Existentialism: Philosophy for a Post-Meaning World

> Image Above is Generated Using Stable Diffusion with [title] as the primary prompt

> Other images were generated in similar manner with section titles as primary prompt

Existentialism: Born Without Meaning

Existentialism is a branch of ontology concerned with the study and production of meaning in an otherwise meaningless world. It can be summarised by Jean-Paul Sartre, a father of existentialism, in his quote: “Existence precedes essence” (1956). In other words, we are born (exist) without attaining any purpose (essence).

As I discussed in my previous writing on Suicide, different schools of existentialism then differ as to the later existence of purpose and the possibility of it’s achievement. As one example, Existential nihilism asserts that there we are born without purpose and can not attain any purpose or meaning. Another, more optimistic example - Absurdism - asserts that, although is no meaning to be found between the human and the world, one can find (subjective) meaning in the human alone (ie. not between us and the world).

In general; existentialism schools actually lean more towards the optimistic sides of philosophy. They may take advantage of the lack of objective guidance to emphasise individual freedom and choice, in a manner after Nietzsche’s Übermensch. It asserts that individuals must and therefore may create their own meaning in life. This meaning can come from any number of sources, such as personal relationships, work, or creative endeavours, so long as the individual accepts and embraces them in good face (which I will discuss later). In this way, many Existentialist philosophies can lead to a focus on the depth of meaning found in subjective experience and emotions and an escape from the restrictions of traditional systems of meaning and value.

Absurdity

A key concept in the school of Absurdism, which is also relevant to Existentialism more broadly, is that of the Absurd. The absurd or absurdity is the paradoxical situation produced by the disconnect between the human’s never ending search for meaning and normativity and a world composed of indifference and brute facts. As I stated in a previous piece, absurdity is the paradoxical behaviour of acceptance that the world (ie. states of affairs) can have no intrinsic purpose whilst also continuing to search for meaning thereof.

Nonetheless, this state of absurdism does not generally lead to existential despair. Rather, absurdists will typically profess that one is free to find (subjective) meaning in themselves alone (ie. not between us and the world). This is possible because absurdity lies between the rationality of being and the irrationality of the world. It is not absurd to have the desire for meaning, nor is it absurd to accept the world as meaningless. It is only absurd to accept both and then to proceed in a pursuit of worldly meaning, which would be hypocritical. One is free to construct a meaning for themselves, so long as that meaning is not given to them by another (ie. so long as it is not an act of bad faith) or by the world (ie. so long as it is sincere).

The Burden of Freedom

Though existential schools can produce perhaps the most satisfying freedom in one's life, freedom over meaning, this freedom is not without fear. To accept a false purpose thrust upon oneself is bondage, but it is a comforting bondage. To break those chains and leap into the void of meaninglessness, in hope of finding your own foundation of purpose is freedom, but a terrifying freedom nonetheless. Indeed, such are the burdens of freedom that their impacts have at least two dedicated existential concepts.

Nausea and Dread

Existential Nausea is the sudden and forceful anxiety impressed upon an individual when they realise that they alone are truly responsible for their choices, and they alone can provide the meaning they desperately crave. It is the fear that one may choose wrongly, may live falsely, may hope futilely. It is similar to the head spinning feeling of sickness attributed to that term [nausea’s] common usage. Indeed, almost counterintuitively, upon realising that my life truly is my own I am beset by the desire to destroy this fact. In accepting this, I have lost all traditional structures which have thus far given me meaning, given me purpose for existence. I must now continue in a meaningless world blind, without any support, without any guidance, without any counsel. That realisation is sickening in the extreme. At least at first, the sickness will precede the elation of existential freedom.

It appears that people, all people, crave an external structure to their lives, even if that structure is illusionary or false. Consider the most impactful decisions you’ve made thus far: Did you take responsibility for them in that moment or did you look to external sources to have the decision made for you? I would guess the latter. Most people, certainly including myself, do not want to live sincerely. When faced with a hard personal choice we will strive to externalise. We will consider the external consequences of potential choice, or the logical factors which might lead us one way or the other. We try our hardest to avoid making the choice ourselves. We might look to an authority figure (a parent, a partner, a preacher etc), we might subsume our will to logic (to place the burden of choice on logic and not our will), we might even place the decision on random chance (ie. flipping a coin). All these routes of decision are insincere, they involve the rejection of our responsibility and represent a desire for us to avoid free choice. They are all evidence of our fear of existential nausea, the first symptoms of existential freedom. Yet, if we are to be truly free, free to make a truthful meaning, we must overcome these fears and take responsibility for our choices. It does not matter what you choose, so long as you are the one choosing.

