View Single Post
Old 11-03-2016, 06:01 AM
whunter (Offline)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 274
Thanks: 72
Thanks 38

Glad I randomly clicked onto this thread. Reading Zen was a major turning point in my life too - it's why I'm writing this out for you below

On older philosophical works in existentialism, Kierkegaard is my favorite and probably the easiest to read.

EDIT: Forgot to add, the beauty of philosophy is that this is my interpretation of the text. You may have your own and the idea is that if our interpretations are different, we just argue about it until either one of us concedes.


Modern thought has realized considerable progress by reducing the existent to the series of appearances which manifest it.

Collected wisdom up to Sartre's time has been successful recognizing it takes only a series of appearances to say "this exists."

It's aim was to overcome a certain number of dualisms which have embarrassed philosophy and to replace them by the monism of the phenomenon. Has the attempt been successful?

The goal was to overcome the dualism of something's appearance and it's actual form. Ex: the mind and brain are the same thing.

In the first place we certainly thus get rid of that dualism which in the existent opposes interior to exterior. There is no longer an exterior for the existent if one means by that a superficial covering which hides from sight the true nature of the object. And this true nature in turn, if it is to be the secret reality of the thing, which one can have a presentiment of or which one can suppose but can never reach because it is the "interior" of the object under consideration---this nature no longer exists.

If we suppose there is some inner truth (or Platonic form) to an apple, we'd be mistaken. The only thing we can recognize is the apple, is an apple, because it has external physical properties that represent what we think an apple is. There is no underlying reality that makes an apple an apple, it simply exists because 1) it is a physical object in reality and 2) has properties that are consistent with what we call apple.

The appearances which manifest the existent are neither interior nor exterior; they are all equal, they all refer to other appearances, and none of them is privileged.

Therefore, the apple is inherently an apple and gives off the appearance of "apple."

Important thought:
No action indicates anything which is behind itself; It indicates only itself and the total series.

Argues that an action, say slapping someone in the face, is itself an action. Its physical appearance (the act itself: the hand wave, the sound it makes, the effect) is simply an action, regardless of the motivations behind it. It can't be confused with anything else.

Last edited by whunter; 11-03-2016 at 06:03 AM..
Reply With Quote