Topic outline
-
Existentialism is a philosophical and literary movement that emerged in France shortly after World War II, spearheaded by figures such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. We can trace this movement back to the religious writings of Blaise Pascal in the 17th century and Søren Kierkegaard in the 19th century. The common thread that unites existentialists is the focus on existence, particularly the concrete existence of individual human beings. Unlike rationalist thinkers such as René Descartes and G.W.F. Hegel, existentialists reject the idea that humans are fundamentally rational creatures living in an orderly, well-designed universe. They also do not believe that thoughtful consideration and reasoned deliberation can solve life's issues. Instead, existentialists view human beings as creatures whose reason is secondary to human passions and anxieties and who exist in an irrational, absurd, and insignificant universe. Existentialists claim that in such a cosmos, one strives to be the greatest person one can be given one's religious, historical, cultural, economic, and personal circumstances.Existentialists emphasize the human being's place in a complicated set of circumstances to highlight the uniqueness and individuality that each of us possesses. They emphasize the importance of the human body in all of our actions and judgments, saying that the mind cannot exist apart from the body (in contrast to the majority of rationalists, who assert that the mind is separate from the body).In addition, existentialists consider whether absolute individual freedom is attainable; and, if so, what this means for our sense of personal, social, and divine responsibility. They also consider the consequences of the existence or nonexistence of God and what each option entails for our sense of freedom and responsibility. More than anything, existentialists ponder the implications of accepting death's inevitability in our lives.This course examines the major figures and works of the existentialist movement from a historical perspective. Søren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Albert Camus are among the authors you will examine. You will be able to identify, analyze, and differentiate among important themes and figures in existentialism history. Most importantly, you will comprehend the contributions existentialist thinkers have made to our present view of human existence and our role in the universe.
-
Time: 32 hours
-
Free Certificate
-
-
Existentialists are concerned with existence, the human condition, human existence, and their own existence in particular. Existence is the starting point for philosophical reflection. Rather than "What is the fundamental substance of the universe?", an existentialist asks, "What does it mean to be?". An existentialist is interested in authentic existence. They are concerned with how to answer this question in the context of a universe that is not orderly, such as rationalists like Plato (428–348 BC), René Descartes (1596–1650), and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) would have it. Existentialism refers to the philosophical and literary movement that Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) and Albert Camus (1913–1960) first popularized in post-war France. While the term emerged with these and other 20th-century philosophers such as Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), W.E.B. Du Bois (1868–1963), and Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986), we can trace its roots to Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855). While these "proto-existentialists" did not use the term, their philosophical concerns were direct precursors to the existentialist movement that took shape after World War II.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 1 hour.
-
Existentialists believe the universe is not a rational place and that human reason is inferior to emotion. We cannot understand existence through rational thought. For an atheistic existentialist, the universe is devoid of meaning, which can cause considerable anxiety. Navigating this complex world requires confronting yourself as a human being and the world as it is. Consequently, existentialism is deeply concerned with the choices we make in the face of our own finitude in a meaningless world.
Existentialists are concerned with several problems, such as what it means to be an individual, choice, freedom, dread, anxiety, meaning, absurdity, and death. An existentialist considers these concerns in terms of our individual situation: the condition of the world and our relationship with others.
One way to consider these concerns is to think in terms of embodiment and what it means to exist. A rationalist, such as Plato or Descartes, distinguishes the mind (or soul) and the beyond. On the other hand, an existentialist thinks about how the individual exists as a whole, situated in time and place.
We will also discuss the difference between theistic (or religious) existentialism and atheistic existentialism. While both focus on the significance of the individual, a theistic existentialist is concerned with the individual's choices concerning divinity. An atheistic existentialist is concerned with an individual's choices in a Godless universe.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this overview of existentialism. As you read, consider how existentialists view essence, freedom, and authenticity. Also, consider the origins and evolution of existential thought throughout history. Can you imagine these prominent existential figures conversing with one another across time, space, and place? Noting the sections "existentialism in psychotherapy" and "popular existentialism", have you unwittingly engaged in existential thought without realizing it? What was the outcome of these endeavors – did it leave you with more questions?
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this video. Consider how existentialism, as a philosophy, is frequently fraught with confusion about its very definition. How have politics, cultural biases, and misinformation contributed to the fragmentation and underutilization of existential themes? How can we emphasize the importance of existential theory not only for the discipline of philosophy but also for everyday life?
