Exploring Existentialism: Freedom, Responsibility, and the Search for Authenticity — History of Philosophy #4
In the aftermath of the devastating World Wars, a profound intellectual and cultural shift was taking place in Europe. This shift took the form of existentialism - a philosophical movement that rejected the traditional metaphysical systems of the past in favor of a more subjective, individualistic understanding of the human condition.
Existentialism was more than just a philosophical movement - it was a profound shift in the way people understood the human condition in the modern world. Central to existentialist thought was the idea that individuals are fundamentally free and that this freedom comes with the responsibility of choosing one's own path in life.
Existentialists emphasized concepts such as authenticity, anguish, and the constant struggle to find meaning in a seemingly absurd universe.
The most prominent existentialist thinkers included the French philosophersJean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Albert Camus (1913-1960) as well as the German philosophers Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) and Karl Jaspers (1883-1969).
Existentialism rejected the traditional philosophical tradition, particularly the systematic approach and the classical understanding of metaphysics and epistemology.
Existentialism represented a radical shift in philosophical perspective, moving away from the traditional focus on the essence of being and toward a preoccupation with the nature of human existence itself.
"Existence precedes essence"
— Jean Paul Sartre
This core idea of existentialism meant that questions about the lived human experience were more important than abstract inquiries into the essential nature of things.
The existentialists believed that if essence came before existence, it would undermine the creative freedom that gives meaning to human life. Instead, they asserted that individuals define themselves through the choices and actions of their lived experience. Rather than having a predetermined essence, people are free to create their own identity and purpose.
Existentialist thinkers moved away from traditional, speculative philosophy, focusing less on building rigid theoretical systems and more on exploring the realities of human existence through a vibrant, literary approach.
Rather than asking what exists, existentialism asked about existence itself—the very experience of being human.
It centered on what truly matters in human life, what shapes and influences it, and how these factors impact our fate and ethical choices.
It’s worth noting that thinkers like Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche laid important groundwork for this 20th-century philosophical movement, drawing attention to the anxiety, despair, and necessary ethical choices that define the human condition.
Existentialists did not want to study anything detached from actual human life, experiences, and the real situations and choices people face. They sought to create a philosophy that was a "living reflection" on human life, and a way of life itself.
Rather than constructing precise theoretical systems, existentialists often explored philosophical problems through literary works like novels, dramas, and essays. By centering the subjective, lived reality of individuals, existentialism ushered in a radically new approach to doing philosophy.
1. The origins of Existentialism — Pascal, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
“When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in an eternity before and after, the little space I fill engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces whereof I know nothing, and which know nothing of me, I am terrified. The eternal silence of these infinite spaces frightens me.” — Blaise Pascal
Existentialism, as the name suggests, centers on the human condition, often marked by themes of anxiety, fragility, and the search for meaning. While not a unified movement, its roots can be traced to earlier thinkers like Blaise Pascal, whose reflections on human existence resonate deeply with existentialist ideas.
Pascal lived during a time when the Renaissance had shifted focus from medieval theological dominance to human-centered inquiry. Yet, he grappled with the tension between human reason and the mysteries of existence. In his work Pensées, Pascal explores three key themes: the limits of reason, the fragility of human life, and the search for meaning in a seemingly indifferent universe.
Pascal famously divided reality into two realms: the order of reason and the order of the heart. While reason allows us to understand the material world, it falls short when confronting concepts like infinity, eternity, or the divine. These, Pascal argued, belong to the heart—accessible only through faith. This duality reflects the existentialist struggle to reconcile human limitations with the desire for transcendence.
Pascal’s description of humans as “thinking reeds” captures this tension. We are fragile, vulnerable to the smallest forces of nature, yet uniquely capable of reason and self-awareness. This duality makes us both insignificant in the face of the infinite and profoundly aware of our predicament. As Pascal writes:
“We desire truth and find in ourselves nothing but uncertainty. We seek happiness and find only wretchedness and death. We are incapable of not desiring truth and happiness and incapable of either certainty or happiness. We have been left with this desire as much as a punishment as to make us feel how far we have fallen.”
