From Chaos to the Absurd: Existentialism for the 21st Century

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have attached a detailed review. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

I'm extremely grateful for your kind comments. Reviews almost always radiate only negative comments and rarely do reviews say anything complimentary or positive. However, if there is anything positive, these sentences usually end with the word but...

I'm extremely grateful for your kind comments. Reviews almost always radiate only negative comments and rarely do reviews say anything complimentary or positive. However, if there is anything positive, these sentences usually end with the word but...

A short response to your esteemed comments:

Comment

1. One minor revision I would like to see is a 1-2 sentence rationale/explanation for using Nietzsche to frame 2.0. I see the connection, but I feel this should be written explicitly by the author and not assumed /.../ He isn’t even mentioned in the conclusion or discussion, and with his significant role in the development, it is imperative that he be.

Answer

Thanks for the comment. I was trying to shed light on the role of Nietzsche in Existentialism 2.0. at the end of sub-chapter 2.1.

 

Comment

2. Another suggestion that I would recommend is that the author explores in slightly more depth the paradox of continuing to centralize the human to shape futures yet fundamentally arguing for a new framework that challenges the centrality of the human.

Answer

I'm not sure if I understood the hint correctly, but I tried to make the paradox of dehumanization/rehumanization a bit and shed light on the role and importance of man in modern society.

 

Comment

3. One final recommendation is that the author further develop the discussion on how humans should navigate the ethical challenges posed by AI, including frameworks for guiding the development and use of ALF technologies.

Answer

I agree with the comment, but that's an explanation I'm preparing for the next contribution. The problem does not allow for a brief explanation and requires thorough consideration. I've added a brief explanation in subsection 3.1

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides an interesting and ambitious attempt to update existentialist philosophy for 21st century, especially in the light of developments in AI. However, it could be improved in some areas.  There is a lack of clear research questions and methodology which makes the paper feel a bit unfocused. It will be good to be clarify how you are building this “Existentialism 2.0” concept and on what basis. The organization could be sharper. Right now, the introduction feels a bit bloated, and there’s some repetition in discussion section. Breaking things into clearer sections and tightening up the flow would help. I must say that  the ideas are compelling, but support for some claims around AI and interaction with existentialism, needs to be backed up more as it leans too speculative in places. The references to historical existentialist thought is solid, but needs more grounding in current debates, especially around AI ethics & posthumanism. More attention to what is currently going on in the philosophical domain would strengthen the argument. Some sentences are awkward, with few grammatical hiccups. It will be good to polish this up to improve readability. The conclusions are promising but need stronger backing from earlier sections. Also, expanding on implications of "Existentialism 2.0" for real-world applications such as AI ethics would give it more weight. To summarize, the paper has potential, but needs clearer structure, tighter arguments,and a better connection to contemporary debates to be more compelling.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is generally fine.

Author Response

 

Reviewer 2

Thank you for your valued comments and recommendations for improving the post. I have tried my best to respond to your comments and to take them into account accordingly. I hope I have succeeded in doing so to a greater extent. I have divided the entire comment into seven points, which I respond to below.

Comment 1

1. There is a lack of clear research questions and methodology which makes the paper feel a bit unfocused. It will be good to be clarify how you are building this “Existentialism 2.0” concept and on what basis.

Answer

The whole concept is based on the original principles of Existentialism. I start with the thesis that today, we are in a situation of chaos similar to existentialism before and after the Second World War. The difference is only in the actors and the world situation. Today, in addition to the classic threats of native existentialism, new, less obvious threats emerge from the emergence of AI and ALFs derived from it. It is based on these starting points that Existentialism 2.0 is based on. I've added a few sentences, and I hope the research question is clearer now. However, my book gives an in-depth explanation, and I am preparing it for the next contribution.

Comment 2

2. The organization could be sharper. Right now, the introduction feels a bit bloated, and there’s some repetition in discussion section. Breaking things into clearer sections and tightening up the flow would help.

Answer

I've tried to put more emphasis on the Introduction and mostly avoid repetitions in the Discussion. However, I believe it is important to reiterate certain important starting points and conclusions in the discussion, starting from and saying: Repetitia est mater studiorum. Changes are indicated in the text. I've added additional chapters. Changes are indicated in the text.

 

Comment 3

3. I must say that  the ideas are compelling, but support for some claims around AI and interaction with existentialism, needs to be backed up more as it leans too speculative in places.

Answer

I tried to briefly point out some claims about AI and its interaction with existentialism.

Comment 4

4. The references to historical existentialist thought is solid, but needs more grounding in current debates, especially around AI ethics & posthumanism. More attention to what is currently going on in the philosophical domain would strengthen the argument.

Answer

I agree with the comments, but that's the content I'm preparing for the following contributions. The problem does not allow for a brief explanation and requires thorough consideration. 

However, I have added a few sentences (Sub-chapter) to the discussion about AI ethics and posthumanism, digital humanism, and transhumanism.