-
-
We associate existentialism with the philosophers Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855), Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821–1881), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), Martin Heidegger 1889–1976), Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980), Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986), W.E.B Du Bois (1868–1963) and Albert Camus (1913–1960). These thinkers lived across Europe and Asia: Sartre and de Beauvoir were French, Kierkegaard was Danish, Dostoevsky was Russian, Nietzsche and Heidegger were German, Du Bois was American, and Camus was French-Algerian.
Existentialism became a prominent movement after World War II when Jean-Paul Sartre, the French philosopher, coined the term. We include Simone de Beauvoir, Martin Heidegger, and Albert Camus in the taxonomy of existentialist philosophers, although Heidegger and Camus explicitly rejected Sartre's definition of the label "existence precedes essence".
Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) was a "proto-existentialist" because he anticipated the existentialist movement. His concern with human existence (finitude) and an individual's choice to believe or not believe in God (Pascal's wager) put him squarely in the existentialist context.
Many consider Søren Kierkegaard, the Danish religious philosopher who emphasized subjectivity, the "founding father" of existentialism. He believed we could find truth subjectively rather than objectively, as Plato would have it. Subjectivity is a "passionate inwardness" where one finds a relationship with God. Pascal and Kierkegaard asked us to confront, rather than turn away from, the uncertainties of life and what it means to be an individual.
While we can consider Pascal and Kierkegaard to be optimistic theistic existentialists, Fyodor Dostoevsky emphasized the dissonance between suffering and the concept of a loving and benevolent God. Through his literary works, Dostoevsky examined the nature of religious belief in the face of suffering, nihilism, and human freedom. With Pascal and Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky also criticized faith in reason and championed the individual over other values associated with society.
-
Students mustMark as done
Consider the links between various philosophers while you watch this video. Consider some of the major existential questions they sought to answer. What role do religion and science have in existential thought? How could engaging in existential contemplation aid in developing your life potential? What role does it have in your pleasure or unhappiness?
-
-
-
Students mustReceive a grade
Take this assessment to see how well you understood this unit.
- This assessment does not count towards your grade. It is just for practice!
- You will see the correct answers when you submit your answers. Use this to help you study for the final exam!
- You can take this assessment as many times as you want, whenever you want.
-
-
Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813–1855) was a Danish Christian philosopher, theologian, and social critic, widely considered a founding existentialist figure. Convinced that the Christian faith had gone astray, Kierkegaard was a fierce critic of religious dogma. In Kierkegaard's view, you must earn your relationship with God through dedication and suffering. According to Kierkegaard, a person becomes a committed, responsible human being by making difficult decisions and sacrifices. The force of Kierkegaard's philosophy rests in the notion that human life is paradoxical and absurd and that confronting this absurdity makes us fully human (a theme revisited by Albert Camus, as we will discuss in Unit 8). This unit introduces you to Kierkegaard's life and religious philosophy, along with an overview of themes that later philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir will call "existentialism". These key existentialist themes include the notions of commitment and responsibility, absurdity, anxiety, and authenticity. This unit will also note the work of Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) as a fellow theistic existentialist to Kierkegaard. Many philosophers believe Pascal was a precursor to the existentialist movement due to his concerns about the constraints of human existence or "finitude", perpetual change, uncertainty, suffering in human life, and the irrationality of human behavior.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 4 hours.
-
Many consider Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855), the Danish philosopher, theologian, critic, and poet, the first modern existentialist. He was deeply concerned with what philosophers call the "human condition". So long as we live, we are imprisoned in a world of striving, aspiration, and suffering. The human predicament is inextricably linked to our quest for absolutes and the frustrating knowledge that absolutes are out of reach. Kierkegaard wanted to help humans find meaning in their existence as mortal, finite, and time-bound beings.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this article about Soren Kierkegaard. Do you think Kierkegaard's personal life informed his approach to philosophizing and considerations of existentialism? Do you believe his philosophy would have been different if the circumstances of his life had been different?
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this video. How does Kierkegaard explain anxiety and angst? Do you notice traces of his ideas in how we perform and conceptualize psychology in today's society? Pay attention to Kierkegaard's popular ideas on the "leap of faith" and the three phases of life (aesthetic, ethical, religious). Do you think his ideas are too far-fetched? Do you believe his emphasis on emotion and choice, rather than logic or scientific research, is effective?