This existential angst—the awareness of our limitations and the yearning for meaning—echoes throughout existentialist thought. Pascal’s reflections on human fragility and the search for certainty prefigure later existentialist themes, even if he ultimately turns to faith for solace.
Pascal’s famous “wager”—the idea that believing in God is a safer bet than disbelief—highlights his pragmatic approach to existential uncertainty. While existentialists like Sartre or Camus rejected such theological solutions, they shared Pascal’s preoccupation with the human struggle for meaning in an indifferent universe.
Pascal also observed that all of humanity’s problems stem from our inability to be alone in a room with ourselves. In his era, the struggle was with solitude and introspection. Today, however, our peril lies in the opposite: an inability to connect meaningfully with others. This shift underscores the timeless relevance of Pascal’s insights into the human condition.
To summarize, while Pascal’s tragedy originated from the tension between temporality and eternity, existentialism generally denies eternity and expresses disillusionment with temporal existence. Pascal’s work, however, bridges these two perspectives. His exploration of human fragility, the limits of reason, and the search for meaning foreshadows existentialist thought. As he writes:
“For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either.”
Pascal’s insights remind us that the human condition is defined by its contradictions—a theme that existentialists would later make central to their philosophy. His work invites us to confront the paradox of our existence: insignificant yet aware, fragile yet capable of profound thought. In this way, Pascal’s reflections serve as a bridge between the theological concerns of his time and the existentialist preoccupations of the modern era.
Kierkegaard, who lived several decades after Pascal, developed similar themes but with a deeper emphasis on individual freedom, choice, and existence in the face of absurd and inexplicable circumstances. Like Pascal, Kierkegaard recognized the tragic dimension of human existence, particularly in the context of loneliness and uncertainty that accompany the search for meaning in a world that seems to lack ultimate purpose.
Similarly to Pascal, Kierkegaard focused on the tension between rationality and faith, but he took it a step further by introducing the idea of the “leap of faith.” In his work “Fear and Trembling,” he described the dramatic choice faced by the individual who must accept ignorance and the irrationality of existence while simultaneously deciding to embrace faith as a way of surviving chaos.
For Kierkegaard, as for Pascal, existential anxiety is not something to be overcome but something to be accepted as an integral part of human existence. In his writings, Kierkegaard observed:
“Anxiety is the intermediary that leads to choice, to freedom, to consciously stepping into uncertainty, where the unknown becomes something that not only terrifies but also liberates.”
Kierkegaard, like Pascal, recognized the profound paradox of human existence: on the one hand, humans are insignificant in the face of infinity and the boundless chaos of the universe; on the other hand, they possess self-awareness, the capacity for reason, and the ability to create meaning in a world full of absurdity. For both thinkers, human existence is both tragic and full of potential.
Pascal’s exploration of human fragility, the limits of reason, and the search for meaning in an indifferent universe laid the groundwork for existentialist thought. Kierkegaard expanded on these ideas, emphasizing individual freedom, the necessity of choice, and the leap of faith as responses to the absurdity of existence.
It’s worth mentioning that Friedrich Nietzsche, though not strictly an existentialist, explored ideas that deeply resonate with existentialist themes. While Pascal and Kierkegaard grappled with faith and the divine, Nietzsche famously declared that “God is dead,” signaling the collapse of traditional religious and moral frameworks. For Nietzsche, this void was not a cause for despair but an opportunity for humanity to create its own values and embrace the “will to power.”
Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch (Overman) reflects his belief in the potential for individuals to transcend societal norms and limitations, forging their own path in a world without inherent meaning. Unlike Pascal and Kierkegaard, who sought solace in faith, Nietzsche urged individuals to confront the absence of meaning head-on and to find strength in their own creativity and will.
Together, the works of Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche highlight the central themes of existentialism: the tension between reason and faith, the awareness of human limitations, and the struggle to find meaning in a seemingly meaningless world.
