Category: Existentialism

Introduction

According to Sartre, existential ethics provides humans with a newfound sense of optimism and joy. He connects joy and freedom with being free and thus having to choose a purpose in life. I agree with his existentialism and freedom of man philosophy since I know that as human beings, we have free will, and thus, we can make our choices, and when we realize this, we are more optimistic and happier in life.

Theory of Existentialism

The main thesis of the theory of existentialism is that existence precedes essence and that one has to start from subjectivity. For Sartre, men exist before his essence is known, which means that the human being is determined, constructed, and invented while acting in the world. Sartres existentialism differs from Christian existentialism, which has to carry de as its main exponent. Sartre argues that our choices build innocence, there are no predetermined values, and there is no idea of human nature; in this, he does not differ so much from Christian existentialism (Kruks 72). However, the big difference is that, for Sartre, there is nothing that conditions or justifies the necessity of our existence, just as our existence does not serve a single purpose.

Man is a project in eternal construction, says Sartre; thus, man is nothing more than what he makes of himself; this is the first principle of existentialism. This is a concept that I agree with because I think that every time we choose to act in a certain way, our own identity is built, determining the very notion of humanity. In this sense, no one is doomed to be bad or good, unsuccessful or successful, just as we have no one to blame for the consequences of our actions and the direction our lives take. Furthermore, each of our actions becomes possible action for all other human beings and contributes to forming the general idea of what humanity is.

Sartre motivation for his Philosophical Apparatuses

Jean-Paul Sartre created, from all these philosophical apparatuses and the influences of the German Martin Heidegger. This profoundly existentialist philosophy prioritized material and concrete existence over any possible essence. This means that the human being does not have an essence that defines him immediately, but he is defined according to how he lives. The human being is built individually daily and will never be ready and defined because that construction process only ceases with death (Kruks 68). Therefore, everyone is responsible for their lives, and they choose how to live, thus making them paradoxically condemned to freedom.

To explain the existentialist theory, Sartre resorted to psychophysical dualism as the composition of the human being. He argues that we are composed of a body (matter) and an immaterial consciousness. It is not possible to have a conscience without a body, Sartre is a materialist philosopher, just as a body without a conscience is not a human being. The philosopher then makes use of two central concepts. The first concept is being-in-itself, which is the one that has a defined identity; that is, they are objects and things. It is also part of the human being because it is his body. The second concept is being for itself, which means it is aware of itself and lives for itself but does not have a defined identity. It is the consciousness that composes us as human beings.

These two concepts lead the human being to a situation of anguish because, while being-in-itself, he wants to be identical to himself. However, he cannot because consciousness does not have a ready and defined identity. There is also no way to be just consciousness, pure consciousness, because all consciousness, in order to exist, needs a body. As a result, there is no human nature, and since there is no nature, there is also no human essence. There is only the state of humanity. The presence of humans will always require construction. He will always be in the situation of something; he is not something. He will, therefore, always be conditioned to anything that temporarily qualifies him as a being that exists for that.

Existence Precedes Essence

The main question we must understand in relation to Sartres philosophy is what it means that existence precedes essence or essence. Sartre himself uses an example to illustrate his point. Imagine a craftsman making a letter opener. He has a clear picture of what this letter opener should look like and its use. With that in mind, he goes to work, using existing processes of manufacture to ensure that the letter opener will serve his preordained purpose (Elbe and Blumenfeld 52). It is clear from this example that in objects of this kind, essence precedes existence. First is the idea, the totality of all properties and manufacturing processes that define the term letter opener and stands as a pure idea in space. The craftsman only reaches for his tools and brings the object into existence. The essence of the letter opener now receives its material body, its object-ness.

I agree with Sartres philosophy of existentialism which argues that existential ethics plays a crucial role in giving human beings a sense of joy and optimism. I believe that if we do not know why we exist or if we do not have a purpose as human beings, then life will be boring, and we will be unhappy. For example, since I was a kid, I have wanted to be successful, and thus in my life, I have been trying to attain these goals through my career and education. This is what I call my purpose or essence; through this essence, I get the willpower to live and continue working towards realizing my goals. Therefore, Sartres argument about existential ethics makes sense because I would be unhappy, and life would be tasteless if I were just in an absurd existence without a purpose.

Freedom and Consciousness

The subjective level we have entered is particularly evident in Sartres comparison between freedom and consciousness. Freedom is a personal experience, not an event that happens to us from the outside, but a daily, inner experience. In my consciousness, I experience only myself. I cannot connect anyone to it and can never intrude into someone elses. I recognize myself in the other person and conclude that he is also conscious; however, when given the task of describing consciousness, I can only fall back on my own. The same applies to the freedom that underlies my consciousness.

Conclusion

People often believe that humanity is lost, and for Sartre, the fault lies entirely with society. Therefore, the responsibility of the people is much greater than one can suppose, as it engages the whole of humanity. It is noticeable that the notion of freedom is the central element of Sartres thought, but freedom does not mean being free to commit any action. On the contrary, this freedom is practically a burden from which man does not. All actions are fruits of choice and everything that happens results from a set of choices. Freedom is total, but it generates consequences that will have to be dealt with, that is, it imposes total responsibility. Therefore, he does not need previously determined universal values to act ethically. Our choices invent all criteria; some become universal because several individuals choose them.

Works Cited

Elbe, Ingo, and Jacob Blumenfeld. The Anguish of Freedom: Is Sartres Existentialism an Appropriate Foundation for a Theory of Antisemitism? Antisemitism Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, 2020, p. 48. Web.

Kruks, Sonia. Existentialism and Phenomenology. A Companion to Feminist Philosophy, 2017, pp. 6674. Web.

Introduction

Jean-Paul Sartre established the idea of existentialism in the nineteenth century, and it focused on the duties of the peoples choices in the ecosphere that fell short of ethics. Existentialism is an intellectual that stresses on the existence of the exceptional individual as a sovereign and answerable agent who guides their progress via actions of volition. Sartre, among other thinkers, prioritized the peoples moral development, and they contended that there was a need to amend moral behavior and justice enhancement in society.