-
-
Kierkegaard lived most of his life in Denmark, where his extremely devout father cast a terrible shadow over his childhood. Kierkegaard's father had cursed God in desperation for the poverty that enveloped his son's upbringing. Kierkegaard's father also sinned by having an extramarital affair with his future bride, Kierkegaard's mother. Kierkegaard (the son, our philosopher) was also troubled by physical problems and was rarely permitted to go outside owing to physical health issues (Kierkegaard and the Crisis in Religion Part 1, 24:28).
Kierkegaard was tortured by the original sin he believed he inherited from his father. He went so far as to call off his engagement to his beloved fiancée Regina Olsen because he felt unworthy of her. He began behaving badly in public to get her to leave him since he lacked the strength to end the relationship. In addition to an incident that involved a local paper he despised and his polemics against the Lutheran church, Kierkegaard was deeply affected by these conflicts and a pervasive melancholy he inherited from his father. Kierkegaard also strongly believed the church had betrayed the true meaning of Christianity (Kierkegaard and the Crisis in Religion Part 1, 30:35).
-
Students mustMark as done
Listen to this lecture on the life and philosophy of Kierkegaard. Why does Kierkegaard believe there is a crisis with religion? What is the cure? Do you think this is relevant to today's cultural sentiments about religion?
-
Students mustMark as done
Kierkegaard wanted to understand how humans can live an authentically-religious life while they are surrounded by those who are inauthentically religious. He opposed any philosophy that relies on reason and science to make life easier and make Christendom more palatable. In this context, "Christendom" did not refer to Christianity alone but to the official Church of Denmark, which had merged with Danish cultural society. His duty was to inform his fellow citizens that Christendom was giving "lip service" to original Christian theology and that Christianity in Denmark had become shallow.
Kierkegaard's critique of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), a popular philosopher in Denmark, provided fodder for his analysis of Christendom. Hegel believed he could explain all of reality, including religions such as Christianity, through a philosophical or conceptual system. Hegel's logical approach reduced God to the understandable, which God is not, according to Kierkegaard.
Kierkegaard mocked Hegel's assertions by demonstrating plenty of things in the world that philosophy cannot explain. Kierkegaard feared that Hegel's devotion to systems or masses would negate the individual – he argued that subjectivity is far superior to abstract, systemic theories. For example, he suggested that we cannot easily grasp the concept of "faith" through some universal, objective theorizing. Individuals would understand faith better through actual, subjective living experiences.
Using similar logic, Blaise Pascal suggested that humans have more to gain by believing in God, even though God is entirely beyond our understanding. According to Pascal, faith is not "a given": we do not inherit faith from tradition or social norms. Rather, faith is entirely an individualized commitment. Individuals cannot shrink from faith: "you must choose". The wager is your life, and only the individual can make this gamble. Consequently, existential choice is at the core of Pascal's wager about God's existence.
For Kierkegaard, religious belief is an outrage to reason because it demands a belief in the absurd. Most Christians are in despair; they are in the wrong relationship with themselves but do not know it. They run from themselves in various ways – in pursuit of philosophy, science, and the crowd (the church community) – which all facilitate the individual's escape. Kierkegaard believes one should stand alone against these promoters of despair (Kierkegaard and the Crisis in Religion Part 2, 19:35).
Listen to the second part of this lecture on the life and philosophy of Kierkegaard. Do things stand out to you as you ponder your relationship with yourself, your culture, and your spirituality? Do you think Kierkegaard's solutions would work for everyone, or might he only be addressing certain segments of our global community?
-
Students mustMark as done
Ultimately, the "wager" Pascal proposes should make the potential consequences of the choice (to believe or not to believe) clear. After you read, think about these questions. What is the worst that could happen if you choose not to believe in God, and it turns out God does exist? If God exists, why does Pascal believe we are destined to suffer in this life?
-
-
In his book Fear and Trembling (1843), Kierkegaard focuses on the impossibility of understanding Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac. We cannot appeal to an objective feature in our lives to determine whether Abraham, "the Father of Faith", is a murderer or God's servant:
Since public reason cannot decide the issue for us, we must decide for ourselves as a matter of religious faith.
Kierkegaard did not justify Abraham's behavior in moral or ethical terms:
The ethical expression for what Abraham did is that he would murder Isaac; the religious expression is that he would sacrifice Isaac; but precisely in this contradiction consists the dread which can well make a man sleepless, and yet Abraham is not what he is without this dread.