While Pascal’s tragedy stemmed from the tension between temporality and eternity, Kierkegaard embraced the absurdity of existence, urging individuals to confront uncertainty and make authentic choices. Nietzsche, on the other hand, challenged humanity to embrace the void and create its own meaning, declaring that the absence of God was not an end but a beginning.
2. Key Figures of Existentialism
"Man is condemned to be free."
While thinkers like Blaise Pascal and Søren Kierkegaard laid the groundwork for existentialist thought, it was the French philosopher and writer Jean-Paul Sartre who became the movement's defining figure. Sartre is best known for his succinct formulation of the previously mentioned existentialism's central idea: "Existence precedes essence."
This phrase captures the core of existentialist philosophy—that what we are is not predetermined, but rather shaped by how we live, act, and choose. In other words, humans are not born with a fixed purpose or essence; instead, we define ourselves through our existence.
Sartre's magnum opus, "Being and Nothingness", delves deeply into this idea. In it, he distinguishes between two modes of being: being-in-itself (etre-en-soi) and being-for-itself (etre-pour-soi). The former refers to objects—things that simply are, without consciousness or freedom. The latter, however, describes human beings—conscious, free, and constantly in the process of becoming.
For Sartre, this freedom is both our greatest gift and our heaviest burden. We are "condemned to be free," as he famously put it, meaning that we must constantly make choices and bear the responsibility for those choices. As he wrote: "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself."
It's worth mentioning German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), who is credited with establishing the foundations of modern existentialism, although he never identified himself as an existentialist. Despite the controversy surrounding his membership in the Nazi Party, Heidegger's philosophical contributions remain significant to existentialist thought.
“The most thought-provoking thing in our thought-provoking time is that we are still not thinking”
In his groundbreaking work "Being and Time," Heidegger shifted philosophical focus from the question of beings (what exists) to the question of Being itself (existence). For Heidegger, human existence is always "Being-in-the-world"—we are fundamentally embedded in a context of relations, tools, and meanings, rather than isolated subjects contemplating an external world.
Heidegger characterized humans as "Being-toward-death," emphasizing that our mortality is not simply a future event but a defining aspect of our existence. This awareness of our finitude produces what he called "anxiety"—a recognition of the uncertainty and nothingness that surrounds everything in our lives. Unlike ordinary fear directed at specific objects, anxiety reveals the contingency of human existence. As he stated: "Man alone of all beings, when addressed by Being, experiences the wonder of all wonders: that beings are."
Authentic living, according to Heidegger, requires "care"—acknowledging the contingency of one's existence and actively engaging with reality. Through this engagement, humans can preserve their dignity and freedom despite the ultimate meaninglessness revealed by anxiety. This concept of authenticity would become central to existentialist thought, though later thinkers would develop it in different directions.
Another significant figure who bridged different currents of existentialist thought was Karl Jaspers (1883-1969). Drawing on both, Heidegger's and Sartre's ideas, Jaspers attempted to reconcile existentialist philosophy with Christian thought. His most notable contribution was the concept of "boundary situations" or "limit situations" (Grenzsituationen).
“Everything depends therefore on encountering thought at its source. Such thought is the reality of man’s being, which achieved consciousness and understanding of itself through it.”
Jaspers emphasized the individuality and concreteness of human experience. He maintained that our existence is always situational—we are perpetually in some situation or another, and certain fundamental situations force us to confront the nature of our existence. These "boundary situations" include death, suffering, struggle, guilt, and chance—unavoidable aspects of human life that cannot be overcome but must be confronted.
When we encounter these boundary situations, we face two choices: retreat into self-deception for temporary comfort, or courageously confront these situations and thereby realize our authentic existence. As Jaspers wrote, "Existence may not happen, but even then, the anxiety that pulls man out of his loss testifies to it." For him, existence is fundamentally a choice—acceptance and courage mark the beginning of the path toward one's true self.