Effects of Existentialism on Americans and Russians

United States administrations have tried for approximately thirty years to develop a long-term strategy for the Soviet Union. After the Great War, ties between the United States and Russia remained the same (Philosophy-Sartre). However, the two nations have a great deal of mutual mistrust and are embroiled in a geopolitical conflict that is getting worse in Europe and outside. Therefore, if America and Russia can adopt existentialism philosophical theory, people can stop doing more damage to each other and have an everlasting relationship. Furthermore, they can keep the door open for collaboration on common interests, and stop the bad habit of making promises they cannot keep.

Implications of the Commonalities and Differences among Culturally Diverse Individuals

Cultural diversity assists in eliminating unfavorable misconceptions and individual biases. Furthermore, ethnic differences help people to acknowledge and appreciate behaviors that are not similar to theirs. When people connect, they can create networks for trust, regard, and cooperation across cultural boundaries (Philosophy-Sartre). Language, attire, and customs are the cultural variations that are apparent among individuals. Major differences exist in how civilizations are structured, including how they engage with their surroundings and view morality and religion.

Application of Existentialism and Literary Works among Different People

Existentialism offers the advantage of helping people from various diversities to discover determination in their existence. People might minimize the fear of the unknown by realizing they have the liberty and the capability to select whatever they want. Leading a better life can assist ethnic groups in dealing with overpowering feelings such as terror and lessen the uncertainty of unforeseen situations (Philosophy-Sartre). People from diverse groups can learn history through manuscripts and speeches. For instance, Fight Clubs novel exposes people to the mentally disturbed, fast-talking character that frequently recycles existentialist beliefs.

Work Cited

PHILOSOPHY  Sartre. YouTube, uploaded by The School of Life, 2014, Web.

Waiting for Godot is the conflict between spiritual and philosophical ideas that both demonstrate renewal and diverse perspectives to the viewers. Waiting for Godot was part of the theater of the absurd a movement that appeared after the second world war. This movement looked at artist struggling to find meaning through devastation. The absurdist deconstructed plots and characters to try and find meaning to then share the uncertainty on stage. The play offers a simple question to the audience “What should the characters do?” Waiting for Godot is a tragicomedy with the central focus of the play being nothingness. The play follows the two characters, Estragon and Vladimir, who essentially sit around doing nothing and talking about nothing. However, the play also creates conflict between living by religious and spiritual beliefs or living by philosophies such as nihilism or existentialism. “Vladimir: Let’s wait and see what he says.

“Estragon: Who?

Vladimir: Godot

Estragon: Good ideas.

Vladimir: Let’s wait till we know exactly how we stand.

Estagon: On the other hand it might be better to strike the iron before it freezes.” This is an example of the two conflicts while Vladimir depends on Godot to inform him of the importance of his own existence versus Estragon who argues they do not have the time to wait and should take action themselves. The cooling iron is a metaphor that suggests to the viewer that humanity does not have time to wait for spiritual ponderings that may offer enlightenment.

Waiting for Godot was writing in 1949 and seem to have a unique phenomenon during times of social and political crisis. The play brought a modernist existential reflection, “They give birth astride a grave,” says Pozzo. “The light gleams an instant, then it’s night once more.” This demonstrates a bleak outlook but it also shows the funny and poetic of the play. This, in turn, revals humanity’s talents for fortitude, amity and keeping going.

Waiting for Godot has a renewal each time the sun sets and then rises again. Time moves in cycles with the same day occurring over and over again. At the end of each day the same boy will come and inform the two main characters that they will have to come again the next day to see Godot. The interruption occurs when night falls the disappointment of Godot not arriving and the day starting once again the same way the and still waiting, this is where the plays circular structure occurs. This essential allows for the repetition of conflict between philosophies and spiritual ideas as we see the continuing argument between Vladmir, who wants to wait, and Estragon, who wants to leave,

“Estragon: Let’s go.

Vladmir: We can’t.

Estragon: Why not?

Vladmir: We’re waiting for Godot.”

Beckett deliberately uses an unconventional structure to challenge literary conventions to demonstrate the meaningless of life and the repetitiveness of waiting. Waiting for Godot’s structure moves in a circular motion,

“Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?

Estragon: Yes, let’s go.

Stage directions: They do not move.” This challenges literary conventions as there is no character development or plot movement but rather moving around in circles which in turn demonstrates the nihilistic theme throughout the play. Beckett demonstrates a nihilistic vision with the avoidance of metaphysical archetypes and connecting structure such as redemption of hope after despare.

Soren Kierkegaard has a lot of controversial things in his existentialism and philosophy and this includes his dislike of Kantianism and Hegeliansim and Churchism. He believes in a few things but most especially, he believed that God truly exists. That’s why he tried looking into the concepts of churches among all religions. After examining it, he realized that it’s not good to rely on the church in order for you to have a connection with God. The church shouldn’t be a third party, in modern terminology, in our relationship with God. That is what it means when he said that there shouldn’t be chaperoning on our intimate bond with God. What we have with God is a bond that should only be joined by Him and us individually. I have no right to judge your relationship with Him and so as you to mine. We understand our own relationships differently that’s why it’s absurd if we rely on it on our churches.

Kierkegaard disliked Kantianism and Hegelism because according to him, he hates the idea of it being a system. It’s not good to live a life with a set of strict rules that one should follow. Kierkegaard instead centered his idea of living an ethical life with faith. He even said that our life is a sum total of our leaps of faith and we are here where we are right now because we made a risk and we made it happen. It’s not because we followed a set of rules. It’s in those moments that you leap out of uncertainty that you find what life really means. Life is supposed to be lived so following a set of strict standards doesn’t help us.

Since Kierkegaard is known to disagree with Kant and Hegel on their ethical systems due to their strict nature, it’s ironic how some critics think that the Three Stages Paradigm is a rigid system. One of his goals in his ethical program is to center our life on faith and not on a set of rules. That’s why he crafted the paradigm in order to foresee the stages that we will encounter in reaching the ultimate test of faith. The first is the aesthetic stage where our life is governed by pain and pleasure. We tend to do things that give us pleasure and turn away from things that cause us pain. The second is the ethical stage where the person will have the ability to judge the rightness and the wrongness of an action. The highest and final stage is the spiritual stage where our time comes to make a bond with God and take a leap of faith unto and for him. There’s no way that this can be classified as a rigid system because this is generally applicable in real life and every people have really undergone these stages in life.

