Sartre, existentialism, and science

[Kendel]

@Jay313

I have a third thing in mind that doesn’t begin with conscious choice.

Interesting. You had recently talked about this progression in the thread Stages of Spiritual Development., which I thought of as I was writing.
Yeah, this makes sense.

@Jay313

don’t think existentialism entails evaluating every possible choice. It’s merely the idea that we’re the sum of our choices. Most of the time, we make moral choices by “gut instinct” and only afterwards apply moral reasoning to rationalize our choices.

@MarkD

After all we learn and grow as much from our failures as from our successes, though the latter are rightfully preferred.

@mitchellmckain

There is nothing in existentialism about any requirement to consider all possible options, it is only about making your own choices.

Thank you, all three, This makes sense.

@mitchellmckain

If I thought that I would have said so. I did not.

Thank you for clarifying, @mitchellmckain. I will keep this in mind. You used markers that I read as clear signs of offense.

@mitchellmckain

What was far more disappointing was that you didn’t respond to the rest of paragraph

I felt I needed to prioritize dealing with the non-existent offense. I appreciate your attempt to understand and seek balance.

@mitchellmckain

I suppose it means we are not so inspired by obedience, and maybe in this existentialism is not completely right or at least one-sided. To be sure we can see some horrific examples of obedience gone wrong, but I think it would be foolish not to see where obedience is appropriate and good.

I agree with this, although it’s not exactly what I was getting at. I was thinking of something broader than obedience, although it can certainly be part of what I have in mind.

I think obedience can be either a considered or a blind adherence to what I have called a template. Perhaps one finds a particular form of Christianity that they feel “nails it.” It answers the questions they have in ways that make sense; it makes demands that seem consistent and correct with the answers it gives. Although those demands are hard, the person decides that this is the Way, and focuses her life on following it.
Or perhaps one is raised in a particular form of Christianity and focuses their life on obedience without questioning, if this is the right way.
Both lives might look very similar from the outside. But the process on the inside is quite different.

What I had in mind was what I think is more common and likely more consistent with existentialism, but I might be wrong there.
At this point, Jay and I have said much the same thing. Many of us become aware of the “templates” we have been formed by in our lives - largely as we recognize their limitations or error. While we might not see each template in its entirty, we may evaluate one part or another as we become aware of them, and seek to conform to the parts we find acceptable and good. @MarkD refered to this process as “discovering what our real values and preferences are.” I believe this process is something quite different from simple obedience, although it may include obedience. But that will be an obedience that is considered and that recognizes short comings, that may even have some hard borders (thus far and no further).

In the cases of obedience and defiance, the reason for both need to be carefully considered. There is nothing admirable about ODD (oppositional defiance disorder) or blind obedience.