Basic Existentialism
Restrain your biases and suppress your notions as to what existentialism is. I seldom encounter individuals
without “rubber stamp” answers for what is existential, what constitutes existentialism, and who were/are the
existentialists. If you wish to learn something about existentialism — read on. If you seek dark, depressing
thoughts about alienation and hopelessness… watch 24-hour news channels.
Those most often associated with “existentialism” failed to form a cohesive philosophical discipline based on
existential theories. Existentialism, while taught at universities, cannot point to leaders in the same way idealism
or rationalism can.
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are forerunners of existentialism. If we want to thank, or blame, two men for
radical individualism, we could start with them. There were others before them, but most texts on existentialism
seem to firmly place them at the the base. Radical individualism is not existentialism, however.
Sartre came to declare existentialism a minor footnote to Marxism, which illustrates Sartre’s interests were
more in politics than pure philosophical theory. Camus remained an absurdist, suggesting existentialism was
more methodology than philosophy. Camus called existentialism “philosophical suicide” if used to ponder life.
Considering Camus’ fascination with death, that’s quite a statement.
I call the existential attitude philosophical suicide. How else to start from the world’s lack of meaning and end
up by finding a meaning and a depth to it?
- Albert Camus as paraphrased; Introducing Existentialism; Appignanesi, p. 36
Husserl and Heidegger were not existential, though they contributed to the development of
phenomenology and, therefore, existentialism. Jaspers suggests existentialism, but it would be mental
gymnastics to call him existential.
I advise visitors to read the lexicon following this introduction. Existentialism, and philosophy in general, is
infected with a variety of lexicons, unfortunately. Definitions of words vary by philosopher; no two seem to use
a word to mean the same thing. I have done my best to assemble a basic lexicon. When thinkers differ in
meanings, I attempt to explain when, how, and why — if we can ever understand why people change words.
(Ah, through the looking glass we venture.)
What is Not Existential?
There is no one answer to what is existential, so I am going to present what is not in an attempt to clarify
things through the fog. (That is satire, if you read Camus.) By first understanding what existentialism excludes,
discussions of what might be included become possible.
Existentialism does not support any of the following:





The good life is one of wealth, pleasure, or honor.
Social approval and social structure trump the individual.
Accept what is and that is enough in life.
Science can and will make everything better.
People are good by nature, ruined by society or external forces.
There are, according to existentialism and its predecessor, phenomenology, some problems with Western
philosophical traditions. The basic problem is that humans are not good, sharing, generous creatures. Children
are what we remain our entire lives… greedy, manipulative, brats. Some people disguise it better than others.
The people in charge of America would be the people in charge of most countries: the best “political” people. Or,
as one 60s radical said, “There were eventually leaders in every commune.”
Watch a preschool class. I owned a children’s bookstore, and before that I was a teacher. Children are not
nurtured to behave poorly. In fact, the challenge is to socialize a child. We struggle to be social creatures.
Society is unnatural. Rules are difficult.
“Mine” is naturally a child’s way of thinking. It is soon followed by “I didn’t do it!”
Existentialism requires the active acceptance of our nature. Professor Robert Olson noted that we spend our
lives wanting more and more. Once we realize the futility of wordly desire, we try to accept what we have. We
turn to philosophy or religion to accept less. We want to detach from our worldly needs — but we cannot do so.
It is the human condition to desire. To want. To seek more, even when that “more” is “more of less.” It is a
desire to prove something to ourselves, as well as others.
The existentialists … mock the notion of a complete and fully satisfying life. The life of every man, whether he
explicitly recognizes it or not, is marked by irreparable losses. Man cannot help aspiring toward the goods of this
world, nor can he help aspiring toward the serene detachment from the things of this world which the
traditional philosopher sought; but it is not within his power to achieve either of these ambitions, or having
achieved them to find therein the satisfaction he had anticipated.
- Existentialism; Olson, p. 14
Existentialism assumes we are best when we struggle against our
nature. Mankind is best challenging itself to improve, yet knowing
perfection is not possible. Religions present rules, yet the believers
know they cannot live by all of those rules. The “sin-free” life is
beyond human nature. Is that any less reason to try to be good,
generous, caring, and compassionate? Perfectionism is considered
unhealthy by psychiatrists for a reason.
The Struggle
One female visitor complained about
“mankind,” but attempts at “non-sexist”
writing ignore etymology: man was Old
English for “any person.” Man as
gender-specific is unique to Modern
English. Other words I considered were
once limited to men, and in some places
still are. There’s no easy solution, even
if we want one. See Style Guide,
Mankind.
