Does “existential” mean much?

Almost every time that I hear or read “existential,” I am unsure what if anything is meant.

The speaker or writer does not mean “of or pertaining to existence,” I presume.  The writer or speaker means “of or pertaining to existentialism.”

I guess an “existential dilemma” could both involve  a dilemma and pertain to existentialism.  Does it usually, or does it sound profound but betoken nothing?  What about an “existential crisis?”  Or does “existential crisis” drive us back to “of or pertaining to existence?”

I dunno.  That is what concerns me.



3 Responses to “Does “existential” mean much?”

  1. Jeff Hopkins Says:

    If it is existential it must mean something.
    Something is existential just by being something.
    Ergo, nothing is not existential.

    • O. Says:

      Is it possible for something to exist but not have meaning? Thanks for the comment!

    • wildbillhaltom Says:

      Rorschach blots exist.

      Rorschach blots have subjective meaning(s) but are designed to have no intersubjective or objective meanings.

      Hence, humans [and for all I know animals] may endow with meaning anything that exists and even things that do not exist [square-root of a -1, anyone?], but that does not quite mean that all that exists must mean something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: