Exploring Existentialism: Perspectives of Kierkegaard, Arendt, and Sartre

IB Philosophy Core Theme: Existentialism Core Theme: Existentialism The two main philosophers here, Kierkegaard and Sartre, offer differing views about the issue of existentialism. Both philosophers refer to the idea of angst, the implications of which differ between the two. Kierkegaard, who coins the term, refers to angst as a sort of existential anxiety that arises when an individual realizes his capacity of making his own choices. However, Kierkegaard’s idea of angst is also linked with the conflict of whether a person who follows his own instinct when taking action is also abiding by God’s will. Søren Aabye Kierkegaard > Existentialism: Existentialism, a school of philosophy that focuses on issues related to human existence, primarily addresses this issue of angst by looking for a solution to the feelings of hopelessness or fear that come with living an individual life. Setting: Kierkegaard was a philosopher in the 19th century. His mother, sisters and two of his brothers all died before he turned 21 – his father was a distant and yet religiously fervent figure. Kierkegaard came to see despair and angst as characteristic features of life, and in many ways his philosophy can be seen as simply and attempt to overturn these problems. – (argument #1) – “faith is precisely where thinking leaves off.” – the whole point of faith is that it can be doubted and so belief becomes a great risk – an individual courageous leap into the unknown. – (argument #2) – “the teleological suspension of the ethical – is the apparent wrongness of an act overruled by the absolute demand of personal faith.” – (argument #3) – “Kierkegaard came to see God as the only solution to angst – faith is the key by which an individual can invest meaning into their life, overcoming the despair which is inherent in the human condition.” Kierkegaard accepted the isolation of the individual, and the radical freedom of individual choice as well as the necessity of whole hearted decisions. Life is made of angst and despair, responsibility is a key ingredient in response to angst. – (assumption #1) – “we should give ourselves to God in faith.” – (assumption #2) – “we can only overcome the disquiet of life and find our identity is by taking a leap of faith.” – (assumption #3) – “God is the only one who can give us an identity – there should be the external influence of God.” – (assumption #4) – “God was the only possible solution to angst, faith is the key by which an individual can invest meaning into life, overcoming the despair which is inherent in the human condition. Against: – (criticism #1) – “requires the prior belief in God, or the acceptance that he exists – this would not be relevant to atheists.” – (criticism #2) – “his existentialism seems to consolidate Freud’s anti-theistic views, which state that religion is simple ‘wish fulfillment’ – where beliefs and images are created in order to satisfy its most basic longing and desires – i.e. the image of God to hang onto to escape the despair of being.” The individual and his decisions, not theoretical abstractions, according to Kierkegaard, are of utmost importance.He maintained that there were three ways of life – the atheistic, the ethical and the religious – between which individuals must choose. He stated categorically that the religious (and in particular, Christian) way was the greatest choice. Hannah Arendt > Hannah Arendt: We are workers until we reach the age of retirement, where we retire then die. – (argument #1) – “human existence in the modern world is seen as reduced to an obsession with productivity and consumption” – we have turned into a society with workers no longer appreciating the values associated with work, or action. – (argument #2) – “the idea of ‘action’ should be recovered as an important factor in human existence” – she understood it more as a model for human togetherness. – (argument #3) – “the freedom of human actions is the capacity to being something new” – meaning can be given to life not simply through choosing between alternatives, but in the freedom of starting something – this act of ‘giving birth’ to new possibilities, is what Arendt called the ‘principle of natality’. By contrast to other existentialists, Arendt’s solution to existential despair was not as ethical or personal, but political. She attempts to create (or recover, as she puts it) meaning in the everyday work that we do. In a sense, this can be criticized as glorifying human action but it fits with Sartre’s view that people should find their own meaning in life. Sartre Setting: “Existence precedes Essence” Sartre was also inspired by his own life: his constant focus on the importance of individual choice was arguably based on personal experience. After a very lonely and unfulfilling childhood, he was eventually thrown into an environment that confronted him (like all Frenchmen at the time) with pivotal choices everyday within the Nazi-occupied France of the 1940s. It is clear that under these highly stressful conditions, any choice