You know, I can't give a real in depth answer because my exposure is limited. I generally regard formal 20th century literary and artistic movements as tedious, dull, and pedantic, and prone to ask unanswerable questions or to address issues from a standpoint that's not terribly useful. "Gonzo Journalism" I like because it deals with reality.
I'm generally familiar with Sartre and Camus, though, and I have a very inert reaction to them. Do not dislike, do not like. They're okay. Dull and pedantic at worst, maybe.
Do existentialists tell linear stories, or is it stream of conscious rubbish?
2. All or virtually all of them, religious or otherwise, denied that the world was immediately comprehensible to human beings; the atheists rejected vulgar scientific positivism;
Kepler, Newton, and Einstein should have laid that to rest otherwise. I would go flatly against the idea that the world is not immediately comprehensible. So then what guided their thought process? Reality is just what you make of it? Or there is no reality? IDK, how these things go is sometimes not accessible to me.
3. Existentialism in all of its forms sought to analyze the contents of consciousness without resorting to causal chains; that is, owing to its roots in Husserlian phenomenology, they sought to look at the categories of human thought without reference to externalities.
How about an example of what an "externality" is?
If it means what I think it means, I think it's safe to say that the physical world would behave differently if that were a useful way to look at things.
Poll
