Man is condemned to be free…
Because he was not created.
Sometimes people ask me, ‘If you don’t believe in a creative god, life cannot have any meaning. So what are you searching for by doing philosophy?’ Without a creative god and a specific cosmic plan, it may indeed be true that life lacks a reason or absolute meaning. However, in my relatively short experience of life, I’ve learned one thing: we look at the same things and do not see the same things. Our judgments about things are often barely related to the things themselves, or not at all. Because when we look at the situation of being uncreated and lacking absolute meaning from another perspective, we find ourselves faced with overwhelming freedom. As Jean-Paul Sartre said, ‘Man is free, even condemned to be free, because he was not created.’
I aim to explore the connection between creation and freedom. Delving into this relationship might lead one towards a more devout path. Indeed, certain existentialist philosophers who pondered the concepts of freedom and God were believers in a theistic, creator deity.
I want to delve into the relationship between the concepts of creation and freedom. Delving into this relationship might make you more religious. Indeed, freedom and creation; some existentialist philosophers who questioned the concepts of God and freedom were believers in a creative god.
What is creation? Let’s say it’s to be brought into existence, to be formed, to be brought forth. If you consider yourself a created being, whether you understand the reasons or not, you would still think that the will behind all this creation has a reason/purpose/plan. That’s why Kierkegaard, one of the philosophers who believed in God, said, ‘What could God have intended with me?’
On the other hand, you may think that there is a first cause that initiates all this, just like a hand that sets off a chain reaction of falling dominoes, intentionally or unintentionally nudging the pieces to start the process. It should be considered only in terms of causing the process and may not even know the process it caused. For example, Aristotle thought of God in this way. However, I believe this perspective does not fully capture the primary meaning of a creative god and the act of creation. When we look at the only other realm where we use this concept to better understand creating and being created, which is art, we always speak of an intentional action by an agent. Therefore, a spontaneously occurring state in nature is not considered art. Hence, the act of creation is inherently intentional and requires purpose.
However, the existence of something does not necessarily mean that it has been created. You can say that you don’t think we have enough knowledge to say there is no God. But, conversely, we cannot claim to have enough knowledge to say definitively that it does exist either. Existence might inherently be eternal, cosmic time might be linear, and so forth; there are countless scenarios that could be presented. I speak in terms of possibilities because we simply do not know for sure. Perhaps we will never know. However, in such cases, I don’t view the existing ignorance as evidence in favor of anything as an explanatory model.
Indeed, Nietzsche, who lived during almost the same period as Kierkegaard, paved the way for the second branch of existentialist philosophy, which is based on the denial of the existence of God and attempts to establish a new context for life. Jean-Paul Sartre, the author of the quote above, is one of the most important representatives of this view. Therefore, one should question not what God meant with me, but what I intend with my actions, with this life.
Sartre, Camus, and existentialist philosophers in general, have a quality that I admire; they suggest that searching for the meaning of life is meaningless because there is no absolute meaning, we were not created, so all of this existence is highly absurd. But they don’t leave it at that. Despite all this, we don’t remain in a pessimism resentful of life.
Camus states our options as:
- Suicide (Giving up existence)
- Philosophical-Intellectual Suicide (Adhering to any belief and thought system)
- Embracing the Absurd (Becoming an absurd hero who rebels against all meaninglessness and suffering)
“The absurd hero” participates in this game by showing the courage to continue existing despite everything, just like in a drama. Because what matters is the process itself. After shattering the unreal ceramic models we created to make sense of life, they still demonstrate the courage to continue existing, to create themselves moment by moment. Perhaps all that is needed is to change expectations and perspectives on life. Can we approve life only because the game is just a game and life itself is just about the process? Like in the story of the child king who aimlessly builds sand castles only to destroy them, maybe the real issue is just this process.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this matter. Do you think man is condemned to be free?
