledygook or if he is dishonest in some other way, as Kant, Kierkegaarde, and Derrida are, then the reader has a right to detect, based just on what is presented.

I reject the idea that the only way to understand an "ironic" writer is to be in the situation he supposedly was in when he wrote his work. That would be walking voluntarily to the slaughter house. And that is their message: destruction of the mind. This is a case where the style of the message is the message -- ontologically, epistemologically, and at least by implication, ethically.

Critique of Pure Reason, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, and On Grammatology are all examples.

According to secondary sources I have seen, Kierkegaard learned from Kant, and Derrida learned from Kierkegaard (as well as Kant, I suspect).

In all three cases, their philosophies are essentially these points:

* Ontology: two worlds (things in themselves vs appearance or some version of it).

* Epistemology: Reason, in its full Objectivist meaning, is impotent and we must rely on feeling in one form or another, which is only another form of philosophical skepticism.

* Ethics: We must focus on something outside as a guide (a sense of duty flowing from the other world, faith in God, or the collective).

The bottom line is that philosophers must prove their points positively, and if they don't, their readers can ruthlessly apply objective standards to judging their gibberish for what it is, a smokescreen for terrible philosophical ideas.

[Citizen Publius]

I know that there are more things wrong with the philosophy and I've been wondering what (if any) problems you see with it.

I am not really familiar with Existentialism. However, I did hear a taped lecture by Leonard Peikoff once regarding why Objectivism is called Objectivism. He said, "It could be called Existentialism but, there is already a philosophy called Existentialism that seeks to prove that nothing exists." While Leonard Peikoff is not my favorite author or professor of Objectivism, I take his word on this one. Therefore, I never looked into it any further.

[punk]

No reader is obliged to go through contortions trying to figure out "what he really meant." If his supposed surface message is gobbledygook or if he is dishonest in some other way, as Kant, Kierkegaarde, and Derrida are, then the reader has a right to detect, based just on what is presented.

Yes a reader is obliged to go through contortions of trying to figure out what he really meant. That is what reading is. If you aren't trying to figure out what someone really meant, then why are you bothering to "read" that person? Or rather you aren't really "reading" the person as much as looking at all the words on all the pages so that at the end you can put another notch in your desk and say you "read" them.

I reject the idea that the only way to understand an "ironic" writer is to be in the situation he supposedly was in when he wrote his work. That would be walking voluntarily to the slaughter house. And that is their message: destruction of the mind. This is a case where the style of the message is the message -- ontologically, epistemologically, and at least by implication, ethically.

To read a writer you have to have some appreciation for the situation they find themselves in. I don't presume to understand a religious mystic as I have not had a mystical experience, so I cannot relate to what the mystic is talking about. It might be rather difficult to understand a writer trying to come to grips with suicidal depression if one has never been suicidally depressed. To have been in the situation is to understand just why they are seeing certain issues as important and others as not important.

Again why waste your time "reading" a writer if you aren't even familiar with the basic issues they are writing about?

Critique of Pure Reason, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, and On Grammatology are all examples.

According to secondary sources I have seen, Kierkegaard learned from Kant, and Derrida learned from Kierkegaard (as well as Kant, I suspect).

In the sense that philosophy studies tend to take the student through a history of philosophy this is true. Derrida is probably more indebted to Heidegger than to Kant.

Kierkegaard on the other hand was largely an opponent of Hegelian philosophy, so in as much as Hegel followed on Kant, Kierkegaard was a critic of Kant.

I will say this though. Guilt by association (i.e. relating people to Kant and then not bothering to read them, and by this I mean read, not simply look at all the words in order) is highly dishonest.

[ModernArchitect]

This is a qoute by Franz Kafka from a book I am reading Existentialism this explains things a little more to me. I don't know, I would have choose to be king.

Couriers

They were given the choice between becoming kings or the couriers of kings. In the manner of children, they all wanted to be couriers. As a result, there are only couriers. They gallop through the world shouting to each other messages that, since there are no kings, have become meaningless. Gladly would they put an end to their miserable existence, but they dare not, because of their oaths of service.

[annais]

Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism can be summarized with the following four points:

1. Existence precedes essence. That is, we humans are without a fundamental nature/essence. We find ourselves existent, completely blank, without a teleological(design), purpose(we make our own) or pre-destined future, with no over-arching similarities with one another, other than that we all have no fundamental essence. This is probably the biggest point, the ramifications of which follow. To fully describe the repercussions of this point would require much more time and energy.

2. Man is condemned to be free. We have no nature or inherent purpose, so it follows that there is nothing directly prescribed for our lives. We are completely responsible for our actions. We are wholly responsible for our actions and the cause of our actions. Sartre does not accept the excuse "it's only human nature" or anything of this sort. humanity's absolute freedom is directly opposite to the idea of pre-determination and fate (both which have a higher power as a pre-requisite). so it is either there is no god, or that if there is one, he/it does not concern itself with humanity and leaves it be.

