WHAT IS EXISTENTIALISM AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

 

WHAT IS EXISTENTIALISM AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Ronald J. Glossop

 

I.   Introduction

       A. Not long ago Khleber Van Zandt mentioned in a sermon that the well-known theologian Paul Tillich was an existentialist.  After the service several people asked me, “What exactly is an existentialist?”

       B.  That experience led me to decide that I would address that issue in my next sermon.

       C.  I feel that I should alert you to the fact that this explanation comes from someone who does not have much sympathy for existentialism.   Nevertheless, as a professor of philosophy I have spent much of my time explaining various philosophical views with which I am not particulary sympathetic.

        D.  I will do my best to help you understand what Existentialism is, but then I will conclude by giving my critique of it.  

 

II.  Existentialism refers to a viewpoint expressed by several different 19th- and 20th-century  philosophers whose views differ very much from each other with regard to religion, ethics and other particular issues.

      A.  Among the better known philosophers & theologians usually designated “existentialists” are Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, Martin Heidegger, Karl Jaspers, Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, and Martin Buber.  Though Tillich later came to the United States, all of these thinkers were Europeans.  Even the American philosopher William James, who with some justification could be said to exhibit some “existentialist” tendencies, was much influenced by his education in Europe.

      B.  Here is my short definition of “existentialism:”  existentialism is the view that there are no general rules to guide human beings concerning how they should act, and especially that no ethical rules can be derived from consideration of some supposedly determinate human nature which applies to all humans, because individual human beings are completely free to determine their own nature by the choices they make.     

      C.  To understand how there can be such a wide range of views espoused by thinkers all of whom are called “existentialists,” it may be helpful to see existentialists as philosophers and theologians in revolt against reason and reasonableness and universal principles and the notion that all people are or even should be the same or should follow the same principles.  Existentialists have many different views because there are many different ways of rebelling against reason.

      D.  The traditional view adopted by philosophers up through the 18th-century Enlightenment is another view called “essentialism,” a view which goes back to the classical philosophers Plato and Aristotle.  According to this “essentialism,” there are ideal Forms or Essences to which individuals aim to conform themselves, whether one is considering living things like oak trees or inanimate things like circles and other geometric figures.  Why does an acorn grow to be an oak tree?  Because it is trying to embody the perfect Form of Oak Tree.  When trying to draw a circle, one naturally tries to draw the most perfect circle one can.  The definition of a circle in geometry is the definition of what a perfect circle should be.  The ideal definition of anything is the one that correctly captures the essence of that kind of thing.   The essence also describes the perfect one, the ideal archetype of this kind of thing.

      E. In the same way, the definition of “human being” will indicate what a perfect human being should be, what the essence of being human is.  A human being is a rational animal.  Reason is what makes humans different from other animals.  The essence of being human is being rational.  That is true of all humans.  Plato and Aristotle and later philosophers develop their different views of what being rational involves, but all agree that there is a common essence for all human beings and that the ideal human being is the one who is completely rational.

      F.  This essentialism is what existentialists are protesting against.  One way of succinctly stating their view is to say that in the case of human beings “Existence precedes essence.”  People determine what character they will have by the choices they make.  There is no pre-existing essence to which they are obliged to conform. 

      G.  In other words, existentialists deny that there is some “Essence of Human Being,” some ideal of being completely rational, which all humans should seek to embody.  Humans can choose to be whatever they want to be, including not being rational.

      H.  Here is the way that Russian novelist Dostoevsky puts it in Notes from Underground:  “You see, gentlemen, reason is an excellent thing; there’s no disputing that.  But reason is nothing but reason and satisfies only the rational side of one’s nature, while will is a manifestation of the whole life, that is, of the whole human life, including reason and all the impulses.  And although our life, at least in this manifestation of it, is often worthless, yet it is life and not simply extracting square roots.”

      I.  Existentialists emphasize exerting one’s will rather than using one’s reason to reach conclusions about what is true or what is good, that is, how one should live one’s life.

      J.  Let me briefly review the basic ideas of a few existentialist theologians & philosophers.

           1. Kierkegaard, a Christian existentialist, argues that there are no good arguments to prove that Jesus was resurrected or that Jesus is God, but he believes that one does not need to depend on rational arguments.  What is required of believers is not the finding of rational arguments or good evidence but making a “leap of faith” as an act of will.  Religion is based on faith, not on relying on reason to figure out what is true or good.

           2.  Nietzsche, an atheistic existentialist, argues that it is disgraceful for those who have great talent to adopt a universalistic moral point of view based on empathy with those who are less fortunate, what he calls the “slave morality” advanced by Jews and Christians and socialists and have-nots generally.  Those who are superior should recognize their superiority over the masses.  They should adopt a “master morality” which moves them to achieve even greater excellence, to become supermen not restrained by the universalistic egalitarian herd morality of the ordinary masses.

