What
is Existentialism?
Existentialism is a philosophical movement of like-minded philosophers, principally of the modern era. It arose from early fundamental roots in the 19th century and its s popularity peaked after World War 2 to a worn torn audience searching for existential meaning. The philosophical underpinnings are based on the idea we must face the brutal reality we are all trapped to some degree in a meaningless world of which we can only create our own personal meaning from the decisions we take and the subsequent actions undertaken
Existentialism is a philosophical movement of like-minded philosophers, principally of the modern era. It arose from early fundamental roots in the 19th century and its s popularity peaked after World War 2 to a worn torn audience searching for existential meaning. The philosophical underpinnings are based on the idea we must face the brutal reality we are all trapped to some degree in a meaningless world of which we can only create our own personal meaning from the decisions we take and the subsequent actions undertaken
Although it
influenced contemporary philosophy its impact was more pronounced in culture
and in the arts. Its exponent, Jean
Paul Sartre, for instance, summed the position in his novel entitled
‘Nausea’; to face that bleak existential position but relish the
freedom to undertake the choices before us.
Early
Roots
Soren Kierkegaard
(1813- 18550 was
a theologian and philosopher who rallied against rationality in religion and philosophy. He categorized the types of life decisions we face
as religious, aesthetical and ethical. He posited each required different
responses. and suggested a
form of desired enlightenment, when knowledge was lacking. He held the view the
single individual is higher than the universal.
This was a radical departure from the accepted
orthodoxy and state based church dogma at the time.
He talks about the paradox of
Abraham, as Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son. Kierkegaard contends this
was not a command that he could obey, but nor can one lay down the law to
others as to how to act in complex matters that involve difficult choices where
there is a lack of knowledge. Rather one can only individually have a desire to
make an enlightened choice in faith. This involves a leap in faith that is
necessary in an irrational world to figure out what to do and to face the
consequences of such decisions.
Frederick Nietzsche (1844-1900), followed on from Kierkegaard ideas to warn against the dangers of entrapment to revert to abstract values which risked descent into nihilism.
Nietzsche rejected much of the orthodoxy at the
time and is best known for coining the term ‘God is dead’. Nietzsche did not
mean this in a literal sense, but rather pointed to a world he regarded as over
reliant on religion as a moral compass and as a source of meaning. Nietzsche sought to find a way to live life to the fullest and in the
process saw fit to take away the idea of divine sanction which he believed was
life denying and could, in effect, lead ultimately to nihilism.
Nietzsche’s view, at that
time, was that state power and money underlined a state of stupidity, so that
he saw himself as a man in the mold of Goethe, having the courage to suffer for
the sake of the truth as he perceived it. He did not suggest a political point
of view but rather believed his philosophy underpinned noble leadership, so
that became sufficient in itself to ensure a happier and superior moral
system of governance.
He was not against organized
Religion, maintaining it could be of comfort for the masses. His concern was
for its application as bad faith, predicated on false notions that bad health
arose from sin. He also thought religion tied its followers to a slave
mentality, to enslave the followers to mediocrity and meekness, which
ultimately could lead to nihilism. In other words the abstract values of a
perceived GOD, born of jealously or envy, confirmed in meekness and in
mediocrity, were in essence simply the shadows of a poet’s imagery which could
lead (if taken literally) to unintended bad consequences.
Culture to Nietzsche was the
means of aspiring to the higher self, which is a spiritual dimension quite
separate to the instinctive forces, but arises from self-enlightenment in the
service of the will, to give rise to the new metaphors of life. This is not, however, as most people view
"spirituality”, Nietzsche relates spirituality more as a self-realization,
as in a ‘’love of fate‘’ to live for the moment, to grasping life with gusto as
in life affirmation, regardless of one’s physical condition. However I think Nietzsche’s idea of a love of fate may go
against the later existentialist’s views on freedom.
Neither Kierkegaard nor
Nietzsche summarized these ideas or insights in a systematic way, but
nevertheless remain firmly ensconced in most philosophical papers as the
principal precursors to the 20th century existentialists
The
20th century existentialists
The philosophers
of the likes of Heidegger Satre and Camus were humanistic and who wanted to engage
meaningfully with the contemporary issues that confronted society.
It
has to be noted however Heidegger‘s works are not readily associated with
existentialism, but rather some of his thinking might be loosely associated with
the movement.
Its
principal exponent Paul
Satre had served in the French Resistance and after the war he was
immensely popular and formed a key contributor to
the movement. He was the first use of the term and posited that we
come into this world, without any consent and it is up to the individual to
create one’s meaningful life. Sartre also championed the idea, ‘existence
precedes essence’. He explained this idea by confirming it is only
objects where essence precedes existence. An example is by way of a chair.
Now we know one decides to build a chair to a certain specification so
that the idea of the chair is in effect the prior essence before it is built.
Rather obviously it comes into existence once it is constructed whereas our
essence (humanity if you will) is the product of our existence dependent on the
choices we make.
Others such as Simone de
Beauvoir and Albert Camus followed on to present a humanistic and socialistic
approach to a world thirsty for answers. They jettisoned the prior ideas of
specialization inclusive of even philosophical categorization itself.
Those war ravaged audiences relished the opportunity to consider radical
alternative, to a way of thinking that had them despairing of a vile past
bathed in the recent blood of war. It is hardly surprising such fresh new ideas
of freedom, would be taken up with gusto to the extent they attracted a cult
following amongst a substantial section the European youth and
intelligencer.
But the far greater appeal
however was to come from their Novels and plays which give insights to the
existential way of thinking.
Although Sartre was an avid
atheist the idea of Existentialism does not mean the movement was confined to
humanism. For instance Gabriel Marcel, posited from the Christian perspective
matters of doctrine were to be derived from human experience and not from an
abstract eternal essence.
As the existentialists work became known its ideas were adopted in art by painters such as Jackson Pollock and filmmakers Ingmar Bergman who linked their work to existential themes. By the 1970s such existential themes were also adopted in the numerous books and films by Woody Allen
As the existentialists work became known its ideas were adopted in art by painters such as Jackson Pollock and filmmakers Ingmar Bergman who linked their work to existential themes. By the 1970s such existential themes were also adopted in the numerous books and films by Woody Allen
15 comments:
Very interesting summary. I'm amazed at how much information you were able to condense so concisely! That's a lot!!
The only thing I think I disagree with is just the generalization that Existentialism is a "movement" that consists of "like thinkers". As I understand it, "existentialism" is a fairly arbitrary term.
Western Christianity (possibly all the way back to St. Paul but definitely beginning with St. Augustine) attempted to merge individual experience (the Jewish God) with universal truth (Greek rationalism). What the “Existentialists" had in common is that they attempted to find a way through the mess this had created by first accepting the mess and then integrating it as part of the human experience in order to overcome it.
As I argued for over a year way back when, it was really only Camus (of the people you listed) who said man was “trapped in a meaningless world” (absurdism). For the others (at least those I am familiar with), it is only meaningless in the sense that meaning is not imposed upon us from some external source. What provides meaning is direct experience. What informs experience are emotions (passions), not a rational explanation of the experience.
The moment you try to explain an experience to someone else (or even to yourself), you have necessarily removed yourself from the experience. Even that is part of the human experience… We’re not trapped. We’re free! Not free in the sense of self-determinism, but in the sense that there is no Universal God imposing a Universal Truth upon us. (From this perspective, the individual is necessarily higher than the universal (Kierkegaard), because the universal is a faulty, institutionalized, imposition.)
The Hebrew God, for the tribal Jews, was a God of individuals. A verb. A process. An experience. The Western Christian God, through Greek rationalism, became a static noun. An Aristotelian category. The two (Greek Rationalism and Tribal Judaism), on their own, were possibly capable of helping express their experiences. But merging the two has created a terrible mess that we’re still trying to find our way through. (Failed political utopias, colonialism, environmental issues, Christian nihilism...)
The Transcendentalists, here in the U.S., weren’t considered existentialists, but they had similar philosophies. No one is sure if Nietzsche ever read Kierkegaard, but Nietzsche personally credited Emerson as an influence. The Ubermensch closely resembles Emerson's "OverSoul" and "Eternal Recurrence/Return resembles Emerson's "Eternal Now". (Some day, hopefully, I'll find the time to look into these connections more closely!)
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. This stuff mattered so much to me at one point in time!
Hi Laura,
Thanks for your usual thoughtful response. It’s good to hear it brought back old memories, as likewise it did for me.
Indeed it was a hard slog to succinctly summarise such a wide ranging subject. In the process it was always a risk to overdo it. I agree, the use of the word ‘like minded’ might give the entirely wrong impression. However your entire comment prompted an amendment to the intro as follows:
Existentialism is both a cultural and philosophical movement whose philosophical underpinnings principally related to the modern era. Its wide ranging influence impacted the fields of philosophy, theology and psychology. Those loosely categorised as existentialists, favoured a new conceptual framework for philosophical thinking about our existence, to reject the prior held notions humans can be rationally understood in terms of substances with fixed properties or as subjects reacting in a world of objects. Existentialism talks about the need for a new set of categories which are governed in turn by authenticity and the radical sense of freedom which underlie human existence.
Should it be of continuing interest lets know what you think?
Best wishes
My understanding of existentialism is limited to just a few philosophers, but it seems to me your new summary works.
I'm still having trouble with the term "movement", but I think you are technically correct. I suppose it was a sort of movement around the WWII period (Camus, Sartre, Jaspers, Hesse, Buber, Heidegger, Frankl...) But I'm not sure I'd include Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Kafka and Dostoevsky as a part of that movement, however. They came earlier and were simply asking questions and making some spot-on predictions that sparked the movement. I suppose they were also creating a new set of categories, but not to the same extent as those who came later.
Personally, I prefer the philosophies of those that came earlier to those of "the movement". But it's a very tentative preference.
Hi Laura,
Thanks for commentating back again.
Yes that’s true, both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche argued a radical new approach quite alien to the philosophy of their time. A precursor if you will to the 20th century movement.
We are not sure if Nietzsche read any of the work of Kierkegaard, although it seems likely he did. At any rate Kierkegaard’s pronounced accent on ‘the single individual’, as in a singularity is also adopted by Nietzsche. They both acknowledge, due to this singularity, that this factor had remained invisible to traditional philosophy of their time. That had its emphasis in the objective laws of nature or to conform to the universal standards of moral reason. Hence, their focus on existence led to an entirely new approach which is accepted by philosophers as the precursor to the later movement.
Best wishes
Just curious, where did you get the information that it is likely Nietzsche read Kierkegaard? My understanding is that Kierkegaard's works weren't translated until decades after his death. Georg Brandes wrote the first German translations and sent them to Nietzsche in 1888, just before Nietzsche had his mental breakdown. There is no evidence (that I know of, anyway) that Nietzsche read anything Brandes sent him. And if he did, it would have been after all of Nietzsche's books had already been published.
Perhaps he was influenced by Kierkegaard. Their ideas are very similar. But I can't stress enough that Nietzsche WAS influenced by Emerson and Dostoevsky.
Nietzsche first read Emerson in 1862, 8 tears before his first major work, and had read several of Dostoevsky's novels in French in the early 1880s. He had a profound admiration for Emerson. (Nietzsche'sideas are actually very similar to those of Emerson's, too.) And in Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche says that "Dostoevsky is the only psychologist from whom I have something to learn". I think this is profoundly important.
Kierkegaard was heavily influenced by German mysticism (Meister Eckhart, etc.). Nietzsche was well aware of the German mystics, too. Dostoevsky and Emerson were likewise heavily influenced by mysticism.
Any true esoteric view of religion is necessarily individual. It's not all that surprising that these contemporaries would have similar views, even if they had never read one another. Their ideas are expressed in a new way, based on what was happening during their lifetime, but the ideas themselves aren't new.
What Sartre, Camus, etc. were doing was very different. (And, as Robert Solomon says, in Bad Faith (Sartre's term) because they couldn't shake their Cartesianism.)
OK. I must get back to Spanish now, LOL!! (But this is so much more fun!!!)
Hi Laura,
Good to see you’re finding making blogging comments more interesting than your Spanish lessons.
Of course your more specific points are correct in that Kierkegaard's works weren't translated until after his death and that Georg Brands wrote the first German translations and sent them to Nietzsche. However, Brands previously had been instrumental in linking the two, which was the subject of his lectures. He had communicated with Nietzsche, who apparently was pleased with such reviews. It seems plausible to me in his earlier university life Nietzsche may have read about Kierkegaard's ideas, albeit they would need to be translated.
However, as you say he was influenced by Emerson and Dostoevsky.
Kierkegaard introduced new concepts across a number of different fields which remain influential today. But If you confine yourself to just religion, yes, you might say, the Jewish individualistic type thinking existed prior to the later institutionalised Christianity from 320 AD which Kierkegaard and Nietzsche rallied against.
Thanks for your continuing interest. I realise, you may not have much time on your hands and the subject matter may already be familiar, but just in case it is of interest the following links gives one a good overview of Kierkegaard.
At the same time he made many original conceptual contributions to each of the disciplines he employed. He is known as the “father of existentialism”,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
http://www.openculture.com/2017/04/soren-kierkegaard-a-free-online-course.html
Best wishes
I'm somewhat familiar with Kierkegaard. I spent a lot of time with him in 2007. We had Vox Blog Group that was studying him so I read Fear and Trembling, Sickness Unto Death, The Present Age, On the Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle, and Repetition, in that order. I wrote posts on each of these. (I checked - I have over 63 posts tagged Kierkegaard, lol.) I feel like you commented on some of these way back when, but maybe not. Vox was a kind of weird platform.
I don't know what you mean by this statement: "But If you confine yourself to just religion, yes, you might say, the Jewish individualistic type thinking existed prior to the later institutionalised Christianity from 320 AD which Kierkegaard and Nietzsche rallied against."
That wasn't what I was referring to at all. I was referring to mysticism in general. (Esoteric vs Exoteric). The German mystics that so heavily influenced Kierkegaard were primarily Catholic. Nietzsche was likely influenced by them, too. Dostoevsky was heavily influenced by Roman Orthodox Christianity, which had avoided the Roman Catholic (i.e.: attempting to redefine God and Christianity in terms of Greek Rationalism) pitfalls. Emerson was a Unitarian Minister which was very much Christian at the time. All of them were familiar with Eastern Mysticism. It's the Exoteric form of religion they rallied against, not the Esoteric form.
To me, that is so terribly important to understand. Academics typically don't understand it, which is something Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche and Emerson all railed against, too. (And Robert Solomon at the University of Texas long after them.)
Hi Laura,
Bear in mind my original post was more just a summary introduction to the existentialists. The subsequent comments along the way led me to say it was generally agreed Kierkegaard was regarded as instrumental in opening up new concepts in a number of different important fields. The commonality with Nietzsche was they both rallied against the institutionalised religion of their time which had its nexus from 320AD. So that I am not saying what was their influences rather what they were both against.
As far as influencers go and what you regard as fundamentally very important, to point out the German mystics heavily influenced both, I have no disagreement. Or that it was the exoteric form they rallied against and not the esoteric form as in mysticism. But don’t you think mysticism is a form of religious expression?
For, although the experiences of mysticism may be claimed to be ineffable (incapable of being expressed; indescribable or unutterable), nevertheless for that mysticism to take root a coherent textual base of principles is necessary to convey what is meant to ensure a future survival.
I think Kierkegaard laid down some very deep religious and psychological principles (if I can call it that) which you would be more familiar with than me. I did read a long time ago, the book by Solomon entitled 'What Nietzsche said' which you will recall you recommended at that time. But I must have lent it to someone and couldn't find it.
Best wishes
I don't know about the 320 AD date. My understanding is that Existentialism has more to do with the reintroduction of classic Greek philosophy and literature in the middle ages. Western Europeans knew nothing about Greek philosophy until after the Crusades. When they "discovered it", Western Christian philosophers attempted to redefine Christianity and God in terms of it. (This had probably already occurred to some extent with St. Paul and St. Augustine in terms of the Jewish God, but not to the extent it occurred in the middle ages.) The Enlightenment shortly followed, and, as Nietzsche said, rationalism became God. (Different beliefs, same basic pattern.)
Mysticism, as I use it here, is not a religious expression. It's a common human experience that doesn't require religion at all. All it requires is a willingness to "take a leap of faith" beyond the confines of labels which keep us stuck in our past experiences rather than engaged in true experience.
In the case of Buddha, Mohammed, and Jesus - each had a transformative experience from which a religion arose. Their personal experience is the esoteric expression (the experience prior to labels and rituals). The subsequent religion was the exoteric expression.
Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Emerson are all practical mystics. They aren't talking about the Jesus/Buddha experiences. They are talking about every day experiences. (Slightly deeper than Sartre's description of nausea at experiencing the roots of a tree prior to sensory labels, but not entirely different, either.)
Solomon's book on What Nietzsche Said is an excellent basic intro. to Nietzsche, but may not so helpful with this particular discussion. His book on Sartre and Camus might be a little more helpful, because he explains so beautifully why he thinks they are in "bad faith". He also has a quick little book called Spirituality for Skeptics. He has several courses on Existentialism through The Teaching Company which are excellent, too. One is with his wife who is also a UT Philosophy Professor, a world renowned expert on Nietzsche, and a practicing Catholic. (Solomon was an atheist.)
I'm not sure if you can still get it, but Hubert Dreyfus' UC Berkeley webcast course on Existentialism in Literature & Film is excellent, too. He was an expert on Heidegger. Called himself Dreydegger, lol, and considered himself to be a "Kierkegaardian". (Heidegger DID borrow from Kierkegaard so isn't quite as "original" as some people think.)
I didn't agree with Dreyfus' assessment of Nietzsche. That's how I ended up discovering Solomon. Both regular got standing ovations at the end of their classes, however. (Solomon died in 2007. Dreyfus died last year.)
And of course, there is a wonderful summary of Robert Solomon's understanding of Existentialism from Austin film director Richard Linklater, in Waking Life:
https://vimeo.com/35992277
I should mention that despite thinking Dreyfus misunderstood Nietzsche (with which I think Solomon would agree), I found his course on Existentialism to be profound. Life changing, even. I feel so lucky to have been able to take that course at the same time he was teaching it. Not exactly like being there, but I was there virtually!
It's hard to believe a course like that was free! Although that was back in 2006. I guess there are a lot of excellent free courses on-line these days. It's an amazing world.
Many thanks Laura - I will follow up.
Best wishes
Best wishes on the class Lindsay. I imagine a class with you as instructor is a lot of fun!! You are forever inquisitive and always so well-informed!
Take care!
Hi Laura
One final point I wanted to talks to you about concerns Satre in relation to his and Kierkegaard reference to the story of Abraham. Abraham must choose what to do since he is not only the law maker for himself but for all of his people (all of humanity if you will) in the context of the OT writer. In that respect although the two make reference to this OT story to support their ideas, it’s interesting to me to see the different thinking respective of their alternate atheistic or Christian perspectives.
