Existentialism Existentialism is a philosophical movement or tendency of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Because of the diversity of positions associated with existentialism, a precise definition is impossible; however, it suggests one major theme: a stress on individual existence and, consequently, on subjectivity, individual freedom, and choice. In terms of moral choice, existentialists have argued that there is no objective, rational basis for decisions; they stress the importance of individualism in deciding questions of morality and truth. Most existentialists have held that rational clarity is desirable wherever possible but that lifes most important questions are not accessible to reason or science. Existentialism is any philosophy that asks fundamental questions of meaning and choice as they affect individuals as individuals. Existentialism strives to meet and understand human beings as they actually exist in the world. And how do we exist? We exist individually, as conscious beings, confronted with a choice at every moment. Through the choices that we each make for ourselves, we define ourselves and the meaning of our lives. The most important philosophical matters involve fundamental questions of meaning and choice. The problem is that there is no authority, no science, no theory or structure, that a human being can turn to to provide them with answers of absolute meaning. Objective science or rationalistic philosophy cannot come to grips with the real problems of human existence. We have been asking in this class, questions like, How ought a human being to act? Such a question implies first, that there is such a being a human being. While it is the case that each of us is a human being, human being in the abstract does not exist. Moreover, the existentialist will argue, that there are as many different definitions of human being as there are different existing human beings. There is no universal definition of human being. So to ask a question that implies that there is, is already off to a wrong start in terms of comprehending the human condition. This question, secondly, requires an answer that would apply to all who are human. But again, no such answer exists. So the existentialist replaces this question with, What am I to do? Notice the difference here. This question first of all, acknowledges the human being as the subject or author of his or her own life. Secondly, only the individual as individual can answer this question. This question recognizes the unique kind of being that the human being has as a conscious choicemaker. The existentialist goes farther, upping the ante, and asks, What am I to do when confronted with the awesome finality of any choice? Not only do we have to choose at every moment but as conscious beings we are aware of our own existence and death, and we are aware that when we choose, at the moment of the choice, the choice is final and defining of that moment. Since we are beings towards death, the existentialist argues that every choice that we make is important. If we did not have to die then it would not matter what we choose to do now or later. We realize the crushing importance of every decision that we make. We also recognize that when we make a choice for ourselves, we, at the same time, rule out every other possibility for ourselves for that moment. This can make us want to sit on a fence. Of course, that is a choice as well, that rules out other possibilities. The finality of our choices, and their importance, can turn making choices into a painful affair. It

can throw us into anxiety, angst. We might turn to others to seek answers, but even if we find good advice, we are the ones who ultimately have to choose and live with that choice. We usually find that no amount of advice can assure us that we are doing what is right. And this adds to the anxiety. Sometimes the anxiety is so overwhelming that we simply deny that it is there and then pretend that we have found truth, objectively. This is what existentialists call self-delusion. There is yet another problem to choice and that is, we do not know how our choices will play out, what they will ultimately mean. And we can never know at the moment of choosing, yet we have to choose. The existentialist philosopher strives to acknowledge, comprehend, and honor this unique condition of the human being, the agony of the predicament of being human. Existentialists distinguish between the authentic and the inauthentic life. These terms are defined in relation to choice and how an individual human being approaches the choices in his or her life. Inauthenticity when the nature and needs of individuals are ignored, denied, obscured or made less important than institutions or groups. Institutions and groups are interested in their own continued existence and meaning, often times, over against the needs of the individuals who are members of these groups. But that is the nature of institutions. An individual is inauthentic when he or she looks to institutions to give them meaning or purpose, because in so doing, they make more important the authority and structure of the institution at the expense of themselves. They then might blame others for their own lack of meaning, but this blame is itself a delusion. It makes them think that they had no choice in the matter. Authenticity The subjective condition of an individual living honestly and courageously in the moment without refuge in excuses and without reliance on groups or institutions for meaning or purpose. The authentic individual is the one who is capable of bearing the burden of the meaning of their own lives. They understand all the difficulty of making a choice and do not try to deny this. Nor do they look to others to tell them who they are. They understand themselves as the author of their own lives. Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) Kierkegaard is sometimes called the father of existentialism, although the word, existentialism, was not coined until the 20th century. Kierkegaard is from Copenhagen, Denmark. He wrote most of his philosophical writings under pseudonyms, false names or pen names. There are many reasons that he chooses to do this. In the Introduction to his book, Philosophical Fragments, the author explains that he is reticent to hold opinions. To hold an opinion is to cloak yourself in a false sense of security. To hold an opinion is to make a claim to know something, but as we have already seen in Socrates, an opinion falls short of certainty. So Kierkegaard might write under a pseudonym in order not to hold an opinion, or to always be aware that holding an opinion puts one into a precarious position, makes one think one knows what they cannot. One should always be aware that the opinions that one holds are just that. Kierkegaard deeply understood