The word “existential” is used to describe so many people,
fictional characters, choices, and situations that it has been reduced
to meaning any dilemma revealing the true nature of a person. The notion of dilemma reduces “existential” to
an adjective describing too many common choices. Existentialism properly defines a broader philosophy, in
which life itself is a choice.
Why is Buddhism Not Existential?
Siddharta Gautama was appalled by suffering and chaos in the world. So much so, he left his wife and son
to meditate on the meaning of everything. Unfortunately, he didn’t find answers among the gurus. There were
no easy answers. In some ways, yes, Siddharta experienced an “existential” discovery: life is suffering.
But, Siddharta did not follow the existential notion of rebelling or fighting to establish a meaning. He did not
openly challenge people and political leaders. Instead, he took a different approach:
When he met his first disciples at Benares after his enlightenment, the Buddha outlines his system, which was
based on one essential fact: all existence was dukkha. It consisted entirely of suffering; life was wholly awry.
Things come and go in meaningless flux. Nothing has permanent significance. Religion starts with the
perception that something is wrong. […] The Buddha taught that is was possible to gain release from dukkha by
living a life of compassion for all living beings, speaking and behaving gently, kindly and accurately, and
refraining from anything like drugs or intoxicants that cloud the mind.
- A History of God; Armstrong, p. 32
Unlike the existentialists, Siddharta is a stoic in nature: accept things as they are, don’t try to change them or
control them. Curiously, this is rebellious in that it rejects social norms. Siddharta was rejecting the Hindu
teachings of his time, much as Kierkegaard challenged the ritualized nature of Christianity. But, Siddharta was
not an active rebel. He was, in many ways, teaching a passive resistance that the existentialists would reject.
Questions to Ponder
Philosophy and religion exist to answer “why?” when we want an excuse for human nature. Maybe science
will explain away sociopaths and even mere anger someday. We can treat depression, anxiety, mania, and
numerous other “disorders” with pills. Alienation, despair, and anguish may vanish. If they do, what of
existentialism? Do humans need their pain? Is suffering what makes us stronger, as Nietzsche suspected?
Some questions posed by the thinkers profiled on this site:






If something worth living for is worth dying for, what about something not worth dying for? (Camus)
Did man create God to have a reason to live? (Dostoevsky)
Does society make women and men different or do we choose our roles? (Beauvoir)
Would living forever add meaning to life? (Heidegger)
How do you really act in private? (Sartre)
Without love, without people, what is a person? (Kafka)
Existentialism is Living
Mankind is the only known animal, according to earth-bound existentialists, that defines itself through the
act of living. In other words, first a man or woman exists, then the individual spends a lifetime changing his or
her essence. Without life there can be no meaning; the search for meaning in existentialism is the search for
self… which is why there is existential psychotherapy. (Imagine a therapist telling people life has no meaning!)
In other words, we define ourselves by living; suicide would indicate you have chosen to have no meaning.
Existentialism is about being a saint without God; being your own hero, without all the sanction and support of
religion or society.
- Anita Brookner (b. 1938), British novelist, art historian. Interview in Writers at Work, Eighth Series, ed. George
Plimpton (1988).
Existentialism is not dark. It is not depressing. Existentialism is about life. Existentialists believe in living —
and in fighting for life. Camus, Sartre, and even Nietzsche were involved in various wars because they
believed passionately in fighting for the survival of their nations and peoples. The politics of existentialists varies,
but each seeks the most individual freedom for people within a society.
All too often people link a lack of faith or secular beliefs with existential ideals. Existentialism has little to do
with faith or the lack thereof. To quote Walter Kaufmann, one of the leading existential scholars:
Certainly, existentialism is not a school of thought nor reducible to any set of tenets. The three writers who
appear invariably on every list of existentialists — Jaspers, Heidegger, and Sartre — are not in agreement on
essentials. By the time we consider adding Rilke, Kafka, and Camus, it becomes plain that one essential feature
shared by all these men is their perfervid individualism.
- Existentialism; Kaufmann, p. 11
In order to understand the current meaning of existentialism, one must first understand that the American
view of existentialism was derived from the writings of three political activists, not intellectual purists. Americans
learned the term existential after World War II. The term was coined by Jean-Paul Sartre to describe his own
philosophies. It was not until the late 1950s that the term was applied broadly to several divergent schools of
thought.
Despite encompassing a staggering range of philosophical, religious, and political ideologies, the underlying
concepts of existentialism are simple:





Mankind has free will.
Life is a series of choices, creating stress.
