to nothingness and back...

The only form of existentialism that I have gathered is probably due to the sense of disconnection I have felt. It reasserts itself when I watch Bergman or read Camus. It arises due to the disconnection from my own surroundings - this perceived meaninglessnes of all relationships feelings and passions. When you have been disconnected for so long then your newer connections happen to be mere make-beliefs - making up a consciously chosen or sometimes a conceived reality. You get involved in people, their activities and lives even though you realize at all times that they all mean nothing. A certain goal or a certain requirement (not necessarily yours) was what drove you there and it would have no significance after the fulfillment (not necessarily yours). What then is anything for? With no love, passion and emotions what really separates life from death. Kierkegaard says that we judge others' emotions with rationality but don't want others to do that for our emotions. Its not just selfishness it is the inherent paradox in rationalization of human needs. If everything is just needs and fulfillments, where is the space for emotions? My short encounter with Christianity does try to achieve an answer. I think that if God (despite the vagueness and ambiguity that is associated with it) is not believed to be the prime motivator of everything one tends to lose the belief that we are capable of changing anything in this world. Everything becomes deterministic - past determines the present and the present determines the future. Everything is need and fulfillment - the emotions become a matter belief - one like that in God Himself. One's connection with God in all its innocence is a strong force that maintains the essential adherence to the dynamics of this world (whatsoever little we may understand of it). With belief in God, we believe in ourselves and tend to feel the control over this world. It might all indeed be fake but it is what works for most people. For the most part, believing in God is only as incorrect as believing in oneself.

However this is far I can get with existentialism. Existentialists (those that I have known) tend to deny rationality yet continue to harness what rationality provides. There lies a hypocrisy. But so would be the case with those who deny emotionality on one hand (in all their actions) and then just assert "God" on a superficial level - just by saying the "words" but not really believing in any of sense of them. Giving a name to the problem is never a solution. Saying that "God" governs everything doesn't free us from the responsibility of understanding the order of this universe. There is a hypocrisy in considering knowledge as solely determinable by rationality but still having beliefs or asserting a spiritual power. Any belief that we hold has to be seen in actions as well. Thus our actions and institutions should reflect what we believe. There are problems, in leaving beliefs as the residue of ratiocination. For me rationalization could be inadequate but it definitely isn't unnecessary. We need rationality to understand things however we do need to understand what we believe or admit that we do believe. Our institutions need to give way to our beliefs for their own sake. Rationality is essential for our understanding and it probably is the only medium we can trust upon (it would be paradoxical to say it isn't so). Yet we do need to acknowledge our beliefs and prejudices that we choose to live with. It is not "wrong" to have a perspective, I think; but to admit the perspective is as "right" as we can be.