Particularly notable is Jaspers' treatment of death as a boundary situation. Rather than viewing death as merely an objective fact to be studied, he considered its existential implications. From an empirical perspective, death represents fragility, brevity, weakness, and destruction. However, from an existential perspective, confronting mortality can reveal the deepest layers of the self. When we absolutize life and desperately wish for eternal existence, we become enslaved to impossible desires. By contrast, accepting the inevitable—embracing what could be called "amor fati" (love of fate)—enables a fuller existential being.
This concept of "amor fati," while more commonly associated with Nietzsche, resonates with Jaspers' philosophy. It involves accepting one's life and whatever happens to us, though not passively. Rather, the person who affirms their fate takes it into their own hands and tries to direct it according to their own design. For Jaspers, this acceptance is never complete or final—human beings naturally tend to flee from what frightens them—but the struggle toward such acceptance defines authentic existence.
Jaspers' approach thus offers a middle path in existentialist thought, acknowledging the anguish emphasized by atheistic existentialists while maintaining the possibility of transcendence found in more religious interpretations of existential philosophy.
A crucial thinker who further developed existentialism with a religious perspective was Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973). Unlike Sartre and Heidegger, Marcel rejected the idea of human existence as defined by alienation and despair. Instead, he emphasized the importance of interpersonal relationships, faith, and hope as sources of meaning.
“My freedom is not and cannot be something that I observe as I observe an outward fact; rather it must be something that I decide, moreover, without appeal. It is beyond the power of anyone to reject the decision by which I assert my freedom and this assertion is ultimately bound up with the consciousness that I have of myself.”
Marcel argued that true existence is achieved through communion with others and with the divine. He saw faith not as a blind acceptance of dogma, but as an existential act of trust and openness to transcendence. For him, the modern world's focus on materialism and objectification alienates individuals from their true selves and others, making love and fidelity the means of overcoming existential isolation.
Albert Camus (1913-1960) represents another unique branch of existentialist thought. Although often associated with existentialism, he rejected the label, instead describing himself as an absurdist. Camus explored the human condition in a world without inherent meaning, particularly in his novel "The Plague."
"The Plague," published in 1947, is often interpreted as an allegory for the horrors of World War II. However, its themes extend beyond historical context. The novel portrays human responses to suffering, injustice, and mortality, ultimately reflecting Camus' philosophy of revolt against the absurd. As he famously wrote: "There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn."
Camus' core idea of the absurd acknowledges that humans crave meaning in an indifferent universe. Instead of retreating into religion or nihilism, he advocated for a stance of defiance, embracing life in full awareness of its lack of inherent purpose. His essay "The Myth of Sisyphus" illustrates this philosophy, depicting Sisyphus, condemned to roll a boulder up a hill for eternity, as a symbol of human perseverance. "One must imagine Sisyphus happy," Camus concluded, highlighting the existential choice to find meaning in the struggle itself.
Finally, Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) extended existentialism into feminist thought, most notably in her groundbreaking work "The Second Sex." She applied Sartre's notion of radical freedom to the condition of women, arguing that societal structures impose an artificial essence upon them.
“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”
De Beauvoir's existential feminism argued that women, like all individuals, must create their own meaning and assert their freedom against societal limitations. Her work laid the foundation for modern feminist philosophy.
3. Existentialism Is a Humanism
"Existentialism Is a Humanism" was a publication based on a lecture delivered by Jean-Paul Sartre at a conference in Paris in 1945. This came shortly after Sartre had published the first two parts of "The Roads to Freedom," which had generated considerable attention and served as reference points for interpreting the philosophical views presented in his fundamental work, "Being and Nothingness."
Sartre’s aim in this lecture and publication was to demonstrate that existentialism is, in fact, a humanism—one that emphasizes the value of human life, the centrality of the individual, and belief in human agency and cognitive power. Humanism itself is an ambiguous concept; it can refer to the Renaissance tradition that placed humanity at the center of the universe, a perspective that aligns with Sartre’s philosophical stance. For Sartre, existentialism upholds the dignity of human beings by asserting that they are the creators of their own essence and meaning.
As Sartre famously noted:
"Dostoevsky once wrote: 'If God did not exist, everything would be permitted'; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one’s action by reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words, there is no determinism – man is free, man is freedom."
Critics of existentialism often accused it of promoting despair by focusing on the harsh realities of human existence—such as the necessity of defining oneself through action, which, when neglected, leads to a monotonous and impoverished life. Sartre, however, argued that existentialism is not a philosophy of nihilism but one of empowerment. Rather than reducing humanity to a set of predetermined characteristics, it positions the individual as the architect of their own identity and destiny. In this sense, existentialism is a form of humanism because it places human freedom, choice, and responsibility at the core of its philosophy.
Sartre’s existentialism maintains that humans create their own meaning in a world without inherent purpose. There is no fixed essence defining what it means to be human; instead, we become who we choose to be through our actions. This freedom is both a privilege and a burden—it grants dignity to human life but also demands accountability. Each individual must construct their moral framework, making decisions without the safety net of absolute moral laws.
This perspective challenges traditional beliefs about human nature and morality. If, as Sartre argued, "existence precedes essence," then human beings are not born with a predefined purpose; they define themselves through their choices and actions. This radical freedom is both exhilarating and daunting, as it places the full weight of responsibility on the individual. Without external moral absolutes, people must navigate existence on their own, shaping their ethical principles and bearing the consequences of their decisions.
As Sartre states:
"We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does."
Heidegger’s influence on Sartre is evident in this notion. Heidegger referred to human beings as "Dasein"—a being whose existence comes before any definable essence. Sartre echoes this idea in "Being and Nothingness," stating:
"There exists at least one being whose existence precedes essence, a being that exists before it can be defined by any concept… and this being is man, or, as Heidegger puts it, human reality. What does it mean that existence precedes essence? It means that man first exists, appears on the scene, and only afterward defines himself. He is nothing at first; he will be only what he makes of himself."
This insight underscores a crucial existentialist principle: human beings are projects rather than static entities. Sartre contrasts this dynamic, self-defining nature of humanity with inanimate objects, emphasizing that people are not merely things—they are conscious agents of their own becoming.
In his characteristic style, Sartre delivers this idea with a memorable metaphor:
"Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower."
This comparison is striking in its simplicity. It is worth considering the meaning of the word "project" and the characteristics that distinguish human beings from the objects Sartre mentions. According to Sartre, every human is a plan or a possibility to be realized by each individual—we each design and execute our own project. Because of this, it is impossible to define any person in absolute terms, as everyone is different and constantly evolving; each person is a subject rather than an object.
A cauliflower follows a predetermined biological blueprint—it grows according to genetic instructions, without the ability to define itself. In contrast, human beings, through their choices and actions, continuously shape who they are. Unlike a vegetable that simply "is," a person "becomes." This, for Sartre, is the essence of existentialist humanism: the acknowledgment that we are responsible for defining ourselves and, in doing so, we define humanity itself.
4. Individualism
Existentialism places the individual at the core of philosophical reflection, emphasizing personal experience, choice, and responsibility. Unlike abstract systems of thought that seek universal truths, existentialism is concerned with the lived reality of each human being. It rejects rigid definitions and objective categorizations, instead focusing on what it means to exist as a unique and concrete individual.
"One must still have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star." – Friedrich Nietzsche
Existence, in this context, is an active process of becoming. While objects such as trees or stones have fixed essences, human existence is fluid and ever-changing. Sartre’s statement that "existence precedes essence" highlights that humans are not born with a predetermined nature but instead define themselves through their actions and choices. This perspective underscores both freedom and responsibility—each individual must shape their own essence through decisions.
Existentialists argue that human existence is always situated in a specific time and place. While individuals have freedom, they are also bound by circumstances beyond their control, such as the era and location of their birth. This creates a tension in existential thought: the recognition of both radical freedom and inevitable limitations. Kierkegaard emphasized the individual’s need to confront their own subjectivity, while Simone de Beauvoir explored how freedom is exercised within societal constraints. Life is not given as a finished entity but as a project shaped by one's choices.
