The Philosophy of Existentialism
Existentialism is an influential philosophical movement that deeply analyzes the human condition. Unlike traditional philosophies that search for universal truths or objective cosmic structures, existentialism centers firmly on the individual—focusing on personal freedom, absolute responsibility, and the subjective search for meaning in what appears to be an indifferent or “absurd” universe.
The movement is most strongly associated with 19th and 20th-century thinkers like Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus.
Existence Precedes Essence
The defining maxim of modern existentialism was articulated by Jean-Paul Sartre: “Existence precedes essence.”
This concept reverses traditional thinking. It argues that human beings are not created with an inherent purpose, fixed nature, or pre-defined “essence.” Instead, we first simply exist—we are thrust into the world without an instruction manual. It is only after we exist that we define who we are through our ongoing choices, actions, and values.
Because there is no pre-written script for human nature, individuals possess radical freedom. This total freedom can be overwhelming, leading to feelings of dread or anxiety (angst). Yet, the existentialist challenge is to face this freedom authentically—rejecting bad faith and embracing the daunting responsibility of authoring one’s own life and values.
Explore the idea through this practice exercise:
In existentialist philosophy, what is meant by 'Bad Faith' (Mauvaise Foi)?
Analytical Worked Example
A strong philosophical analysis does not merely name a doctrine; it tests what the doctrine can explain, what it must assume, and where it becomes costly. Consider a student evaluating Existentialism and the Search for Meaning through an ordinary disagreement. One person claims the position is attractive because it gives a clear standard for judgment. Another objects that the same standard may oversimplify human experience. The useful response is not to choose a side immediately, but to reconstruct the argument in stages: define the central claim, identify the reasons offered for it, state the strongest objection, and then decide whether the theory can answer that objection without changing into a different theory.
For this topic, that means asking three questions. First, what is the theory treating as basic: reality, knowledge, duty, happiness, virtue, language, power, experience, or social order? Second, what does it count as evidence: logical consistency, perception, historical explanation, practical success, reflective equilibrium, or lived experience? Third, what would falsify or seriously weaken the view? A doctrine that cannot name its own pressure points is not yet a philosophical position; it is only a slogan.
A good revision also distinguishes exposition from evaluation. Exposition asks what the view says and why its defenders found it compelling. Evaluation asks whether the view survives comparison with rival accounts. Keeping those tasks separate prevents two common errors: rejecting a theory before understanding its internal logic, and summarizing a theory so sympathetically that no critical judgment remains.
Example
Suppose an essay argues that Existentialism and the Search for Meaning is persuasive because it gives a disciplined answer to the lesson’s central problem. The essay should give a concrete case, not just a definition. It might compare two decisions, two interpretations of an artwork, two accounts of personal identity, or two political institutions. The example should show how the view changes the conclusion. If the same conclusion would follow without the theory, the example has not done enough philosophical work.
Exercise
Write a short argument map for this lesson’s main view. Use four labeled lines: claim, reason, objection, and reply. The claim should be one sentence. The reason should explain why an intelligent defender would accept it. The objection should be charitable rather than dismissive. The reply should either answer the objection or concede a limit. After writing the map, revise the claim so it becomes more precise and less rhetorical.