– Fear and Trembling, Chapter 2The justification is purely religious or existential. The contrasting categories are the universal (social morality) and the particular (the individual who must make choices). The universal cannot be in a direct, personal relationship with God; only the individual can.
The existing individual is the position Abraham occupies by his choice to sacrifice Isaac:
Faith is precisely this paradox, that the individual as the particular is higher than the universal is justified over against it, is not subordinate but superior – yet in such a way, be it observed, that it is the particular individual who, after he has been subordinated as the particular to the universal, now through the universal becomes the individual who as the particular is superior to the universal, for the fact that the individual as the particular stands in an absolute relation to the absolute.
– Fear and Trembling, Chapter 3According to Kierkegaard, Abraham is a "Knight of Faith" rather than a "Knight of Infinite Resignation" or a tragic hero: he not only obeyed God's commands, but he retained the hope that Isaac would be returned to him during this life. The "Knight of Infinite Resignation" would not have this hope. The tragic hero makes sacrifices in the service of societal norms.
Abraham's sacrifice represents a teleological suspension of the ethical rather than an outright abandonment. His duty to sacrifice Isaac was a duty. However, it is not one that can manifest itself in societal ethics:
Abraham recognizes a duty to something higher than both his social duty not to kill an innocent person and his personal commitment to his beloved son, viz. his duty to obey God's commands. However, he cannot give an intelligible ethical justification of his act to the community in terms of social norms, but must simply obey the divine command.
Kirkegaard's concept of the "leap of faith" was a movement against reason itself, a movement that also placed Abraham outside of the ethical.
-
Students mustMark as done
This excerpt from Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling discusses the Knight of Faith. What are the differences between the knight of faith and the knight of infinite resignation?
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this video, which discusses Kierkegaard's "Knight of Faith". What does Kierkegaard mean by the "teleological suspension of the ethical"? What makes Abraham a "Knight of Faith", according to Kierkegaard? When is the leap of faith necessary, according to Kierkegaard? Could you, or would you, make such a leap? Is there a place for reason and reasoned arguments within Kierkegaard's view of life?
-
-
Despair is the "sickness unto death" (the title of Kirkegaard's 1849 book) and "is inherent to the human condition". Despair results from an "imbalance" or condition within the self and is resolved only through a relationship with God.
Kirkegaard describes three forms of despair:- being unaware of being in despair;
- being aware of being in despair but believing you cannot do anything about it; and
- defiantly rejecting the concept itself.
The process of working through despair traverses from ignorance to defiance. This process involves the development of the self as an existing individual in a relationship with God.One way to think about the development of the self is in terms of our various relationships. The self is not simply a combination of mind (or soul) and body but a process of relationships. The individual must consider how their beliefs and attitudes relate to, match up with, and comport with how one is or how we exist in the world.
Developing the self is a continual process of synthesizing and relating various features of the self to everything else. This process of realizing the self is dynamic, implying continuous activity, effort, and renewal. Contrast this process with viewing the self and religious belief as static: a set of habits we form and fix.
Kierkegaard proposes three levels or stages of individual existence that humans must pass through to become an authentic self. Those who live at the first level, the aesthetic, might expect to encounter meaninglessness and irresponsibility, entertainment, and pleasure. These people are motivated by satisfaction rather than meaningful commitments to something larger than themselves, which leads to a life of despair. According to Kierkegaard, this mode of living is the norm rather than the exception for most people.
Kierkegaard proposed that our lives are distinctively unique because the sum of our experiences differs from everyone else's. Our most extreme and intense experiences – those that cause fear and trembling, sickness to the point of death, and dread – are of the utmost importance. Experiencing these powerful experiences forces us to leave the safety of our aesthetic way of life.
The second level of existence is the ethical. We must embark on a journey of self-discovery by making choices that commit us to a particular direction in life. This enables humans to demonstrate consistency, coherency, and responsibility (which they lacked in the aesthetic) while reinforcing societal values that transcend individual desires.
The third level is the religious sphere, which is inextricably linked. The ethical and religious spheres are based on recognizing a higher reality that gives significance to actions. Living in the ethical realm requires a commitment to some universal ethical rules; living in the religious sphere entails an immediate and direct relationship with the Eternal. This is the highest plane of existence for Kierkegaard, yet he believes that almost no one lives a truly religious life.
