Existentialism: How We Can Create Meaning
Existentialism vs. absurdism, part one
Photo Source: Ism Book
A few things to go over before we begin:
Many of you email or text me separately and tell me that these emails are going into the “Spam” or “Promotion” tabs of your inbox. If this is the case, please refer to this guide here.
If there is any topic you want me to discuss or cover, please let me know! A lot of readers have been asking for certain topics and I’m trying to compile a list. If you would like me to write about a topic of your choice, leave a comment on this post or contact me separately for any inquiries or requests.
NEW SUBSCRIBERS: By simply hitting the subscribe button below, you’ll receive free access to the entirety of my mini e-book, The Art of Letting Go. It’s packed with ideas and thoughts from not just me, but some of the greatest minds in the last few decades. Subscribing will also enable you to get these posts sent directly to your inbox, so you never miss one.
With that out of the way, let’s get started.
Week of 7/9/2023
Main Topic:
There is nihilism. Then, there are the two big responses to the problem that nihilism presents, existentialism and absurdism. Those three can be summed up as:
Nihilism: Life has no absolute meaning.
Existentialism: Life has no absolute meaning, but we can create meaning for ourselves.
Absurdism: Life has no absolute meaning, but look over there! It’s a butterfly! What a nice butterfly.
In today’s post, we’ll be looking at nihilism and the problem it presents, as well as the existentialist response. In part two, we’ll be looking at the absurdist response, compare and contrast absurdism and existentialism, and I’ll give my final thoughts on the matter.
The Nihilist Problem
For the longest time, religion or higher power had given Europe purpose and a sense of place in the universe. In the age of modernity in the 19th and 20th centuries, after the Enlightenment, there was a vacuum of meaning.
The concept that governments did not have to be organized around the divine and that large and consistent moral theories could exist without reference to theology or religion became mainstream.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), a German philosopher, wrote in his book The Gay Science (an older definition of gay meant jovial or carefree, not in reference to sexuality):
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”
With the rise of human progress and humanity unearthing governing laws of the universe with groundbreaking discoveries such as those from Copernicus and Darwin, Nietzsche argues that we have, in a sense, “destroyed god”. Religion and God were the foundation of objective meaning and truth. Without God, the external world lacks a purpose to orient ourselves with.
This quote has often been used as a prime example of the development of nihilism, a philosophy that asserts that not only are we not the center of the universe, but there is also no objective truth, and the world has no reason or purpose. Interestingly, Nietzsche was a self-professed nihilist and believed that this state of nihilism was unavoidable. However, some of his works detail how to overcome the state of hopelessness nihilism can bring and he also contributed to existentialism, a philosophy which we will discuss soon. In addition, he mentions how he is afraid that this absence of God will lead to pessimism and denial of truth.
The Existentialist Answer
Existentialism goes back as far as the 19th century with philosophers such as Søren Kierkegaard, but made popular in the 20th century. A prime example is Jean-Paul Sartre, a French philosopher who coined a lot of existentialism’s key terms and was one of the few philosophers who self-identified as an existentialist rather than only working or dabbling in existentialist ideas.
Existentialism argues that maybe we aren’t here for divine reasons, there are no universal ethics, and the world has no absolute meaning. However, that also means that you have radical freedom.
You don’t have to be limited by any shackles or boundaries. Nobody is in charge, and you don’t have to respond to anybody. The good part about that is that we can self-create purpose, ethics, and beliefs.
Now, classical philosophy believed that an object’s essence was its defining characteristics and purpose. In classical philosophy, “essence proceeds existence”. If the essence of a knife is to cut, and it can’t do that, it’s not really a knife.
Before the figurative “death of god”, different groups had concrete ideas of what a human’s essence was. For example, in the eyes of Christianity, we were a fallen people that must reach salvation.
However, now that nihilism had caused a rupture in these beliefs, we were faced with a void of meaning. So, quite in contrast to classical philosophies, existentialism asserts “existence proceeds essence”. Meaning that if there is no higher purpose above humanity, first and foremost, we are human. And what we do with our existence and how we live determines our essence. Basically, we create our own purpose from the actions that we do and what we choose to be. According to Jean Paul-Sartre:
Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.