What I love about Soren Kierkegaard’s belief is that according to Sartre, Kierkegaard’s whole project states that “Existence precedes essence” because we as human beings are worth more than what we are capable of doing. He viewed human existence as a subject, not an object, in the language of English Proficiency. We, humans, are not discovered because we in ourselves are the discoverer. No human should feel objectified because we are not made to be objects for others. We have the ability to color our life. It repeatedly stated in our discussion how we are worth more than our accomplishments and failure. A failure is an event. It will never be a person. Kierkegaard, a world-renown philosopher, believes that we have our intrinsic values as humans and I think it’s something that all of us should remember. It’s somehow an anthropocentric view that other existences are mere objects to us humans who are defined as subjects in this world but it is really that true because only humans have the ability to be rational. Therefore, in this world, it is reasonable to regard humans as subjects.

It can also be exemplified in the statement “the human person is a subject-in-plenitude and in mystery” which states that as humans as we are, we are irreplaceable and can never be duplicated. We are different persons with unique abilities that make us special. We can get a huge lesson from the existentialists through this because people, nowadays, keep calling other people as the next up-and-coming person by using a real person. For example, they keep calling Vice Ganda the next Dolphy when, in fact, Dolphy is a separate person from Vice Ganda. They may have similarities, especially in their sense of humor, but they will never be the same person. Instead, we should call him the one and only Vice Ganda because he in himself is a unique individual. This also teaches us not to compare ourselves to other people. We are separate beings and should never be compared, like apples and oranges.

It’s the 21st century, women should get equal rights. It’s the 21st century, Netflix should be compulsory and free for all.

‘It’s the 21st century’ is probably one of the most common arrangement of words used in the 21st century – the century of information. The century that started with the rise in the number and diversity in newspaper articles and is now witnessing an even bigger number of articles on the internet everyday about anything and everything. The 21st century has just begun. We all are witnessing it; by being alive at this very moment. We are the people of 21st century. We are living in the middle of human existence. 20 centuries have passed since humans started documenting time. We don’t know how many more will pass until the wipe out of humans happen. We’ve a rich history of human existence with some mysteries here and there. We, with the help of science, also have a splendid future lined-up for the mankind which is quite obviously filled with mysteries. The fun fact being, the existence of future is a bigger mystery in itself. Although, we possess more knowledge than any other generation of humans ever has, we are still unable to demystify the mysteries of the universe. The point being that the 21st century is an interesting time to live in as any other time has been for the people living in it. Every generation of our specie has thought of themselves as the most advanced and very rightly so but in hindsight, like Jon snow, they knew nothing. All of this, like most of what we read and see, is a perspective. An opinion. An understanding of things around the person expressing the opinion or perspective or his/her understanding of the world.

Although, everyone has a unique perspective towards the society and times that he/she lives in, the perspective differs in magnanimous amounts when it comes to two individuals from different generations altogether. It’s almost as if people from different generation live different lives even after living in the same space as each other. This can be observed by taking a glance at the narratives of the 21st century by people belonging to different generations. The generation of people growing up and the one that has already grown up might have some similar thoughts but they fundamentally can not have the same narrative of things, perspective towards life and understanding of the world around them. Hence, the times that you live in becomes an important determinant in defining who you are. As a consequence, documenting the happenings of a time also becomes equally important so as to facilitate the study of history, sociology and other subjects of similar kind. This article shall also serve the purpose of documenting the happenings of this time from the author’s perspective/understanding of world.

Philosophy has always been about multiple themes; some of them being popular at some times and other being not. The most famous theme of philosophy among the generation that is growing up in these times has to be Existentialism. More than being a famous theme of philosophy, Existentialism and Existential crisis are words that are thrown around to, at the very least, sound philosophical and cool. Existentialism is a philosophy that questions the purpose and explanation of human existence. The philosophy doesn’t believe in the existence of God. This philosophy has seen a rampant rise in it’s following in last few years. It has been in existence since a long time but it has always been intellectually inaccessible to a certain extent. The inaccessibility was broken by the social media celebrities in the very near past.

Social media is a very important factor while discussing the philosophy of existentialism. In the modern understanding of existentialism, social media has played a very important role in promoting the philosophy and the modern idea of existentialism itself. The reasons for the same are primarily two. One of the very basic reason is the display of only merry and cheerful parts of one’s life on the social media; which makes sense because normal human psychology works that way. A person would always want to project his achievements instead of the downfalls. The adverse effect of this psychological behaviour can be seen on both – the consumer and the producer. The producer, by posting only positive content about himself, enters this zone with dual personality because in reality no one is as happy as they show on the social media. The loss of genuineness gets to them and they find it difficult to break apart from any of the personality to seek help for this, or for any cause for that matter. The consumers, even though aware of the faking of happiness on social media phenomenon, always believe in the updates posted by their friends on their social media and even though unknowingly, this affects them. This phenomenon is known as FOMO (Fear of missing out). Although, FOMO doesn’t directly indicate towards existentialism. The road to existential crisis from FOMO or any other kind of sadness goes through social media again. This is because the fundamental questions of existentialism as a philosophy are quite popular on social networks because of the phenomenon known as ‘meme culture’. The meme culture being highly popular amongst the youth has made the questions enter the minds of lakhs of people. Due to the high stress levels, unsatisfied lives that we live and also the fascinating nature of the questions, they have become a part of the culture. People think about it; some try to answer them but we can’t ignore them. One important fact to be noted here is that these sentences are true only for the generation that is growing up right now. The grown – ups are mostly oblivious to the concept and philosophy of existentialism.

The second reason behind social networks being the perpetrator of existentialism in the lives of most people is the flow of information. Flow of information is more often than not considered a positive characteristic but in this context – it’s negative. The social networking sites now contains information on every single thing on the planet. The range is everlasting – News (A large group of people rely on social media for getting their news), articles about social issues, updates about events, consumerist advertisements and what not. One of the many flaws in the information obtained from the internet; social media networks in particular is that the majority proportion of it is not facts. It’s either opinions or speculations. Therefore, flow of information has been now transformed into flow of opinions. Although, flow of opinions/information is a healthy exercise for a culture but it also adversely affects the young population. This is because of the presence of young teenagers in abundance on the social media. The proportion of positive to negative content on the social media is as bad as it could be. So, the young cheerful teenagers are also faced with a lot of negativity in the early days of their life. The negativity isn’t a myth. It exists, but the young ones are supposed to enjoy and remain positive until they have to face and therefore understand the real world. The negativity on social media acts as the killer of the innocence that these kids possess. The breaking of their idea of a world further pushes them towards existentialism.

