THEISM, ATHEISM AND EXISTENTIALISM
1
Theism, Atheism and Existentialism
How Existentialism Fulfills or Does Not Fulfill Its Promise to Place Human Existence at the
Center of Philosophy
Existentialist authors perceive themselves as propagating a philosophy that was initially
foreshadowed by Blaise Pascal’s denunciation of Cartesian rationalism, which attempted to
define human existence in terms of the individual’s lucid capabilities. Pascal perceived human
being as an essential paradox, a conflict between mind and body. Kierkegaard is recognized as
the author of contemporary existentialism, and he shared Pascal’s reasoning concerning the
intrinsic paradox that is manifest in human existence. For existentialist philosophers, the
fundamental matter is to discover what is distinctive to the individual, instead of considering the
individual as an expression of a general nature. Existentialists therefore incline towards antiessentialisms in denying that exist essential elements that determine the existence of the
individual. A number of existentialists go further to argue that the world is absurd and lacks
essence, and therefore unqualified of being made sense of. Existentialists such as Camus and
Sartre argue that human existence is made meaningless and irrational by the irrevocability of
death. The existentialists’ focus on human existence, and a renunciation of any meaningful
explanation of what entails an essential or absolute objective for human existence, they
underscore human sovereignty and responsibility, and argue that the primary objective in relation
to that sovereignty and responsibility is to exist authentically. The existentialists purse a
resistance to empiricism, as well as rationalism, and therefore define their standpoint by their
opposition to the central dispositions of contemporary philosophy (Dreyfus & Wrathall, 2006,
pp. 3-5).
THEISM, ATHEISM AND EXISTENTIALISM
2
In discussing whether existentialism fulfills or does not fulfill its promise to place human
existence at the center of philosophy, it is important to explore the concept of existentialism from
the perspective of a number of its propagators. Barrett (1962, p.13.) expresses an important
fragment of the existentialist discourse where he asserts that the central focus of the existential
theorists is the distinct experience of the individual. The attention on the individual is highlighted
by other existentialism authors such as Macquarrie (1972, p. 14) where he argues that he core
theme in existentialism is the existent in the entire being of human existing. In this context, the
subject of the individual becomes therefore a philosophy detached from the serial mass, though it
does not become a new solipsism. Solipsism implies the concept of how the individual human
being interacts with other humans or the way he interrelates in social life, and his struggle to
shape an authentic existence. However, in Appignanesi and Zarate (2001, p. 14), in exploring
existentialism from the perspective of Kierkegaard's response to the Hegelian ‘totalitarian’ and
‘absolutist’ system, Kierkegaard endeavors to do away with individual attributions. He argues
that the individual requires fighting against conformity in his struggle towards establishing an
authentic society whereby the contemporary European ought to remove himself from the
defeating process of civilization and history to develop into a unique individual. According to
Kierkegaard, the individual requires rising above the defeating and conformity of social
existence in order to find his authentic measure.
In Guido de Ruggiero (2004, p. 13), Guido argues that the existentialist handling of the
topic of the individual in attempting to place human existence at the center of philosophy is
significantly discordant. The author explains that the existentialist viewpoint presents an
irrational discourse concerning the individual, as well as a contingent constituent of existence
through lifting the individual to a dominant position and transforming the individual into the
THEISM, ATHEISM AND EXISTENTIALISM
3
determinant of all morals. In this context, the anguish of the individual, his anxiety, his suffering,
his setback, his fall into nothing or into existence beyond, have been considered to be the
absolute criterion of judgment, devoid of any thought being afforded to what the individual
essentially achieves in his short-lived life. Guido’s criticism of the existentialist exploitation of
the topic of the individual is derived from the Hegelian perspective of impersonal objectivity,
emphasizing the profoundly anti-essentialism of existentialist philosophy.
Berdyaev (1960, p.54) attempts to explore the existentialist promise to place human
existence at the center of philosophy through explore existentialism from the perspective of
different existentialists. The author explains that the conception of human existence must be
based on the idea of personality. In this context, Nietzsche's Ubermensch concept depicts his
understanding of human personality, as well as the prospects of self-transcendence. Similarly,
Kierkegaard's work, ‘The Sickness unto Death’ describes human personality in the perspective of
the body to soul and the soul and body to God. While Tillich; a Christian existentialist, in
exploring the various personality categories and their reactions to despair in his work, his
primary concern was how the human being can be authentically man. These endeavors by
Nietzsche, Tillich, and many other existentialists demonstrate the existentialism’s interest in the
human being as an individual, the human being in his freedom, and his mission to assert himself
devoid of adherence to any system of philosophy. This school of thought inclines towards the
postulation that systems of philosophy put emphasis on the universal while disregarding the
individual.
Critical Evaluation
All existentialists converge at the point where they attempt to place human existence at
the center of philosophy. This takes various inclinations such the focus on human dilemma,
THEISM, ATHEISM AND EXISTENTIALISM
4
alienation, detachment from his deeper and innermost self, from his contemporaries, as well as
from nature and the world. In this viewpoint, existentialists aspire to contemplate and address the
issue relating to what it entails in being a human. They are pitted against the conventional
thinking that speculates, and seek to counter the systems that have disregarded specific
fundamental problems concerning human existence. According to Appignanesi and Zarate (2001,
p. 5), existentialists such as Sartre, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Jaspers and Marcel differ
with science and oppose mass movements, and in the recent past they have deplored logical
positivism, as well linguistic analysis. On the other hand, existentialist thinkers can to be
acknowledged for bringing into center of philosophy a number of contemporary concerns
regarding human existence and also for being sensitive to the incongruity between action and
thought. The existentialists have differed with various philosophical that have been presented by
philosophers such as Engels, Hegel and Marx, alleging that their solutions should be considered
as futile towards meeting the demands of the present-day man.
