Existentialism has been made widely known from the works of Jean-Paul Sartre who used it in reference to his own philosophy after it was made popular in the post-war world of the 1940s and 50s as a movement in post-war arts and culture. But the term pre-dates him and was more often used as a general name for a number of thinkers and philosophers such as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, H.J. Blackham and C. Guignon – a movement rather than a doctrine, having roots from the 19th century.
Existentialism in this broader sense refers to the backlash against sociological, philosophical, scientific and all manner of other systems that claim to have answers to the fundamental questions of human existence, better known as the human condition; why am I here? What is my purpose? How should I live my life? Etc.
It was a rejection of teleology – the 1800s had been dominated by the idea not of ‘being’ but of ‘becoming’. Christianity was naturally the prime target for attack, as religious answers to these questions have always been attractive throughout history as they remove the burden one would have to face if they tried to create personal meaning and purpose in their life.
These systems prophetize heaven on earth, or Plato’s world of forms or the leftist’s post-communist paradise. By focusing with so much effort on the future beyond present existence, such systems loose the human perspective on life. We don’t need a divine perspective of the human condition, but a human perspective, is the rallying cry of the Existentialists.
A specific problem of the divine perspective – according to these thinkers, is that it does not take into account a fundamental aspect of humanity – that being our mortality. Many religions have denied the temporary nature of life, instead subscribing to a belief of some form of immortality – if only one lives a moral and virtuous life, then they will experience unending life, in heaven or the equivalent for other religions.
Existentialists favour individuals searching for life’s answers on their own – you can not be set free by others; you must liberate yourself by means of passionate commitment to something – anything at all. They believe systems which proclaim absolute knowledge of these answers as detriment to the development of authentic and free human beings. They see a benefit to facing up to our mortality, that being the realisation of such a revelation an give people the strength to stop living in conformity with the masses and to instead live their lives with standards and values of their own choosing.
Humans are not designed by a supernatural being with a predetermined function in mind, however, our ability to make free choices gives us the chance to sculpt a unique function for ourselves during the course of our lifetime. Existentialists further claim that our own existence as unique individuals in fixed situations cannot be grasped in these theories and answers, and that such authorities try to conceal from us the entirely personal task of self-fulfilment in our lives.
Existentialism is thus a broad literary, political and philosophical movement with a primary aim to understand how the individual can achieve the richest, happiest and most fulfilling life in the modern world.
Important to add here is the difference between existentialism and nihilism, which is routinely mistakenly used as a label for the former, or simply as mud-slinging. In full similarity nihilism teaches than there is no objective meaning or purpose to life, and there is no point to the existence of anyone or anything; things are just what they are; people are just who they are. However existentialists add that with free will we can create subjective meaning for ourselves: self-creation through the structure of choices, something that under nihilistic thinking is not possible. Nietzsche himself saw nihilism as a disease and he actually set up an institution with a program aimed to help those with what he saw as an affliction.
Since a movement is rather more incoherent and unorganised than a concrete doctrine, Existentialists have held widely differing views about human existence. For example, Sartre was chiefly concerned with the moral implications of personal choices and the exercise of free will, equating it with the outcome of the actions – consequentialism. But Kirkegard was unconcerned with the moral questions, liking choice as the absolute freedom. However there are similar themes that they hold in their writings. First that humans have no divine purpose laid out for them by God or by nature; and it is up to us to define ourselves solely through our actions. This is the point of Sartre’s ‘existence precedes essence’ for humans. I.e. people simply exist and there is no refutable argument to this, and then it is up to each of us to define our identity. So our essence – our traits or characteristics, are chosen rather than given to us.
Secondly, Existentialists hold that we should be concerned with finding the most fulfilling way of living life possible. As in their view, most of us tend to conform to the ways of living of the ‘herd and similar social situations. So our lives could be said the be inauthentic as we are not really living them ourselves – we are not sovereign over them and allow ourselves to be governed by an authority or by each other, when we should be looking no further than realising that only we have the answers to ourselves.
So to become authentic, a person must take over their existence and such transformations are made possible by emotional experiences. As Nietzsche said, emotions come from thinking about the past; anxiety comes from the present; dread comes from thoughts about the future. When we do this, existentialists claim, only then will we have a clearing understanding of how to become a truly purposeful and passionate individual. Because unless we intervene to change our lives, we will be swept along by the currents of progress, and the march of history.
The Uncreative Journalist 