This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I keep hearing this phrase - lots of threats about at the moment, of course. It seems to have first appeared on the media about a year ago. Just what does existential mean? I know it is (or was) an -ism, associated with Sartre & de Beauvoir, but this is clearly a totally different usage. Does it just mean existing? If so, totally redundant. It seems to be just a synonym for serious. I'm afraid when I see a bandwagon passing by my normal response is to laugh, cat-call and throw stones.
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
It almost seems like a 'buzz phrase'? I wish you hadn't mentioned it now, it's going to vaguely scramble my head trying to think what people mean.
Have a stone in return.
It must mean something poses a serious danger to something else?
It almost seems like a 'buzz phrase'? I wish you hadn't mentioned it now, it's going to vaguely scramble my head trying to think what people mean.
Have a stone in return.
It must mean something poses a serious danger to something else?
Post edited at 18:50
In reply to Rog Wilko:
It is used for any threat which could cause human extinction or as near as damn it.
It is used for any threat which could cause human extinction or as near as damn it.
In reply to Timmd:
Journalists arent always the best as using technical terms.
> I've heard it used to do with financial markets I think?
Journalists arent always the best as using technical terms.
3
In reply to Rog Wilko:
An existential threat...?
The espresso machine has packed up and you're out of Gitanes.
An existential threat...?
The espresso machine has packed up and you're out of Gitanes.
9
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Not sure that it is redundant. It is usually used in relation to a particular entity; often a state. An existential threat might be a foreign enemy, weapon, or internal movement that could cause the state to cease to exist in any recognisable form. In contrast, a non-existential threat might have the capability to kill many citizens, harm the economy etc, but would not threaten the existence of the state as a functioning entity.
> I keep hearing this phrase - lots of threats about at the moment, of course. It seems to have first appeared on the media about a year ago. Just what does existential mean? I know it is (or was) an -ism, associated with Sartre & de Beauvoir, but this is clearly a totally different usage. Does it just mean existing? If so, totally redundant.
Not sure that it is redundant. It is usually used in relation to a particular entity; often a state. An existential threat might be a foreign enemy, weapon, or internal movement that could cause the state to cease to exist in any recognisable form. In contrast, a non-existential threat might have the capability to kill many citizens, harm the economy etc, but would not threaten the existence of the state as a functioning entity.
4
In reply to Rog Wilko:
If a serious answer is permitted:
An existential threat menaces the very survival (ie existence) of whatever entity is in peril, be that a government, a people, a company, a nation, a species or an ecosystem (biological, financial or otherwise).
If a serious answer is permitted:
An existential threat menaces the very survival (ie existence) of whatever entity is in peril, be that a government, a people, a company, a nation, a species or an ecosystem (biological, financial or otherwise).
Post edited at 19:18
9
In reply to Rog Wilko:
I don't think I agree that an existential threat is one that threatens human existence ( although some less literate journos might use the word that way)
The core concept of existentialism is that each person is completely the architect of his own existence rather than being defined by others' constructs. (I think). The threat comes about from someone choosing to define their life by a hostile act against others regardless of consequences.
Try this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
I don't think I agree that an existential threat is one that threatens human existence ( although some less literate journos might use the word that way)
The core concept of existentialism is that each person is completely the architect of his own existence rather than being defined by others' constructs. (I think). The threat comes about from someone choosing to define their life by a hostile act against others regardless of consequences.
Try this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
Post edited at 20:23
2
In reply to colinakmc:
Is the OED a "less literate journal"? Because it gives "of or pertaining to existence" as a meaning for "existential", so an existential threat to an entity being a threat its existence sounds like an entirely valid use of the word.
> I don't think I agree that an existential threat is one that threatens human existence ( although some less literate journals might use the word that way)
Is the OED a "less literate journal"? Because it gives "of or pertaining to existence" as a meaning for "existential", so an existential threat to an entity being a threat its existence sounds like an entirely valid use of the word.
3
In reply to colinakmc:
Yes, not a threat to human existence as such (in the mass), but to an individual's existence, but I take it to be rather the other way round from way you've suggested. That the person who wants choose the way they live/ to define how they live, has that choice hampered or obstructed by someone else, or some other factor beyond their control.
Yes, not a threat to human existence as such (in the mass), but to an individual's existence, but I take it to be rather the other way round from way you've suggested. That the person who wants choose the way they live/ to define how they live, has that choice hampered or obstructed by someone else, or some other factor beyond their control.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Might be debatable. I looked up wiki first to refresh my long-ago amateur readings of Sartre and my understanding would be that existentialism is about seizing the freedom to act in whatever way you choose to define your life. So soloing El Cap could be an existential choice, so could blowing yourself up in the name of Allah.
