Descriptions:
Video Description
Existentialism gave the West some of its greatest literature and philosophy, yet it stubbornly refuses a neat definition. This lecture from Academy of Ideas maps the movement from 19th-century Europe to the cafés of post-war France, introducing thinkers from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche to Camus and Sartre. What ties them together is not a doctrine but a concern — the raw, unanswerable problem of being human. The video unpacks Sartre’s famous claim that ‘existence precedes essence,’ and explains why existentialism is not the same as nihilism, even though the two get confused constantly. It is a clear entry point into one of philosophy’s most life-changing currents.
Full Video Transcript
Introduction to Existentialism
Existentialist thinkers over the last few centuries have created some of the greatest works of philosophy and literature Western civilization has ever seen.
However, putting one’s finger on what existentialism is proves quite difficult.
The goal of this lecture is to help people better understand existentialism.
More specifically, we will briefly go over the history of existentialism, discuss what for existentialists is the key concern of philosophy,
Examine the meaning of the often quoted phrase, existence precedes essence, and look at the difference between existentialism and nihilism.
In order to understand existentialism, it will be helpful to make clear what it is not.
Existentialism is not a philosophical system, nor should it even be viewed as a set of doctrines.
Rather, it is probably best classified as a philosophical movement.
As a movement, existentialism arose in 19th century Europe.
Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche are often characterized as the founding fathers of the movement,
with the 19th century Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky also considered one of its original giants.
While the modern roots of existentialism are found in the 19th century,
it was not until the early to mid-20th century, and especially after World War II,
that existentialism really rose to prominence.
This was the time which saw such influential existentialists as Franz Kafka, Martin Heidegger,
Albert Camus, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and probably most famously, the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre.
Now that we have briefly examined the history of existentialism,
the next question that needs to be addressed is what is it that ties all the existentialist thinkers together?
One answer to this question is that those in the existentialist movement, whether past or present, all share a deep concern in one way or another with what they consider to be a monumental problem, that being, the problem of life as a human being.
As Robert Solomon expressed it in his work From Hegel to Existentialism,
Existentialism is an attitude that recognizes the unresolvable confusion of the human world,
yet resists the all-too-human temptation to resolve the confusion by grasping toward whatever appears or can be made to appear firm or familiar.
The existential attitude begins with a disoriented individual facing a confused world that he cannot accept.
In other words, existentialists all share a common concern with what some have termed the human condition.
They take seriously such questions as,
Why am I here? What does it mean to be human? And how should I go about living my life?
Existentialist thinkers have differed widely on their evaluations of the human condition,
which is one reason the movement is tough to define.
However, what is common among existentialists is that in addressing the human condition
they tend to vehemently reject systems or theories, be they philosophical, religious or scientific,
which attempt to answer questions regarding the meaning and purpose of human life in an
all-encompassing or absolute manner. In other words, systems which profess to have answers
to such questions, which are not only seen as definitive and timeless, but also seen as applying
to all human beings, whether one is willing to accept such answers or not. The most prominent
system of this type in the history of Western civilization has undoubtedly been Christianity.
Religious and philosophical systems which offer such definitive answers to life’s questions
have been very attractive throughout history. This is largely due to the fact that they remove
the massive burden that is encountered if one tries to create a meaning and purpose for their
life in a unique and personal manner. While facing the human condition and life’s inescapable
problems as an individual, without the assistance of a pre-made religious or philosophical system,
is undoubtedly extremely difficult.
It is what most existentialists have advocated.
The reason that existentialists are largely in favor of individuals finding answers to
life’s problems on their own is that they believe that adhering to systems which espouse
absolute and all-embracing answers to the existential problems of life is actually detrimental
to one’s development into an authentic and free human being.
One major problem with these systems that existentialists have identified is that they
do not adequately take into account what it is like to be human.
Often such systems will see the meaning and purpose to life as somehow emanating from
an alternative, objective realm, such as heaven or Plato’s world of forms, for example.
But in doing so they lose sight of the perspective of what life is like for an individual living
on this earth and experiencing all the fears, anxieties, hopes, and disappointments that
are a part of the human condition.
For example, many of the mass-organized religions often provide answers to many of the vexing
questions of life from the perspective of an all-knowing and all-powerful God, whose
word is thought to be communicated to us through prophets.