The ethical life is characterized by duty, while the religious life is characterized by the "passionate inwardness" of subjectivity in direct relation to God and the Absolute. The ethical is preserved in the religious. To be subjective is to look inward, to seek a truthful relationship with God. Subjectivity is a type of passion that is "subjectivity's highest expression". In this passion, truth becomes a paradox. Subjectivity's passionate inwardness comprehends the paradox of the eternal existing in time.
-
Students mustMark as done
Listen to this discussion of Kierkegaard's The Sickness unto Death. What is Kierkegaard's "three-step system", as discussed in the lecture? How is this system relevant to you as an existing human being? What does Kierkegaard mean when he says that "the sickness is not unto death"? Consider the distinction between authentic and inauthentic despair, according to Kierkegaard. How is despair related to the tension, in human existence, between the finite and the infinite?
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this film that discusses the intersections among the famous philosophers Kierkegaard, Sartre, Heidegger, and Jaspers. Does it seem like Americans received certain existentialist philosophers more favorably than others? Why do you think that was the case? What role does individualism play in uniting these philosophers in existential study? Did it perhaps contribute to their reception across the globe?
-
-
Students mustReceive a grade
Take this assessment to see how well you understood this unit.
- This assessment does not count towards your grade. It is just for practice!
- You will see the correct answers when you submit your answers. Use this to help you study for the final exam!
- You can take this assessment as many times as you want, whenever you want.
-
-
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (1821–1881) was a Russian novelist, journalist, and essayist whose literary works are among the most important texts in the history of existentialism. Despite never self-identifying as an existentialist, Walter Kaufmann, a German-American philosopher and author, declares, "It is as if Kierkegaard had stepped right out of Dostoevsky's pen", adding that "part one of Notes from Underground is the best overture for existentialism ever written". Dostoevsky's (also written Dostoyevsky) literature investigates the loneliness, alienation, and despair humans experience living in conditions populated with ominous protagonists and gloomy situations. The hardships he encountered early in life influenced his preoccupations with the oppressed, suffering, and tormented. He viewed the human condition as constrained by social, political, and economic institutions and limited by God, whose existence constrains human existence. One of his most meaningful themes is that life is about being true to oneself. This unit will guide you through Dostoevsky's key existential themes, focusing on human freedom and moral responsibility in Notes from the Underground (1864) and The Grand Inquisitor (1880).
Completing this unit should take you approximately 4 hours.
-
Fyodor Dostoevsky lived just before the Russian Revolution, an era when societal realities strongly influenced his existential preoccupations. Dostoevsky was fully aware of the impending social and political upheaval; he witnessed the demise of Russia's tsarist government and the elements of the 1917 revolution falling into place. Russia's geographical proximity to Europe but cultural remoteness gave Dostoevsky a distinct perspective on many historical events. For instance, he witnessed the moral implications of obvious social inequity across Europe, the growing desperation of daily Russian life, and the nature of religious faith in a rapidly changing world. Thus, Dostoevsky depicts Russian and European perspectives before the revolution and introduces essential existential questions that will lead humanity into the 20th century.
-
Students mustMark as done
As you read Dostoevsky's biography, consider how much of his work was influenced by the ongoing social and personal hardships he experienced. Consider why he may not have wanted to be called an existential philosopher or for his works to be part of the emerging existential philosophical movement.
-
Students mustMark as done
This passage outlines the key history of Dostoevsky's life and works. Is there anything in his biography that leaves you wondering why he chose to explore existential themes in his life? How might his story and life's work help individuals struggling with existential issues?
-
-
As reflected in his novels, Dostoevsky's perspective on freedom was fraught with complications. Terry Eagleton, an English literary theorist who teaches at Lancaster University, notes that the characters in his novels The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, and The Idiot "seem to occupy a permanent state of pathological anguish or morbid sensitivity: ruined gentlefolk, buffoonish landowners, and socially paranoid clerks reap a perverse delight from being insulted or humiliated".
The Grand Inquisitor is a chapter from the novel The Brothers Karamazov, in which Dostoevsky examines the idea that institutionalized religion provides humans with stability by removing the burden of freedom and responsibility. To understand this better, he suggests we explore what it means to be an atheist. An atheist must take sole responsibility for their own creation and the meaning of their life and establish standards for what is "right" and "wrong" as they do not rely upon an institution to give them these answers. Or some atheist movements will search for a secular equivalent that limits their freedom and responsibility in the same way that institutionalized religion might. Thus, freedom and independence come with the burden of responsibility – constructing meaning, determining values, and selecting one's choices amid various ideologies bidding for our attention.