Karl Jaspers introduced the concept of "limit situations"—aspects of life like suffering, struggle, guilt, and death that cannot be avoided. These moments confront individuals with the fundamental truths of existence, often triggering either despair or transformation. True self-awareness comes from engaging with these existential boundaries.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty expanded existentialist thought by emphasizing perception and embodied experience. He argued that selfhood is not an isolated phenomenon but an ongoing, dynamic relationship between the individual and their surroundings. Rejecting Cartesian dualism, he maintained that human existence is deeply rooted in the physical world. For Merleau-Ponty, perception is not merely passive observation but an active engagement with reality, shaping how individuals define themselves within the world.
Martin Heidegger further reinforced the existentialist focus on individualism through his concept of authenticity (Eigentlichkeit). He argued that individuals often fall into inauthentic existence, conforming to societal expectations and living according to "das Man"—the impersonal "they" that dictates conventional norms. To achieve true individuality, one must break free from these external pressures and embrace their own unique potential. Heidegger’s notion of "being-toward-death" (Sein-zum-Tode) underscores this personal responsibility: recognizing the inevitability of death forces individuals to take ownership of their existence, shaping their lives in a way that reflects their authentic self rather than social conventions. This deep engagement with one’s mortality serves as a catalyst for self-definition, reinforcing existentialism’s emphasis on the necessity of personal responsibility and autonomy.
In this sense, existentialism’s focus on individualism is not about isolating oneself from the world or others but rather embracing the reality of being in constant relation with both. Although individual defines their own essence, they do so in a world that is constantly shaped by others, by societal structures, and by their own interactions within this space. Sartre's philosophy acknowledges the tension between radical freedom and the inescapable fact of living among other individuals, underscoring that true individuality cannot exist without the awareness of others' perceptions.
Moreover, existentialism recognizes that the individual does not live in isolation but is always already "being-in-the-world." This idea, emphasized by Heidegger, suggests that the self is not merely an isolated subject, but a being that exists within a broader context—a context that must be actively engaged with in order to be truly authentic. The individual’s freedom is intertwined with their engagement in the world around them, whether through relationships with others, experiences of nature, or active participation in societal structures.
Thus, existentialism’s emphasis on individualism highlights the necessity of self-definition, the tension between freedom and constraint, and the inescapable responsibility of shaping one’s own existence. While individuality is at the heart of existential thought, this individuality is always a process of engagement with the world, demanding both personal responsibility and an active confrontation with the reality of human interaction and society.
Through this, existentialism offers a robust framework for understanding not just the self, but the interconnectedness between freedom, self-definition, and the world in which we live.
5. Atheism and Theism in Existentialism
The distinction between religious and atheistic existentialism is one of the most significant divisions within this philosophical movement, shaping fundamental perspectives on freedom, responsibility, and the nature of human existence. While existentialism emerged in part as a response to traditional metaphysical and ethical systems, it did not develop solely in opposition to religious thought. Instead, it gave rise to two distinct currents: one that embraced the absence of divine order as the foundation of human freedom and another that sought to reconcile existentialist insights with religious faith.
Atheistic existentialism, championed by thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche, argues that human existence is defined by freedom, which is both a gift and a burden.
Sartre, for instance, famously declared that “existence precedes essence,” meaning that human beings are not born with a predetermined nature or purpose. This absence of a divine blueprint opens up a vast field of freedom but also introduces a sense of isolation and despair.
Sartre’s rejection of God is deeply rooted in his belief that human freedom cannot be bound by divine constraints, as this would negate the very possibility of authentic existence. According to Sartre, if there were a God who created humans with a specific purpose, then humans would not truly be free. His position on God was clear: "If God did not exist, there would be no values or commands to follow; man would be left alone, with no excuse." This perspective places the weight of existence squarely on the individual, who must create their own values and meaning in an indifferent and often hostile universe.
