sovay: (Psholtii: in a bad mood)
sovay ([personal profile] sovay) wrote2008-09-26 10:55 pm

A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed

"If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to Israel."

Sartre v. Palestine! Film at 11!
navrins: (Default)

[personal profile] navrins 2008-09-27 11:58 am (UTC)(link)
It might be, but I don't particularly think so. Certainly if it is, it has come into common enough usage by now.

Googling the phrase might be more revealing, if one cared to read more of the results than I do.

[identity profile] adrian-turtle.livejournal.com 2008-09-27 04:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Political science has used it as a term of art for a long time. I think it started with the H-bomb, when people were distinguishing between threats to completely destroy a country, and the traditional threats about doing damage and taking stuff. (Israel's heavily armed neighbors were talking about wanting to drive the country into the sea around that time, so political scientists on other continents speculated about whether it was an existential threat, or just old-fashioned hyperbole.) McCain's error was in using the term when he was not speaking to military officers or foreign policy specialists, who could be expected to be familiar with the jargon.

[identity profile] clarionj.livejournal.com 2008-09-29 01:58 am (UTC)(link)
Given this administration's willingness to trample on language, I assumed it was a recent bastardization.

I thought this could be the case as well, or that he just messed up, OR that he really had some weird concept going on there. I'm so glad you posted this because really I never heard "existential" used this way. I'd been pondering his use for two days. I don't like it, existential used that way. No, don't like it. :)