The final and one of the most important theme concerning the flow of information on the social network is about the personal accounts that are posted almost daily on the social media. The kind of Facebook statuses, Instagram Posts or Snapchat stories that a person posts online builds their narratives of their own lives; or of what they think about their life. In majority of these narratives, the tone of self-depreciation is omnipresent. The dissatisfaction of people from their life is often visible in these narratives. This is a dangerous thing not only for the happiness index of the country but also for again the young teenagers on these social networking websites. This is because people from every age group have started putting out honest revelations about life at their age. Although, therapeutic for the person putting out the post, these posts serves as the basis on which the youngsters form their opinion. As an individual, one always hopes for a bigger and a better future. As a young teenager especially, you imagine your future to be entirely different than your present, not realising that your present is one of the best time in your lifetime whatsoever. However, at any age group, any of your hopes of betterment lies in the future. This is where the honest revelations from people connects with an existential crisis. Every person looks up to some people and is also looked up by some people. When someone that you look up to posts self depreciating things about his/her life, it also breaks your hopes of a better life at some levels. This leads a person to existentialism. This is because these are the times, the times when you lose hope, when you think and reflect upon life. The fundamentals questions and statements of existentialism – ‘What is the purpose of life’, ‘We all are going to die anyway’ are the statements that an individual reflects upon in such times and hence the rise of existentialism in the 21st Century.

Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes on individual existence and freedom of choice. An individual is not seen as a part of a relationship or a family or any community. Hence, an individual only thinks about himself. Since, most of the individuals reflecting upon existential statements do not get the answer to those questions for a long time. These circumstances have led to the rise of another phenomenon which is to half belong. It is a result of existential crisis plus the crushing of hopes on social media. When an individual’s hopes from future, which is the only place we have hopes from, the individual starts to feel a detachment from his routine work. Since, an individual has lost all hopes from the future, his/her ability to work hard towards making the future better will definitely suffer. The detachment and the reduction in commitment/hard work from any endeavour of an individual’s life is known as to half belong.

Although, the world has always been a difficult place, it’s now becoming worse. Achieving anything worthwhile is a struggle. Nothing comes easy. In such times, filling yourself with the motivation, self esteem and self confidence seems like the only way to keep oneself sane.

Contrasting Philosophies: Sartre’s Atheism vs. Kierkegaard’s Faith

Sartre is one of the most influential atheist existentialists. On the other hand, Kierkegaard is seen as the ‘father of existentialism, while most of his later texts were more religious than philosophical in their disposition. Kierkegaard does not believe in the traditional teaching of Christianity and instead wants to build an individual, intimate relationship with God and not through an external institution. Sartre’s private life included polyamory, weird politics and made other philosophers and theologians class him as godless and immoral and questioned whether he could contribute anything to theology, but he did; we see this when we look at his influence over Ramsey, Küng, Plantinga, and Marion. It is clear to see, that Sartre and Kierkegaard offer almost completely contradictory workings when it comes to the existence of God. Nonetheless, Kierkegaard influenced Sartre both directly and indirectly through Heidegger, even though Kierkegaard was the only Christian thinker amongst them. Kierkegaard was a different type of Christian because he did not advocate the rationalist approach adopted by the orthodox religious people of the church. Cox states that Kierkegaard loathes Hegel’s rationalism, because Hegel believes that human thought is a product of a historical process, when in fact, similar to Sartre, Kierkegaard supposes that humans are anxious, weary, and free individuals, who do not experience themselves primarily and are not aware of or taking part in some kind of historical process when thinking about moral problems; and that through reason we cannot discover our purpose as Hegel suggests. Cox also comments that Kierkegaard was skeptical of traditional Christian theology, for assuming that it could make up for God’s existence and nature objectively and supposing that religious and moral beliefs had to do with reason when Kierkegaard thought it had nothing to do with that. For him, it was something completely personal, subjective, and had to do with freedom. Kierkegaard understood that God’s existence could not be proven anyhow, and that is the fundamental reason why we have our own freedom of choice if we choose to believe in him or not. Therefore, being a Christian is a mere choice, that has nothing to do with logic or science, but purely comes down to one’s own faith, and could be regarded as a revelation from God to let humans decide for themselves what they want to be, without forcing them or programming them to do so.

Sartre’s Existentialist Perspective: Existence Precedes Essence

This is where Sartre comes in and expresses his atheist existentialist view. He does not believe in God, because it is not scientifically possible and on the other hand he also says that ‘man is nothing else than what he makes of himself. There is no God that tells us what we should do and who we should be, there is no exact proposal that man has been given so that he knows how he must live his life; so, our essence has not been given to us by God, we must choose this for ourselves. We cannot rely on any outside or inside source for this validation, so there are no justifications for our behavior. And through our free will and choices, we determine who we are and what it means for us to be human. This is what Sartre means when he says existence precedes essence. Sartre also argues that that man is free to act in any way that he likes, he can marry who he wants, he can act a fool, he can refuse to do things, and that no other man has the right to advise him unless of course, he chooses to listen. Also, if the man chooses and believes, there could be no Good or Evil for him, only if he brings this into being it exists for him, otherwise not. Essentially, he deems that first and foremost humans are, and they are free before they are anything else. Meaning that for us to be human, we must not first commit to and fulfill any sort of pre-destined plan. It is only our choices that have moral implications.