In contrast, religious existentialists such as Søren Kierkegaard, Karl Jaspers, Gabriel Marcel, and Emmanuel Levinas maintained that human existence, while defined by freedom and struggle, is ultimately oriented toward transcendence. They acknowledged the existential tension of uncertainty, despair, and individual responsibility but interpreted these in the context of faith.
Kierkegaard considered one of the earliest existentialist thinkers, saw the acceptance of divine mystery and the "leap of faith" as essential to authentic existence. For Kierkegaard, freedom is not about unrestrained autonomy but about a relationship with the divine. He famously wrote:
Then faith's paradox is this: that the single individual is higher than the universal, that the single individual determines his relation to the universal through his relation to God, not his relation to God through his relation through the universal... Unless this is how it is, faith has no place in existence; and faith is then a temptation.
This paradox highlights the idea that true faith cannot be merely a social or philosophical concept; it must be deeply personal and transcendental, guiding the individual toward authentic existence.
Marcel emphasized the need for hope and openness to the divine presence, rejecting the isolation inherent in atheistic existentialism. He argued that the experience of the divine is not a mere abstract belief but something that affects the individual on a deep, existential level. For him, the encounter with the divine breaks through the isolation of individual existence and offers a sense of communion and interconnectedness.
Levinas introduced an ethical dimension by positing that responsibility is not only a personal burden but also a fundamental duty toward the Other, rooted in the encounter with transcendence. For Levinas, the face of the Other is a call to responsibility that transcends individual self-interest, pointing beyond mere human existence to a divine imperative. This relational dimension of responsibility makes religious existentialism not just a search for personal meaning but a deep ethical commitment to others and to the divine.
As Karl Jaspers suggested, faith is not something that can be imposed or communicated as mere doctrine; rather, it is a foundation that sustains one's sense of self but cannot be established solely by individual will. For Jaspers, faith is a personal journey that transcends both reason and dogma, offering a sense of purpose that allows the individual to confront the existential challenges of freedom and uncertainty.
In contrast, atheistic existentialists argue that responsibility is purely human-centered—each individual must answer only to themselves and to others within society. Sartre, for example, maintained that every choice contributes to shaping not only one's own identity but also the broader human condition, making responsibility an ethical imperative in an otherwise meaningless world. In this sense, atheistic existentialism is defined by the autonomy of the self and the weight of human responsibility, which must be shouldered without the comfort of divine guidance or purpose.
While both perspectives acknowledge the role of will in shaping existence, they differ in how they conceive its purpose. In atheistic existentialism, the will is autonomous, unbound by any higher authority, and tasked with creating its own values. Sartre rejected the notion of a predetermined human essence, instead advocating for radical self-determination. For Sartre, the will is the means by which human beings create their own essence and meaning in a world devoid of inherent purpose.
In contrast, religious existentialists argue that the highest fulfillment of human will is found in its alignment with a greater, transcendent reality. Kierkegaard, for instance, viewed the act of faith as a profound engagement of the will, in which the individual surrenders their autonomy not out of weakness but as the ultimate affirmation of meaning and purpose. For him, true freedom and authenticity are found in a relationship with God, and it is only through surrendering to the divine that individuals can fully realize their humanity.
Ultimately, the fundamental difference between these two branches of existentialism lies in their response to the question of transcendence. Atheistic existentialists accept the finality of human existence within an absurd and indifferent universe, whereas religious existentialists see human life as embedded within a larger metaphysical framework that provides meaning and direction.
This distinction shapes their respective views on freedom, authenticity, and responsibility, creating two distinct yet deeply interconnected approaches to understanding what it means to exist.
While both traditions emphasize the need for personal responsibility and the creation of meaning, their answers to the existential question of transcendence offer radically different interpretations of the nature of human freedom.