had to be made with a thorough consideration of the consequences, and absolute acceptance of the responsibilities for one’s actions. These ideas are prevalent in Sartre’s works. Sartre took on many ideas first raised by Kierkegaard such as: – (foregrounding #1) – “the isolation of the individual.” – (foregrounding #2) – “the radical freedom of individual choice.” – (foregrounding #3) – “the necessity of whole-hearted decision.” – (foregrounding #4) – “responsibility remained a key ingredient in response to angst.” – (foregrounding #5) – “the human situation was characterized by anxiety and despair.” – (foregrounding #6) – “we have no fixed nature therefore we are free to act and create ourselves through choices.” Sartre envisions us to be fundamentally free being. He refers to a peculiar aspect of human consciousness; when we attempt to become involved with what we are involved with, we may feel emotionally invested and absorbed into the act. However, there is a part of the consciousness that is not fully immersed with the subject or activity. Sartre explains that the self-consciousness that remains observant and does not engage with the activity indicates our ability to disengage from one activity and engage with something else, which he further explains to precisely be what is meant by freedom. As this aspect of our consciousness remains no matter what, Sartre states that humans are “condemned to be free.” For: There are three main concerns that Sartre identifies as central to existentialism: – (concern #1) – “the first concern is with individual human beings, not with general ideas about humanity – it is his uniqueness which makes him important.” – (concern #2) – “the second concern is with the meaning of human lives, not scientific truths – subjective experience is always more important than objective truth, as suggested by Kierkegaard.” – (concern #3) – “the third concerns the freedom of the individual – everyone has the ability to, and must choose his purpose and lifestyle – the only ‘authentic’ way of life is freely chosen.” Sartre believed that there should not be external influence and that the response to existential doubt must be accepted by oneself. Angst and despair had to be accepted by the individual, and to overcome this we had to create personal and subjective meaning in our lives. Distinction: – (argument #1) – “God’s non-existence is a fact that must confront us all in our lives – the only basis for morality is human freedom” – however, we exist in a world not of our own making; we lack an external source of values meaning that we bear the heavy responsibility of choosing our own values – however this may be a positive thing if as this cannot be taken away by external forces– yet, this can be perceived to be a proposal for moral nihilism – Sartre attempts to solve this by suggesting we should choose a human nature for all humanity – we must act in a way as we would like others to. – (argument #2) – “the term ‘human nature’ should be rejected as it is too general – we simply ‘find’ ourselves existing and must decide what to make of ourselves” – however, if we cannot make general statements, are there true statements about anything? – we all share the need to eat and sleep: Sartre was referring to a lack of true statements of what we ‘ought’ to be.” – (argument #3) –“we can never be what we claim to be” – we cannot say ‘I am friendly’ as an objective fact, because this is how we choose to be for whatever reason and we are perfectly capable of behaving differently – this statement says nothing about any fact but is an expression of how I believe others will perceive me – ‘bad faith’ is the ultimate self deception, where we do not recognize our freedom.” Because Sartre rejected any notion of objective values, he cannot recommend a particular lifestyle to mankind – he only recommends that we be ‘authentic’ by being fully aware of our choices – the key implication is that freedom equals responsibility. Our attributes are as they are because we choose it; we cannot reject our responsibilities as even this is a free act. The idea of authenticity also makes distinct Sartre’s ideas from Arendt’s. Arendt advocates for a meaningful view of a working human while Sartre does not attempt to prescribe any sort of value; each person must understand the extent of their freedom and how value judgments are always made as part of their liberty. Against: – (criticism #1) – “if there is no objective basis for choosing how to act and live one’s life, then it would seem that there is in fact no basis for life” – if any choice is made for no particular reason other than the fact that we are free to make it, then surely it does not matter what we choose. – (criticism #2) – “it appears that Sartre would describe as ‘responsible and authentic’ a man who devoted his life to exterminating Jews, if he did so in full knowledge of what he was doing and the implications of it” – by the same token, Sartre would dismiss as ‘inauthentic’ the man who devoted his life to helping the homeless, if he refused to disclose why he was doing so.