Customer Reviews

An Introduction to Existentialism

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

i read the 1962 version--and apparently the text was never updated (but it has stayed in print). i found it a useful and clear presentation of the subject. the first twenty pages are worth the purchase, as the author is very good at orienting existentialism within the context of other philosophies. the chapters on anguish and freedom are especially good. some of the text's language is archaic. phrases such as the "common man" and the exclusive use of the male pronoun are used throughout. these are a bit distracting to the contemporary feminist trained ear, and reminds one of the sexist sensibilities of even the best educated individuals in the early 1960s. if one wants a literary-critical (as opposed to a strictly philosophical) reflection on existentialism, i would recommend TO DENY OUR NOTHINGNESS by maurice friedman. also written in the 1960s, friedman's book is a profound critical reflection on existential novels and poetry popular in his day (such as camus' THE PLAGUE and the novels of herman hesse).

Existentialism along with Pragmatism are the precursers of Post-Modernism. Though this book was written in the early 1960's Robert G. Olson's book gives a fairly complete summary and history of Existentialist philosophy. It compares it to Rationalism, Empiricism and Pragmatism in Epistimology, as well as Realism and Idealism in Metaphysics. Olson also covers many of the Ethical implications of Existentialism. He juxtiposes it to "Modern" Analytic Philosophy. I enjoyed this book immensely because I like comparing rival ideas and Philosophies. If you're interested in that too, or just want to understand the roots of Post-Modernism, or the way some European intelectuals think, then you should find this to be a great book.

Robert G. Olson does justice to the philosophy of Existentialism in his stellar novel, "An Introduction to Existentialism". By examining each individual aspect of the Existentialist interpretation and also introducing the main arguments against Existentialist points, Olson helps to create a solid base for the novice philosopher. Utilizing the works of Sartre, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Hursserl and Marx, the novel gives in depth analysis and conclusionary support to even the most complex areas of Existentialist thought. This novel makes one question the conformist views of our society while presenting an alternative solution through Existentialism.

This is one of those books that truly address the kind of big questions that bring people to philosophy before they get lost in arcane aspects of the field, and does so beautifully. It offers the added service of tying the questions existentialism asks and tries to answer to existentialism's predecessors in philosophy. It does so in a clear writing style and with a sense of passion about the subject. It's a pretty quick read, unless you choose to linger over it, which isn't a bad idea.

The author elucidates the basic elements of Existentialism, contrasting them with traditional philosophy & esp. American Pragmatism; chapters cover: Value Orientation (traditional vs. existentialist), The Human Condition (anguish & being), Reason & Unreason (epistemologies), Freedom (vs. determinism), Authenticity (Heidegger vs. Sarte), The Other (existence & authenticity), & Death (Heidegger vs. Sarte). He focuses on Heidegger & Sarte but addresses others too--pointing out Existentialism's ups & downs. I prefer Sarte: p. 211: "The very act of freedom is therefore the assumption & creation of finitude...the `individual' is the man who has the courage to make authentic decisions" though I'd say finitude creates freedom. Existentialism revolves around human freedom with some parallels to Freud; Olson ignores Jung though Existentialist in-itself/for-itself parallel Jung's unconscious/conscious minds & Buddhist absolute/relative being--Existentialists are dualists vs. mystical unio mystica/Spinoza's monistic approach. IMHO Existentialists make many good points (e.g. human dignity vs. predestination) but fail to properly extrapolate/interpret them. As Olson states--pp. 187-8: "Pragmatists say existentialists overgeneralize."

More specifically, they constantly argue dichotomies whereas the universe is spectral--shades of gray vs. just black & white. Thus, their views are simplistic. For example, Existentialists assert that consciousness depends on suffering--but this is just a special case because experiences depend on contrast--one can only perceive something via contrast--you can't see a polar bear in a snowstorm or a black cat on a moonless night. Further, they make many value judgments--suffering the pitfall of attribution (assume all people are like Existentialist philosophers)--whereas Jung's typology (Psychological Types (Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6)), for example, demonstrates human differences (further, how do Extra-terrestrials think?). Assuming homo sapiens are the ultimate beings is simplistic & egocentric; to state that thinking people are always conscious is absurd. Also, I submit that societal conventions are not truths (pp. 79-80). As Olson argues, p. 33: "Genuine knowledge is invariably a knowledge of a recurrent type of relationship between two or more kinds of particular beings under similar circumstances." Per Knowledge Management, context is necessary for knowledge, understanding, meaning, & decisions.

Also p. 125: "The mistake of the existentialists is similar to that of philosophers in the classical tradition. They pushed a concept to its very limits & found themselves with nothing but a meaningless & self-contradictory concept on their hands." For example, unlike Montague in The Ways of Knowing or the Methods of Philosophy, philosophers usually have uni-epistemological belief systems. Antithetically, Science is, at worst, bi-epistemological, counterbalancing philosophical Rationalism with Empiricism (& often Intuition). Thus Existentialists reach absurd conclusions such as: p. 105: desire is a lack of something--ignoring positive reinforcement, Herzberg's Two Factor Theory, Maslow's Self-Actualization, & Buddhas (who only desire to Be); p. 123: shame is logical due to one's freedom/control--but one can be ashamed of others over whom one has no control--e.g. ancestors, family, national leaders, or humanity as a whole; pp. 181-2: Sarte thinks love is always transitive (has an object) ignoring mystical, intransitive, selfless love; & p. 189: security & freedom are mutually exclusive--demonstrating the absurdity of their dichotomy of extremes.

Overall, the book is quite informative though I cannot attest to its accuracy in defining Existentialism & contrasting it with Pragmatism & Freud. However, I would take issue with virtually all the belief systems Olson includes in this work. They certainly have something to contribute, but he ignores Realists (the well-considered complex, more sophisticated, views of Montague), Jungian psychology, Kant (I'd be interested in his views on Existentialism; The Philosophy of Kant: Immanuel Kant's Moral and Political Writings); & mysticism--though Olson sheds some light on their approach--p. 167: "The man who deliberately cuts himself off from others does so, not because he is indifferent, but on the contrary because his consciousness of others is so acute that he cannot bear their physical presence. Physical isolation is simply one way in which men relate to others & thereby define their own being." Sounds like a Tibetan lama's 3-year retreat or a Kabbalist's Hitbodetut to me.

if you want a literary introduction to Existentialism, not bogged down by complexities, read a book like 'Toilet: The Novel' by Michael Szymczyk, or 'Siddhartha and Goldmund' by Herman Hesse.
Otherwise, for an introduction to the Philosophy, check this one or Walter Kauffman's book.

I just wanted to learn about existentialism. As the name suggested "an introduction", it is not for beginners. The language is more acedemic and hard to understand. For sure it was a waste of money for a biginner like myself.