Summary
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” — Jean-Paul Sartre
Existentialism, a 20th-century philosophical and literary movement, delves deeply into the human condition, exploring themes of existence, freedom, and the necessity of moral choice in a world that often appears indifferent or even absurd. At its core, existentialism portrays humanity as fragile, finite, and profoundly alone, yet capable of profound self-awareness and meaning-making. While the movement is far from homogeneous, it can be broadly divided into two orientations: the Christian existentialism of thinkers like Søren Kierkegaard, Gabriel Marcel, and Karl Jaspers, and the atheistic existentialism exemplified by Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus.
Central to existentialist thought are concepts such as humanism—placing humanity and its struggles at the center of philosophical inquiry—pessimism—stemming from the often bleak analysis of the human condition—and imperfection—acknowledging the flaws inherent in humanity, the world, and even, in some interpretations, the divine. Despite its somber undertones, existentialism is not without hope; many of its thinkers sought to overcome pessimism by emphasizing the power of individual choice, authenticity, and the creation of meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe.
While existentialism has roots in earlier thinkers like Blaise Pascal and Søren Kierkegaard, it truly came into its own in the 20th century, shaped by the upheavals of two world wars, rapid technological change, and the collapse of traditional moral and religious frameworks. This period saw the rise of existentialism as a distinct philosophical movement, with key figures like Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Martin Heidegger, and Simone de Beauvoir defining its contours and expanding its reach.
Jean-Paul Sartre, often considered the face of existentialism, articulated its central tenet in the phrase “existence precedes essence.” For Sartre, humans are not born with a predetermined purpose; instead, we define ourselves through our actions and choices. This radical freedom, however, comes with immense responsibility, as we are condemned to be free and must bear the weight of our decisions. Sartre’s works, such as Being and Nothingness and No Exit, explore the tension between freedom and the anguish it brings, as well as the concept of “bad faith”—the self-deception that arises when we deny our freedom and responsibility.
Albert Camus, though he rejected the label of existentialist, contributed significantly to the movement with his exploration of the absurd—the conflict between humanity’s search for meaning and the universe’s silence. In works like The Myth of Sisyphus and The Stranger, Camus argued that while life may lack inherent meaning, we can still find purpose in the struggle itself. His philosophy of “absurd rebellion” encourages us to embrace life’s absurdity and live with passion and integrity.
Martin Heidegger, while often associated with phenomenology, profoundly influenced existentialism with his analysis of Being in Being and Time. Heidegger explored the concept of Dasein (being-there), emphasizing the temporal and finite nature of human existence. His work laid the groundwork for existentialist themes such as authenticity, anxiety, and the confrontation with mortality.
Simone de Beauvoir, a close collaborator of Sartre, brought a feminist perspective to existentialism. In The Second Sex, she applied existentialist principles to the analysis of gender, arguing that women, like all humans, are defined by their choices and actions rather than by any fixed essence. Her work expanded existentialism’s scope, addressing issues of oppression, freedom, and the construction of identity.
The roots of existentialism stretch far beyond the 20th century. Thinkers like Blaise Pascal, with his reflections on human fragility and the limits of reason, and even ancient philosophers like Socrates, who placed the human condition at the heart of his inquiries, are often regarded as precursors to the movement. These early voices laid the groundwork for existentialism’s central questions: What does it mean to exist? How do we confront our limitations and mortality? And how do we find meaning in a world that offers no easy answers?
Existentialism’s enduring relevance lies in its ability to speak to the universal human experience. Whether through Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith,” Nietzsche’s call to create one’s own values, or Sartre’s assertion that “existence precedes essence,” existentialism challenges us to confront the absurdity of life and to embrace our freedom and responsibility. It reminds us that, despite our fragility and the imperfections of the world, we possess the capacity to shape our own lives and find meaning in the face of uncertainty.
In the end, existentialism is not just a philosophical movement but a call to live authentically, to wrestle with life’s deepest questions, and to find purpose in our choices. Its legacy continues to inspire, urging us to confront the complexities of existence with courage, creativity, and an unwavering commitment to truth.
If you found this article intriguing or are interested in collaborating, feel free to connect with me on Twitter or visit my personal website.