Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre

[iambiguous]

Sartre’s Being & Nothingness: The Bible of Existentialism?
Christine Daigle discusses some of the key concepts and ideas in Sartre’s most important philosophical book.

Relationships with Others

The last important part of Being and Nothingness that I wish to address is that which deals with the being-for-others. What Sartre has to say about interpersonal relationships in this section of the book has had a tremendous impact; it is thus fitting to turn our ‘gaze’ towards this part.

The gaze/look of "the other": https://medium.com/@anthony.widmann/in- ... ed15f0b1bb

The part where some react to this as though others are attempting to objectify them. I merely take this further by suggesting that in regard to value judgments, many have no problem at all objectifying themselves. 

As a human being, I am both a being for-itself (conscious of myself) and a being-for-Others (who are conscious of me in a way that I have no access to). I encounter the Other in the world.

Again, though, how, for all practical purposes, does this actually unfold given your own interactions with others? What are you conscious of? How, existentially, did you become conscious of it? Are you convinced that what you are now conscious of reflects the most reasonable assessment? Reflecting, in other words, what you deem to be the optimal description, such that all rational men and women are obligated to think and to feel and to intuit as you do? 

But, clearly, part of the reason "failures to communicate" pop up everywhere in regard to conflicting goods is that, God or No God, there has yet to be a moral and political font either invented or discovered that we can all agree reflects the best of all possible worlds. Only countless others insisting you are either "one of us" or fuck off. 

What happens in fact is the encounter of two bodies. Sartre will say that there is an unbridgeable distance between the for-itself and the Other. My consciousness encounters the Other’s body via my own body. Thus, I do not have access to the Other’s consciousness, nor does he to mine.

On the other hand, in my view, even if we did have access to the minds of others [and they to ours], what would really change in regard to conflicting goods? Would all of the ofttimes conflicting moral dogmas just dissolve into the One True Path? 

Your own, say?

There is an ontological split between consciousnesses. Our body is an integral part of the unity, which we are as human beings. However, this system, which I encounter, the Other, is not my system. It is radically other. This, along with what he further says about the look of the Other, is what forms the ground for the conflictual relationships between individuals in Sartre’s philosophy. I am, first and foremost, an object for the Other. The Other is also, for me, an object. I do not encounter his subjectivity but rather, a body that seems to be ‘inhabited’ by a subjectivity. In Sartre’s terms: I encounter an object that refers to the Other as subject.

Does this make sense to you? If so, then, again, note how you translate it into the actual behaviors you choose when encountering "others" that reject your own value judgments. The part that revolves around living "authentically" by eschewing "bad faith".

Click, of course.

[iambiguous]

Sartre’s Being & Nothingness: The Bible of Existentialism?
Christine Daigle discusses some of the key concepts and ideas in Sartre’s most important philosophical book.

It is this objectification process that makes the Other’s presence an alienating one. The Other’s gaze denies my subjectivity. By objectifying me, the Other reduces me to my bodily presence in the world, possibly to a tool, an instrument to be used in his world. Interestingly, this alienating process is reciprocal: I do the exact same thing to the Other. Hence, we are bound not to understand and not to acknowledge each other as free consciousnesses. Is that so really? Let us ‘look’ at this a little closer.

Of course, when you run this by the moral, political and spiritual objectivists, they do not or will not construe it this way at all. Others may try to objectify them but they "just know" that their own One True Path need be as far as it goes. They'll tell you they already know everything that they need to know about being enlightened. 

Or, for others, being saved.

What I do here, however, is to muddy the waters all the more by suggesting human social, political and economic interactions may well be but existential manifestations of dasein. And, as well, that being "fractured and fragmented" is entirely reasonable given human morality in a No God world.  

In other words, they objectify themselves. They are indoctrinated as children. Or discover one or another rendition of The Way as adults. They convince themselves that they are in possession of an Intrinsic Self that "just knows" the difference between good and evil. 

Then the part where some tolerate those deemed to be Other -- "one of them" -- and some do not.

Through my encounter with the Other, I discover that the Other can see me just as I can see him. Thus the Other has to be more than a mere object. The Other is a peculiar object that can make himself into a subject who sees me. I am always ‘looked at’. Hence, a subject sees me and because of the ontological split, of which I spoke earlier, can never see me as I am (can I anyways?).