Few decisions are without any negative consequences.
Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation.
If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through.
Existentialism, broadly defined, is a set of philosophical systems concerned with free will, choice, and
personal responsibility. Because we make choices based on our experiences, beliefs, and biases, those choices
are unique to us — and made without an objective form of truth. There are no “universal” guidelines for most
decisions, existentialists believe. Instead, even trusting science is often a “leap of faith.”
The existentialists conclude that human choice is subjective, because individuals finally must make their own
choices without help from such external standards as laws, ethical rules, or traditions. Because individuals make
their own choices, they are free; but because they freely choose, they are completely responsible for their
choices. The existentialists emphasize that freedom is necessarily accompanied by responsibility. Furthermore,
since individuals are forced to choose for themselves, they have their freedom — and therefore their
responsibility — thrust upon them. They are “condemned to be free.”
For existentialism, responsibility is the dark side of freedom. When individuals realize that they are completely
responsible for their decisions, actions, and beliefs, they are overcome by anxiety. They try to escape from this
anxiety by ignoring or denying their freedom and their responsibility. But because this amounts to ignoring or
denying their actual situation, they succeed only in deceiving themselves. The existentialists criticize this flight
from freedom and responsibility into self-deception. They insist that individuals must accept full responsibility
for their behavior, no matter how difficult. If an individual is to live meaningfully and authentically, he or she
must become fully aware of the true character of the human situation and bravely accept it.
- World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia © 2001 by World Book, Inc.
Ivan Soll, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Beyond this short list of concepts, the label existentialist is applied broadly. Even these concepts are not
universal within existentialist works, or at least the writings of people groups as the existentialists. There is
no one or two sentence statement summarizing what more than a dozen famous and infamous people
pondered. The only common factor seems to be despair. The accompanying grid illustrates the range of ideals
expressed by the major existentialists. Not every existentialist follows a perfect row in the grid. In particular,
their political theories are more varied than the three categories listed.
Religious
Predetermination
Elitist
Moralistic
Intentions
Agnostic
Chance
Communist
Relativistic
Actions
Atheistic
Free Will
Anarchist
Amoralistic
Results
The first row might represent the writings of Blaise Pascal or Fyodor Dostoevsky, both of whom
defended fundamentalist religious beliefs, including their inherent contradictions. The last row is representative
of Jean-Paul Sartre’s writings, if not his own beliefs. As previously stated, uniting the men and women behind
this matrix of concepts is futile. Their thoughts are linked by a belief that this life is a near-futile struggle
against forces aligned in opposition to the individual.
The Existentialists
The individuals listed represent major contributors to existentialism and related philosophies. This chart is in
philosophical order, not in the order of publication or life. Following the chart is further information on other
existentialists or contributors to the philosophy. I would like to thank site visitor Eduardo Tenenbaum for his
suggestions for this chart. I have made some minor changes, reflecting the input of visitors.
Name
Philosophy / Faith
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Eastern Orthodox
Contribution
Studied individual
will, freedom, and
anguish.
Bartleby.com Entry
Probably as a
consequence of his long
association with
criminals, he had an
intense interest in
abnormal and perverted
types, the psychology of
which he analysed with
an uncanny subtlety.
Kaufmann’s
Comments
I can see no reason for
calling Dostoevsky an
existentialist, but I do
think that Part One of
Notes from
Underground is the best
overture for
existentialism ever
written.
Søren Kierkegaard
Existentialist, Protestant Theist
Considered the first
existentialist, his
works were
popularized by
Heidegger.
E.T.: Formulated
the aesthetic,
ethical and religious
as modes of
existence. Perfected
the Socratic
technique of indirect
communication
Danish religious
philosopher. A precursor
of modern
existentialism, he
insisted on the need for
individual decision and
leaps of faith in the
search for religious
truth, thereby
contradicting Protestant
rationalist theology.
Here lies Kierkegaard’s
importance for a vast
segment of modern
thought: he attacks
received conceptions of
Christianity, suggests a
radical revision of the
popular idea of the self,
and focuses attention on
decision.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Individualist, Anti-Christian
Ideas influenced
Heidegger and
Sartre.
E.T.: Developed
concepts of Will-toPower, Eternal
Recurrence and
Overman.
German philosopher
who reasoned that
Christianity’s emphasis
on the afterlife makes
its believers less able to
cope with earthly life.
The refusal to belong to
any school of thought,
the repudiation of the
adequacy of any body of
beliefs whatever, the
opposition to philosophic
systems, and a marked
dissatisfaction with
traditional philosophy as
superficial, academic,
and remote from life —
all this is eminently
characteristic of
Nietzsche.
