Submitted by philosophybreak t3_zkr99s in philosophy
Weird. Why name your brand of existentialism after your ethnicity? Seems a very limiting viewpoint.
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!
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.
Then give it a different name. While black people (in america) are heavily disenfranchised, so are the Uyghurs in China, the tibetans in Tibet, Ethnic Muslims in many parts of the world, whites (currently) in south africa, the list goes on.
Ignoring the fact that from the viewpoint of most biologists 'race' as a concept doesn't exist, what he's tlaking about (according to your summary) has nothing intrinsically to do with african americans, more to do with dominant and sub-dominant subcultures.
The existence of Black Existentialism does not preclude a broader all-encompassing viewpoint.
A direct examination of the concept from the perspective of one specific group is perfectly valid, and could even be a precursor to a broader theory.
And I’m sure that a closer examination of other disenfranchised groups would also reveal meaningfully distinct characteristics between those groups such that a single group cannot perfectly generalize to all groups, thus requiring a much broader effort to properly construct a general theory.
It's not perfectly valid, because it's naming black people - not african-american people - but all black people, including those who are in dominant positions of power in their given societies.
If the viewpoint is really so-specific to the united states, then call it that. But I HIGHLY doubt that is the case.
[removed]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
I’m not a person that has interest in celebrating or promoting empowerment based on my race, but it’s most certainly an interesting topic to think about and discuss.
On the surface, race empowerment does not seem like a bad thing for any race to promote, yet it’s only considered acceptable by certain races mainly due to the historic amount of racial hate through most of modern history.
I understand the apprehension of some folks to openly allow and tolerate members of all races celebrating racial empowerment, however we should also use critical thinking and clear judgement to distinguish between what is actual hate and what is empowerment.
[removed]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
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.
Oof...the very notion that (in this case, blackness) would be a "dent in your sisyphusian boulder" begs the notion that "blackness" is a flaw one is saddled with.
Rather than speak againat it, you've managed to reinforce the notion that sometimes a differentiation based on inherent starting point is needed...the "black experience" is predicted on both living it but also having it imposed on you, at birth, by a larger societal group who wants to "other" you from the get go, before you even have a chance to form your own identity.
Read Black Skin, White Masks for a unique blend of existentialism stemming from Sartre as well as a depiction of the particular experience of blackness as colonized subject. He actually talks about the overlap of existential freedom and breaking free of forms of white guilt for the white person as well as feelings of black interiority for the black person.
There are unifying things about existential experience, but also definitive experiences of racial oppression, historically or otherwise.
I think there are a lot of nuanced takes from vantage points other than the main European existentialists and absurdist(s).
Sounds like an interesting read! I’ll check it out.
Philosophy is how we interface with the world, so I agree that the argument is nuanced. It has to be or it’s useless. Camus’ famous quote “the only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion,” for me, is the action at the conversation’s end. Everything else are scars on our personal boulder for us all to fawn on, proselytize about, and so on… which is all apart of the absurdity (to me), but it makes for spirited conversation… 🤓
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments