Today's word is Existentialism

And so the great debate of existentialism is brought to the table. Oh how I have looked forward to this rant.

First off, I'll explain the basics of existentialism which I choose to argue.
Existentialism argues, first and foremost, that we are essentially free as human beings. We make our own decisions and form our own conscious (yes that is mispelled). Because we are free and do make our own decisions, we are responsible for our own actions and the consequences of those actions. There is no form of universal karma, there is only the theory that our actions produce consequences, whether positive or negative. These consequences do not come as a form of karma, simply as an action-reaction form of living. BECAUSE we create our own future, destiny or fate cannot logically exist (you can extrapolate from this point). This would also argue that we create our own meaning to our lives and are not directed by any necessary higher power. (Existentialism is easily related to Nihilism in this sense). It would argue against seeking some universal order or universal meaning and focus on the individual as opposed to the entirety of humanity.
This leads to the next major point focusing directly upon human existence (hence the name existentialism). An existentialist point of view would argue that there is no core to our existence, no true meaning to our lives. They would argue that by rejecting nothingness, they can better embrace or appreciate existence. This also supports their theory of "I think therefore I am". This theory basically states that there is no breathing room for illusions or false appearance. We are brought into a concrete world and see concrete sights.
The last point I choose to outline in relation to existentialism is as follows:
Humans are not essentially rational beings. This counters so much of so many other philosophies. It would argue in favor of a fascist point of view that humans react upon emotion and not reason. The pessimism is outstanding!

That was just my quick outline of the very basics of existentialism.

Now the fun part: arguing.
Although this part is amusing to me, it is also very complicated because existentialism touches base with so many points that it is almost impossible to take a stand against everything the philosophy argues.
I would gladly agree in favor of its point of all humans being essentially free. We are given free will (because I argue that we are given free will, I obviously believe in some higher power giving us the free will in question) and we act upon our own decisions. At the same time, I believe that some form of karma exists. If a man kills another man and escapes without ever being caught, he will still receive consequences. I do not believe that the murderer would ever be able to live a free, normal life. He would, in my opinion, experience, at the very least, psycological distress leading to abnormal tendencies. This counters the existentialist theory of a completely concrete world. "I think therefore I am"; what if the thoughts are corrupted or irrational? A murderer may act on instinct, not on thought, does this mean he does not exist? A free murderer may have an exceedingly corrupted mind, does this mean he only partially exists? One theory does not support the other.

I choose only to directly argue one other point because I find that by arguing one point, I end up arguing two or three at the same time.
Existentialism states that we do not have a core to our existence or any true meaning to our lives. There is no evidence supporting this or denying it, so an argument based on fact is very difficult to have. I instead rely on opinion based on no more than opinion: If we do, in fact, live without meaning, then why do we live?

I believe that much of life is based on faith, and we must follow through with that faith. I am not necessarily talking about faith in relation to religion, faith means to have trust. We have faith in human goodness; we trust human goodness (I am not saying I necessarily have faith in human goodness, it was just an example). Because we base so many of our thoughts and opinions on faith, we have to accept that there is not always a need for concrete evidence or proof of somethings existence. Simply because we do not know the meaning of life, does not mean that there is no such meaning. I believe that life would be very hollow without meaning.

Comments please.