Existentialism

[Struggling]

Is there anything wrong, inherently, with Existentialism? (so-called “Christian Existentialism”?)

What is the Church’s position on it? (heavily-against, leans-against, neutral? I know it certainly doesnt support it)

Is it in anyway compatible with Thomism which I, and the Church, are sympathetic towards.

Certainly atheistic existentialism is not, but what about those ideas that Catholic theologians have tried to reconcile with Christianity.

I admit, it seems to me to be more of an “attitude” than a “philosophy”…an emotional outlook and “literary” lifestyle than an actual metaphysical explanation for anything…

But while I reject their ontological conclusions, etc…is their anything wrong with their practical explorations and psychological insight?

That is to say, existential angst, dealing with the fact that we are utterly individual, knowing that our present choices can’t bind us in the future (we must then make a new choice), feeling like we are what we do, knowing that happiness cannot be found in this world (niether through suppressing desire like the stoics, trying to change the world like the Enlightenment, nor through being comforted/detatched through religion and contemplation of higher things).

I think one criticism of the existentialisms was true especially. Too many people (even Socrates) looked at Wisdom/Religion giving comfort, reassurance, peace in THIS world. Too many people fool themselves by alledgedly “gaining peace in this lifetime” through their relationship with God and looking forward to heaven. But I believe that this peace will not truly be gained until we die, and until that point the good will only suffer more (John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila’s “I die because I do not die”) and that religion up until that point will not “solve” any emotional problems in this life or truly be reassuring, but there will always be doubt, and uncertainty, and guilt, and yearning, etc…

Are the existentialists so terribly wrong?

 

[mlcampbell]

While some of the theological and philosophical conclusions that existentialism arrives at are irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine, I would say that the experience of emotional/spritual angst and misery are totally in line with Catholic thought. Have you ever read the Imitation of Christ before?

 

[Meggie]

I just finished an University course on Existentalism…and I have to say, it shed alot of light on the reason for belief.
I think it highlighted why belief is a necessary extention of faith, and more importantly, why man cannot be his own God.
Many of these guys went psyco…it was really intresting.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Struggling,

As far as I know, the Church never condemned Christian existentialism. Kiegergaard is the Father of Christian existentialism but Gabriel Marcel is more recent and possibly more palatable.

Of course, it’s based on principles totally alien to Thomism, but what of it. The Church, which recommends Thomism for its seminaries and Catholic schools, approves of it because it has proven itself in supporting Christian doctrine. But the same Church does not espouse any philosophical system.

Existentialism is very much oriented towards guidance for living, whereas other philsophical system are mostly tools of thought.

Verbum

 

[Reformed_Rob]

I’ve got a book on Existentialism, but I haven’t read it yet. I was goiing to work backwards from Postmodernism to Existentialism, but maybe I’ll start over and work forward. Or does it even matter??

Well from what apologetics I read before, I remember that most people (ie. the general public and pew people) would be led away from Christianity by the general teachings of existentialism. Not necessarily led away from church & fellowship, but led away in their mind. It’s not a worldview that is presented in a way to lead one deeper to faith in and obedience to God. It’s too…void of meaning. Not grounded on something that’s important to Christianity. Namely, that there is meaning to existence. “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life”, as some would say.

Life may be a big open sea, but that doesn’t mean that life is void of meaning. If you’re into existentialism, you’ll get that. If not, just nod your head and agree.

That’s not to say that there may not be, as some have suggested, a way to interpret some aspects of existentialism in Christian ways. But it’s just not the way it’s usually done in the field of human thought.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Is it in anyway compatible with Thomism which I, and the Church, are sympathetic towards.

It has been so long since I studied either that I ought not to even comment. However, it is my distinct recollection from college, where I studied both intensely, soooooooooooo many years ago, that they are not at all inconsistent. If I am not greatly mistaken, French Catholic philosophers such as Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson and, yes, Marcel, sought to reconcile them and did so. As I recall, existentialism virtually requested Christianity in a way.

Sartre, as I recall, remarked that since people are unhappy and they die, life is absurd. He further said that if there was a God, then life would not be absurd at all. But (being an atheist) he said that since God does not exist, life is, in fact, absurd, and that the absurdity of life demands rebellion (Camus, I think, was even more adamant, advocating suicide as the definitive act of rebellion-the ultimate absurdity, protesting against one who “does not exist”)

So, although Sartre, to my knowledge, died an atheist, he certainly allowed that only God could give meaning to life. His atheism, as I recall, was not arrived at through any strong philosophical argument. He just did not believe because he did not believe.

While it is beyond my power to fully explicate it here, that did leave a fairly target-rich environment for Catholic philosophers who tied things together. If there is a basis for belief, then existentialism truly does do a 180, as Sartre, himself, admitted. Thomism is then, in a manner of speaking, a key to the existentialist lock. In fact, as I recall, one of the Catholic positions was that an existential imperative, such as the obvious appetite humans have for the infinite and the everlasting, would not logically be directed toward something that did not, at least in some manner, exist, since no other innate directive of anything in the universe does so.