The Role of Free Will in Human Identity: Insights from Kierkegaard and Sartre

Peter Kreeft says that there is a profound insight in this notion, with his free choices man molds who he will be. He argues that even though God creates us, we have the free will and choice to then individually chose who we want to be like Kierkegaard utters. Kreeft says that God associates us with Himself so that we can co-create ourselves with him and that he only creates the objective raw material through inheritance and environment; and through our conclusive choices, we shape ourselves. God does not want to tell us who we must be, or else it would be forced and not be natural and it would basically take the meaning out of living if all our actions would be pre-destined. Countless other philosophers have written about free will, and what it implies for humans. Super claims that Kierkegaard has a synergic view towards salvation, in the sense that he admits that humans cannot do anything concerning their salvation, but at the same time a devoted act of will is needed for an intimate relationship with God. Kierkegaard acknowledged genuine personal freedom in relation to salvation. Super mentions that Kierkegaard’s affirmations of this freedom do not imply that he believed that man could cooperate with God to effect salvation.

Sartre’s View on God and Human Freedom

Sartre focuses on the idea of the absence of God, and not those of a traditional atheist, and Peter Kreeft argues that atheists become uncomfortable when readings Sartre, and that is a good thing since uncomfortable atheism brings them closer to God. But Kreeft also demonstrates that Sartre contends that free will and dignity can only exist in accordance with atheism and not with the notion of God which Kierkegaard considers. In his Existentialism, Jean-Paul Sartre expressed that: ‘Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God existed, that would make no difference from the point of view. Not that we believe God does exist, but we think that the real problem is not that of God’s existence- what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God.’

His statement indicates that people would still be responsible for their own actions, even if an omnipotent God would exist. Sartre had a problem with the notion that if God really is omniscient, that would mean he would always know our every next move; but that would imply that we are not free because we would be bound to act in such a manner, which God has already predicted and has been aware of all along. So, this means for us to live in a world where the future is not pre-destined (which it is not per Sartre), it must imply that there cannot be a supreme God within the universe. Essentially, Sartre believed that a being cannot be all-knowing while at the same time giving us freedom because this impression does not make logical sense to him. Kierkegaard and Sartre both still support the idea that humans are free and responsible for all their actions, but other than that their underlying ideas of what this implies and why it is the way it is, vary greatly. Sartre believes that Christians would blame God for their actions and all the wrong-doings in their life. He thinks that the belief in God is bad faith since we avoid freedom and responsibility, which to him is a mere indicator that there cannot be God, but this is not the case when we look at Kierkegaard’s idea on faith as demonstrated earlier. In addition, Sartre thought that humans are afraid of their freedom and the responsibility that they carry, that is why they sometimes like other people to make decisions for them and that sometimes doing so relives us greatly because we do not feel responsible as a result. In being and nothingness, the result of freedom meant to Sartre that we could never escape from the awareness that we have from ourselves because if we are conscious of what we are, we can never really just be what we are. As we see in the case of a waiter, who is just playing the role of a waiter, but because he is aware of his every action, he is not being authentic and Sarte adopts this idea on to everything else. Sartre asks himself why we should want to be fully what we are while at the same time being too aware of this. The only being which can at the same time just be, but also be aware of this is God, but since God does not exist in Sartre’s view this notion is impossible.

One could argue Sartre confuses freedom with the independence granted by God. To Sartre existentialism was the endeavor to draw all conclusions from an atheist standpoint, contrary to Kierkegaard. Sartre has no fear because he does not believe in God. But instead, he probably believes in the evilness of humans because of the concentration camps and what he witnessed during the war.

Kierkegaard and Sartre on Authenticity and the Human Condition

Also, there is no such a hell as demonstrated in Christianity that Kierkegaard would believe in. For Sartre, hell is other people, as we can see in his play where the gaze of other people leads the characters to go insane; since each wants to be seen in such a way that goes along with the image they have construed of themselves in their own mind. But since each person in the play wants this, the characters clash greatly. Podmore mentions that we have a dread of self-disclosure before God; Sartre’s domineering divine voyeurism which includes ‘the look’ can also be applied to a Christian and his belief that there is an omniscient God looking over him: ‘shame before God, that is, the recognition of my being-as-object before a subject that can never become an object…I posit my being-an-object-for God as more real than my For-itself; I exist alienated and I cause myself to learn from outside what I must be. This is the origin of fear before God’

In Sartre’s mind, relating to this context, God is a being who looks at him, even though he does not want to be looked at and is therefore seen as an unwanted invasion. Later, Sartre mentions that he was once looked at by God and that he felt his gaze on his head and his hands, and that he was prevented and further spared from this by his outrage. He claims that he grew very angry, because it felt so tactless and that from then on he never felt his gaze again. Podmore thinks that in this case, anxiety arose due to the self’s violation by an unknown, extraterrestrial other. Even though Sartre does not believe in God, later he probably contended that this was some sort of confusion and that was he saw and felt could not have been real. She states that from Kierkegaard’s point of view, the ‘terror threat’ of a divine trial could actually confirm the truthfulness of the relationship to God; one that many people fear and that induces terror because of the unknown, and the implication that if God really would exist, the position it would put and subvert us, humans, too. So, a lot of people avoid this whole notion altogether.

Conclusion: Divergent Paths to Understanding Human Existence

As Stewart mentions, Sartre still believes that God would be the only exit from the dialectic of recognition. This is also what Kierkegaard suggests; his methodology is to substitute the reductive human gaze with the divine look of God instead. He wants to get rid of human judgment and instead only wants to be judged by God’s standards. This does not mean that the gaze of the human falls away, instead, it holds no great importance to our being, and most importantly it has nothing to do with our relationship to God and therefore is way less significant than Sartre plays it out to be.

Kierkegaard is often misunderstood because of his complex relationship to God and specifically Christianity. Kierkegaard criticized the Danish church because he was focused on a more real and spiritual Christianity as opposed to their constitutionalized approach.

Kierkegaard wrote in his journal: ‘But before God, the infinite spirit, all the millions who have lived and live now do not form a mass; he sees only individuals’ This demonstrates the turning point when Kierkegaard took his philosophical individualism to a more theological individualism, as Super concludes. Kierkegaard saw God as the only one who could exercise salvation over man. Kierkegaard also wrote in his journal: ‘There is an infinite, radical, qualitative difference between God and man. This means, or the expression for this: the human person achieves absolutely nothing; it is God who gives everything; it is he who brings forth a person’s faith, etc. This is grace, and this is Christianity’s major premise’.

