Existentialism — 6 reasons why it is the best philosophy
Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism — Jean Paul Sartre
Existentialism became one of the most influential intellectual movements in 19th and 20th century Europe. At its core it emphasizes an individual is free and responsible for his own existence through acts of his own will.
Does the internet really need one more article? (a.k.a the context)
That is a very valid concern. Allow me to build up to the answer by asking,
What is the true purpose of our lives?
There is so much noise growing up, from the society and an education system both of which are rather unfairly biased by religion. In certain settings, we are taught that the purpose of life resides in altruism. On the other hand, in a less humanitarian realm, it is claimed that true purpose is achieved by following your passion with reckless abandon. While a more social setting might want us to be a devoted daughter, wife or mother. Most of us simply grab on to the closest, the loudest and often the most convenient answer and unenthusiastically spend our lives trying to become something that was, in so many ways, pre-decided for us, lying to ourselves that it was indeed what we wanted to do, or worse what we were meant to do.
To that, existentialism calls bull-crap.
I write this article in an attempt to educate the reader of one more school of thought that might help him understand and as a result navigate through life with a sense of stern optimism.
The purpose of this article is not me trying to hand out a doctrine to live our lives by, it is much like my subject itself, trying to convince the reader of his innate freedom. I aim to make the article concise, straightforward and accessible so that even those of us who do not have a proclivity for philosophy can grasp it. I shall aim to paint a picture of existentialism by pointing out 6 of its most influential and probably controversial ideas and explain how they are relevant in our present day setting. It falls upon the reader then, if he wants to accept them or reject them vehemently. In either case I should love to be informed of such opinions.
A brief history of existentialism
19th century
Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard is often considered the first existentialist philosopher. He proposed that each individual, and not the society or religion, is responsible for conveying meaning to his life and living it passionately or “authentically”. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche talked about the role of making free choices, particularly regarding fundamental values and beliefs, and how such choices can change the nature and identity of the chooser. Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche can thus be considered as the earliest proponents of existentialist philosophy, though they never used the said term.
While not a philosopher, Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky is often credited for using existentialist themes in books. For instance, in “crime and punishment”, the protagonist Raskolnikov is tormented by despair of existence (or existential crisis). This goes on to show how existentialism is as much a literary phenomenon as it is a philosophical one.
20th century
In the 20th century, existentialism was brought to the limelight, almost making it a pop philosophical construct, by French philosophers Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre. Both Camus and Sartre became prominent public figures and their books highly read and discussed in post war France. In Sartre’s first novel “Nausea (la nausee)”, the protagonist Roquentin has immense bouts of nausea which he realises are a reflection of his existential crises. Camus’ novel “The Stranger (l’etranger)” has an equally blatant existentialist theme. Simone de Beauvoir was another important existentialist who spent much of her life as Sartre’s partner. Her books “The Second Sex” and “The Ethics of Ambiguity” are mostly based on feminist and existentialist ethics. Unfortunately, feminism as an idea and its integration with existentialism was unheard of, at that time, which led to her alienation from the likes of Camus.
(1) Existence precedes essence — we are innately free
To explain this, I shall compare man with an inanimate object, say a chair. Before the chair is brought into existence, it’s purpose is decided upon by its creator — a carpenter. Based on that purpose, i.e. if it is a bar stool or a chaise lounge, a design is created and the necessary materials procured. Then the carpenter builds the chair and for the rest of its “life”, the chair is obligated to serve the said purpose.
We can thus say the essence of the chair (its purpose, conception, design, everything that made its creation possible) precedes its existence.
As per religious doctrines, God is akin to a supernatural artisan — for he is the creator of man and he decides the essence of man before he is brought into existence. Each individual is the realisation of a certain divine conception — “God made me this way”.
However as per Sartre’s atheistic existentialism, as it declares God does not exist, there is no human nature or reality that precedes his existence. Which means that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world — and defines himself afterwards. i.e. existence precedes essence. So, the existentialist man considers himself as not definable, because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and that’s when he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills.
Hence, the first consequence of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders.
We are condemned to be free — Sartre in “No exit”
(2) Existentialism is a humanism — we are responsible for the society
When we put so much importance on being responsible for oneself, with no predefined destiny, the obvious reproach existentialism faces is the lack of social responsibility. It is however far from the truth.
When it is claimed that man is responsible for himself, it is not meant that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.
To choose between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen; for we are unable ever to choose the worse. What we choose is always the better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all. — Sartre in “existentialism is a humanism”
Sartre gives an example of someone who wills to be a married man. Then from his passion or his desire, he is committing not only himself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. He is thus responsible for himself as well as for all men, for he is creating a certain image of man as he would want him to be.
In fashioning myself, I fashion man. — Sartre
Think of it in terms of the modern day pandemic. While you are free to act as you will, you are also responsible for the standard you uphold . If you are not careful, you are willing for the virus to spread. Notice that your actions are impactful, and act accordingly.
(3) Existential anguish, despair or crisis
What is the existential dread we inevitably face, even after choosing for ourselves, a life of our desire? Sartre calls it “angoisse” or literally anguish. It stems from two interconnected reasons. First of all man must accept there is no pre-ordained meaning to life and in effect he is heedlessly free to commit to anything he wills. And then, when he commits himself to anything, fully realising that he is not only choosing what he will be, but is thereby at the same time a legislator deciding for the whole of mankind — he cannot escape from the sense of complete and profound responsibility. It is this sense of absolute freedom and consequent responsibility that can easily render someone catatonic.