Georg W. F. Hegel
German Idealism, Protestant
Influenced Marx,
Husserl, Sartre, and
many others.
Hegel’s followers
broke into “left” and
“right” wings. First
to promote the
concept of
phenomenology.
German idealist
philosopher who
interpreted nature and
human history and
culture as expressions of
a dialectical process in
which Spirit, or Mind,
realizes its full
potentiality.
Edmund Husserl
Phenomenologist
Developed concept
of essences and
being.
E.T.: Developed the
concept of the
Lifeworld
Austrian-born German
philosopher and
mathematician. A leader
in the development of
phenomenology, he had
a major influence on the
existentialists.
Martin Heidegger
Assistant to Husserl,
Phenomenologist, Existentialist, Theist wrote about
Kierkegaard’s
works.
E.T. Student of
Husserl’s
phenomenology,
proclaimed the end
of metaphysics.
German existentialist
philosopher. His
masterpiece, Being and
Time (1927), argued
that confronting the
question of the meaning
of being, encompassing
one’s own death, was
central for an authentic
human existence.
An early disciple… would
sum up Heidegger’s
importance by asserting
that he introduced
Nietzsche into
philosophy. {Note:
Kaufmann disagrees
with the preceding
observation} He made it
possible for professors
to discuss with a good
conscience matters
previously considered
literary, if that.
Franz Kafka
Absurdist, Jewish
Similar to Camus,
Kafka presents a world
Sartre, in depictions that is at once real and
of cruel fate.
dreamlike and in which
individuals burdened
with guilt, isolation, and
anxiety make a futile
search for personal
salvation.
Kafka stands between
Nietzsche and the
existentialists: he
pictures the world into
which Heidegger’s man,
in Sein und Zeit, is
“thrown,” the godless
world of Sartre, the
“absurd” world of
Camus.
Jean-Paul Sartre
Existentialist, Atheist
Student of
Heidegger,
colleague and lover
of de Beauvoir.
French philosopher,
playwright, and novelist.
Influenced by German
philosophy, particularly
that of Heidegger,
Sartre was a leading
exponent of 20thcentury existentialism.
His writings examine
man as a responsible
but lonely being,
burdened with a
terrifying freedom to
choose, and set adrift in
a meaningless universe.
It is mainly through the
work of Jean-Paul Sartre
that existentialism has
come to the attention of
a wide international
audience. Sartre is a
philosopher in the
French tradition… at the
borderline of philosophy
and literature.
Simone de Beauvoir
Existentialist, Feminist
Best known as a
“feminist” writer,
she was the editor
of many of Sartre’s
works. Lover of
Sartre, friend to
Camus and
Merleau-Ponty.
French writer,
existentialist, and
feminist. Women’s social
subjugation is credited
to patriarchal rather
than biological or
psychological structures.
Her book became one of
the seminal treatises of
the modern feminist
movement.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty
Phenomenologist, Existentialist
One-time friend of
Sartre, Camus.
Supporter of
Husserlian
Phenomenology.
Unlike many
phenomenologists, he
affirmed the reality of a
world that transcends
our consciousness of it.
In his studies of
perception he laid
emphasis on the
physical and the
biological (or vital) as
levels of
conceptualization that
preconditioned all
mental concepts.
Albert Camus
Existentialist / Absurdist, Atheist
French Resistance
member during
WWII with Sartre,
Merleau-Ponty, de
Beauvoir. Brought
“humanism” to his
existentialism.
His belief that man’s
condition is absurd
identified him with the
existentialists (see
existentialism), but he
denied allegiance to that
group; his works
express rather a
courageous humanism.
The characters in his
novels and plays,
although keenly aware
of the meaninglessness
of the human condition,
assert their humanity by
rebelling against their
circumstances.
{Paraphrase of
Kaufmann} Camus
marks the finale of
existentialism… an
attempt to move beyond
what Sartre had
defined. Camus cannot
be called an
existentialist, but his
ideas evolved alongside
those of Sartre and
others.
Karl Jaspers
Existentialist, Agnostic, Theist
Contemporary of
Sartre, Camus, et
al. Jaspers sought
to make philosophy
more open for the
general public…
more relevant.
German psychiatrist,
philosopher, and
theologian. A founder of
modern existentialism,
he was concerned with
human reactions to
extreme situations.
It is in the work of
Jaspers that the seeds
sown by Kierkegaard
and Nietzsche first grew
into existentialism or, as
he prefers to say,
Existenzphilosophie.