Introduction to Existentialism

 Existentialism in the broader sense is a 20th century philosophy that is centered upon the analysis of existence and of the way humans find themselves existing in the world. The notion is that humans exist first and then each individual spends a lifetime changing their essence or nature.

In simpler terms, existentialism is a philosophy concerned with finding self and the meaning of life through free will, choice, and personal responsibility. The belief is that people are searching to find out who and what they are throughout life as they make choices based on their experiences, beliefs, and outlook. And personal choices become unique without the necessity of an objective form of truth. An existentialist believes that a person should be forced to choose and be responsible without the help of laws, ethnic rules, or traditions.

Existentialism – What It Is and Isn’t

Existentialism takes into consideration the underlying concepts:

Ø  Human free will

Ø  Human nature is chosen through life choices

Ø  A person is best when struggling against their individual nature, fighting for life

Ø  Decisions are not without stress and consequences

Ø  There are things that are not rational

Ø  Personal responsibility and discipline is crucial

Ø  Society is unnatural and its traditional religious and secular rules are arbitrary

Ø  Worldly desire is futile

Existentialism is broadly defined in a variety of concepts and there can be no one answer as to what it is, yet it does not support any of the following:

Ø  wealth, pleasure, or honor make the good life

Ø  social values and structure control the individual

Ø  accept what is and that is enough in life

Ø  science can and will make everything better

Ø  people are basically good but ruined by society or external forces

Ø  “I want my way, now!” or “It is not my fault!” mentality

There is a wide variety of philosophical, religious, and political ideologies that make up existentialism so there is no universal agreement in an arbitrary set of ideals and beliefs.

Existentialist Thinkers

Some people are of the opinion that the best “definition” of Existentialism is to say that it is a kind of short-hand reference to the philosophies of Sartre, Marcel, Jaspers and Heidegger - and to their “founder-father”, Kierkegaard.

Only Sartre remains comfortable with the word. In Kierkegaard’s time, of course, it was not yet common currency and though men like Marcel accepted the etiquette as a more or less convenient description of their views at first, later on they rejected it in no uncertain terms. It seems to be all due to the fact that they don’t want to be classed in the same boat as Sartre or assimilated into his pronouncedly atheistic variety of it, which he identifies with Existentialism pure and simple. “Existentialism is nothing else than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position”. (Existentialism and Humanism) 

Furthermore, Sartre complicated the issue still further by misrepresenting the other thinkers. “There are two kinds of existentialists”, he says, “first those who are Christian, among whom I would include Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel, both Catholic; and on the other hand the atheistic existentialists, among whom I class Heidegger and myself”. (Ibid.) In the first place, Jaspers is indeed a Christian but not a Catholic. Secondly, Heidegger has protested against being judged as an atheist. Thirdly, none of these men - except Sartre - accept the label. Marcel describes himself as a “Christian Socratist”. 

Jaspers has better be called a transcendentalist. And Heidegger likes to number himself among the true ontologists. According to Marcel, too, there is a division in existentialism - “a parting of the ways”, as he calls it. This is constituted by its being obliged “either to deny or to transcend itself”. He goes on to explain, “It denies itself quite simply when it falls to the level of infradialectical materialism. It transcends itself, or it tends to transcend itself, when it opens itself out to the experience of the suprahurnan”. 

But what do we mean by the term? Unless we settle for a purely equivocal usage of the word  “existentialism”, we must admit that there are some very broad similarities - at least of attitude, if not in doctrine - among the “Big Four”. For Sartre, once again, the answer is simple enough. What they have in common is that “they think that existence precedes essence, or, if you prefer, that subjectivity must be the starting-point”. (Op, Cit.) This is all very well, but the view that “existence precedes essence” can be understood in a variety of ways and thus become a kind of umbrella to shelter a whole group of very different thinkers. And “subjectivity” is the “starting-point” for almost every ism that we know, though of course “subjectivity” and “starting - point” don’t always mean the same thing. Copleston toys with various “definitions”. For instance, he accepts that it is fair enough to say that “existentialists are concerned with man as subject”, provided we add the qualification that man, considered by the existentialists is “the concrete human person ... considered under a particular aspect, namely as a free self-creating and self-transcending subject”. (Contemporary Philosophy) But he immediately has to add still more explanations. He ‘finally settles for the vague, descriptive identification: “existentialism in general is the form taken in a particular historical epoch by the recurrent protest of the free individual agent against all that threatens or seems to threaten his unique position as an existent subject, that is to say, as a free subject who, though being in the world and so part of nature, at the same time stands out from the background of nature”. (Op. Cit.)

Origins

It is, indeed, possible to trace the “existentialist attitude” all the way back to Socrates, whose gnothe seauton (Know thyself) would fit in very well with Copleston’s descriptive definition. So also could one find “existentialist roots” in the voluntarism of St. Augustine, while others vociferously make a case for Thomism as being “the sole true existentialism”. However, I do not think we can establish a concrete historical link from Socrates through whoever, all the way to Kierkegaard and his heterogeneous followers. The man who pushed Kierkegaard, consciously, into his ideas was Hegel. The latter’s “both .... and” approach was abhorrent to his erstwhile admirer and provoked him to his strong “either .... or” reaction, which is the core of his philosophical vision. But we are anticipating...