Satre of course, has empathy with the idea that either there is no GOD or if there is, there is no intervention in our human existence. He makes that specific statement in one of his lectures in 1946, I managed to read, albeit, maybe his views changed over time.
Certainly, as you would be aware, he posited the idea existence preceded our essence, but that existence came from man and before that again from man so there is no creation of a man in GOD’s image. To reiterate Kierkegaard also talks about different choices and was influenced as you say by the German mystics. We can agree that he talks about the leap in faith that is available to all of us. My conclusion is it is not necessary to adopt an atheistic stance to arrive at the same existential conclusion, which seems to be suggested by Satre. Satre was very critical of the so called Christian existentialists on the basis he said they maintained the position that an essence preceded existence. That is, their GOD inspired essence (man created in the image of GOD) was our essential human nature.
I could find no evidence for this amongst those few I studied.
Best wishes
I’m not sure what you are arguing, but I think St. John of the Cross and Kierkegaard would agree that existence precedes essence. That’s the whole point of the “Dark Night of the Soul”, right? There is a "Ground of Being" that supports our existence. We, however, create our essence. When we realize this, we suffer the "Dark Night”.
Personally, when I think of “man being created in God’s image”, I morph back to Process Theology which does not conflict with the idea of existence preceding essence. This is an overly simplistic explanation, but here goes…
There is “God", and there is man, a fragmented image of “God". At every moment, we have the ability to make a choice. We either make that choice based on our past experiences, or we make it based on a possibility that transcends our past. What allows for that transcendence? According to Process Theology, it is something like a mirror that gathers “the data” of all of the activity of the fragments and mirrors back to each one all of the past experiences along with a new possibility that would be the next best step to take given all the current data. Do we take that "leap of faith” into a new experience, or do we stick with the comfort of our past experiences? Whatever we choose, gets mirrored back to “God”, which is likewise changed by our choices and so the exchange continues… It’s a process.
As Nietzsche put it, do we remain a camel and follow the path that has been laid out for us by our familial and societal customs, or do we manage to gain the courage of the lion and create our own path? If we take on the role of “lion”, then we must be willing to slay every scale on the dragon, otherwise we will continue to repeat history.
Atheism is really just the flip side of theism. The two have a lot in common which is why Robert Solomon claimed that both Camus and Sartre were ultimately “in bad faith”. (Their philosophies were too heavily reliant upon Cartesianism which split existence into separate parts: mind, matter, God.)
Hi Laura,
Thanks for your insightful input.
Of course, I like that idea of the leap of faith and this mirror image you describe as in process theology.
But, do you think it is preferable to substitute Jesus, as in the GOD man, to whom we can have a relationship instead of GOD. The reason being I get a bit hung up these days on using GOD and I’m not comfortable with the Trinity etc.
Here is a summary on how I would prefer to express it.
The being relates to itself and wills itself too passionately and unconditional commitment to another cause upon whom that power constitutes a relationship with itself. Self being spirit. In other words the self takes the leap in faith which is unconditional to the cause (Man GOD) to whom the self has that relationship. Although the commitment is unconditional there remains the categorical factors of being that allow for freedom of choice and the faith that choice will represent the ethical or aesthetic and religious in the best interests of those relationships of the self. Hence Abraham is not required to sacrifice his son because of his relationship and responsibility to the tribe.
I think the above also works well for Nietzsche as notice I use the word 'cause', could be substituted to his cause. what is that? Just as you say to have the courage …..etc .As Nietzsche put it, do we remain a camel and follow the path that has been laid out for us by our familial and societal customs, or do we manage to gain the courage of the lion and create our own path? Is that not a cause ?
I agree with you that Atheism is really just the flip side of theism. Also more logical than arguing about whether you believe (believing as in a verb?) in GOD (which is a noun) so that is contradictory in itself.
I don’t like the Cartesians idea either.
Once again thanks for commentating again and let’s know what you think.
Best wishes
Post a Comment