The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
whatevs
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Can this work be considered existentialist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
whatevs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 774 times Debate No: 64869
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

shakuntala

Pro

Can this work be considered existentialist
https://www.scribd.com...

Preface
In the cage of old age still burns the flame of youth "neath the shroud of old age still burns hot the desires of youth youths fires hid in the aged flesh torment into frenzies of frustrations the flesh does send like a flickering flame that in the nights breeze about to be snuffed out the fires of youth torment the aged flesh to the very last breath the aged flesh longs desires full of youthful passions till like the flickering flame in the nights breeze life is snuffed out
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

con says
"Can it?

I have stated the preface
"Preface
In the cage of old age still burns the flame of youth "neath the shroud of old age still burns hot the desires of youth youths fires hid in the aged flesh torment into frenzies of frustrations the flesh does send like a flickering flame that in the nights breeze about to be snuffed out the fires of youth torment the aged flesh to the very last breath the aged flesh longs desires full of youthful passions till like the flickering flame in the nights breeze life is snuffed out"

if con cant see the existentialist ideas in this then just tell us why
I have given a vivid account of the existential angst of old age
if con cant tell u why this poem is not about existential angst then I must win the debate
whatevs

Con

Thanks, Pro.

--Pro’s Case--

This debate centres over whether the 32 page work provided by Pro can be reasonably counted as being “existentialist”. Pro, by default, is tasked with demonstrating that the work can indeed be reasonably counted as being “existentialist”. Conversely, Con – myself - is tasked with demonstrating that it can be reasonably doubted that such a work is “existentialist”.

Pro, in his opening round, states that it is an existentialist work because it gives “a vivid account of the existential angst of old age.” However, such a statement is problematic, because he has already jumped the gun! He has not provided a framework, for the purpose of the debate, that is to be used in order to judge whether a work is “existentialist”. Due to the lack of a framework provided by Pro, it can’t be said that because a work explores the “existential angst of old age”, it ought to count as an “existentialist” work.

Unless Pro is able to provide a framework, that can be used in order to judge whether a work can be reasonably considered to be “existentialist”, we ought to reject any claim provided by him that the work is “existentialist”, for the sole reason that we do not know what an “existentialist” work entails, or discusses. But Pro not only has to provide a framework; he also needs to be able to justify such a framework, which in effect, is to provide reasons why one ought to accept it, over any other possible others.

In addition, Pro also has not sufficiently provided any reasoning for a rational person to believe that such a work does discuss the “existential angst of old age”. Angst, as defined in Wikipedia, within the context of existentialism, refers to ”a negative feeling arising from the experience of human freedom and responsibility”. (1) Has Pro shown that the work provided discusses “existential angst of old age”? Has he shown that the work provided is relevant at all to “human freedom and responsibility”? As of this stage, he obviously has not.

Thus, already reeling from the lack of framework provided to discern the characteristics that a work requires to be considered “existentialist”, it is unclear that Pro has sufficiently justified his statement that his work explores the “existential angst of old age”.
The resolution is negated.

--Sources--

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

con says
"we ought to reject any claim provided by him that the work is "existentialist", for the sole reason that we do not know what an "existentialist" work entails,"

con is full of crap
this is a philosophy debate so it is assumed those who debate know philosophy ie existentialism ie have read the works of Sartre Camus Heidegger Kierkegaard even Dostoyevsky
if con does not know the literature of existentialism then he has right to be debating here

con says
"Unless Pro is able to provide a framework, that can be used in order to judge whether a work can be reasonably considered to be "existentialist""
I have provided a frame work ie existential angst

fact is cons comments show con knows nothing about existentialism
and perhaps indicate a malicious intent for this debate ie to just derail it

as I said if con cannot tell us why this work is not existential-which looks like he does not know what that is -then I must win e debate
whatevs

Con

--Note On Conduct--

By claiming that I’m “full of crap” and that my actions in the Previous Round “perhaps indicate[d] a malicious intent for this debate ie. to derail it” Pro is not only incorrect , but has - by openly attempting to insult me - grievously violated common debate protocol. These actions alone justify a vote in the Conduct section in my favour.

--Pro’s Case--

In the Previous Round of the debate, I argued that because Pro has not provided a framework in order to judge whether a work can be discerned to be an “existentialist” work. Pro responds in several ways. However, none of them succeed, for they misunderstand my position. In this debate, as shown in my previous Round, I am tasked with showing that it can be reasonably doubted that the work provided by Pro can be considered “existentialist”. Therefore, contrary to Pro, who believes that I have to show the work definitely “is not existential”, I need not to provide any positive argument in order to satisfy my burden-of-proof.

In my previous round, I have argued that in order for Pro to show that the work provided by him is “existentialist”, he must provide a framework which can be used in order to discern whether a particular work can be existentialist. It is important to do so because there is no clear definition for what is existentialist. He claims that he has indeed provided a framework, pertaining to angst. There are several problems.