           3.  William James, another Christian philosopher, argues in “The Will to Believe” that on issues such as whether there is life after death, issues where the objective evidence is not conclusive, one should use one’s will to adopt beliefs which produce contentment.  Belief should be guided by will rather than a quest for good reasons which can never be satisfied.

 

III.  Another theme in much existentialist thought is that reality itself is not rational.  There is no rhyme or reason for what exists.  Reality at bottom is “absurd,” “a tale told by an idiot.”

        A.  Contrary to the earlier view that “God’s in his heaven and all is right with the world,” the existentialists believe that “God is dead,” at least in the sense of a being who has created a rational, orderly world with a moral order which all humans must follow or be punished in eternity.

        B.  If there is any purpose in life or any kind of moral order, it will have to be a purpose or a moral order created by humans, not one that is found ready-made in a God-created universe.

        C.  Individuals must create their own purpose or meaning in life as well as their own moral standards. Furthermore, this purpose and these standards will not be the same for everyone.  Existentialists advocate a radical individualism.  There is no truth or morality which is valid for everyone.

 

IV.  Existentialists focus on will and choice and the notion that one can choose to not be rational.

      A.  But, why not be rational?  Whether the matter to be decided is what to believe or what to to do, why not believe or act on the basis of good reasons?

      B.  What is the alternative to believing or acting on the basis of good reasons?  It is to believe or act on the basis of impulses or causes which are not good reasons.  One believes or acts on the basis of contingent factors.  What belief did you happen to hear first or most often?  What  do you happen to feel like doing at a particular moment or what is everyone else doing?  Such haphazard beliefs are exactly those beliefs which cannot stand up to challenges of evidence or good arguments against them.  Such haphazard actions are exactly the actions that one regrets later, saying to oneself, “Why did I do that?”  In this context that means asking for a cause, not a reason.  If you had had a good reason for not doing it, you would not have done it.  It must be some kind of nonrational cause that explains why you did it.  For example, would Kierkegaard have been a Christian if he had lived in Asia?

      C.  Existentialists seem to view a free choice as a choice not constrained by reason.  But in fact, such nonrational choices, whether related to belief or to action, are exactly the beliefs and actions which we cannot rationally defend.  They are the result of nonrational impulses and nonrational causes.  Those are precisely the unjustified beliefs that are readily overturned and the irrational actions which we later regret and find to be indefensible.  

       D.  Undoubtedly we are not always rational.  Sometimes we believe things which we have no good reason to believe.  Sometimes we do things that we cannot rationally defend.  We all are imperfect beings.  But there is something paradoxical about the existentialist desire of not wanting to be constrained by reason, not wanting to be guided by what is rational.  That would result in being guided by haphazard causes and irrational impulses and addictions.

      E.  It is true that we humans are not disembodied minds, which some philosophers of the past viewed as the ideal.  We undoubtedly are animals, but we can use reason to guide our beliefs and behavior rather than just adopting any ideas we happen to hear or following the impulses of the moment.

      F.  We do not need to search for true ideas and good ideals completely on our own.  We can rely on the discoveries and reasoning of scientists and others to help us learn what is true.  We can attend to the insights of others and the laws of our governments in order to help us to decide what is good.  We are part of an evolving human society which is continually gaining in knowledge about what is true and improving our understanding of what is good.  There is collective knowledge about what is true and collective understanding about what is good.

      G.  With regard to the view that humans must create our own purposes in life and our own morality, our own ideas about what is good, it seems to me that we only need to recognize that that has always been our human condition.  We may have had myths about what has been done and planned by the gods or God and about what moral principles have been handed down by the gods or God, but these beliefs and practices have always been human creations.  What is to prevent us from doing the same things without the imaginative myths about supernatural sources of the information and the moral ideals?  These myths from the past in fact have become obstacles to gaining more reliable truths about the nature of reality and to having a better understanding of how to create a better human society. 

 

V.  I believe that Aristotle and the essentialists have it right.

      A.  That is, all of us do have a concept of the ideal human being, and the understanding that that mature, fully developed human being is one who is guided by reason. The ideal person is someone who tries to believe what is objectively true and tries to act in accord with what is generally recognized as good for humanity as a whole in the long run.

      B.  We all in fact fall short of being that ideal person we would like to be, but that is not something that makes us glad.  Who doesn’t want to be an ideal person?

      C.  There are many ways of being irrational, of being impulsive and uncaring, of being childish and selfish, but are any of them desirable?

      D.  Existentialists may think that being free means not being constrained by reason, but essentialists believe just the opposite, namely, that being guided by reason is the epitome of freedom & the necessary means for realizing the ideal of being good persons and developing a good human community.