The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) lived nearly his entire life in Copenhagen. Kierkegaard was devoutly religious. He was shaken when he discovered, at age 22, that his father had not only cursed God but also seduced his mother prior to marriage. Subsequently, Kierkegaard’s writings focused primarily on religious faith and the meaning of Christianity. Eventually, he concluded that religious faith was irrational and attainable only via a subjective experiential “leap of faith.” For Kierkegaard, virtuous traits such as responsibility, honesty, and commitment are subjective choices often in response to a subjective religious conversion. Kierkegaard did not describe himself as an existentialist, but his work is a precursor to the existential philosophical movement, which formally began some 70 years following his death.

The title of this book comes from Paul: ‘You must work out your own salvation in fear and trembling.’ (Philippians 2:12). Kierkegaard selects Abraham as his paradigm of faith. This is an interesting choice, since Abraham was not a Christian, having lived thousands of years before the emergence of the Christian faith.

Existentialism is known as an “individualistic” philosophy. Each existentialist will treat this subject in his own way. But their underlying theme is that the pull in modern society is away from individualism and towards conformity. The most extended analysis of the project of becoming an individual appears in two places, Kierkegaard’s Either/ Or and his stage on Life’s Way. Both are examples of his method of oblique communication. Each tells a tale, actually several tales, by pseudonymous authors in order to enable us to see and test the respective morals of these stories in our own lives. Together, their narrative arguments provide a rather complete description of the three spheres of existence that Kierkegaard formulates in order to trace the process of becoming an individual. Though we shall have to modify and nuance this process once it has been laid out, the spheres or stages are three (the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious). Each stage has its own model as befits a morality tale: Don Juan, among others, for the aesthetic, Socrates, again among others, for the ethical, and Abraham for the religious sphere.

In order to understand Soren Kierkegaard’s famous concept of ‘leap of faith, we need to first explain what he means in the general notion of ‘leap’ and its place in Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy. Kierkegaard offered the term ‘leap’ to replace the Hegelian notion of mediation between two opposing elements. Kierkegaard’s concept of leap points to a state in which a person is faced with a choice that cannot be justified rationally and he, therefore, has to leap into it. The leap of faith is, therefore, a leap into a faith that is allowed by it, stemming from a Paradoxical contradiction between the ethical and the religious.

Kierkegaard’s classic and most important example of such a leap is Abraham’s Leap of faith. In Fear and Trembling Kierkegaard suggests that the ethical is incommensurable with the religious, killing your own child cannot be mediated with obeying God. This is why Abraham had to perform a leap of faith when he obeyed God but still maintained faith that Isaac would live. In front of this action, there is no place to analyze the book and the relation between ethics and religion, in spite of this fact, the act of Ibrahim considers as an adventure.

The adventure of Ibrahim is an experience, it is also the simple spiritual life which the spiritual life is a decision and march. The leap of faith is the expression of this action of spirituality and relation to God. The experience of Ibrahim to sacrifice his son is to destroy all ethics and build a new system depends on the experience of life and the experience with God, which we called spiritual life.

What is the purpose of life? What is death? Who am I and what do I want out of life? These are all questions deriving from the period known as Existentialism. Many philosophers contributed to existentialism thinking and helped to push the existentialist movement along. Even now, existentialism lives in our modern day society and helps some people to define their way of living. Some of the major contributions to the existentialism period include philosophers like Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus. Through the novel written by Albert Camus called The Stranger, existentialist thinking is portrayed through the protagonist of the story Meursault as he go about his life from a remote, disconnected way of life after he lose his mother. Before continuing however, one should understand what is existentialism?

The existentialism period started in the mid to late 19th century and reached its maximum height in France around the 20th century. The dictionary definition of existentialism is “a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.” This essentially means that human beings are born without any meaning or purpose so they must define their own meaning in life and make rational decisions in a irrational universe. Existentialism emphasizes human freedom, human existence, and human choice. Because existentialism believe that there is no natural purpose to life, no God, or any other transcendent force, they are entirely free. This freedom also means however that each individual must find the purpose for living and be held personally responsible for all the decisions and action they do. This is why existentialist individuals always keep in mind these questions such as what does it mean to live and what is my purpose in life?

The first major contributor to the philosophy of existentialism is named Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher, religious writer, satirist, psychologist, journalist, literary critic, poet, and theologian. He was the first philosopher that created and defined existentialism as a concept. Many people also considers Kierkegaard as the father of existentialism due to his knowledge and contribution to the existentialism period. It helped that he was born into a wealthy family, which allowed him the opportunity to pursue his intellectual interests and philosophy. Before his works got translated and published in Germany, Hegelianism was the primary philosophy in Germany. After Kierkegaard’s death, his works got translated and spread across Germany, and the ideas and concepts in those works directly opposed the concept of hegelianism which states that all reality is capable of being expressed in rational categories. This opposition to hegelianism helped to set the framework for existentialism. Many other philosophers took those ideas of Kierkegaard and expanded the idea across Europe.

The next major contributor to existentialism is Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Nietzsche was a German philosopher, cultural critic, composer, poet, and philologist. The main idea of existentialism that is associated with him is the idea that future has no meaning. This idea of everything we do is essentially pointless brought on the idea that human itself must finding meaning to its own existence and to the existence of the world. This new idea changed many people’s perspective on life. If there was no meaning in life, then there’s not a set of guidelines that human beings need to follow, there’s not a right or wrong thing to do. Nietzsche existential philosophy includes believing that things and people has no value or truth, that people must be powerful and the powerful you are the more value you have, that freedom and greatness is essential to live a life of truth and to embrace life, and that people only have one life so they should live it how they want. Some of these ideas are very similar to what other existentialist philosophers think.

Being true to yourself and being authentic and living an authentic life is not only portrayed through Friedrich Nietzsche but also another German philosopher, Martin Heidegger(1889-1976). He stated that people should live an authentic life, meaning human should live and do things that are true to themselves, that are exactly the same as what they believe and value, not just someone that they think they should be or doing the things they think they should do. One of the most important concept associated with Heidegger is the concept of “Being” and what does it mean to exist? Human beings, unlike other animals, lead their life, they don’t live just to survive and reproduce, allowing them to be who they want. Heidegger think of human life as a plant with different branches and when human beings reach crossroad branch, they must choose what they want to be and accept the consequence. This goes along with what Nietzsche said about living a life full of truth and what Kierkegaard said about personal responsibility.Heidegger wrote a book called Being and Time that primarily focuses on the question of Being and the book became pretty popular in Europe. A lot of great philosophers read the book and either challenged or supported Heidegger’s philosophy on existentialism.