However, existentialists stress that what we need most is not a divine perspective of
the human condition, but a human perspective, for as Nietzsche put it, we are ultimately,
much to his chagrin, human, all too human.
A specific problem with the divine perspective is that it does not adequately take into account
a fundamental aspect of the human condition, that being our mortality.
Many religions, both past and present, have denied the temporal nature of life and instead
subscribed to a belief in some form of immortality.
Some existentialists have suggested that it is essential for one to face up to their impending
death.
For when we come to fully accept that the only existence we can be certain of is a temporal
one, the shock of such a realization can help give us the strength to stop living in conformity
with the masses, and instead take control of our own lives and live by standards and
values of our own choosing.
This idea of being able to freely choose standards of value and create meaning and purpose in
one’s own life, is closely related to another famous existentialist idea, that for humans
existence precedes essence. This idea was put forth by Jean-Paul Sartre in a lecture
he gave in 1945 titled, Is Existentialism a Humanism? But it should be noted before
we discuss this view, that it was not shared by all existentialists during Sartre’s time.
Heidegger, for example, was not a fan of such an assertion. So what exactly does such a
statement mean? To understand what Sartre was getting at, it will be helpful to start
by examining the meaning of the term essence. The concept of an essence is put forth most
famously in the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle believed
that every substance, or in other words, every independent thing, be it a person, a rock,
or a tree, has an essence. The essence of a substance is also sometimes referred to
as its nature, and can be seen as the necessary properties or characteristics which are essential
for the thing to be what it is. Aristotle had a teleological or goal-oriented view of nature,
as he believed that all substances in nature tend towards the actualization of their essence.
So for example, an acorn has a tendency to develop into its essence as a full-grown oak tree.
In terms of humans, Aristotle saw our nature, or essence, as acting in full accordance with reason, and it was this idea which influenced scholastic philosophers in the Middle Ages to come up with the now commonly used definition of man as the rational animal.
Aristotle believed that humans, unlike inanimate matter and other animals, were free to choose whether or not to act in accordance with their essence.
However, that being said, he did not believe humans could create their own unique essence during the course of their lives.
Likewise, for those who believe in an omnipotent God who designed and created the universe,
The essence of humans is not something determined in the course of one’s life, but rather is determined by God prior to the existence of the individual.
Thus, for those who adhere to such beliefs, the essence of humans can be said to precede their existence.
Sartre, on the other hand, saw the situation of humans in the opposite light, thus the statement that our existence precedes our essence.
In Sartre’s mind, humans are fundamentally different from things such as cars, watches, or phones.
For things of this type, it is obviously appropriate to say that their essence precedes their existence, as they are designed and built with a predetermined function in mind.
But for Sartre, who was an atheist, humans are not designed by a supernatural being with a specific function in mind.
Rather, we come into this world lacking a predetermined essence.
However, our ability to make free choices gives us the chance to sculpt a unique essence for ourselves during the course of our lifetime.
To conclude this lecture, it will be beneficial to distinguish between existentialism and nihilism, for often people mistakenly view all existentialists as nihilists.
Nihilism, in its broadest sense, is the view that there is no meaning or purpose to life.
Now while an existentialist could certainly be a nihilist, and some indeed are, nihilism is not a necessary characteristic of existentialism.
Rather, many existentialists, while rejecting any objective purpose to life, as a nihilist would, have stressed the ability for humans to create personal or subjective meaning for their lives, something a nihilist would deny as a possibility.
Nietzsche, for example, who saw nihilism as a disease, formulated the idea of becoming who you are, which was aimed at helping individuals overcome the affliction.
But for Nietzsche, becoming who you are and thus overcoming nihilism was not done by grasping onto some objective meaning, or clinging dogmatically to the answers given by some all-encompassing system, but rather was done by developing a meaning and purpose for one’s own life, and living by the standards and values one created in the process.
Nietzsche, like virtually all existentialists who have advocated the creation of a personal meaning to life, understood the huge difficulty associated with such a task, and we will conclude this lecture with a poetic warning by Nietzsche for those who choose to take such a road.
injustice and filth they throw after the lonely one but my brother if you would be a star you must not shine less for them because of that and beware of the good and the just they like to crucify those who invent their own virtue for themselves they hate the lonely one
Source: Academy of Ideas