Is existentialism hoisted upon its own petard of moral relativism?
Destruction of the context in which one lives is not possible. The serious man, the man who looks at what is happening around him, the decay, reacts to it. It is repulsive. He has to live with it: existentialism. It's not assertive; it's not political. It is distrust and ironic relation to the day-to-day perceived arrangement of packaged options. There is a portion in man that wants carry out oblivion, to turn it all into a show of superiority: Look!! The life I lived lacked nothing. I did it all!
you guys must have the entire O.E.D. (oxford english dictionary) printed on rolls of toilet paper. that would explain your apparent intoxification with the exhuberance of your individual verbosity (verbosities?).
Moral relativism doesn't mean that all forms of morality are somehow equal or that somehow existentialists cannot be moral agents. Instead, it means that each of us must become responsible to whatever morality we are going to use! That is a difficult gift to accept. It seems that only brave and conscientious people are willing to accept such a gift; most religious people only seem to follow revealed truths (whether from bronze-age texts or fallible human leaders). So, moral relativism is the dark, difficult, questioning, doubting gift of existentialism-- if you have the stones to handle it. If you don't have the fortitude to challenge yourself, then you'll claim that moral relativism ultimately means no morality, which is a judgement error. Which kind of person are you?