One philosopher that challenged Heidegger on some of his philosophies is Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980). Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, political activist, biographer, and literary critic. In the book Being and Time, Heidegger argued that human beings are responsible for their actions. Sartre however states that human are not only responsible for themselves, but also other human beings. Sartre believes that existence precedes essence which means that because human beings create what they want to be, it directly affect how they exist in this world. Out of all the philosophers, Sartre was the one that was most well known for his existentialism contribution. He combined all these ideas of existentialism into his works. His works are also very popular with readers, which helped to spread the philosophy of existentialism even more than before. Due to the popularity of his works, in the public’s eye, Sartre was essentially the main central figure of existentialism. Like the other existentialist philosophers, Sartre goal was to understand human existence and that human beings are free to choose their actions and are personally responsible for them, and human should live an authentic life.

Sartre didn’t accomplish all the things that he accomplished alone, he had a lifelong partner named Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986). Beauvoir was a French writer, intellectual, political activist, and feminist and social theorist. She didn’t consider herself to be a philosopher, but she contributed significantly to existentialism philosophy. Although she worked alongside Sartre, she had some different opinions then him on the subject of freedom. She states that moral issues also must be considered when talking about freedom. De beauvoir wrote a book called Notebooks for an Ethics that made the general public sort of rethink Sartre’s philosophy. The main theme of existentialism for De Beauvoir included freedom, responsibility, and ambiguity, all of these could be found in any of her works. She argues that “Human existence is always an ambiguous admixture of the internal freedom to transcend the given conditions of the world and the weight of the world which imposes itself on us in a manner outside of our control and not of our own choosing. In order for us to live ethically then, we must assume this ambiguity rather than try to flee it” (Simpson David). She is say to embrace this conflict of freedom instead of trying to get away from it, which will result in human doing things that might be unethical.

And last but not least, another person that greatly contributed to existentialism is Albert Camus (1913-1960). Albert Camus is a French philosopher, author, and journalist that wrote many books that reflected the ideas and concepts of existentialism, but doesn’t claim the title of existentialism for himself. Many people considers him to be existentialist but he always refuse the title of being an existentialist and stating that “I am not a philosopher, because I don’t believe in reason enough to believe in a system. What interests me is knowing how we must behave, and more precisely, how to behave when one does not believe in God or reason” (Simpson David). Because of how existentialism is closely related to what he wants to know, in finding the answers he want, he also helped to contribute to existentialism.

Albert Camus also expressed existentialism through literature. He wrote many books that contained elements of existentialism either incorporated into the plot or expressed through a character. One book that portrays some elements of existentialism through the actions of a character is called The Stranger.

Existentialism influenced people in a positive manner right after the Great Depression and World War II due to its way of thinking that individuals has their own freedom to choose one’s moral belief and to act upon those belief and living an authentic life. Existentialism essentially means one’s search for true self and personal meaning in life. This could be seen everyday as people learn what they want and like and who and what kind of person they want to be when they grow up. It also means to not just accept other people’s belief if it is imposed on you when you didn’t want it. Existentialism means everyone has the freedom to choose and to accept the consequences of those choices. All of these things could still be seen today in our modern day society as people grow up, go to college and figure out who they are.

Existentialism was defined by Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre as an ethical and philosophical theory that would place importance on freedom as inherently valuable and the base of all other values (Webber)1. Being human for Sartre was summarised perfectly in the motto “existence precedes essence” (Webber, Sartre).2 The phrase explores the idea that human beings do not have an innate essence or fixed identity, but that they create them through the values and tasks that they embrace throughout life (Webber, Sartre)3. This means that people have complete free will and so must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Existentialism confronts a variety of different questions that arise from the nature of being human and the realisation that being human is not consequential and renounces the notion that there is a predestined way that humanity should live.

Sartre’s meaning is that man has no essence antecedent to his free choices, to the essence however his existential is difficult to take him altogether seriously or to suppose that the proposition, ‘existence precedes essence,’4 amounts to much more than just an emphatic assertion of liberty and a denial of any form of physical or psychological determinism a theory which states that individual human beings lack free will this theory also brokes the argument that if free will doesn’t exist then it is impossible to hold anyone morally responsible for their actions. Satre’s proposition is certainly bound up with atheism, in the sense that he denies the existence of an archetypal idea or divine idea of man, which is realized or unfolded on the plane of created existence; but if the proposition is understood in a sense which would be acceptable not only to Sartre and Camus but also to Marcel, it can hardly involve atheism, though what they have in common would be the rejection of determinism as a whole.. 5 6

Existentialism can be controversial for the fact that the concept of existentialism picks out a distinctive cluster of philosophical problems and identifies a relatively distinct current of philosophical inquiry, one that has had a significant impact on other fields such as theology and psychology. 7

There is not a fixed classification of ways of thinking or issues should be classified as an existentialist (Webber)8. But, Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Heidegger, Camus and Marcel are normally classified as existentialists (Copleston)9. The common ground for them in their philosophies is a disregard for the for any form of “totalitarian” philosophy meaning the ones that minimize the importance of the individual as the main entry for experience (Copleston)10 11.

For Kierkegaard the thinking is personal, and the ultimate election would be the relationship with God; his work was Christian in nature but opposed to the organized church (Copleston, Notes)12. Kierkegaard was certainly a personal thinker, in the sense that he philosophized based on his personal experience,13. Far from attempting to construct an ‘objective system,’ he directed a great deal of his polemics precisely against ‘the System’ and against ‘objectivity’ 14.