Firstly, even if that is a satisfactory framework, Pro offers no response to my brief comment that he has not even established that the work provided is relevant to angst. In my previous round, I defined angst as “a negative feeling arising from the experience of human freedom and responsibility”. Such a definition has not been contested, and at this point, it is presumed that Pro is willing to accept it. Yet, Pro has not justified his claim that the work is about existential angst at all; he has only been making bare assertions. He has not been able to link the portion of his work towards “human freedom and responsibility”, and as a result of this, he has been unable to show that his work pertains to the concept of “existential angst”, let alone “existentialism”.

Secondly, he has not justified the assumption that because a work has themes that pertain to the concept of “existential angst”, it by default can be considered “existentialist”. It should be remembered that existentialism is a fairly broad and multi-faceted philosophy, without any clear, uncontroversial definition. Thus, if Pro wants to show that in the work provided, by discussing the concept of “existential angst” - which he has not shown is the case as of yet - ought to be considered an “existential” work as a result, he must provide reasonable justifications, rather than making bare assertions.

--Con’s Case--

Here, I will build on my previous points, in order to make a positive argument that the work provided by Pro can reasonably be doubted as being “existentialist”. Existentialism, as noted above, is a very multifaceted philosophy. However, generally, what is the most distinguishing feature of existentialism? According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the answer to this reached through Sartre’s principle that existence precedes essence, ie. that “no general, non-formal account of what it means to be human can be given, since that meaning is decided in and through existing itself”. (1) Thus, we see, that by failing to address the Sartrean principle that existence precedes essence, Pro has failed to link his work to what the SEP considers the most distinctive principle within existentialism.

That is not to say that the work Pro has provided by default is not “existentialist”. It is perfectly plausible for a work to be “existentialist”, without considering that existence precedes essence. However, if Pro would like to argue that this is the case, then he clearly has quite a lot of explaining to do.

--Conclusion--

In this round, I have shown that :

(a) It is dubious that Pro’s work addresses “existential angst”.
(b) Pro has not been able to justify his framework for discerning what is considered an “existential work”.
(c) Pro’s work neglects the most distinguishing principle within existentialism, Sartre’s concept that existence precedes essence.

For these reasons, it can be reasonably doubted that Pro’s work can be considered “existentialist”, fulfilling my burden of proof.

Therefore, the resolution is negated.

--Source--

(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...;
Debate Round No. 3
shakuntala

Pro

1)con says
"Firstly, even if that is a satisfactory framework, Pro offers no response to my brief comment that he has not even established that the work provided is relevant to angst. In my previous round, I defined angst as "a negative feeling arising from the experience of human freedom and responsibility". Such a definition has not been contested, and at this point, it is presumed that Pro is willing to accept it. Yet, Pro has not justified his claim that the work is about existential angst at all; he has only been making bare assertions. He has not been able to link the portion of his work towards "human freedom and responsibility", and as a result of this, he has been unable to show that his work pertains to the concept of "existential angst", let alone "existentialism".

if con had studied philosophy instead of relying on google he would have known
existential angst can be
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Angst is often described as a drama an adolescent troubles with during their developmental years. This adolescent trouble or self-loathing is often tied to sexual attractiveness,"

and if he had read the poem which con seems not to have thinking in a clever dicky way that he can win a debate by just be cleaver-in his case very superficially
he would have seen the old man suffering self loathing and longing for his lost identity and sexual prowess

and further if con had read his Stanford article fully he would have read
http://plato.stanford.edu...
" In thus robbing me of the possibility of practical self-identification, anxiety teaches me that I do not coincide with anything that I factically am. Further, since the identity bound up with such roles and practices is always typical and public, the collapse of this identity reveals an ultimately first-personal aspect of myself that is irreducible to das Man."

thus again this characterization depict the old man in the poem

2)
con says
"Secondly, he has not justified the assumption that because a work has themes that pertain to the concept of "existential angst", it by default can be considered "existentialist"."

again the Stanford and wiki links clearly show that angst is an important concept in existentialism
but con does not know this as he thinks he can debate without knowing anything about existential he thinks he can just rely on google

in conclusion
con has refused to debate and just rely upon picky comments which just show con has no real idea of existentialism
my point was this work is existential as it looks at the existential angst of an aging of an old man
and I have proved that in the preface I quoted from the work

con himself gave a Stanford link which if followed show just what this existential angst can be
con has given no proof that this work is not existential all he has done is try and avoid the debate-as has been shown because he knows nothing about existentialism

thus I should win debate
whatevs

Con

--Note on Conduct--

Pro never offers any response to the accusation made against him in the previous round that had grievously violated common debate protocol by attempting to insult me. As a matter of fact, in this round, he has continued this, by commenting my debate strategy as being “dicky”. Consequently, the voters are obligated to vote conduct in my favour.