Now all we need to do is explore human interactions given different sets of circumstances in order to connect the dots between the ontological and the ontic. In other words, the essential aspects of the human condition that are basically applicable to all of us versus the existential components of dasein given the Benjamin Button Syndrome which make failures to communicate in the is/ought world a daily occurence. 

Unless, of course, my own "drawn and quartered" assessment is simply...incorrect?

Other sees me as the author of this article. By saying: “Christine is the author of the article on Being and Nothingness”, the Other objectifies me, essentializes my being. However, because I am free and because I never fully correspond to my actual being which is in the making, this statement does not correspond to who I am and yet someone believes it to be the truth about me.

Same thing. There's what you think she means here philosophically and there's how these philosophical assumptions fare existentially when confronted with any number of moral and political conflagrations. What is truly objective and what may well be considerably more intersubjective. 

Thus my existence is one thing for me and another for the Other: “Beyond any knowledge which I can have, I am this self whom another knows. And this self which I am – this I am in a world which the Other has made alien to me, for the Other’s look embraces my being and correlatively the walls, the door, the keyhole.” Thus, it is more than just my being, which is alienated through the gaze of the Other, it is also the world.

Thus an explanation for why moral, political and religious objectivism still "works" for millions around the globe is that alternative assessments such as my own are just too grim to be true.

[iambiguous]

Sartre’s Being & Nothingness: The Bible of Existentialism?
Christine Daigle discusses some of the key concepts and ideas in Sartre’s most important philosophical book.

In my experience of the world, I meet with a web of objects that I make into instruments, which are given meaning through my project, i.e. my actions in the world. Thus the world is really a world for me. However, once the Other sheds his look upon it, the world is alienated from me: this same collection of objects is given a different meaning, is part of an Other’s experience. My world is taken away from me just as my being is, thanks to the onlooking presence of the Other.

Again, imagine you have become a castaway on an island. You are the only inhabitant. In deciding what to do from day to day to day it comes down entirely to what you prefer to do. On the other hand, if you are a religious person, you might also take that into consideration. It's not just what you want but whether or not it is in sync with one or another set of moral commandments...to sin or not to sin.

God: the ultimate Other.

But then one day another person washes up on shore. Now there are the two of you. And while you may concur regarding any number of things, there are going to be things you don't see eye to eye about. Then what? Well, as with the rest of us, it will come down to one or another combination of might makes right, right makes might and moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Sartre uses another famous example to illustrate how things collapse for the for-itself when the Other is present. “Let us imagine that moved by jealousy, curiosity, or vice I have just glued my ear to the door and looked through a keyhole.” While our peeping Tom is alone, he is controlling the situation: he is looking through the keyhole and objectifying whoever is present in that room. He is his action and he is “a pure consciousness of things”. However, as soon as he hears footsteps in the hall, the situation is radically changed. The looker is looked at. Being looked at, he solidifies in the role of a peeping Tom. Alienation and disintegration of one’s world occur as the Other arrives and transforms the situation through his presence.

The main difference between Sartre and myself here revolves largely around the assumption on my part that in regard to moral and political interactions, "authenticity" and "bad faith" are no less existential contraptions rooted historically, culturally and experientially in dasein. In other words, while fractured and fragmented communication often unfolds in regard to conflicting goods, for those of my ilk that pertains to my own "self" as well. It's not "one of us" vs. "one of them" as many see the world around them...it's being "drawn and quartered", pulled and tugged ambivalently in any number of entirely complex, convoluted and conflicting directions.

Alienation and disintegration are embedded in my own reaction to any number of things. Thus, most men and women have no problem reacting to peeping Toms as those who behave inauthentically and in bad faith. They can be seen, in turn, as evil and worthy only of our contempt and censure.

Objectively, as it were.

[Belinda]

Don't you think that when you gaze at a person whom you love, bearing in mind they are a Dasein, you know how it feels sad that the loved person is formed by existence not essence. The thing about Dasein is Dasein is a process of becoming.

The Other is more than their history, and this, you can know of them.

[iambiguous]

Sartre’s Being & Nothingness: The Bible of Existentialism?
Christine Daigle discusses some of the key concepts and ideas in Sartre’s most important philosophical book.

