Katharena eiermann existentialism and dostoevsky biography

I would have liked, instead of notes about the translation version etc. It is, after all, meant to be 'basic. I know he includes de Beauvoir, who is absent here. Sartre " What they have in common is simply the fact that they believe that existence comes before essence — Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing — as he wills to be after that leap towards existence.

Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. But what do we mean to say by this, but that man is of a greater dignity than a stone or a table? For we mean to say that man primarily exists — that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so.

Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower. Before that projection of the self nothing exists; not even in the heaven of intelligence: man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be. Not, however, what he may wish to be. A very poor introduction to existentialism.

I hoped the book would sum up the whole existential movement, introducing the philosophy and it's proponents. The book fails to do so. The introduction is very basic and even fails to define existentialism properly. The excerpts from various existentialist writers, I found to be abrupt and I failed to pick the gist and point behind the writing.

The excerpts start in the middle and take you no where. Each writer isn't introduced properly, and Kaufmann fails to link each writer with the other or differentiate their strand of existentialism. Overall, very disappointing. Seth Skogerboe. A helpful head-start on understanding why we think what we think today. Alex Obrigewitsch. A solid collection, but Kaufmann seems far too arrogant and clearly sets up these philosophers based on his own reading and interpretation of them.

He does not understand Heidegger at all as he made clear in From Shakespeare to Existentialism. You are better off just reading the philosopher's book as a whole, you always are. This is a good way to find out from a taste if you might like said philosopher's style or not. It does not, however, give you anywhere close to an "understanding" of the philosopher or their ideas.

I - kinda - finished this book. Difficult, dense, and terse at times. Despite these loose criticisms I have for this book, I did find it intellectually rewarding to decode and extract the philosophical wisdom from the text. I will certainly be returning to this book in the future. Tim Guy. Me n the boys be like. Easton Chambers-Ozasky.

Lol, don't mind me Author 2 books 1 follower. Found this book on a bookshelf in high school. It may sound cheesy, but it changed my life. Tiago F. The collection was organized by Kaufmann, an American philosopher. The book is an anthology, which took me by surprised since it's not mentioned anywhere. I think anthologies are useful, but I think it's rather dishonest to not state it up-front.

I would rather have an actual book on the topic, which I think it's often best as an introduction. The book starts with an introduction by Kaufmann. What is existentialism? This is difficult to answer. The very concept assumes uniformity among the thinkers that are placed within that label, but ironically enough many rejected such labels, and it's not easy to find a coherent philosophy among them.

Topics like freedom, anxiety, individualism, authenticity, nihilism, and death are often touched, but very often emphasized differently, and sometimes with a different take from each thinker. Rather than a specific philosophy, Kaufmann instead identities the heart of existentialism as the refusal to belong to a pre-made school of thought this often including the entire philosophical canon and brining back philosophy to everyday life.

Then the book features selected writings from the authors I initially mentioned, in that order. Sometimes from a single body of work, sometimes many. An introduction to the thinker is given by Kaufmann, and then the original text begins. Some of them translated for the first time by the author himself. I enjoyed the book, although at times I felt very dense to go through.

Some thinkers, like Jaspers, were very hard to read.

Katharena eiermann existentialism and dostoevsky biography

I often spend countless paragraphs with almost zero idea what the hell he was saying. I think I did get the main gist of it, and often great insights, but a very hazardous task, and I kept getting annoyed that I bought a book to help me better understand existentialism, and yet I was thrown into it with minimal help. I liked the fact that I was introduced to some thinkers that I wasn't familiar with, and even those that I already knew, I liked reading a primary source, which I should do more of.

Ortega, in particular, was very enjoyable and seemed to have everything I liked about Heidegger in a more accessible language. But I think to some degree I found something valuable in every chapter of each author. One thing I disliked was the distribution of the different authors. A very large portion of the book was dedicated to Jaspers, which I found unnecessary.