the complexity of human life, the unadorned risky condition of being human. Opinions and beliefs can make you feel comfortable, at home, in a place of no risk. But the fact is, as a human being, you are always at risk, there is not real place to anchor yourself. Kierkegaard was a Christian existentialist, although he never claims to be a Christian, to say that Christianity is true, or to say that God exists. All of these claims are, of course, opinions, and moreover, have not objective meaning. There is no physical or rational proof that could make these into certain claims. Kierkegaard is interested in understanding what faith is, and he will basically define it as risk. Truth is Subjectivity Kierkegaard argues that truth, for the existing individual human being, is an objective uncertainty held fast in the most passionate personal experience. Any judgment or claim made about reality that you hear or read has to be interpreted. Remember Humes claim about the neutrality of facts. Facts have no intrinsic meaning. Their meaning comes to them extrinsically. Thus, all claims about reality are fundamentally, interpretations. But as interpretations, they can make no claim of certainty. Think about it in this way. Say you have to make a choice. Now, given everything that we know about choice, the finality, etc., you are thrown into anxiety about making this choice. You dont know what to do. So you go about asking others what to do. You go to your priest, your mother, your best friend, a self-help book, Oprah, even science, or philosophy. All of them will offer you an answer. Can any of them offer you the absolute truth? No, even if they claim to be doing so. All they can offer you is uncertainty. So you must choose. It is not the advice or the interpretation or the claim that can ever be true. If truth exists, Kierkegaard argues, it exists precisely at the moment of choice. When an existing individual chooses what objectively uncertain and commits himself or herself to it in the most passionate personal experience, then and only then, does truth exist. In other words, truth exists in the commitment that a conscious individual makes to what is objectively uncertain. You never know how your choices will play out. The truth of your choice rests in your commitment. Think about marriage. When you say, I do, you do not know how the marriage will work out. The truth of the marriage rests in the, I do. Or another example, many people hold that the bible is the word of God. But Kierkegaard argues that there is no physical evidence or rational proof that this book is in fact the word of God. What makes it different from any other book on the shelf is the individuals belief in it. Without the belief, commitment to it truth, it would be like any other book. The point is, you will not find truth existing objectively outside of the self. Truth will not be found in the world. Truth, if it exists, manifests itself as an objective uncertainty that is held fast by an individuals commitment to it. So the claim that truth is subjectivity is not relativism. This claim draws attention to the being of the human being in the world. Human beings are Subjects, as such, they choose. In choosing, they define the truth of their lives. The Three Spheres of Existence

Kierkegaard writes about three spheres of existence, each of which is defined in terms of choice. Do not read these spheres as developmental stages, one can move in and out of them according to how a choice is made. Aesthetic Sphere this is the sphere in which the individual does not take choice seriously. The individual lives according to whims and desires. The person that best exemplifies this sphere is Don Juan, one of the most celebrated lovers of all time. Don Juan lived for the pleasure of the moment. In this sphere there is no development of self, and therefore, no real relationship with anyone else. Ethical Sphere this is the sphere in which the individual takes choice seriously. The individual recognizes that there are principles that can guide their life. The ideas of duty and obligation have meaning here. The person that best exemplifies this sphere is Socrates. Remember in The Crito, Socrates says that he has always been a person who has sought out the highest rational principle and tried to live his life accordingly. This is the sphere where most people live. They accept certain principles that define their life and they live within these principles. This is a sphere where there is a development of self, where there can be relationships, friendships, marriages, business partnerships, etc. Sooner or later, however, Kierkegaard writes, the individual will be confronted with a choice that their principles do not, cannot, comprehend. This is a moral dilemma, where you find yourself having to choose between competing moral claims. What do you do? How do you know what is right? It is at this point, where you realize both the inadequacy of yourself and the ethical system, that you, in making a choice, are thrust into a higher sphere. Religious Sphere this is the sphere where choice is, in a sense, recognized as impossible, yet required. It is a paradoxical sphere. Choice as defined in the ethical sphere is made to appear knowable and doable. In the ethical sphere there is a framework and structure by which you define yourself and your actions. But what happens when this framework is unable to comprehend the complexity of your own existence and of the situation that you find yourself in. And you still have to choose. Kierkegaard says, you take a leap of faith. This is the sphere of faith. Kierkegaard defines the moment of faith as the single individual as the single individual acting over against the universal. The universal is the given ethical structure or societal structure within which the individual lives. The person who best exemplifies the religious sphere is Abraham. Kierkegaard wrote an entire book, Fear and Trembling, on the story of Abraham and Isaac as found in the Old Testament. Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his most loved son, Isaac. Isaac was born to Abraham and Sarah, as promised by God, late their lives. Now God was asking Abraham to kill Isaac. Think about it. How does Abraham know that God is the one he hears? Is there anyone that he could turn to in order to assure himself that it is God that he hears and not some other voice? Could he go to his congregation, say, and ask them, God told me to kill Isaac, what do you think? Could he turn to any