The Legacy
What then of Being and Nothingness’ legacy? I would argue that its impact has been tremendous. Existentialism, as Sartre formulates it in this treatise, empowers the human being in a period when power seems to rest in the hands of only a few individuals.

Well, it might empower some, of course, but it can also befuddle and inhibit others. The last thing some people want is "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty". That's the whole point of objectivism...to make that all go away. On the other hand, Sartre came to grasp that political economy simply cannot be ignored. Power rests in the hands of a few because the deep state is owned and operated by the ruling class. Now, imagine how tricky that can become. Some see socialism as just another dogmatic agenda that can swallow the individual whole. Workers of the world unite...but only authentically? Sans bad faith?

The philosophy of freedom puts the individual back in the centre, allows him to engage in his own projects no matter what oppression or situation he is facing. Further, in a period struck by nihilism and atheism, existentialism gives individuals the possibility to make something of themselves, to flourish in their project without suffering from any alienation caused by a transcendent world of values or by a magnified-Other like God.

What about allowing her to engage in her own projects? And, of course, in any particular context, the oppression can be such that you [male or female] are strictly forbidden from pursuing projects deemed harmful to the public good.. And in periods struck by nihilism and atheism, how exactly would existentialists pin down the least inauthentic behaviors. After all, any number of oppressors can practice the politics of "right makes might". They don't see it as oppression so much as clearly differentiating what they offtimes sincerely believe to be either Good or Evil behaviors.

In other words, "bad faith" is no less rooted existentially in the individual lives that we live.

[Belinda]

Sartre’s Being & Nothingness: The Bible of Existentialism?
Christine Daigle discusses some of the key concepts and ideas in Sartre’s most important philosophical book.

The Legacy
What then of Being and Nothingness’ legacy? I would argue that its impact has been tremendous. Existentialism, as Sartre formulates it in this treatise, empowers the human being in a period when power seems to rest in the hands of only a few individuals.

Well, it might empower some, of course, but it can also befuddle and inhibit others. The last thing some people want is "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty". That's the whole point of objectivism...to make that all go away. On the other hand, Sartre came to grasp that political economy simply cannot be ignored. Power rests in the hands of a few because the deep state is owned and operated by the ruling class. Now, imagine how tricky that can become. Some see socialism as just another dogmatic agenda that can swallow the individual whole. Workers of the world unite...but only authentically? Sans bad faith?

The philosophy of freedom puts the individual back in the centre, allows him to engage in his own projects no matter what oppression or situation he is facing. Further, in a period struck by nihilism and atheism, existentialism gives individuals the possibility to make something of themselves, to flourish in their project without suffering from any alienation caused by a transcendent world of values or by a magnified-Other like God.

What about allowing her to engage in her own projects? And, of course, in any particular context, the oppression can be such that you [male or female] are strictly forbidden from pursuing projects deemed harmful to the public good.. And in periods struck by nihilism and atheism, how exactly would existentialists pin down the least inauthentic behaviors. After all, any number of oppressors can practice the politics of "right makes might". They don't see it as oppression so much as clearly differentiating what they offtimes sincerely believe to be either Good or Evil behaviors.

In other words, "bad faith" is no less rooted existentially in the individual lives that we live.

Sure, the last thing some people want is to be responsible for who they are, preferring to be labelled by others . Freedom is not as easy as being others' dupe.

What does that woman over there believe she is ? Wife? Parasite? Lawyer? Machinist? Farmer? Criminal?

For goodness sake she is no some unchangeable essence ! She is in a process of becoming and it's up to her to set her own course as much as she possibly can. She is much more than any of the aforesaid labels.

[iambiguous]

The Free Market Existentialist by William Irwin
Alberto Giordano is left unsatisfied at an attempt to wed evolution, capitalism, and existentialism.

Sartre meeting Darwin meeting Nozick? Too many angles, I’d think, at least for the mainstream philosophy student.

No, really, let's imagine those moral and political philosophers among us who champion each of the above offering one or another staunch defense of or fierce rejection of capitalism. Then they take their philosophical assumptions to those who champion Marx or Nietzsche or Rand or Rorty.

