Existentialism is perhaps the most enduring “mood” in the history of Western thought. To the casual observer, it is synonymous with mid-century Parisian cafes, black turtlenecks, and a certain grim obsession with the pointlessness of life. However, beneath the cinematic aesthetic lies a rigorous, demanding, and ultimately transformative framework for understanding human agency.
At its core, existentialism is the study of the individual’s struggle to find meaning in a universe that appears to offer none. It is a philosophy of action, a rejection of pre-determined “systems,” and a radical call to personal responsibility.
The Origins: Gabriel Marcel and the Naming of a Movement
To understand the definition of existentialism, one must first look at its naming—a process that was itself a point of philosophical contention. While Jean-Paul Sartre is the name most frequently associated with the movement, he did not coin the term. That credit belongs to Gabriel Marcel, a Catholic philosopher and dramatist.
In 1943, Marcel used the term existentialisme to categorize the growing school of thought shared by Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. Ironically, Sartre initially found the label reductive and rejected it. It was not until his landmark 1945 lecture, Existentialism is a Humanism, that Sartre adopted the term as a badge of honor to defend his ideas against public misconception.
This historical nuance is vital. It reminds us that existentialism was never a monolithic “club.” It was a heated, decades-long conversation between:
- Theistic Existentialists: Such as Marcel and Søren Kierkegaard, who argued that while we are free, our freedom finds its ultimate fulfillment in a relationship with the Divine.
- Atheistic Existentialists: Such as Sartre and Beauvoir, who argued that because there is no God, humans are “abandoned” to create their own values from scratch.
The Core Tenet: Existence Precedes Essence
The foundational pillar of existentialist thought is Sartre’s dictum: “Existence precedes essence.”
To appreciate the gravity of this statement, consider almost any object in our world—a paperknife, a clock, or a software program. For these objects, the “essence” (the purpose, blueprint, or definition) comes before the physical object ever exists. A craftsman has a concept of what the tool is before he builds it. Its purpose is fixed; it can never be anything other than what it was designed to be.
Existentialists argue that human beings are the sole exception to this rule. We are “thrown” into the world without a blueprint. We appear on the scene, we exist, and only then do we define what we are through our actions. There is no “human nature” to hide behind, no biological destiny that dictates our character, and no divine script. As Sartre put it, “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.”
The Rebellion: Why Existentialism is an “Anti-System”
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, philosophy was dominated by “System-Builders.” Thinkers like Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel attempted to create grand, logical architectures that could explain the entirety of history, logic, and the human spirit. In these systems, the individual was often treated as a mere component—a cog in the machinery of “Universal Reason.”
Existentialism was born as a violent rebellion against these structures. Søren Kierkegaard, the 19th-century Dane often called the father of the movement, argued that systems are for abstract concepts, not living people.
The Critique of Abstraction
Kierkegaard pointed out a fundamental flaw in systematic philosophy: it can explain the mechanics of a heart, but it cannot explain the experience of a heartbreak. A system is static and dead; an existing individual is in a constant state of “becoming.” By the time a philosopher has built a system to describe life, life has already moved on.
Is “Anti-System” Still a System?
Critics often argue that by creating a vocabulary of “Authenticity,” “Bad Faith,” and “The Absurd,” existentialists simply built a new system in a different guise.
- The Argument for “System”: If Sartre says we are “condemned to be free,” is that not a universal law? If Authenticity is the goal, is that not a new morality?
- The Existentialist Rebuttal: The existentialist would argue that their philosophy is a method, not a system. A system provides answers (The “What”); a method provides tools (The “How”). Existentialism refuses to give the reader a map, insisting instead that they learn to navigate by their own internal compass.
The Burden of Freedom: Anguish and Abandonment
If existence precedes essence, then we are entirely responsible for our own definitions. This freedom is not a gift in the traditional sense; Sartre famously noted that we are “condemned to be free.” This “condemnation” stems from the fact that we did not choose to be born, yet once we are here, we are responsible for everything we do. This realization triggers three distinct psychological states:
- Anguish: This is the anxiety of realizing that our choices have weight. When I choose a path, I am not just choosing for myself; I am creating an image of what I believe a human being ought to be.
- Forlornness (Abandonment): This is the feeling of being alone in a universe without an external moral authority. If there is no “God’s-eye view” to validate our choices, we must realize that we are the sole source of value.
- Despair: This is the recognition that we can only rely on our own will and the probabilities that make our actions possible. We cannot control the external world; we can only control our commitment to our own projects.
Authenticity vs. Bad Faith (Mauvaise Foi)
If there is no objective meaning handed down from above, how should one live? The existentialist answer is Authenticity. To live authentically is to acknowledge one’s total freedom and take full ownership of the consequences.
The opposite of authenticity is “Bad Faith.” This is the act of lying to ourselves to escape the “anguish” of freedom. We fall into Bad Faith whenever we say:
- “I had no choice.”
- “That’s just the way I am.”
- “I’m just following orders.”
Facticity and Transcendence
To avoid Bad Faith, one must balance Facticity and Transcendence.
- Facticity refers to the brute facts of your life: your place of birth, your body, your past.
- Transcendence is your ability to project yourself beyond those facts.
Bad Faith occurs when we lean too far into either. If you say, “I am just a waiter” as if it were a biological fact like your eye color, you are denying your transcendence. If you say, “I can fly” while ignoring gravity, you are denying your facticity. Authenticity is the thin line where you acknowledge the facts of your life while asserting your freedom to choose how you relate to them.
The Absurd: Camus and Sisyphus
While Sartre focused on freedom, Albert Camus explored The Absurd. The Absurd is not simply that life is meaningless; it is the “divorce” between the human mind’s desperate longing for order and the “unreasonable silence” of the universe.
Camus famously used the Myth of Sisyphus to illustrate this. Sisyphus, condemned to roll a boulder up a hill for eternity only for it to roll back down, is the ultimate “absurd hero.” Camus argues that “the struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” By accepting the futility of the task and continuing anyway, Sisyphus triumphs over his fate.
Critiques: Marxism and Structuralism
No exploration of existentialism is complete without addressing those who sought to dismantle it.
The Marxist Critique
Marxists argued that Sartre’s “absolute freedom” was a luxury of the middle class. If a person is starving or working 16 hours a day in a factory, are they truly “free” to choose their essence? They argued that economic systems dictate our lives far more than individual choices do. Sartre eventually spent much of his later life trying to reconcile existentialism with Marxism, acknowledging that “need” can limit freedom.
The Structuralist Critique
In the 1960s, Structuralists like Claude Lévi-Strauss and Michel Foucault argued that we are “spoken by” our culture, language, and biology. They suggested that the “Individual” is an illusion and that we are actually just intersections of various unconscious systems. To them, the existentialist focus on “choice” was naive.
Conclusion: The Sovereign Individual
Despite these critiques, existentialism remains a vital philosophical force because it addresses the “inner life” that structuralism and sociology often overlook. It provides a framework for those moments when an individual stands at a crossroads and realizes that no system or external authority can make the final choice for them.
Ultimately, existentialism suggests that meaning is not something to be discovered, but something to be forged. It proposes a philosophy of sovereignty rather than despair. By stripping away the comfort of “destiny” or “divine plan,” the movement leaves the individual with a challenging but potentially liberating premise: we are the sum of our actions.
In the existentialist view, the universe may remain silent and the boulder may eventually roll back down the hill. However, as long as a person exists, the philosophy maintains that the “brush” remains in their hand. The canvas—however limited by the brute facts of history and biology—is still theirs to paint.
Suggested Reading
Note: As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases made through the links below. This helps support Current Philosophy at no additional cost to you.
Modern Primers (The Entry Points)
- “At the Existentialist Café” by Sarah Bakewell: A brilliant biographical history that brings Sartre, Beauvoir, Camus, and Heidegger to life.
- “Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction” by Thomas Flynn: A concise, academic, yet highly readable breakdown of the key themes. Perfect for a structured overview.
- “The Stranger” by Albert Camus: The ultimate “fictional primer.” It illustrates the concept of The Absurd through prose better than any essay.
Theistic Foundations
- “Fear and Trembling” by Søren Kierkegaard: Explores the “leap of faith” and the radical isolation of the individual before God.
- “The Mystery of Being” by Gabriel Marcel: Explores the man who coined the term “existentialism” and his view of existence as a mystery to be lived rather than a problem to be solved.
The Atheistic Height
- “Existentialism is a Humanism” by Jean-Paul Sartre: The most accessible entry point into Sartre’s thought and his primary defense of the movement.
- “The Ethics of Ambiguity” by Simone de Beauvoir: A masterpiece on how our personal freedom is intertwined with the freedom of others.
- “The Myth of Sisyphus” by Albert Camus: The definitive meditation on finding joy within the struggle of the Absurd.
Leave a Reply