- All you needed to know, and more
The other day I happened to mention ‘existentialism’ in a company of a dozen men; and realised to my horror that only a solitary figure showed any signs of familiarity with it. Out of the rest, three seemed interested while the balance made it clear that they had no desire to touch the subject with a bargepole. If that is an accurate representation of the nation at large, it’s a cause for serious concern; and something obviously needs to be done about it. Here are a few hastily jotted-down lines for the benefit of interested parties.
It’s natural for a thoughtful man to occasionally wonder why he finds himself in his profession, living in his city, and married to his wife – instead of some other profession, some other city, and some other life-partner (few husbands would deny this last one if they are honest). If he is of an even more philosophic disposition, he also can’t help realising how easily these things could have been different (especially the last one). If you are such a person, you are no stranger to existential philosophy, though you may believe you have no idea about it.
After husbands, it’s the students that have these thoughts most frequently. The existential crisis that a student feels on the eve of every exam week is whether he needs to conform to the standards set by the society for him to excel in his studies when he himself would rather be playing Conga drums in Timbuktu. He can so easily run away and pursue his real goals and desires. But he has so thoroughly convinced himself that he is essentially and fundamentally a student; and so accustomed is he to playing that role that he forgets his freedom to be somebody else, that is, himself. And yet, he has fleeting moments of realisation that he is freer than he thinks.
It’s natural for a thoughtful man to occasionally wonder why he finds himself in his profession, living in his city, and married to his wife – instead of some other profession, some other city, and some other life-partner (few husbands would deny this last one if they are honest)
According to JP Sartre, whose name is thought to be synonymous with existentialism, there’s just no purpose of the world, and no universal rules other than what we choose to obey. Humans strive to find meaning in such a meaningless world, and this conflict is referred to as ‘the absurd’. The timing of Sartre couldn’t have been better, since the horrors of WWII had made many people to question their faith in an ordered universe having justice and fairness.
Sartre, of course, was standing upon the shoulders of Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche (though the term was coined much later) and his contemporary Martin Heidegger (who repudiated the suggestion that he was an existentialist). (Sartre had objected to the term too, only to later accept it.) The dominant philosophical view from Plato down to the 19th century had been that everything had essence or purpose. Sartre famously announced, ‘l’existence précède l’essence’ (existence precedes essence). That is, first we exist; the question of any purpose arises later. Therefore, it’s upon the individual, instead of any external authority, that the answer to that question depends.
One should act as oneself instead of conforming to external pressures or norms – so far so good. But the abundance of freedom available as a result is a terrifying thing (we are ‘condemned to be free’). For one never has enough information and time to make the ‘correct’ decision, and one is therefore bound to err. This freedom and no recourse to help from any authority results in ‘angst’, which is again a basic feature of the human condition. Also, since there’s no authority that can help one make the correct decision, the best one can do is live ‘authentically’ – that is, make one’s own decisions accepting the full weight of one’s freedom, and hiding behind no authority. Failing to do that is acting ‘in bad faith’. Consider a decision that you need to make. You may take your wife, for example, as your moral compass and then do something silly. In that case you will be living ‘inauthentically’. If you decide while being true to yourself, you are living authentically, even if you make a bigger fool of yourself. Extending it to life as a whole, the existentialist answer to why you are here, then, is, ‘I don’t know. You tell me.’
That there’s no inherent meaning in life appears to be a bleak philosophy to many. That things don’t have to be as they happen to be may sound exhilarating and empowering to others, for it suggests such unfulfilled potential. The absence of preordained logic or inherent meaning in the world can inspire some student, for example, to not show up for his examination. He should do so at his own peril. If there’s a husband out there wondering why he has a certain better-half and not another, and who – intoxicated with a newfound existentialist freedom – has started toying with the idea of doing something about the situation; he is hereby warned that neither Sartre (who is dead) nor this author is in any position to take any responsibility for the grisly consequences.