What in regard to capitalism today could they conclude [given a consensus] reflects either the best of all possible worlds or, perhaps, the only truly rational and virtuous account of political economy? Of nomadic tribes, hunters and gatherers, slash and burn

Then the angles they could all agree on because they are embedded essentially, objectively in the either/or world. You know the ones...the facts that are applicable to all of us.

Then the parts that are of particular interest to those like me: meaning, morality and metaphysics. In other words, what could the folks above tell us objectively about them...given particular sets of circumstances. Also, the scientists/philosophers above who were born and raised in different historical and cultural contexts. And, no doubt, having encountered what may well be vastly different personal experiences. The parts I root existentially in dasein out in a particular world understood in a particular manner. Embedded further in any number of factors swirling about us given countless combinations of contingency, chance and change.

But William Irwin is not afraid of the conversation of philosophers, and challenges the reader to follow him through a tour de force whose goal is to show us that “capitalism and existentialism are compatible” and hence that “a minimal state with a truly free market would be a worthy option.”

Of course, that's what any number of moral and political objectivists here might set out to argue theoretically is the case up in the philosophical clouds. But then the part where for centuries now mere mortals have not even come close to resolving it "for all practical purposes".

But wait. There’s not just a connection between capitalism and existentialism here; Irwin also shows us “the unexpected connection between existentialism and evolutionary theory.” This is an evolutionary theory that tells us that there are no moral facts – a premise that, in turn, leads to Irwin’s avowal of the minimal state conducive to capitalism.

Not sure what is being argued here. Human beings down through the ages have interacted socially, politically and economically in very different ways given very different assumptions about the world around them. And given very different manners in which the means of production evolved going all the way back to when we still lived in caves...momads, hunters and gatherers, slash and burn/agriculturalists communities, slave cultures, feudalists, mercantilists...

Yes, there were those like Rand who argued that what more "primitive" communities lacked was a John Galt to set them straight about capitalism. Whereas those of Marx's ilk scoffed at the idea of creating a capitalist political economy long before capitalism itself even existed. First you needed the economy to evolve to the point where there was a "surplus labor" available.

Some of them then became philosophers.

[Belinda]

Send not to ask for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee: Each 'individual ' is not only her skin, bones, memories, and so forth she's also her 'environment'. Her Dasein is not restricted despite that she may think it is restricted. Dasein is dynamic not only temporally but spatially too.

Sans ego, experience is unrestricted by Dasein. Ego is a function of being alive and without ego we couldn't live, not withstanding that ego of ants and bees is communal ego.

Sometimes we get close to experience sans ego. Ecstasy The literal meaning of "ecstasy" refers to a state of being "outside oneself" or transcending normal consciousness. It can describe a trance or trance-like state, often associated with strong emotions like euphoria or religious experiences. In philosophy, it means "to be outside oneself," according to Wikipedia. It can also refer to a specific drug (MDMA). Wikipedia

Political economical bias is a spectrum . Right wing bias --capitalism--fear. Left wing bias----socialism---- love.

The "gaze" (Sartre) of another individual varies according to a similar spectrum where ecstasy (not the drug!!) is direct experience of love or as near love as can be got. EG see big metaphor alert the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa by Bernini .

[iambiguous]

The Free Market Existentialist by William Irwin
Alberto Giordano is left unsatisfied at an attempt to wed evolution, capitalism, and existentialism

Let us examine each connection [above] in turn. First, existentialism highlights individual responsibility over collective action.

Tell that to those existentialists who highlighted just the opposite. More or less...depending on the context. Sartre was an existential Marxist. In fact, he wrote a book exploring "I" and "we" and "them" out in a world where political economy always prevails. At least, historically, so far.

To Irwin it is a philosophy which reacts to “an apparently absurd and meaningless world” by urging individuals to “overcome alienation, oppression and despair through freedom and self-creation”.

 
Talk about a "general description intellectual contraption"! Really, stop 100 people on the street at random and run this by them. Or, for that matter, given a No God universe, run it by the folks here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

On the other hand, if you ever do come to believe that we live in “an apparently absurd and meaningless world” how would you react? 

The existentialist, living without higher meaning, recognizing that anguish and despair are common to us all, believes yet in free will. The existentialist individual focuses on her own choices, and struggles ceaselessly to achieve her plans.