Freedom provides the context for revolution (the forcible overthrow of existing norms or regimes) in socio-economic and political terms. But revolution also describes the movement of one object around another. Dostoevsky examines both meanings. He was concerned with the existential conditions and components of violent change (nihilism, terrorism, and destruction) and the implacability of the ideas that foment revolutions, the ideas that change revolve around.
In his book The Devils (also translated as The Possessed), Dostoevsky focused on the ways nihilistic social conditions "infected" individuals who become revolutionaries. Change is achieved when terrorism annihilates the existing order in the name of social and economic equality. Even worse, the radicals self-destruct because the organizing belief around the events is a belief in nothing: revolution is destructive but not constructive since a plan to replace the old with the new does not exist. In this sense, one of Dostoevsky's main criticisms of revolution is its moral indifference.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this passage from Dostoevsky's The Possessed (or, The Devils), Part II, Chapter I. Night, VII. As you are reading, consider whether nihilism threatens religious belief and existential philosophy. Do you think the fact that Dostoevsky wrote this during a time when the ideologies of existentialism, nihilism, socialism, and communism were still evolving influenced how he portrayed his characters?
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this resource and consider the lessons it teaches about religion's social purpose and role. In connection to religion, how can people imagine liberation? Can religion generate truth for the masses?
-
-
Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground is a collection of disjointed memoirs written by a lonely, spiteful man who appears to be secluded from other humans. The first few lines of the story show that despite being educated and presumably economically affluent, the narrator suffers from profound self-loathing. His terrible behavior toward others demonstrates this. The Underground Man considers himself far more intelligent and aware than anyone else, making him skeptical, incapable of feeling confident, and preventing him from participating in life like other people. On page three, he emphasizes that being overly "conscious is an illness". His awareness allows him to perceive beauty and the impossibility of attaining it.
The Underground Man represented what Dostoevsky believed humanity was generating rather than what Dostoevsky believed humanity should become. The "notes" reflect his ongoing battle to engage with the world and oneself: to defy, define, and be a part of something bigger than oneself. The reader is exposed to the narrator's various moods throughout the Notes, including his anxiousness and despair. Dostoevsky's Underground Man is a character without typical and traditional heroic values, and he does not attempt to convey a story or present some form of ideal. The Underground Man does not believe in God or Christian values; rather, he exists as an individual who is free to think, feel, and act according to his desires. This is the distinguishing characteristic of an existentialist.
-
Students mustMark as done
As you watch this video, pay close attention to the Underground Man's opinion of himself. Do you think the Underground Man is as maladjusted as he makes himself out to be? Could he be experiencing a mental health condition? Why is the Underground Man unable to make the decisions that are so easy for the rest of us to make? Given what the Underground Man says about himself at the beginning of the book, how is the Underground Man in revolt against himself?
-
-
The traditional method for studying morality is to determine what is "good" or "bad". Dostoevsky investigated human behavior to demonstrate, in the most dramatic way possible, that what is "moral" can never be totally good since we cannot eliminate evil. He repeatedly dismissed a distinction between good and evil and hoped we would understand that categorizing people as "good" or "bad" is deceptive. This is because moral values such as good and evil are connected, mutually-exclusive categories that rely on one another for meaning. The same holds for people. Dostoevsky's characters are simultaneously good and bad, much like real individuals in society.
Dostoevsky considers love the greatest moral value, but he cannot separate love from hatred. In The Underground Man, he says that "the main thing is to love others like yourself; that is everything – nothing else is necessary". He concludes that "in my hatred for the people of our land there is always a nostalgic agony: why can't I hate them without loving them? … and in my love for them was nostalgic sorrow: why can't I love them without hating them?"
Thus, Dostoevsky demonstrates that morality is an existential problem rather than a religious or social issue through his various characters. When he declares, "Good and evil are in a monstrous coexistence within man, " he refers to every human being as a complicated mixture of kindness and cruelty, simplicity and intellect, modesty and passion. And this is reiterated in The Grand Inquisitor:
Corrupt people are often good-natured; criminals are tender and sensitive, puritans and moralists are callous and cruel … everyone is equally capable for good and for evil.