Karl Jaspers believed that the function of philosophy was not to teach a view of life but to make individuals aware of choices and what authentic choices are (Copleston). 16 Jaspers who considers the concrete possibilities open to the human being, without aiming at the development of any general theoretical ontology. Jaspers has indeed declared that it is the task of the philosopher to awaken man to the possibilities of choice and that existentialism as a general theory, is the death of the philosophy of existence; but he is much more of an observer, a philosopher of philosophies, than a personal thinker where Kierkegaard was a personal thinker relying on original ideas..17

The freedom offered by this branch of philosophy can be quite confronting interviewing with nihilist philosophy regarding life being meaningless including ethics and upholding the moral code as so this is where existentialist philosophy diverges into two paths the ‘Christian’ and the ‘atheist’.18 This idea was introduced by Sartre who is considered an atheist existentialist, both types of existentialist have various disagreements, even as they have many overarching similarities in beliefs. Gabriel Marcel is a good example of the Christian side of existentialism as both he as Sartre knew each other in the time they were writing their ideas19. They had, however, a significant difference in core beliefs that caused them to become estranged for the rest of their lives. The most influential figures of the ‘atheist’ side of existentialism apart from Sartre include Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, Friedrich and many others. The ‘Christian’ aspect was mainly represented by philosophers such as Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Jaspers and Nikolay Berdyayev and more.20 21

The philosophies of existentialism and Spinoza’s differ greatly when it comes to humanity. According to existentialism, we can be called beings for itself, is a being for itself means that we have no fixed purpose, we can change our purpose from one day to the other. 22Spinoza claims that God is the only thing that is real and that we are all made out of or derived from one substance, God and all of our attributes are necessitated by God. According to Spinoza, it is useless to look for an end goal as we already have a fixed purpose and that free will is an illusion. This philosophy is in stark contrast to existentialism as existentialism is all about choices and free will and living the consequences of our actions. 23

Brand Blanshard, is a philosopher of rationalism and in some ways, this could be seen as a direct contradiction to existentialism24. Existentialism holds a broader view of the world and people as being irrational or making irrational choices. This would mean that the only meaning in the world is the one that we give to it, the meaning is personal25. Rationalism states that people are for the most part rational and that meaning should be derived from reason.26 An example of this division in beliefs can be seen when it comes to death. Depending on the person death can be given several meanings apart from the scientific cause of death which would be the rational response. 27However, existentialism does not deny that some things are universal and that the true importance relies on that there is not necessarily a pattern to life or that it will remain constant28. In its most basic form, rationalism and existentialism are simply different orientations towards the world one of which is focused on the logical and rational and the other that could be described as being a part of irrationalist group or way of thinking.29

In conclusion, I believe that despite the lack of evidence supporting this theory it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have a lot to cover in terms of offering a potential structure for human beings and life. It has been considered by some to be a pessimistic theory as it focuses on how alone we are as human beings, however when considering the advancements in modern society and the gradual improvements we are making when it comes to tolerance of differences, scientific advancement and the general decrease of international wars existentialism can be viewed in a very positive light. If all of this has not been influenced by a higher being or power then it means that we are slowly learning from our mistakes as a species and capable of so much goodness that can come through the power of choice.

This reaffirms the nature of human beings and the common good of man, that despite the meaningless and directionless existence we share we have also done a good job in choosing the beneficial options for our growth as a species. Despite other philosophical branches emphasising the negative aspects of humanity, the selfishness, ego, flaws existentialism should do the opposite. Taking pride in the decisions made and learning from mistakes rather than undermining or reducing it.

Existentialism is a modern philosophical belief, or theory, that is positioned upon the study of existence and of the way human beings find themselves existing in the world. The concept is that humans exist first and then each individual spends a lifetime changing their essence or nature. If you take this into account, then by the philosophical theory of Existentialism alone, you can determine that this object, this mass of cells, is, in fact, a human being. In fact, the philosophical theory of Existentialism is opposed to any doctrine that views human beings as the appearance of an absolute or of an infinite substance. However, Existentialism doesn’t give an approach to what is right or wrong. The notion of the ludicrous in existentialism differentiates with the claim that ‘bad things don’t happen to good people’; in plain English, figuratively speaking, there is no such thing as a good person or a bad person; what happens, well, happens, and it may just as well happen to a ‘good’ person as to a ‘bad’ person.

The Memory Theory, part of the three theories that make up the philosophical theory of Persistent Personal Identity, is another theory to consider when deciding what a human being is. According to John Locke, memory is a necessary condition of personal identity. He also suggests that the self is “a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places” and continues to define personal identity simply as “the sameness of a rational being” (Locke). Given this assertion, any change in the someone makes a change in their own personal identity, and any change in their personal identity states that the person has changed. Locke goes on to suggest that a human being’s personal identity stretches only so far as that human being’s consciousness. Locke also presents an argument which says, in order to be a self, one must be a thinking thing, and that because “consciousness always accompanies thinking” (Locke), the self with which one personally identifies.

The Body Theory, another one of the philosophical theories that make up the theory of Persistent Personal Identity, includes discussing the Brain Theory. The brain-swap experiment is a good starting point on discussing the Body Theory. Suppose a mad scientist captured you and Cristiano Ronaldo, a famous soccer player, and put the two of you inside incubators. One day, he decided to perform a dangerous experiment by swapping your brains, putting your brain inside Cristiano Ronaldo’s head, and his brain put inside your head. Are you now the famous soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo? Well, actually in a way, but that’s not important. What is important is you beforehand were not bodily continuous with Cristiano Ronaldo, nor was he bodily continuous with you. If the body theory is true, then you what not be equal to Cristiano Ronaldo. The problem is, you are equal to Cristiano Ronaldo. Therefore, the body theory is false, because it does not determine what a human being is.

The Soul Theory, another one of the three theories of the philosophical theory of Persistent Personal Identity, discusses the fact that humans have a soul and animals don’t. A person at one time is the very same person as a person at a later time if and only if they have the very same immaterial soul. Proof that human beings have souls is found straight out of the Bible. In Matthew 10:28, it says, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” In Ecclesiastes 12:7, it says, “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” Clearly, the soul is something that has no form, no shape, and isn’t made out of any certain material. No man could create something like this. The only way for any human being to have a soul is if God put it there. Animal lovers would argue that their pets or other animals have souls. However, this is not a valid argument. God prohibited the killing of another human being, but placed no such restrictions on the killing of animals. Even if animals had a soul, it would probably be different from a human being’s soul. Jesus saved the souls of man, not animals.

In my opinion, to qualify as a human being, you only have to have a soul. Only humans have a soul.