Then those who will suggest arguing there is no higher meaning becomes, well, in and of itself the highest meaning. Then the part where choices and plans pertaining to the is/ought world are, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein.

[Belinda]

The Free Market Existentialist by William Irwin
Alberto Giordano is left unsatisfied at an attempt to wed evolution, capitalism, and existentialism

Let us examine each connection [above] in turn. First, existentialism highlights individual responsibility over collective action.

Tell that to those existentialists who highlighted just the opposite. More or less...depending on the context. Sartre was an existential Marxist. In fact, he wrote a book exploring "I" and "we" and "them" out in a world where political economy always prevails. At least, historically, so far.

To Irwin it is a philosophy which reacts to “an apparently absurd and meaningless world” by urging individuals to “overcome alienation, oppression and despair through freedom and self-creation”.

 
Talk about a "general description intellectual contraption"! Really, stop 100 people on the street at random and run this by them. Or, for that matter, given a No God universe, run it by the folks here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

On the other hand, if you ever do come to believe that we live in “an apparently absurd and meaningless world” how would you react? 

The existentialist, living without higher meaning, recognizing that anguish and despair are common to us all, believes yet in free will. The existentialist individual focuses on her own choices, and struggles ceaselessly to achieve her plans.

Then those who will suggest arguing there is no higher meaning becomes, well, in and of itself the highest meaning. Then the part where choices and plans pertaining to the is/ought world are, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein.

In my view too. Dasein is dynamic and as dynamic it is about the journey it's not about any essential goal post.

On the other hand, in my view, even if we did have access to the minds of others [and they to ours], what would really change in regard to conflicting goods? Would all of the ofttimes conflicting moral dogmas just dissolve into the One True Path?

Yes.That is what ants and bees do. That is what any ecological system does . Human freedom is powered by individuality, by seeing oneself as an authority unto oneself , an individual. Dasein is unique, individual. Human evolution is largely cultural not genetic .

[iambiguous]

The Free Market Existentialist by William Irwin
Alberto Giordano is left unsatisfied at an attempt to wed evolution, capitalism, and existentialism

This is not quite the usual portrait of existentialism, which is why Irwin devotes his second chapter to showing how Sartre’s existential philosophy, among others, may be compatible with his line of argumentation. He does so primarily through his emphasis on individual liberty. A revisionist outlook is offered suggesting that Sartre’s vision of liberty framed in Being and Nothingness was a hymn to the individual, then deconstructing the links between that conception of freedom and Marxism expressed in Sartre’s later works, such as the Critique of Dialectical Reason. On Irwin’s reading, Sartre underwent a philosophical shift because of a pro-collectivist intellectual fashion spreading widely over Europe during and after the Forties.

On the one hand, to the extent an existentialist places an emphasis on the individual, capitalism would seem to reflect the best of all possible worlds. Of course, some note that if this is the case then millions upon millions will just have to grin and bear it.

On the other hand, that does nothing to make an entrenched political economy, a ruling class and the deep state go away.

Sartre’s evident belief in autonomy and self-reliance does seem much more suited to free market capitalism than to collectivism. Besides, existentialism correctly understood might force capitalism to get rid of its nasty perversions, such as crass consumerism, greed, and the alienation due to unsatisfactory jobs.

Existentialism correctly understood? How about capitalism or socialism or communism or fascism or anarchism correctly understood? How about nihilism? Unless, perhaps, given the profoundly problematic nature of human interactions bursting at the seams historically and culturally in wave after wave of contingency, chance and change, there really is no One True Path at all.

Except there are hundreds and hundreds of them. And given this, I have to accept myself that the deep seated comfort and consolation that is derived from being a part of one or another rendition of The Way or The Cause or The Movement is not likely to be budged much by my own admittedly grim assessment. An assessment revolving around "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" and a "fractured and fragmented" moral and political philosophy.

Capitalism without Consumerism is the promise with which Irwin tempts us in the subtitle of the book, and – good fortune! – existentialism can help “to define ourselves as individuals and to resist being defined by external forces”.

Capitalism without consumerism?! And defining ourselves in what particular way given what particular assessment of that which constitutes either internal or external forces in lives that existentially can be very, very different?