The notion that humans cannot defeat evil presents a problem for morality. However, Dostoevsky does not want us to sink into despair, nihilism, or suicide; rather, he wants the opposite. He believes that suffering leads to redemption and gives our lives meaning.
-
Students mustMark as done
When you read this passage from The Brothers Karamazov, you will encounter this sentence:
I think if the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness.
What do you think Dostoevsky is trying to say? Why do human beings need to follow their whims? Why are the laws of reason an illusion? In this respect, Dostoevsky has a lot in common with Pascal and Kierkegaard: a suspicion of reason. Create a list of the most common philosophical features the three thinkers share.
-
-
In Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky expresses his skepticism of the capabilities of human reason. Dostoevsky felt that overestimating our intellectual capacity would lead to disillusionment. This belief contrasts with the Enlightenment's trust in the power of reason to disclose fundamental truths about the cosmos and everything in it.
This insight is consistent with a major theme throughout Dostoevsky's work: existence is intrinsically contradictory. As such, we cannot justify it.
-
Students mustMark as done
This essay discusses Raskolnikov, the main character and protagonist in Dostoevsky's masterpiece Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov is a self-assured and reasonable creature who must confront the repercussions of his deeds. Think about Dostoevsky's anti-rationalism throughout the work and his suspicion of others who tout human reason as superior to human will. Is total freedom compatible with intellectual pride? How can reason get in the way of freedom? Or, how can reason enable freedom?
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this video. Do you find the existential questions that Dostoevsky grappled with relevant today? If so, in what way? How do ethical themes intersect with existential questions to present the audience who reads Dostoevsky with opportunities for dual philosophical inquiry?
-
-
We often use truth to evaluate claims: Today is Wednesday, 2 + 5 = 7, I like coconut ice cream, God exists, and you acted ethically. We frequently believe the truth is objective or independent of our subjective opinion. In other words, we try to apply logic to discover the "real" truth.
Dostoevsky demonstrated that telling the truth is difficult. He reminds us of the profound contradictions inherent in objective descriptions of the universe and our place in it. We make statements about good and evil, freedom and determinism, and guilt and salvation as if these were all knowable and completely consistent with our other worldviews.
Instead, reasonable analysis rapidly exposes that our assertions, such as our knowledge of suffering, freedom, and truth, are typically meaningless. This could explain Christ's silence in The Grand Inquisitor. His only motion is to softly kiss the old man on the lips.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this selection from The Brothers Karamazov. The Underground Man seems to revolt against nature as he critiques who he considers narrow-minded people and the masses. How is this so? Ultimately, Dostoevsky's Underground Man feels as if he is in a revolt against nature's laws. Consider how Dostoevsky illustrates this and other types of revolt in this work.
-
-
Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov is a Matryoshka nesting doll of stories. Within the story, two brothers, Ivan and Alyosha, engage in a conversation. Ivan tells Alyosha a story set during the Spanish Inquisition about a conversation between the Grand Inquisitor and Jesus, who has returned to Earth. The Grand Inquisitor also tells Jesus a story. In all of these layers of stories, Dostoevsky expresses the idea that fiction is paradoxical: it expresses truths but is false because the events never actually occurred.
In a discussion that Terry Eagleton describes as "either one of the craftiest apologies for religious despotism ever written or a scathing satire of such autocracy", the Grand Inquisitor accuses Jesus of having misunderstood human nature. He argues that freedom, which God granted humans, is a terrible intolerable burden for man to carry. Humans really only want the security of food: they will happily trade freedom for bread and safety:
In the end, they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us'.
– The Grand Inquisitor, p. 6The Grand Inquisitor maintains that the Church has rectified God's error:
...at last they have vanquished freedom and have done so to make men happy.
– The Grand Inquisitor, p. 5With his return, Jesus threatens all of the Church's good work and, most importantly, human happiness.
Faith is equally burdensome to humans who want to worship but has a guarantee. They want to "worship what is established beyond dispute" (The Grand Inquisitor, p. 7), even though faith is defined by uncertainty.
