I know that people like Deleuze who came after the structuralists continue to read Nietzsche who was an existentialist. Does structuralism refute existentialism? How is it brought back by Post-structuralists ?
3
-
How can something "refute" something else with completely different premises and even vocabulary? I think you are confusing refuting with becoming more fashionable, or something like that. And fashions often come and go in swings. But Nietzsche was not an existentialist even using the term broadly.– ConifoldFeb 24, 2022 at 20:12
-
@Conifold my understanding is if meaning can only be derived in relaysh to other entities based on structures that dictate how to differentiate one entity from another, there is no free will where you create your own meaning in a universe of infinite possibilities– Ash RiversFeb 24, 2022 at 21:06
-
Ok, but how does positing one set of beliefs "refute" another? it is not like either structuralists or existentialists offered conclusive proofs of their doctrines. They are not even incompatible. Existentialists focus on how to feel and act here and now, just like Stoics or Nietzsche, who were determinists, dismiss metaphysical abstractions like free will. And vice versa, structuralism is perfectly compatible with free will, there can be wide plurality of structures that support multiple meanings.– ConifoldFeb 25, 2022 at 1:44
Add a comment
|