In addition, in a mass society, the existentialist may be moved by prudence and enlightened self-interest to pursue a kind of “voluntary simplicity” as an antidote to “conspicuous consumption”, just as the author himself is, apparently. Irwin cites prudence and enlightened self-interest as two main drivers for change.

Voluntary simplicity? Prudent and enlightened self-interest? Same thing from my frame of mind. In other words, what I construe to be, at times, an enormous gap between what individuals believe these things should be "in their heads" and the reality of dasein, of contingency, chance and change and of the Benjamin Button Syndrome.

[Belinda]

The Free Market Existentialist by William Irwin
Alberto Giordano is left unsatisfied at an attempt to wed evolution, capitalism, and existentialism

This is not quite the usual portrait of existentialism, which is why Irwin devotes his second chapter to showing how Sartre’s existential philosophy, among others, may be compatible with his line of argumentation. He does so primarily through his emphasis on individual liberty. A revisionist outlook is offered suggesting that Sartre’s vision of liberty framed in Being and Nothingness was a hymn to the individual, then deconstructing the links between that conception of freedom and Marxism expressed in Sartre’s later works, such as the Critique of Dialectical Reason. On Irwin’s reading, Sartre underwent a philosophical shift because of a pro-collectivist intellectual fashion spreading widely over Europe during and after the Forties.

On the one hand, to the extent an existentialist places an emphasis on the individual, capitalism would seem to reflect the best of all possible worlds. Of course, some note that if this is the case then millions upon millions will just have to grin and bear it.

On the other hand, that does nothing to make an entrenched political economy, a ruling class and the deep state go away.

Sartre’s evident belief in autonomy and self-reliance does seem much more suited to free market capitalism than to collectivism. Besides, existentialism correctly understood might force capitalism to get rid of its nasty perversions, such as crass consumerism, greed, and the alienation due to unsatisfactory jobs.

Existentialism correctly understood? How about capitalism or socialism or communism or fascism or anarchism correctly understood? How about nihilism? Unless, perhaps, given the profoundly problematic nature of human interactions bursting at the seams historically and culturally in wave after wave of contingency, chance and change, there really is no One True Path at all.

Except there are hundreds and hundreds of them. And given this, I have to accept myself that the deep seated comfort and consolation that is derived from being a part of one or another rendition of The Way or The Cause or The Movement is not likely to be budged much by my own admittedly grim assessment. An assessment revolving around "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" and a "fractured and fragmented" moral and political philosophy.

Capitalism without Consumerism is the promise with which Irwin tempts us in the subtitle of the book, and – good fortune! – existentialism can help “to define ourselves as individuals and to resist being defined by external forces”.

Capitalism without consumerism?! And defining ourselves in what particular way given what particular assessment of that which constitutes either internal or external forces in lives that existentially can be very, very different?

In addition, in a mass society, the existentialist may be moved by prudence and enlightened self-interest to pursue a kind of “voluntary simplicity” as an antidote to “conspicuous consumption”, just as the author himself is, apparently. Irwin cites prudence and enlightened self-interest as two main drivers for change.

Voluntary simplicity? Prudent and enlightened self-interest? Same thing from my frame of mind. In other words, what I construe to be, at times, an enormous gap between what individuals believe these things should be "in their heads" and the reality of dasein, of contingency, chance and change and of the Benjamin Button Syndrome.

Frugality is a virtue for those who are aware of the present danger of climate change, and of pollution. Dasein is a device for how to forgive, it's not any help for practically coping with ignorance.

[iambiguous]

The Free Market Existentialist by William Irwin
Alberto Giordano is left unsatisfied at an attempt to wed evolution, capitalism, and existentialism

...in Chapters Four and Five, he tries to persuade us that there are no such things as moral facts, only moral habits shaped by evolution and human interaction. Morality, then, does not rely upon God or any fixed idea of human nature.

Yes, that's what I believe myself, "here and now". On the other hand, how exactly would I go about demonstrating that this is, in fact, what all reasonable and virtuous men and women are themselves obligated to believe in turn?

Well, I can't...so I don't.