--Pro’s Case--

The reason why a framework for discerning whether a work can be considered to be “existentialist” is needed is because without such a framework, it would be impossible to characterize the work provided by Pro as being “existentialist”, or not. However, rather than attempting provide a legitimate framework, Pro seems more intent attack me, for “having no real idea of existentialism”. However, existentialism, even though we can clearly identify certain philosophers and authors as being existentialist, has, because of it being a multifaceted, complex philosophy, no clear-cut definition. This reinforces my view that Pro needs to provide a framework for discerning whether a work can be considered “existentialist”, or not.

I find it ironic that Pro criticizes me for never studying existentialist philosophy (by the way, a claim never justified) and instead, rely on Google, or other parts of the Internet (another claim never justified), when he personally, uses Wikipedia to provide a definition of angst.

Unfortunately for him, the definition of angst provided by him, relates to the “drama an adolescent troubles with”. However, he uses this definition to attempt to show that an old man struggles with angst, which is irrelevant. Rather than providing a clear analysis of how angst relates to the old man, Pro seems more intent on attacking me on the grounds that I had never read the poem. However, I do not need to read the poem in order to satisfy my burden of proof. As Con, I am tasked with showing that it can be reasonably doubted that the work Pro provided can be considered to be “existentialist”; a role that Pro never attempted to deny. As a result, all I have to do is to negate Pro’s argumentation. In addition, even if we assume that the fact that the definition Pro provided can be applied to the old man, he neglects parts of the full definition provided on Wikipedia, essentially making his definition cherry picked.

The full definition, as found in the link Pro provides, is:

“Angst is often described as a drama an adolescent troubles with during their developmental years. This adolescent trouble or self-loathing is often tied to sexual attractiveness, both males and females often feel this angst and worry that they will not find both a partner or romantic conditional love for who they are. As adolescents face the prospect of adulthood where they must take control of their life, the dread of both facing life alone and the fear of freedom and responsibility often lead to depression.”

Once again, we see that Pro has failed to link the poem to freedom and responsibility. Therefore, Pro’s non-attempts to show that if I were to read the poem, I would see the old man “suffering” and “self-longing” etc. fails in its attempt in relating the poem to angst, due to the fact that his alternate definition, apart from being dubious in its application from teenagers to old people, is cherry picked to ignore important aspects anyway. Throughout this debate, Pro has consistently attempted to dodge the act of relating his work towards existential angst; the freedom and responsibility aspects pertaining to the concept.

Pro then argues that the SEP article on existentialism included aspects that render the poem provided to be considered “existentialist”. He argues that a quote associated with existentialism characterizes the old man perfectly. However, this leaves him with no real framework in order to judge whether a work can be considered “existentialist”. Previously, he argued that his framework pertains to angst, but now, he provides a quote relating to a different concept - one of anxiety. Pro does not explain how anxiety fits within his framework, and as a result, we do not know whether the work provided can be “existentialist”. Even if he did do this, he still has not satisfactorily shown the work to be “existentialist”, because rather than providing a reasonable analysis of the poem, showing how the quote relates to the old man, he makes bare-assertions, leaving his argumentation without elaboration.

--Con’s Case--

In the previous round, I made a case that the poem Pro provides neglects the most distinguishing feature of existentialism, the concept that existence precedes essence. I also noted that an existentialist work does not necessarily need to relate to such a principle, but if Pro wishes to argue this, he would have to elaborate on how the poem deals with other existentialist concepts. Given that Pro has not been able to elaborate sufficiently, we are forced to extend this argument.

--Conclusion--

Pro has failed to show that the work provided can be considered “existentialist”. This is because:

(a) He has not sufficiently related the old man, and the poem in general, to existential angst; in particular, the freedom and responsibility involved.
(b) His framework is unclear.
(c) He neglects the Sartrean concept that existence precedes essence.

Due to this, the voter ought to vote for Con in terms of arguments, given that Pro has failed to fulfill his burden of proof, whilst I - by showing that it can be reasonably doubted that the poem provided can be existentialist - have.

In addition, the voter ought to vote for Con in terms of conduct, given that Pro has openly attempted to insult me several times throughout this debate, resulting in a violation of common debate conduct. The voter also ought to vote for Con in terms of spelling & grammar, given that Pro has, throughout this debate, continuously has been unable to capitalize the first word of a sentence, as well as other proper nouns. A few spelling & grammar problems is fine, but Pro’s problems occur throughout this entire debate.

The resolution is negated, vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by shakuntala 2 years ago
shakuntala
it is said
"i would hope it is not about actual old age.. that would be sad and gross."
just go ask your grandfather or grandmother for an honest answer about how they feel about being old and old age sex feelings
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
i would hope it is not about actual old age.. that would be sad and gross.
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
Dont expect anybody to read 32 pages just for a damn debate.
Posted by BoggyDag 2 years ago
BoggyDag
tl;dr
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
shakuntalawhatevsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: bad conduct as seen from Pro... Pro did not uphold the BOP or successfully affirm the resolution, his points were contested by Con