Once you escape existential nausea, you are not yet free. You now face a darker opponent, that of existential dread. Existential dread is in part the truthful fear that, if you take this plunge into sincerity, into the black void, there is no going back and there is no guarantee you will even succeed. It is the philosophical call of the void, both so tempting and the height of terror. It is standing on the edge of a cliff and having the sudden impulse to jump. As Soren Kierkegaard, father of all existentialism, writes:

“Anxiety may be compared with dizziness. He whose eye happens to look down into the yawning abyss becomes dizzy. But what is the reason for this? It is just as much in his own eye as in the abyss, for suppose he had not looked down. Hence, anxiety is the dizziness of freedom, which emerges when the spirit wants to posit the synthesis and freedom looks down into its own possibility, laying hold of finiteness to support itself. Freedom succumbs to dizziness. Further than this, psychology cannot and will not go. In that very moment everything is changed, and freedom, when it again rises, sees that it is guilty. Between these two moments lies the leap, which no science has explained and which no science can explain. He who becomes guilty in anxiety becomes as ambiguously guilty as it is possible to become.”

(Kierkegaard 1981, p. 61)

Existential dread and anxiety are insidious fears because, unlike most other phobias, they has no specified object or cause, and are instead an all-present feature of the human condition. It reflects our awareness that every choice we make has consequences for which we are fully responsible. There is no way to remove it, and one can only avoid it if they live insincerely. There is only one way to approach it sincerely. That is, to accept it. To live in the knowledge of this fear, in the knowledge that your meaning may at any moment be overthrown, and to live in that meaning nonetheless. If we may do this, nothing can assault our sincerity:

“Whoever has learned to be anxious in the right way has learned the ultimate. … Anxiety is freedom's possibility, and only such anxiety is through faith absolutely educative, because it consumes all finite ends and discovers all their deceptiveness. And no Grand Inquisitor has such dreadful torments in readiness as anxiety has, and no secret agent knows as cunningly as anxiety to attack his suspect in his weakest moment or to make alluring the trap in which he will be caught, and no discerning judge understands how to interrogate and examine the accused as does anxiety, which never lets the accused escape, neither through amusement, nor by noise, nor during work, neither by day nor by night.” (Kierkegaard 1981, pp. 155–156)

Despair

An understanding of the true horror of existential nausea and existential dread prompts the question: why take the leap? In other words, if that leap into sincerity produces such horror and perpetuates such anxiety in us, what could possibly lead a sane man to take it? Simply put, because it is the lesser of two evils. Though it is truly horrible, it is still outdone by the depths of existential despair. Despair, the experience of which is the greatest depressant, and the fear of which is the greatest motivator, is the reason for this leap. It is the metaphorical beast chasing you towards the edge of that cliff; forcing you to jump.

For the existentialist, despair and the fear of it plays a fundamental role in their philosophy and in human psychology. The concept traces all the way back to the beginning of existentialism and, once more, to Kierkegaard. In his text, The Sickness Unto Death (1989), he asserts that the human self is made up of a dialectic which must be continuously synthesised through conscious effort. This dialectic is the finite, the limitations imposed by our physical constraints and specific circumstances, and the infinite, those qualities that allow us to transcend limitations (ie. imagination and rationality). When the self cannot balance or synthesise these forces, the self is assaulted by existential despair. This despair is not mere sadness, it is not merely any particular emotion. Despair is a state of being: It is the state of complete destruction of one’s true self.

Kierkegaard’s conception of despair is very rich indeed. In that same text he outlines what he takes to be levels of despair, each more desperate than the last:

The first level of despair is defined by its unconscious nature. It is existing in despair without being aware of it. This type of despair is characterised by a misunderstanding of what it means to have a self, and a failure to recognize the potential that one possesses. According to Kierkegaard, this is the most common form of despair and permeates as such because a person may judge their happiness as a measure of existential success, thus masking their true insincerity.

The second level of despair are the conscious despairs. These all require an understanding of an eternal self. Of the conscious despairs, there are three sub-levels.

The first sub-level of despair is “despair over the earthly”. Kierkegaard further divides this level into three categories: (i) a desire not to be oneself, (ii) a desire not to be a self at all, (iii) and a desire to be a new self. These categories are largely dependent on the self-worth of the person. The first category, a desire not to be oneself, is characterised by a belief in one’s personal unworthiness. The second category, a desire not to be a self, involves a belief in one’s categorical unworthiness. The third, a desire to be a new self, is the most profound form of despair. This is because it reflects a deep understanding of the permanence of despair (it requires an awareness of the human condition) and arises from a focus on sensate desires and physical pleasures.
The second subcategory of conscious despair is “despair over the eternal”, which is characterised by a focus on one's own weaknesses and a refusal to turn to faith or humble oneself before God. In this form of despair, an individual despairs over their own unworthiness and is unable to find comfort in the light of God, thus languishing in the object of their own weakness.
The third and final subcategory of despair is the desire “in despair to will to be oneself”, also known as “demonic despair”. This form of despair involves a recognition of one's own despair, a search for a way to alleviate it, and a lack of success in finding any help. As a result, the individual becomes resistant to any form of assistance and may even reject aid from God. This level of despair is marked by an embrace of one's own pain and a feeling of superiority over others who do not experience this state. Kierkegaard asserts that this is the least common form of despair. He also responds to this form of despair as the “despair of defiance” as it involves a rejection of all that is eternal.

