Total head-scratcher. Why are all the rules up for interpretation, but black consciousness has ontological status? This whole thesis boils down to the belief that you can’t actually say anything meaningful.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I did think the distinction between “black” consciousness and “Black” consciousness was pretty interesting.

I do, however, wonder how far existentialism is compatible with any form of “identity” in the normal sense of the word. As Gordon points out, experience is relational. This means that our identities are radically open and hybrid.

Example: Growing up in the post-segregation South left an indelible imprint on my consciousness in terms of music-jazz—and language, especially improvisational humor. Of course, none of this stops me from being a nerdy white guy. And yet these experiences and loves reshaped me in a way that I can’t fully articulate. What is my “identity”?

[removed]

This makes a lot of sense. Not sure what the other commenters here are on about (I assume they’re on the kneejerk reactionary “why I not included GRUG” kick).

Black Existentialism in this context is not something that the average white person in America/Europe has direct experience with, which makes it a meaningful distinguisher from regular ol existentialism.

For a philosophy subreddit, y’all mfs love to take things at face value and get emotional over the use of the word black.

What are lives "worth living"? And if only the future of humanity may be able to do so does that mean we, now, aren't?

[removed]

>but he's talking about philosophy, which is inherently general,

Philosophy needs to be precise aswell, and it absolutely must relate to actual events the real world (such as engineering, art, socializing, etc), or else it is not useful at all (maybe still interesting, though). The author involves real-world specific context in his article plenty.

It's not good form to make an extremely broad and general statement in philosophy unless you can back it up by elaborating. Maybe he elaborates in his book, but in this article, he denounces "seriousness" - an incredibly broad and frequent feeling in humans - without being precise enough for it to be meaningful.

> btw the most exciting products of engineering are always the ones which are attempting to break paradigms.

I completely agree, and I firmly believe most of those engineers take their jobs seriously. Even as they break boundaries.

>but being playful can be limiting in itself, especially in a complex topic, like engineering or empathizing with trauma, where care is absolutely needed in order to make much progress

but he is talking about philosophy, which is inherently general, not as specific as a given engineering problem.

btw the most exciting products of engineering are always the ones which are attempting to break paradigms.

[removed]

Then what's the problem with also arbitrarily valuing the freedom you have and not the freedom someone else has? Since clearly there is no inherent problem with arbitrarily valuing things.

He's pretty flippant about discarding certain views with without much explanation. For instance, the idea that seriousness is an inherently closed view of reality. Some people are too uptight, sure, but you can absolutely take seriously the task of being openminded and exploring the world.

It's normal to care deeply about some parts of the world, and thus take them seriously, while keeping an open mind. It's actually really important. For one example, think of a time when a friend or family seriously fucked up and needed help. Like if they had an addiction or financial problems. A lot of people would take their situation seriously and be open-minded in order to empathize with the person who's suffering despite their own part in their suffering. That's just an example of a serious attitude being important for openmindedness. Someone who's flippant or too playful about their friend's problem might not be helpful if, indeed, their friend requires help. You'll have a hard time being empathetic if you don't take someone's situation seriously.

You can be serious about finding and exploring the world around you in all sorts of things, including stuff like art and engineering design.

It seems like the author's statement on seriousness being an inherently closed view of the world is not totally accurate. Playfulness is valuable, and legitimately important for thinking laterally; but being playful can be limiting in itself, especially in a complex topic, like engineering or empathizing with trauma, where care is absolutely needed in order to make much progress. So I think the author made a highly generalized statement that, as a result, isn't too useful imo. I think that's not great for an essay where the main idea is openmindedness and considering the whole world as-is.

What are some real life situations where Kant's categorical imperative becomes unapplicable? Thank you

Black Existentialism is so named because it investigates the construction of racial identities through the lens of existentialism. You could draw similarities to how Simone de Beauvoir used existentialism to investigate the identities imposed upon women. I.e. you are not starting from scratch in your analysis of your relationship to reality; you are starting from an identity (a negative/limiting identity) that has been constructed for you. Lewis Gordon's work focuses on how one can shed the 'double consciousness' and 'bad faith' of seeing oneself through the eyes of others. Progress here comes "when you don’t accept the idea that you’re intrinsically a problem. Instead, you shift and argue there’s a problem with a society that makes people into problems". Hopefully that helps - more in the interview!

[removed]

You need values to have morals and what the skeptic values is a given

You can’t have morality without values, specifically freedom and reason

I came here to post this! True existentialism shouldn’t need an adjective… if we are horrifyingly alone in our existence, clinging to skin groups adds to the absurdity. This is very much loving the dents and scars of your sisyphusian boulder.

[removed]

[removed]

Thanks i will get right into it. I am currently reading Meditations by Markus Aurelius what are your thoughts on it? And/or stoicism as a whole?

Weird. Why name your brand of existentialism after your ethnicity? Seems a very limiting viewpoint.