A God, the God may well exist and in regard to a No God universe, it seems that everyday some mind boggling new discovery is made about the cosmos:

https://youtu.be/4dOjejZzgJA?si=Ss6aaouK8JNbAzDo
https://youtu.be/1oAbeFW5OyM?si=E4E-KnRMJ5SHrfJp

Rather, both human nature and morality are fluid and unbounded save by physiological limits. And if a kind of ‘core morality’ does exist, it is made up of those basic taboos required for the preservation of the species, and it’s recognized as such all over the world. Even though occasionally “all we can do is override them in some cases” – when they threaten to curb our legitimate desires.

Core morality? Let's run that by any number of these guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

See the problem? Proclaiming the existence of a core morality does not make the proclamations of all the other moral objectivists above go away. Instead, the far more critical factor here, in my view, revolves around the extent to which these objectivists append "or else!" to their own "one of us!" mentality.

The rest being, among other things, history.

[Belinda]

The Free Market Existentialist by William Irwin
Alberto Giordano is left unsatisfied at an attempt to wed evolution, capitalism, and existentialism

...in Chapters Four and Five, he tries to persuade us that there are no such things as moral facts, only moral habits shaped by evolution and human interaction. Morality, then, does not rely upon God or any fixed idea of human nature.

Yes, that's what I believe myself, "here and now". On the other hand, how exactly would I go about demonstrating that this is, in fact, what all reasonable and virtuous men and women are themselves obligated to believe in turn?

Well, I can't...so I don't.

A God, the God may well exist and in regard to a No God universe, it seems that everyday some mind boggling new discovery is made about the cosmos:

https://youtu.be/4dOjejZzgJA?si=Ss6aaouK8JNbAzDo
https://youtu.be/1oAbeFW5OyM?si=E4E-KnRMJ5SHrfJp

Rather, both human nature and morality are fluid and unbounded save by physiological limits. And if a kind of ‘core morality’ does exist, it is made up of those basic taboos required for the preservation of the species, and it’s recognized as such all over the world. Even though occasionally “all we can do is override them in some cases” – when they threaten to curb our legitimate desires.

Core morality? Let's run that by any number of these guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

See the problem? Proclaiming the existence of a core morality does not make the proclamations of all the other moral objectivists above go away. Instead, the far more critical factor here, in my view, revolves around the extent to which these objectivists append "or else!" to their own "one of us!" mentality.

The rest being, among other things, history.

So are you saying that human nature is unaffected by biology and is entirely due to acculturation?
It's not unreasonable to fix one's idea of human nature on biology of the human as well as acculturation. Would you agree?

[iambiguous]

Angst and Affirmation in Modern Culture
Sam Morris on the existential choice we all face.

The 4th January 1960 was an overcast and drizzly day in northern central France. Albert Camus was returning to Paris with his publisher Michel Gallimard and Gallimard’s wife and daughter in a powerful four-door sports car, a Facel Vega. The Vega was infamous for its rear hinging ‘suicide’ doors that were known to pop open at high speeds upon high vibrations. However, this would not be the issue on this particular journey. Joining the Route Nationale No 5, at about half a kilometer from Yonnes, the car lost control and hit a tree. Gallimard’s wife and daughter were thrown from the car, landing between 10-20ft from the wreck. They would recover. Gallimard suffered severe impact wounds, and would die two days later in hospital. Camus was killed instantly.

In fact, that's often how the Benjamin Button Syndrome unfolds for all of us. Out of the blue a sequence of events more or less beyond our completely understanding or controlling can precipitate all manner of terrible consequences. 

In other words, who really knows what might have unfolded had Camus taken the train instead of the lift. In regard to existentialism, and in regard to the lives of all those who knew him.

Thus:

He was only forty-six years old, and had written as recently as 1958, “I continue to be convinced that my work hasn’t even been begun.” Camus had wished to take a train back to Paris and was renowned for his dislike of cars, but Gallimard had persuaded him to take a lift. The train ticket for the return journey was found in the top pocket of Camus’ jacket.

What if...what if...what if.

So, is there something definitive that philosophers might be able to ascertain regarding experiences like this? 
Meanwhile some will just come at you with things like, "shit happens", "that's the way the cookie crumbles", "it is what it is", "two tears in a bucket", "c'est la vie", "que sera sera", "it's just one of those things",  "some things you just can't explain", "these things happen", "you get that sometimes"   

Click.