legal system or ethical system or rational philosophy or system of science that would tell him that a father should kill his son? No. Abraham is completely alone, with nowhere to turn, no way to know if what he is about to do is the right thing. And think, think about his absolute anguish. Can you imagine tying your son up, your son who you love beyond the love you have for yourself, your son who loves and trusts you? The position of Abraham is horrific and scarcely something that we can even imagine. But you cannot console yourself by thinking that somehow Abraham knows that it is God who speaks to him, because this whole story is a story about faith, which by its very nature cannot be based on knowledge. To pretend that Abraham is somehow special, is to miss the point. What makes him great, a knight of good faith, is that he is alone, in fear and trembling, and at complete risk of losing everything. This is what it means to have faith. Not showing up to church every Sunday, or reading your Bible daily. Faith is the commitment you make to God, who you cannot know even, exists. It is to put yourself in complete risk. It is a commitment to risk. And in return, everything is given, though you cannot know this. Abrahams faith was reward with the ram in the bush. The Truth of Christianity Kierkegaard contends that the truth of Christianity is purely subjective, it is internal. Any external acceptance of it is paganism. In other words, if you simply identify your faith with external activities like going to church, tithing, etc., then you have no faith. But Kierkegaards contention that Christianity is purely inward is much more profound than this. In fact, what Kierkegaard argues, is that Christianity, is true, if there is truth, precisely because of how it manifests itself in the world. Christianity exists in the world as a paradox, an irresolvable contradiction. The only way that an individual can approach this contradiction is as a fully conscious human being who commits themselves to the objective uncertainty of a contradiction. If something is presented to you as absolute truth, as complete and rationally justifiable, all that is required of you is your acceptance. But such acceptance is a kind of submittance. You are not even required to think about it. But a contradiction, that awakens your consciousness and keeps it at an elevated level. This awakened state of consciousness engages you in your life in deeper and higher way such that you realize that the truth of your life is based on the commitment that you make in faith. What is this contradiction? The Christian claim is that this man, Jesus of Nazareth, is at once God and Man. But God is eternal, outside of time. Man is historical, in time. That which is eternal is opposed to the historical. This is a contradiction, and yet it is the foundation of Christianity. While it can never be resolved, this is not the point. The point is, that somehow, the contradiction, acknowledges and honors and requires the full consciousness of the individual. This means that the worth of the individual is not given by being a member of an institution, but that it is recognized as intrinsic to the individual. In other words, the individual in relation to the contradiction has his/her humanity fully respected. A system that defines the worth of the human being, such that you are a good human being if you submit to it and follow its rules, is a system that not only does not recognize the nature of the human being but does

not even require that the human being be fully that which makes them human, conscious. So Kierkegaard contends that the truth of the Christianity rests precisely in its ability to require the truth of the individual as an existing individual. And this is the moment of faith, the moment of risk. Why? Because if the meaning of your whole being is based on what you cannot know, a contradiction, an objective uncertainty, then the meaning of your life is at risk. And yet, paradoxically, it is precisely this kind of commitment to the infinite, the unknowable, that secures your humanity in its highest level. The ethics of Christianity is an ethics of love. When one loves another, truly loves the other as other, recognizing that the other is never their own idea of them, one recognizes that they are at risk. The risk that paradoxically secures.