Over 70 pages in a page book with 10 different thinkers. Ortega, for example, which I really enjoyed reading, had a pathetic 6 pages. Satre and Camus were both giants of the movement, yet Satre had almost , and Camus had 4. If you're interested in existentialism, I'm sure this is helpful. However, just be mindful that it is an anthology, and while the author does give an introduction before each thinker, it's rather short and not sufficient.

Nevertheless, if you have an interest in diving into primary existential literature, but yet you rather dig your toes into several philosophers rather than commit to a single one, this is a great resource. Existentialism has always been difficult to define, and this book makes a good effort. The author uses passages from some of the most famous existentialists to explain what it is.

It's pretty well done. More reviews and ratings. Join the discussion. Can't find what you're looking for? Kierkegaard a , p. Harrison , p. According to Lossky , p. See Paris , pp. Dostoevsky , p. This particular aspect of inner fragmentation is also explored by Dreyfus Dostoevsky , PSS Kierkegaard b , p. As Garff notes Garff , p. Additionally, as McArthy , p.

Nizet , p. Dolinin , p. Kirillov is an intriguing character and it could be easily argued that his self-deification demonstrates the pitfalls of these epiphanic ecstasies. He shows us that they might, if interpreted incorrectly, lead away from God, towards self-destructive solipsism. His reasoning is that of subjective idealism, tinted with solipsistic tendencies—arguing, that if God is non-existent, then in the absence of his divine will, all will belongs to the single individual, that is to Kirillov himself Dostoevsky , p.

He then feels obliged to assert his own self-will and express it on the most vital point—that of his own existence. To commit suicide—to shoot himself—is then the highest possible manifestation of his own will. Kierkegaard develops the motive of self-emptying also in connection with the sinful woman from Luke —50; see Kierkegaard , Barnett and Pattison , p.

Almost as if a mere concurrence of inner fragmentation and reflection upon that fragmentation is enough to steer the individual towards God. Dreyfus , p. Law , p. This is a crucial point, albeit the hardest one to understand. This idea is also picked up by Roos , p. Humility thus needs to be an essential, and not merely accidental, attribute of the individual.

Barrett , p. Sandoz Ziolkowski See Ziolkowski , p. See Tucker , p. Webster Hannay , p. Walsh , p. Ferreira , p. Krishek , p. This claim is also supported by Pattison , p. This he clarifies by alluding to a passage where Kierkegaard emphasises the ordinariness and humanness of love on an example of a large family sharing a cramped apartment yet living together in an altogether loving way.

This he claims in the very last issue of his journal The Moment ; Kierkegaard , p. Steinberg , p. See Ware , pp. Frank , p. Scanlan , p. Letter to Pobedonostsev, May, ; in Dostoevsky , p. Miller , p. A good example of this is the fact that Dostoevsky sees contemporary European violence as occasioned by resurgence in Catholic devotion; see Blake , p.

Khan , p. Especially an edifying discourse titled On the Occasion of a Wedding , where Kierkegaard writes about Kjerlighed not of Elskov being a duty, see Kierkegaard b , p. Cited as SKSvolume:page. Dostoevsky, F. Brothers Karamazov. Garnett trans. Garnet trans. Nietzsche's idealized individual invents his or her own values and creates the very terms they excel under.

By contrast, Kierkegaard, opposed to the level of abstraction in Hegel, and not nearly as hostile actually welcoming to Christianity as Nietzsche, argues through a pseudonym that the objective certainty of religious truths specifically Christian is not only impossible, but even founded on logical paradoxes. Yet he continues to imply that a leap of faith is a possible means for an individual to reach a higher stage of existence that transcends and contains both an aesthetic and ethical value of life.

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were also precursors to other intellectual movements, including postmodernism, and various strands of psychology. The page is, in fact, mostly a list of links, and not overly informative. The Question and Answer section for Crime and Punishment is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

Who is following Svidrigailov? Who does Porfiry say confessed to the crime?