Also, from Plato onward, Western philosophy’s approach was grounded in reason, rationale, and objective, timeless truth. To them, life should be viewed from a third-person, God-like perspective, transcending our embodiment.
This view should be uncorrupted from our own human emotion and biases, clear of any impacts from time or place. In this way, a philosopher might discover the true nature of the world without “the flux of appearances”, and take on a “perspective of eternity”.
Existentialism takes on a different, opposing stance, arguing that we can’t look down upon life from a third-person, detached view, because we have already been thrown into the act of existing, which requires self-interpretation and discovery. Existence is understood not by indifferent theorizing, but by a careful examination of the self and the first-person view, through the relationships, actions, and perceptions of our individual lives.
This is because the very act of existing, they argue, is something that is embodied and felt in flesh and blood. Therefore, human interpretation must be key in order to understand existence and life.
When it comes to existentialism, one’s own subjective truth is “the highest truth attainable”, according to Kierkegaard, and he rejects the pedestal on which tradition places objectivity and overarching purpose.
Additionally, existentialism places heavy emphasis on the “authentic self”. Rather than conforming to the norms of the public, and basing our preferences and actions on the expectations of others and those around us, we are supposed to reject this as a form of self-deception. Existentialists try to not “flee from oneself” and embrace their unique identify, in order to fully accept and use the freedom given with our condition rather than denying it.
The downside to this, though, is that we alone, in the eyes of existentialism, are responsible for who we are. A selfish person is not selfish because that is his fundamental nature, because he was raised that way, or because that is the way higher power decreed him to be. It is because of his decisions and doings. You alone are accountable for the choices you make and who you decide to become and there is no absolute will or natural governing laws that can guide us, justify our actions, or be held responsible. This causes a sort of “anxiety of choice”, because in this life, with an infinite array of possibilities and options for who to become, whatever path you choose, you are responsible.
Existentialism is a very huge movement, expanding well beyond just the literary and academic atmospheres. Existentialism’s themes, core principles, and moods are shown in films, art, books, and more. For example, Pablo Picasso and Edvard Munch are known for incorporating existentialist ideas into their art. Political figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were also inspired by existentialist concepts.
One of my favorite instances of existentialism in literature is Man’s Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl. The first part of it is a holocaust memoir and the second half describes the development of his psychotherapeutic method. Both sections heavily include existentialist ideas.
Final Thoughts on Existentialism
Existentialism is definitely a popular philosophy, and many people choose to live their lives based on its teachings. Part of this is because it’s still relevant in modern day society. Human beings still struggle with a sense of meaninglessness, especially now more than ever. Existentialism teaches to find meaning not from outside sources, but from within. I also think another reason for its popularity is that it gives us unrestricted freedom of choice. Its core principles state that we are the masters of our own destiny. That is very appealing to us, as we are creatures who strive for independence and control in our own lives.
However, existentialism puts a lot of emphasis on finding purpose, maybe even too much. A lot of existentialism focuses on how to find contentment through meaning, which doesn’t help the fact that a lot of people feel pressure to find a purpose or meaning within their lives, and they feel they won’t truly be able to feel content or satisfied if they don’t get it.
That’s why next week, we’ll be exploring absurdism, which takes a different, less meaning-oriented approach to the nihilist problem. Make sure to tune in to part two for an explanation of absurdism and comparison of the both philosophies.
Quote of the Week:
“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”
- Epictetus
Extras:
- Awesome video I’m watching. Extremely entertaining, even if I don’t fully understand some of the math behind it:
- Book I’m reading. Penguin Deluxe Edition, Robert Fagles’ masterful translation of Homer’s The Odyssey
- Another well-done video I watched recently, highlighting some of the best one-handed NFL catches
That’s all for now, Dilan out.
Welcome back!
Gooo Dilan