People frequently ask philosophers, “What is existentialism?” The word “existentialism” is intriguing and conveys a sense of mystery and the promise of an entirely new brand of thinking. The questioner may expect a simple and straightforward answer. Unfortunately, one is not available.
The truth of the matter is that the term “existentialism” applies to a wide consortium of thinkers who may be poles apart from each other. Nonetheless, by knowing something about existentialism, one deepens his understanding of the modern world.
In order to begin a preliminary understanding of existentialism, we must deal with two concepts that are at the heart of virtually every philosopher’s thinking. They are “essence” and “existence.” Essence refers to what something is—a tree, a fish, a human being, etc. Everything we know, we know in terms of its essence. It answers the simple question, “What is it?” Existence refers to the fact that things exist which is to say that they stand outside of nothingness and are real.
Historians of philosophy agree that two philosophers in particular, Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) in Denmark and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Germany, were the first modern existentialists. No two philosophers, however, could be more disparate, yet they both wear the mantle of existentialism.
Plato placed essences at the heart of his philosophy and created an interlocking system of ideas. He inaugurated a trend that culminated in the philosophy of George Friedrich Hegel who created an all-embracing system of ideas. Kierkegaard reacted strongly against this systematic kind of thinking. “I refuse to be a paragraph in a system,” he declared, and emphasized the human being as a flesh and blood individual who exists and struggles to find meaning in a world of suffering. But, to exist authentically for the Danish thinker, means to live with love. “Existing,” he proclaimed, “if this is to be understood as just any sort of existing, cannot be done without passion.” Kierkegaard was intensely religious and installed hope as an essential virtue.
Nietzsche’s philosophy is the perfect opposite of that of Kierkegaard. He introduced to the world “the death of God.” He detested Christianity for its alleged moral weakness. Thrown back onto his own individual resources, he sought power through the independent exercise of his will. He looked to the emergence of a “super-man” (Ubermensch) who would rise to power through his own efforts. There is much in Nietzsche’s thinking that was adopted by the Third Reich. Individual existence was at the core of his thinking. His specific type of existentialism logically leads to nihilism in which nothingness has dominion.
Two other important existentialist philosophers were also poles apart in their thinking: Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973). Sartre’s atheism leads directly to his rejection of all essences. He argues that since there is no God, there is no one to confer essences. Therefore, he concludes that there is no such thing as a human being. Essence, therefore, is something we create, not something we are given. Sartre, then, comes to his highly controversial conclusion that “existence precedes essence.” Because there is no God and no nature (or essence) we are absolutely free to create our own essence in time. The fact that all our attention is riveted to the self is made clear in his famous dictum, “Hell is other people.”
On the other hand, Gabriel Marcel, a Catholic convert and critic of Sartrean philosophy, reasoned that man is an existing essence—a human being that exists—and the meaning of his life is in service to others. He speaks of people being “present” to each other, how they can be “available” to each other,” two words that have entered our modern way of speaking. He makes an important distinction between “being” and “having.” For Marcel, “being” captures our existing essence and has primacy over “having.” No amount of things that we can have (or possess) can compare with the fundamental dignity of our being as human beings created by God. He argues contra Sartre that the existence of God does not prevent us from being free. We are able to choose God freely.
For the Great Russian novelist, Fyodor Dostoevsky, if there be no God, then all things are permitted. For Sartre, the denial of God is the beginning of man’s self-development. Stated here is one of the central questions of the modern world. Was Adam better off in attempting to be God?
Jacques Maritain is the most important Catholic philosopher of the 20th century. He reasons that St. Thomas Aquinas is the supreme existentialist since, according to the Angelic Doctor, “existence is the perfection of perfections.” All creatures are a unity of essence and existence. Whereas essence is readily knowable, existence is not. Even though we are sure that we exist, we have no concept of it. It is, for Maritain, a “super-intelligible.” Existence itself does not exist. It is essences that exist. How, then, does existence come about. For Maritain, speaking for Aquinas and the medieval scholastics, God’s essence is to exist. In this case, His existence is eternal. God is the one being whose essence is to exist. He is also the being who confers existence on all His creatures.
Maritain regards the incomprehensible, absolute unity of essence and existence in God as the summit of both philosophy and theology, a position that is in essential agreement with the words God used in identifying himself to Moses: “I Am Who Am.”
Photo by Louis Maniquet on Unsplash