It is crucial to accept here that all leaders who are in literally charge, experience such an anguish. It does not prevent them from acting, on the contrary it is the very condition of their action, because any action presupposes that there is a plurality of possibilities. In choosing one of these, they realize that it has value only because it has been chosen.
Far from being a screen which could separate us from action, it is a condition of action itself. — Sartre
Thus, the way to escape the anguish of freedom is to continually re-evaluate our will and recommit ourselves to the said will and act in accordance with it, and avoid the temptation of self-deception (I can not do this because of my childhood perhaps), a helpful segue for my next item.
(4) Never live in “bad faith”
We live in bad faith (or mauvaise foi as Sartre calls it) when we convince ourselves that things have to be a certain way and shut our eyes to other possibilities. For example when we tell ourselves that we have to do a particular job, or have to live with a particular person or live in a given city.
The most well known example of bad faith is perhaps that of a waiter in a cafe that Sartre talks about in his book “Being and Nothingness”. Sartre thinks the waiter is acting in a certain stiff, mechanical way because that’s how he thinks he is supposed to act. Sartre has an issue with people using their position in the society as an excuse for giving up their freedom. Bad faith according to him is when we will ourselves to others’ opinions and lose our “selves” in the process. That is when we convince ourselves that we are essentially, necessarily a waiter (insert what you consider is your “job”) first than a free willing human being.
Another really good example of living in bad faith comes up in the play “No exit” — which I consider to be one of the most creative of Sartre’s works.
In this play, three people are condemned to spend eternity together in a room after their deaths — a curious portrayal of hell. One of the characters Garcin cannot decide for himself what he is, unless the others say so. This is a classic example of “bad faith”, the inability to judge ourselves and accepting responsibility for our actions. By simply placing three individuals in the same room, Sartre not only suggests that hell naturally exists on earth but that hell is other people. As Garcin discovers, there is no need for physical torture: the gaze of the “other” reduces and “devours” his individuality.
Hell is other people. — Sartre in “No exit”
According to Sartre, when we judge ourselves with the means “other people” (the society, friends, parents, teachers) have and have given us for judging ourselves, it is akin to being in hell. We must free ourselves from such limitations and notice that it is us, who can know what we are and what we are capable of doing.
(5) Existence is absurd — stop searching for a “meaning”
Life has no meaning.
In fact the universe is highly contingent and painfully absurd in ways that would terrify us, if we were to pay strict attention to them and stop taking them for granted. In the book “nausea”, Roquentin is plagued by this absurdity so much that he has bouts of debilitating nausea. In one instant he is sitting in a park when the roots of a tree suddenly stop making sense to him and seem awfully alien.
While most of us do not have such intense acquaintance with absurdity — highly appreciated for the sake of our sanity, it is important to acknowledge and accept the absurdity of it all. As Albert Camus insists the absurd journey itself is worthwhile, as long as you are conscious of its absurdity.
The sooner one accepts there is no predestined meaning to one’s existence, one can reach the highest level of personal freedom. — Albert Camus
While it can be somewhat unnerving to accept this, a lot of our happiness can be claimed as a result of it, as we shall see in the next item.
(6) Happiness lies in the mundane
Once we accept the absurdity of existence and as an extension everything else we encounter, it becomes easier to do whatever that is we “choose” to do, irrespective of the fact that one day we will die and life will inevitably go on.
Take for example Sisyphus, whose work was to push a boulder uphill only to watch it roll down, for eternity. In “the myth of Sisyphus”, Camus explains that when Sisiphus watches the boulder roll down and becomes conscious of his toil, even accepting it — it becomes an act of rebellion against those who have cursed him. Acceptance of the situation is the way to conquer it — the acknowledgement of the absurdity is the triumph over the otherwise hopeless existence.
One must imagine Sisyphus happy. — Camus in the myth of Sisyphus
It is obviously a commentary on modern day workplaces where the workmen complains of spending his life doing the same tasks. It is boring, but at the same time and for the same reason, glorious and brave. Once we accept that there is no purpose, there is no big picture and throw ourselves into the everyday, mundane tasks, we become a giant — a survivor.
Continuing in the face of futility is a revolt in itself and the consciousness is the reward. That, after all is meaningful.
A conclusion
Very early on my quest to look for meaning, I read Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s search for meaning”, wherein he chronicles his experiences as a prisoner in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. Frankl identifies three psychological reactions experienced by all inmates:
(1) shock during the initial admission phase to the camp,
(2) apathy after becoming accustomed to camp existence, in which the inmate values only that which helps himself and his immediate friends survive,
(3) reactions of dehumanization, moral deformity, bitterness, and disillusionment if he survives and is liberated.
Frankl concludes that the meaning of life is found in every moment of living; life never ceases to have meaning, even in suffering and death. While at the outset, it might seem ironical to what existentialism espouses; I believe it is actually highly analogous — for what according to Frankl creates a survivor is the freedom of choice he always has even in severe suffering.
The reason I bring up Viktor Frankl is to reinforce my initial claims that through this article I am not in any way trying to convince someone to select a particular way of life. That will, by its very definition, be against everything existentialism advocates. Much like Frankl, we are free to choose what we want to be and how we want to live our lives. I myself am an existentialist only in the most pragmatic sense. I might change my mind tomorrow and recommit to a new ideal. However, by its very nature, existentialism will accordingly subsume the vehement exertion of my freedom!