Despair, for the average person, is most often associated with its brother concept, the existential crisis. An existential crisis is a period of intense questioning and inner turmoil about one's life and purpose. It is a time when an individual feels that their existence has little or no meaning, and that they have no direction or goals. The individual and their will to life becomes subsumed by existential despair. They feel lost, confused, and isolated. Some will turn to religion, to therapy, perhaps to addiction. But a rare few will take the sincere route; take Kierkegaard’s leap of faith, and reorder their life to avoid despair, overcome nausea, embrace dread and find for themselves a greater sense of meaning.

Finding Meaning in Life

The Meaning of Life refers to some significance or purpose to be found in human existence. It is a concept pondered by philosophers, theologians, and scholars for centuries, and is perhaps the central question of every person’s life and of life in the abstract. Life asks each man a question: ‘Why go on living?’, to this we must have some response. If one simply soldiers on through the weight of living, they answer ‘Because I must’. This is no satisfaction though. A satisfying answer ought to consider the merit to the question, and the principles underlying, and utilise them as the impetus for their response. Thus to live sincerely is a satisfying response as it identifies that the question is prompted by existential dread and despair, and is underlied by the principles of absurdism, and this answer utilises these as impetus for a change in one’s life.

Bad Faith

Bad faith refers to the act of denying one's own free will and authenticity by conforming to societal expectations or external pressures. It involves self-deception and a negative attitude towards others (ressentiment). It is seen as a betrayal of an individual's true nature and the inherent freedom that comes with being a sentient human being. It is a futile attempt to avoid the nausea of freedom, borne of fear, by denying that we have that capacity.

Individuals always have the freedom to make choices and direct their lives towards their own ends. This freedom is inescapable, even in circumstances where we wish to destroy it. For example, even a man held hostage has the freedom to be passive, to resist, or to commit suicide. Although external circumstances may limit one’s options, they can never force one to choose, nor can they take away one’s capacity for choice. When someone claims that one particular choice is necessary (e.g. “I must not fight against the hostage-taker, as I might die”), they are arguing in bad faith and attempting to give up their freedom to relegate their responsibility to an external force. This mindset is corrupting and goes against the nature of the individual as a free and rational being.

Bad Faith in Morality

According to Sartre, humans are inherently “condemned to be free”. We are infinitely responsible for our own choices, even if we try to escape this responsibility by adopting external moral systems or following pragmatic concerns. Every attempt to avoid freedom of choice is itself a choice that a person makes, and this choice is based on their wills and desires. In this way, people cannot escape responsibility by claiming that they are determined by external forces as they have already chosen to submit to those external forces. Rather, one must accept that we are constantly faced with the uncertainty and the responsibility of moral choice, and we must constantly reassess our own and others’ humanity in this light.

It is not right to deny, or attempt to deny, one’s freedom and accountability by engaging in bad faith or enslaving oneself to external moral systems. Instead, we should recognize our own significance in the moral decision-making process and thus take personal responsibility for the consequences of our choices. Of course, it is understandable why most will not do this. It is a terrifying proposition and represents the greatest expression of nausea whilst at the same time the most common instance. Nonetheless, this demand is necessary if we are to fully embrace the freedom and responsibility of being human, and if we are to leap beyond despair and into meaning through sincerity.

Good Faith and Sincerity

For the existentialist, sincerity and authenticity are crucial to living a meaningful life. Sincerity is the task of acting true to oneself, living in a way that reflects one's own values and beliefs. Especially when this way of living contradicts prescribed roles or societal expectations. Authenticity thus also involves taking responsibility for one's actions and choices, rather than denying, ignoring, or externalising one’s freedom of choice in making them. Importantly, authenticity does not necessarily mean contradicting established norms. As long as your values are established in good faith, from a sense of inward will, it’s not contradictory if they (incidentally) align with societal norms, so long as that harmonisation is incidental.

Jean-Paul Sartre and Søren Kierkegaard both wrote extensively on the concept of authenticity. Sartre’s exploration of authenticity occurs in his novels, which feature characters whose actions are inauthentically based on external pressures rather than their own values and beliefs. Sartre believes that absolute freedom is necessary for authenticity, but that this freedom can be unpleasant and lead people to choose an inauthentic life in order to escape existential nausea. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, views authenticity as a personal choice based on one's experience of the real world and the pursuit of an authentic faith. He believes that mass culture and societal ideologies can diminish personal individuality and challenge personal integrity, and that authentic faith can be achieved by facing reality and choosing to live according to the facts of the material world (facticity). Both philosophers argue that authenticity is connected with creativity and the will to act, and that it involves taking responsibility for one's own actions and choices rather than conforming to external expectations.

Reference List

Kierkegaard, S 1989, The Sickness Unto Death, Penguin, Oxford

Kierkegaard, S 1981, The Concept of Anxiety, Princeton University Press, Princeton

Sartre, JP 1956, Existentialism is a Humanism, trans. P Mairet, viewed 10 January 2023, <https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm>

Search This Blog

ACT[ua]L Writings