 

Comment 5

5. Some sentences are awkward, with few grammatical hiccups. It will be good to polish this up to improve readability.

Answer

The entire article was proofread again by colleagues from The Department of English and American Studies at the Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor, so it should be fine. This way, I hope that the article will be easier to read and more consistent.

 

Comment 6

6. The conclusions are promising but need stronger backing from earlier sections.

Answer

I've added to the conclusion, especially about comment two and not to repeat myself too much anyway. However, the conclusions are closely related to the discussion, which also highlights the elements of the conclusion

Comment 7

7. Also, expanding on implications of "Existentialism 2.0" for real-world applications such as AI ethics would give it more weight.

Answer

I agree with the comments, but that's the content I'm preparing for the following contributions. The problem does not allow for a brief explanation and requires thorough consideration. 

However, I have added a few sentences (Sub-chapter) to the discussion about AI ethics and real-world applications such as digital humanism and transhumanism.

 

Comment 8

To summarize, the paper has potential, but needs clearer structure, tighter arguments,and a better connection to contemporary debates to be more compelling.

Answer

I agree with the comments, but that's the content I'm preparing for the following contributions. The problem does not allow for a brief explanation and requires thorough consideration.  To summarize the changes made:

• For starting points on which Existentialism 2.0 is based, I've added a few sentences, and I hope the research question is clearer now. However, an in-depth explanation is given in my book, and I am preparing a new contribution that will be tied to the various topics mentioned in the Discussion and Conclusion. The presented philosophy is only the first step, which requires an appropriate response and thorough reflection and development. However, the most important idea can always trigger certain processes.
• I've tried to put more emphasis on the Introduction and mostly avoid repetitions in the Discussion.
• I tried briefly pointing out some claims about AI and its interaction with existentialism.
• I have added a few sentences (Sub-chapter) to the discussion about AI ethics and real-world applications such as digital humanism and transhumanism.
• I've added to the Conclusion some additional Thinking, especially about comment two and not to repeat myself too much anyway.
• The entire article was proofread again by colleagues from The Department of English and American Studies at the Faculty of Arts. But I know nothing can be such that it cannot be improved.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made significant improvements in the structure and in addressing the speculative claims, though some areas—such as connections to AI ethics and real-world applications—still require further refinement. Moderate English editing is also suggested. With some final adjustments, the manuscript will be ready for publication. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English editing needed.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

In this version of my article, I've taken note of a comment related to connections to AI ethics and real-world application. I've added a few sentences with three examples in subchapter 3.1. Ethical Issue and sentence in conclusion. Both changes are marked in blue.

In the comment, moderate English editing is also suggested. Colleagues have done their best, and if additional English editing is needed, please edit this at your place and add the costs to the joint account.

Thank you and the reviewers for your cooperation.
Sincerely, author

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled “FROM CHAOS TO ABSURD: EXISTENTIALISM FOR 21. CENTURY” is an ambitious attempt to contextualize existentialism within the framework of the 21st Century. The author’s effort to draw parallels between the social conditions of Sartre’s era and today is commendable, and it underscores the enduring relevance of existential questions. The paper’s historical overview of existentialism, tracing its evolution from antiquity through Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, and others, provides a solid foundation for the discussion. However, the paper could benefit from a more in-depth exploration of these philosophical influences to better illuminate their relevance to the existential questions of today.  hile the author’s intent to re-examine existential questions in light of today’s unique circumstances is laudable, the paper could provide more specific examples of these circumstances and how they relate to existentialism. This would help to ground the discussion in concrete realities and make the study more relatable to a contemporary audience. In conclusion, while the paper shows promise and offers an intriguing premise, it could benefit from a more detailed examination of its historical influences and a more explicit connection between existential questions and the specific conditions of the 21st Century. With these enhancements, the study could make a significant contribution to the discourse on existentialism in the 21st Century. Keep up the good work!

It would be useful to add to the academic research literature on the subject and to take a critical look at the 21st century. Please also add references and other citations to the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in the abstract is quite good. The language is clear, the sentences are well-structured, and the vocabulary is appropriate for the subject matter. The author demonstrates a good understanding of the philosophical terms and concepts related to existentialism.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, the paper lacks what I take to be necessary precision and support.  The terms "Eastern Philosophy" and "Western Philosophy" which feature in the beginning of the paper are so broad as to be unhelpful.  And the authors who are discussed but uncited entails that as far as I can tell, this paper is not ready for publication in its current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Parts of this paper are written very prettily and poetically.  However, that style seems like a poor fit for this cournal.  Other parts of the paper use abbrevions and coin phrases in a style more familiar from analytic philosophy.  Individually, they make this work difficult to read.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is ambitious but has no other than a vague target and it includes rather a general and quite uninteresting reference (with no footnotes at all) to several theories which does not eventually lead us to an end. There is no real hypothesis to serve or answer. It does not discuss current scholarship, it lacks argumentation and tends to be rather prophetic about new needs and new circumstances without offering a solution or a solid discussion. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf