Existentialism is not a clear and simple idea which can be stated and defined. Instead, it is characterized by certain recurrent themes which the 'existential authors' seemed concerned about and repeatedly arise in their writings. Soren Kierkegaard is considered the father of existentialism. Others considered to be existentialists include Albert Camus, Marcel, Jean DeBeauvoir, Jean Paul Sartre. There are numerous others.
Kierkegaard was a religionist and is considered a Christian existentialist. In general, they tend to deny the existence of God. If God does not exist, what follows? What are the full implications? Sartre denies God's existence, thus he rejects all purpose, all meaning, all significance to life except what we give it! People are superfluous, dispensable, contingent.
Man is the measure of all things - (all men, not individuals). Man (mankind) is alone in the universe, according to existentialist thought. [The humanists say we have one another. Man's isolated uniqueness is a dynamic force - Lamont. We work together, build; he turns man's cosmic lonliness to human purpose. Lamont is a humanist.
Sartre rejects the above 'humanist view'. He holds that we, each of us, create what we are; we make our own values. The individual alone makes all value judgments. We become what we are by choices. We must choose! Life is a process of making choices and all are personal and individual. We choose our lives by every decision we make, minute and large. We choose how to spend our time, our money, etc. We are free, absolutely free to choose within the circumstances of our existence. We are condemned to be free
Each man is the clay and the potter of what he is and becomes. His initial project unfolds with time. His self-concept becomes (William James said that the most important thing he learned from all his study of psychology is that, by and large, people become what they think.)
Responsibility is always ours. We are totally responsible. We can't point to anything else, to others, to circumstances. Existentialist put total responsibility on the individual. We have no excuses. We choose the groups we associate with, the clubs we belong to, the churches we associate with, etc. If we belong, we also choose to stay.
Existentialism contradicts determinism, fatalism (predestination). It rejects all theories of external forces causing us to behave. In moral decision-making, man can transcend physical attributes. Sartre rejected psychoanalytic theory that man is a set of complexes.
Thus, freedom is dreadful. We are condemned to be free, to choose, to be totally responsible for our choices (and the results of them). Are our responsibilities valid? Are our choices valid? Authentic people are those who are fully aware of the full responsibility. Man's freedom is total and dreadful. Man has no one to appeal to as a final judge. You must make your choices as life is lived through. No one to confirm our rightness or wrongness - we only know later. This dreadful weight leads to anxiety, to a sense of threat, despair etc.
"Existence precedes essence." This is a common foundation in existentialism. Previous views held that there was a human nature pre-existing which each person filled out, was molded into. Human essence precedes existence, they said & thought.
Sartre says no! Existence precedes essence. We are making our essence now as we go. We are born naked, physically and spiritually. We become, develop by choices, by carrying out the 'initial project'. Each of us is unique, existing alone in time and place, uniquely. There is no 'man' but only individuals - you, she, me. We come into the world bearing no essence. "Existence precedes essence" for human consciousness. We do not acquire an essence until the moment of our deaths. Then no more change is possible, no more choices are possible, then essence is reached - your essence! The project is finished. Your unique project is finished! We do not become an essential segment of mankind.
This responsibility causes anxiety. The authentic person cannot escape these malaise, anxieties; these are inescapable. To be free and to grow requires some measure of suffering. The suffering is not the result of wrongdoing. It is the result of the need to choose in the face of responsibility, doubt, and uncertainty.
Existentialists conceive of a universe totally contingent. They hold that life is absurd, that people are superfluous.
Contingent: the future can't be predicted. So, some reserve is set aside in view of life's unpredictability. What we keep aside is our contingency fund. The universe is totally contingent. Anything can happen, could have happened. Science can give us probabilities but not certainty. It works for the masses of people, but not for individuals. Life is a series of contingencies; all are random events. We react, we adapt to these contingencies through our choices. We are the result of the myriad contingent interactions, each one playing its role, each choice moves us on, develops our initial project. Everything seems fortuitous, all chance, ie., your birth, the sperm selection that became you.
Existentialism rejects religious dogma. It denies God's existence and His interference in our lives. It rejects God's life, determinism, etc.
Chance is the most basic characteristic of all existence, according to Sartre. Since we are totally and absolutely free in a universe of random chance, without order, life is absurd! If we accept that all existence is contingent, then we can't escape life's absurdity. It makes no sense. If we grant that the universe is completely contingent, utterly unpredictable, that anything can happen, yet we find ourselves free! This is terrifying. It seems absurd to continue to live as if life had a higher purpose, a higher meaning, a transcendent principle. No God - but this is an unhappy conclusion to Sartre (but not to Russell).
Religionist say "there must be a plan or else the universe is meaningless." Existentialists say: "yes, true, it is meaningless!" Religionists believe in an objective plan. Sartre says he is realistic. There is a hope. To the universe I am nothing, but to myself everything! Is life such a small thing? Is existence not grand!
Existentialists deny only an overall grand design to the universe. It does not deny that each of us cannot have a purpose. Each of us makes his own purpose. Plans & purposes are subjective. We find significance and satisfaction by making commitments. These make life tolerable and give us happiness and satisfaction. This commitment is, like Tillich's Ultimate Concern, is personal. It is also subjective. It is also one's personal choice. Commitments can change. They need not be permanent but they must be sincere and genuine to be real, to make you authentic. One must be devoted to it for it to serve as one's purpose or ultimate concern.
Life should contain many commitments to be full and whole. They can and do change. Intensity and scope are the main things. The degree of one's devotion is the judge of its significance. The meaningfulness is subjective. The universe cares not one whit. It is cold and aloof and unrelated to you. If you are happy, good! If not, so what, who cares? No one really cares, they only pretend to. Our deaths result in voids quickly filled up - like having pizza after a funeral! Ranks close behind us when we die. I, you, we, are alone. Everyone dies by himself.
It is a grand illusion to believe that our concerns and commitments arouse any concern from society and from others.
The human condition! Existentialists have little idea of human value in relation to the universe. But they do have a large consideration for each individual human being. But they do not elevate man to cosmic significance. Central thesis: What am I? To the universe, nothing, to myself everything! This is the central thesis of the human condition.
Every choice we make, is a choice for everyone, a choice for this world. Like the Kantian idea of the categorical imperative, when we choose for ourselves, we choose for all. What we would choose for ourselves is a vote for that choice for all in our situation. This makes humans beings out of primates, moral creatures out of animal beings.
Authentic man: a person with the courage to face up to the facts, to the human condition, to our place in the universe. To be authentic is to reject lies, that the world is ruled by transcendant laws or by a God. A man with the courage to be (Paul Tillich).
Why be authentic? It is not necessary. But "I would like to be" says Sartre and this requires courage and honesty in the face of meaninglessness, emptiness, despair, lonliness, universal contingency etc. To face this situation, accept this state of affairs, live on in the face of this takes 'courage to be in the face of nothingness'. This is authentic man, one who fully realizes and accepts the truth of it.
Theists say "we are alone but for God." Realists say "our finite minds meet the infinite." Humanists say "we are alone but have one another." Existentialists say "we are utterly alone."
It is the same with values. We must consider the values of others. In developing meaning and significance, we must consider others. Existentialism provides a radical theory of values. Existentialism says: "we make our own values." Existentialism repudiates any fixed human nature; it is the highest advocate of the individual.
table of contents