Existentialism doesn't recognise dependent origination. And Buddhism refutes the false self born of ignorance, which is precisely the self that existentialism holds so dear.Pye wrote:Existentialism - in spite of its recognition of dependent origination - cannot and does not refute the reality of a self.
This cannot be resolved, for as a few have eloquently said here, no self is born in a vacuum, but into a world of others. And a self can only identify itself through these others (i.e. what I am-not; or, what I am like, too: dependent origination). There is nothing else upon which to ground being than in beings; in turn, nothing can be said about this self but how it meets with itself and others in these conditions. It's in this sense that existentialism might put it that we are 'negatively defined" - in recognizing this lack, we set up project to become-something, participate in what-is: becoming.
There is no need for "others", as in "other selves". Any self is identified in contrast to all the things that are not it, and ultimately grounded in all things.
If there's only existence, and existence is like this, there's nowhere to run. The running is seen as the problem. The running is seen as flight from one's own existence, i.e. flight from the reality of being and the participation in becoming.
Saying "there is only existence" is exactly the same as saying "there is only non-existence." The flight from reality occurs when this fact is not understood.
Perhaps I could push this through another nietzsche-sieve: the hardest thing of all is to become what you are. And what you are is becoming, always and ever.
That is obviously a meaningless statement unless you interpret "becoming" to mean the whole of cause and effect.