Existentialism posits that man has developed into an impersonal, as well as detached
being as a result of his feelings of disenfranchisement since the last century. It follows that, while
the Industrial Revolution is acknowledged for creating great cities, the mass movements, as well
as the specialization of knowledge owing to the development of technology and science, it
should be noted that these underlying forces are responsible for the human predicament.
However, this renunciation of objectivity by the existentialists that rejects and suppresses unique
human traits is not recognized by all. The existentialists have repudiated the significance, and at
times have brought about irrational disapproval of nature, science, the physical world, as well as
several valid insights and matters of other forms of philosophy. In this context, critics of
existentialism ask; if rationality cannot resolve the issue of human existence, then would there be
THEISM, ATHEISM AND EXISTENTIALISM
5
any warranty that passion on its own will provide answers to human existence. Therefore, in
attempting to place human existence at the center of philosophy, the existentialists must
acknowledge that reason must not be discredited or demeaned.
In Barrett (ch.4 p. 83), the author asserts that reason, as the godly element in man, and
detached, is of a different nature, from the animal in him. The human being must turn to the
objective standards of truth and morality to settle disagreements of opinion, as well as key
differences concerning different elements of the world. It is incongruous to accord importance to
a certain disposition or a set of moods as the indication or hint to understanding existence and the
world. Such is the fundamental existentialist view, and it should be considered as absolutely
intolerable and significantly treacherous. Indeed, such a prominence on feelings of anxiety and
trepidation will only generate a sense of meaninglessness and emptiness. However,
existentialism may be appreciated for pointing man’s contemplation towards serious frustrations,
paradoxes, and discrepancies of contemporary human existence. In this background,
existentialism has to an extent fulfilled, as well as failed to fulfill its promise to place human
existence at the center of philosophy.
How Does Sartre’s Claim That “Existence Precedes Essence” Support This Proposition in
Both Theistic and Atheistic Thinkers?
Barrett (ch.5 p. 102), Sartre contemporary existentialism has propagated the proposition
that existence precedes essence. The implication of this thesis may not be difficult to understand
if considered in the perspective that man exists and transforms himself into what he becomes. In
this context the individual essence of man, or his nature, develops from of his existence, and
therefore it is appropriate to claim that existence precedes essence. It follows that, man does not
hold a static essence that is given to him ready-made; on the contrary, he develops his individual
THEISM, ATHEISM AND EXISTENTIALISM
6
nature from his freedom, as well as the historical circumstances wherein he is positioned. Ortega,
a contemporary existentialism philosopher asserts that man does not have a nature, but has a
history. This theory is one of the principal attributes in which the human being differs from
objects, which have static essences or natures, which are irreversibly what they are. This implies
that unlike man, objects to not develop into anything else in their nature outside what they
initially are. However differently the different existentialists may position this theory, they
concur that it is a fundamental argument in their analysis of the human being. Sartre asserts his
point as relating only to the human being; thus implying that it is only with the human that it
appears to him to bear any importance. Regardless of whether existence precedes essence or not
in objects or whether the opposite is true is a problem that would barely seem to be of much
importance, since an object at any instant is always exactly what it is, and it does not make logic
to raise the issue when existence and essence precisely overlap.
Kaufmann (1956, p. 295) asserts the theist existentialist position that, if existence
precedes essence, it implies that man would never be capable of explaining his actions by
reference to an explicit human nature. This means determinism does not have a role in the
existence of man since he is free. Kaufmann’s assertion is supported by Jaspers, a theist
existentialist, where he describes the essence of existentialism as free choice. He argues that
man’s choice of what he aspires to become is not linked to mind; consequently, it must not be
linked to reasons or proof. Yet, every man is responsible for their choices. In this perspective,
existence is described as an achievement or ascension, and therefore man is supposed to
transcend himself in this manner. Therefore, man can only exist in an evolving process, which is
molded through choice, into a superior being. Hence man chooses his essence through choosing
THEISM, ATHEISM AND EXISTENTIALISM
7
what he aspires to turn out to be. This is in reality the basis why existence precedes essence,
given that, in order to choose, man must exist first.
In atheist existentialism God does not exist, but on the contrary, there is a being through
whom existence precedes essence. This implies that such a being exists prior to being defined
through any philosophy, and this being is human reality. In this perspective man first exists,
experiences himself and afterwards materializes in the world, in order that he may be defined. In
this context, atheist existentialism posits that human nature is nonexistent, considering that God
does not exist to conceive that human existence. In this perspective, man conceives himself, and
afterwards thrusts himself into existence. Man does not develop into anything outside what is
essentially prearranged, nor into what he aspires to become (Macquarrie, 1972, p. 85).
THEISM, ATHEISM AND EXISTENTIALISM
8
References
Appignanesi, R., & Zarate, O. (2001). Introducing Existentialism. New York: Totem Books.
Barrett, W. (1962). Irrational Man. A Study in Existential Philosophy. New York:
Anchor Books.
Berdyaev, N. (1960). The Destiny of Man (Duddington, N, Trans.). New York: Harper
Torchbook.
Dreyfus. H., & Wrathall, A. (Eds.). (2006). A Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism.
Malden, MA Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Guido De Ruggiero. (2004). Existentialism: Disintegration of Man’s Soul. New York: Kessinger
Publishing.
Jaspers, K. (1949). The Perennial Scope of Philosophy. (Manheim, R, Trans). New York:
Routledge Publishers.
Kaufmann, W. (Eds.). (1956). Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. New York: Meridian
Books.
Macquarrie, J. (1972). Existentialism. An Introduction, Guide and Assessment. London: Penguin
Books.