3. Man is wholly responsible for his actions, and should act as if the rest of humanity would act in accord with his actions/choices. In this, we also bear a responsibility for all of mankind's actions. It is these obligations, in order to fully realize his freedom, that he uses this free will appropriately. Sartre would say that you and I are as responsible for the genocide in Sudan as are the people who are committing the murders; we should be doing something to stop it, Sartre would say. (On point, he was active in the French resistance during the Holocaust despite living in Paris under the Gestapo.)

4. The true existentialist lives the authentic life. Only when man recognizes the extent of his freedom and the obligations thereof can he live a fulfilling, meaningful life, in Sartre's view.

Interesting. Only, I find the idea of choosing for myself also bears the burden of choosing for all of mankind kinda absurd because I believe that man is end in himself. Existentialists claim that as all human beings within society are interdependent, one's actions necessarily affect other human beings and will create a domino effect on the community and an image that is "valid not only for you, but for our whole age."

Objectivisim, however, says that man must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. With this in mind, I would like to raise a point of inquiry. To what extent, does an objectivist hold responibility for his actions?

Edited March 19, 2005 by annais

[Cole]

An individual is entirely responsible for his own actions- to the extent that volition (and therefore ethics) is possible.

[JMeganSnow]

Yes a reader is obliged to go through contortions of trying to figure out what he really meant.  That is what reading is.  If you aren't trying to figure out what someone really meant, then why are you bothering to "read" that person?

AHEM!!! It's the WRITER'S job to structure their work in such a way that their intent is apparent. The reader's job is comprehension and integration, not interpretation, and CERTAINLY not interpretation that requires some sort of cryptoanalytic technique of tracing pseudonyms and unraveling false personas.

If you're going to say something, you had damn well better make sure you are intelligible!

To read a writer you have to have some appreciation for the situation they find themselves in.  I don't presume to understand a religious mystic as I have not had a mystical experience, so I cannot relate to what the mystic is talking about.  It might be rather difficult to understand a writer trying to come to grips with suicidal depression if one has never been suicidally depressed.  To have been in the situation is to understand just why they are seeing certain issues as important and others as not important.

Other people's neurological problems are not my problem, and the purpose of writing is not to put on a pornographic display of derangement, confusion, and error; it is to communicate an IDEA. If one has no ideas to communicate, or is incapable of doing so, one should not attempt to write.

That being said, if an author is anything like capable they convey more than adequately "where they're coming from" and there is no need to achieve some bizarre transcendant state to comprehend them.

Again why waste your time "reading" a writer if you aren't even familiar with the basic issues they are writing about?

Hmm, and here's me thinking that the purpose of reading something is so that you can GAIN an understanding of the issues. It may be best to begin with more basic texts but anyone as educated and philosophical as Burgess Laughlin CERTAINLY doesn't require a PRIMER to comprehend Existensialism.

I will say this though.  Guilt by association (i.e. relating people to Kant and then not bothering to read them, and by this I mean read, not simply look at all the words in order) is highly dishonest.

Oh, indeed. We must address every concrete example of an underlying philosophical approach as COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and separate, we mustn't associate them by their general principles.

That was sarcasm by the way.

How does one read? Do you flip to page 327 and read a word, then flip back to page 8 and read another? Or do you look at all the words in order and comprehend them?

[punk]

AHEM!!! It's the WRITER'S job to structure their work in such a way that their intent is apparent.  The reader's job is comprehension and integration, not interpretation, and CERTAINLY not interpretation that requires some sort of cryptoanalytic technique of tracing pseudonyms and unraveling false personas.

If you're going to say something, you had damn well better make sure you are intelligible!

Other people's neurological problems are not my problem, and the purpose of writing is not to put on a pornographic display of derangement, confusion, and error; it is to communicate an IDEA.  If one has no ideas to communicate, or is incapable of doing so, one should not attempt to write.

That being said, if an author is anything like capable they convey more than adequately "where they're coming from" and there is no need to achieve some bizarre transcendant state to comprehend them.

Hmm, and here's me thinking that the purpose of reading something is so that you can GAIN an understanding of the issues.  It may be best to begin with more basic texts but anyone as educated and philosophical as Burgess Laughlin CERTAINLY doesn't require a PRIMER to comprehend Existensialism.

Oh, indeed.  We must address every concrete example of an underlying philosophical approach as COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and separate, we mustn't associate them by their general principles.

That was sarcasm by the way.

How does one read?  Do you flip to page 327 and read a word, then flip back to page 8 and read another?  Or do you look at all the words in order and comprehend them?

If a person is going to go around claiming to know what someone else is talking about they should make an active effort to read and understand them.

If a person isn't going to do this, they shouldn't go around claiming to know what someone else is talking about.

If a person thinks a writer is difficult to understand and opaque and isn't willing to really put the effort into understanding them, that is a very good indicator that they shouldn't start claiming to know what the person is saying.

Violating the above tends to a make someone look like an ass.