But if the OED suggests it could just mean any threat to existence who am I to disagree? Unless existential,is an adjective defining the nature of the threat rather than defining the focus of the threat?
Note belated edit of my first post - predictive text strikes again! You do see existential,being misused in the Daily Wail etc, hence reference to journos which came out as journals.
Might be debatable. I looked up wiki first to refresh my long-ago amateur readings of Sartre and my understanding would be that existentialism is about seizing the freedom to act in whatever way you choose to define your life. So soloing El Cap could be an existential choice, so could blowing yourself up in the name of Allah.
But if the OED suggests it could just mean any threat to existence who am I to disagree? Unless existential,is an adjective defining the nature of the threat rather than defining the focus of the threat?
Note belated edit of my first post - predictive text strikes again! You do see existential,being misused in the Daily Wail etc, hence reference to journos which came out as journals.
Post edited at 20:33
In reply to Gordon Stainforth and colinakmc:
I think you're reading too much into this. I could be wrong but I happened to study Existentialism as part of my degree and I think the use of the phrase in this context bears no relation to the philosophy carrying a similar name. It's a clumsy neologism that has gained traction by the usual channels, ie transatlantic media.
I think you're reading too much into this. I could be wrong but I happened to study Existentialism as part of my degree and I think the use of the phrase in this context bears no relation to the philosophy carrying a similar name. It's a clumsy neologism that has gained traction by the usual channels, ie transatlantic media.
11
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Some morons will have decided that, because existential sounds like 'existence', the phrase 'existential threat' must mean 'threat to our existence'. These are the same morons who have decided that 'enormity' means something to do with being enormous. Sadly, some of these morons are - inexplicably - employed as journalists.
The OEd will record that some people use the word in this way because that's what the OED does - it records usage, not specifically correct usage.
Some morons will have decided that, because existential sounds like 'existence', the phrase 'existential threat' must mean 'threat to our existence'. These are the same morons who have decided that 'enormity' means something to do with being enormous. Sadly, some of these morons are - inexplicably - employed as journalists.
The OEd will record that some people use the word in this way because that's what the OED does - it records usage, not specifically correct usage.
3
5
In reply to colinakmc:
Do you know that words with the same spelling can have different meaning depending on their context? An existential threat has sod all to do with philosophy.
Unless someone is planning to bore the world population to death with a discourse.
Do you know that words with the same spelling can have different meaning depending on their context? An existential threat has sod all to do with philosophy.
Unless someone is planning to bore the world population to death with a discourse.
2
In reply to MarkJH:
What Mark said. It's a common phrase in academic IR (International Relations), on the state level nuclear weapons are the most common existential threat but also are sometimes argued to be an existential guarantee - worth remembering in the current discussion over Trident renewal!
What Mark said. It's a common phrase in academic IR (International Relations), on the state level nuclear weapons are the most common existential threat but also are sometimes argued to be an existential guarantee - worth remembering in the current discussion over Trident renewal!
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
I (partly) take it back; there is historical usage of the word in the sense of 'pertaining to existence'. And I'm happy to concede that there is current academic use of that sense. I think I'd prefer to write 'threat to existence' rather than 'existential threat', just because I think the latter construction feels a bit clumsy.
I'm not backing down on bloody enormity, though. A perfectly good word ruined.
I (partly) take it back; there is historical usage of the word in the sense of 'pertaining to existence'. And I'm happy to concede that there is current academic use of that sense. I think I'd prefer to write 'threat to existence' rather than 'existential threat', just because I think the latter construction feels a bit clumsy.
I'm not backing down on bloody enormity, though. A perfectly good word ruined.
1
In reply to sbc_10:
Love that!
> An existential threat...?
> The espresso machine has packed up and you're out of Gitanes.
Love that!
In reply to MarkJH:
Ah, so you think it means it's a threat to our existence? Hadn't thought of that, but I'm not very convinced.
I've just remembered - it's a bit like another of my bêtes noires - knock-on effects. We can't just have effects any more.
> Not sure that it is redundant. It is usually used in relation to a particular entity; often a state. An existential threat might be a foreign enemy, weapon, or internal movement that could cause the state to cease to exist in any recognisable form. In contrast, a non-existential threat might have the capability to kill many citizens, harm the economy etc, but would not threaten the existence of the state as a functioning entity.
Ah, so you think it means it's a threat to our existence? Hadn't thought of that, but I'm not very convinced.
I've just remembered - it's a bit like another of my bêtes noires - knock-on effects. We can't just have effects any more.
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
You tell 'em Jamie. This sloppy assumption that just because it's in the OED it must be correct, pah!
That said, I don't find this use of existential as irritating as many neologisms - it does seem to capture a useful concept, even if it's already being devalued by hyperbole.
Don't get me started on 'societal' though.
> The OEd will record that some people use the word in this way because that's what the OED does - it records usage, not specifically correct usage.
You tell 'em Jamie. This sloppy assumption that just because it's in the OED it must be correct, pah!
That said, I don't find this use of existential as irritating as many neologisms - it does seem to capture a useful concept, even if it's already being devalued by hyperbole.
Don't get me started on 'societal' though.
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Yellowstone blowing ? Catastrophic climate change ? A really big asteroid strike ?
I would say they were existential threats.
Yellowstone blowing ? Catastrophic climate change ? A really big asteroid strike ?
I would say they were existential threats.
2
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Its a useful term in specific scenarios to allow an easy categorisation of a threat. Would this threat stand a chance of wiping out human altogether, could it knock us back a few hundred years and so on.
Its use in journalism is almost certainly going to be bollocks though.
> Ah, so you think it means it's a threat to our existence? Hadn't thought of that, but I'm not very convinced.
Its a useful term in specific scenarios to allow an easy categorisation of a threat. Would this threat stand a chance of wiping out human altogether, could it knock us back a few hundred years and so on.
Its use in journalism is almost certainly going to be bollocks though.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Again, it has a clear and specific use in IR theory, I'm sure societal security was mentioned 10x more than existential threat in my PhD thesis!
Social security obviously already has a clear meaning so the Copenhagen School (!) needed a different term. It gets into the whole state/society split in more recent IR thinking.
> Don't get me started on 'societal' though.
Again, it has a clear and specific use in IR theory, I'm sure societal security was mentioned 10x more than existential threat in my PhD thesis!
Social security obviously already has a clear meaning so the Copenhagen School (!) needed a different term. It gets into the whole state/society split in more recent IR thinking.
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
It's fairly standard bit of English derivational morphology - add "al" to the end of [noun] (and do a bit of orthographic fiddling if necessary) to get an adjective meaning "relating or pertaining to [noun]". Unless you also think it's "morons" who came up with recreational, fictional, personal, emotional...
> The OEd will record that some people use the word in this way because that's what the OED does - it records usage, not specifically correct usage.
It's fairly standard bit of English derivational morphology - add "al" to the end of [noun] (and do a bit of orthographic fiddling if necessary) to get an adjective meaning "relating or pertaining to [noun]". Unless you also think it's "morons" who came up with recreational, fictional, personal, emotional...
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
You'd be surprised at how many people think that the OED exists to define the correct use of words.
I give you definition 1c of literally...
> You tell 'em Jamie. This sloppy assumption that just because it's in the OED it must be correct, pah!
You'd be surprised at how many people think that the OED exists to define the correct use of words.
I give you definition 1c of literally...
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Yes, of course.
>Unless you also think it's "morons" who came up with recreational, fictional, personal, emotional...
Well, no. Those are all pretty old constructions, and those words are all used primarily in their everyday contexts. My assumption was that 'existential' was a new construction that ignored the fact that philosophers had been using the word to mean something else for a century - and which had become its primary meaning, certainly outside of academia.
> It's fairly standard bit of English derivational morphology - add "al" to the end of [noun] (and do a bit of orthographic fiddling if necessary) to get an adjective meaning "relating or pertaining to [noun]".
Yes, of course.
>Unless you also think it's "morons" who came up with recreational, fictional, personal, emotional...
Well, no. Those are all pretty old constructions, and those words are all used primarily in their everyday contexts. My assumption was that 'existential' was a new construction that ignored the fact that philosophers had been using the word to mean something else for a century - and which had become its primary meaning, certainly outside of academia.
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
'Existential' in the sense of pertaining to existence has been in use since the 17th century and pre-dates black roll neck sweaters by a considerable distance. Its currently popular use in the phrase 'existential threat' may be annoying to some, but it's perfectly in keeping with its historical use.
> My assumption was that 'existential' was a new construction that ignored the fact that philosophers had been using the word to mean something else for a century
'Existential' in the sense of pertaining to existence has been in use since the 17th century and pre-dates black roll neck sweaters by a considerable distance. Its currently popular use in the phrase 'existential threat' may be annoying to some, but it's perfectly in keeping with its historical use.
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
I haven't looked it up but I'm guessing it's the one where they say it means 'not literally'.
And all words were invented by Shakespeare until proven otherwise.
> You'd be surprised at how many people think that the OED exists to define the correct use of words.
> I give you definition 1c of literally...
I haven't looked it up but I'm guessing it's the one where they say it means 'not literally'.
And all words were invented by Shakespeare until proven otherwise.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...