The Grand Inquisitor offers humans three versions of what Christ rejected during his temptation:
- The satisfaction of basic desires over uncertainty;
- Consolation through an undeniable object of worship over the spiritual agony of faith; and
- The comfort of material gain, manifest in ignorance, over the wretchedness of poverty, manifest in deliberate choice.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read Dostoevsky's The Grand Inquisitor, a parable that a character in Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov tells. Think about how you would answer the following questions as you read. Why is Jesus on trial? What is he accused of? List the temptations Jesus faced, according to the Grand Inquisitor. Then, sketch the main argument the Grand Inquisitor presents against Jesus. Why do you think Jesus is silent most of the time as the Grand Inquisitor speaks? How does Dostoevsky suggest that Christ's rejection of the temptations places an unbearable burden, and an unreachable ideal, on humankind? Why does Ivan, who is telling us the story of the Grand Inquisitor, reject God's absolute power?
-
-
Students mustReceive a grade
Take this assessment to see how well you understood this unit.
- This assessment does not count towards your grade. It is just for practice!
- You will see the correct answers when you submit your answers. Use this to help you study for the final exam!
- You can take this assessment as many times as you want, whenever you want.
-
-
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), an unapologetic critic of culture, society, religion, and philosophical dogma (views his predecessors and contemporaries accepted without question), is widely regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of the past two centuries. Nietzsche, like all existentialists, condemned the universalistic tendencies that have characterized Western philosophy throughout its history; that is, the tendency of philosophers to assert they could determine what is true for everyone and for all time. According to Nietzsche, there is no universal truth – in his pursuit of truth, he values suspicion and skepticism over rationalism. He focuses on subjective individuality and the dangers of being absorbed into the herd, losing "freedom", and rejecting all of the usual crutches people lean on to escape responsibility. Personal experience and acting on one's convictions lead to truth. Individuals must be strong enough to create meaning for themselves, unlike the common herd whose sense of purpose and meaning lies entirely in conformity to rules; the great people are those who "re-evaluate all values".
Completing this unit should take you approximately 9 hours.
-
Like many other existential philosophers, Nietzsche, a German native, lived through terrible times. He often endured enormous sadness, misery, and strife. He volunteered during the Franco-Prussian war, witnessed the horrors of warfare, and contracted illnesses that caused him long-term health problems. His existential philosophy may have been his best attempt to help himself and others embody the powers of self-formation. The answers to some of humanity's most pressing existential questions may just help us survive social and personal crises.
Nietzsche wrote:
Why the 'world' exists, why 'humanity' exists need not concern us for the present moment […], but why you, individual, exist, this ask yourself and if no one can tell you, then try to justify the meaning of existence a posteriori by setting for yourself some purpose, some goal, some 'therefore,' a high and noble 'therefore.' Perish in pursuit of your goal – I know no higher life-purpose than to perish in the pursuit of something great and impossible.
– Untimely Meditations, 1876We will not find meaning independently of experience via rationalists' pure, logical, deductive reasoning. Rather, individuals create and find meaning when they generate and pursue their own goals. In this way, Nietzsche's view is solidly existential.
Nietzsche argued that our goals should be "high" and "noble", suggesting a pre-existing notion of what these words mean. There is value in the world, in human existence, but not in the ordinary or traditional sense. That is because his account was life-affirming (or Dionysian), unlike the traditional sense that Nietzsche associated with a denial of life and vitality.
We will not find the meaning of life in traditional religious or philosophical beliefs. Indeed, the metaphysical "real" world of Plato's Forms and the God of Abraham disappear with the rise of atheistic science in Nietzsche's "Parable of the Madman".
What is left to fill the void of meaninglessness? A belief, regardless of how illusory it may be. For Nietzsche, we generate meaning by setting the most difficult tasks for ourselves and pursuing them with the discipline and obedience needed to achieve them.
-
Students mustMark as done
As you read this excerpt about Nietzsche's life, consider how Nietzsche's rejection of traditional values reflected existential concerns. How is Nietzsche similar to, yet different from, the figures you have studied so far in this course?
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this article for an overview of Nietzsche's life and works. Is there anything in his history that makes you question why he chose to spend his life exploring existential themes? How may his narrative and life's work benefit those dealing with existential crises?
-
-
Nietzsche believed his philosophical predecessors were wrong to place so much faith in human reason. Their trust involved an implicit and explicit belief that knowledge is universal, or the same, at all times and places, for everyone.
Metaphysics, the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality, grapples with abstract concepts, such as substance, God, and mind. Since the Ancient Greeks, philosophers have sought to identify and explain the ultimate nature of things, from the simplest substance to the existence of God, to the nature of a self that endures through change.
Nietzsche disagreed with philosophical disciplines that concentrated on a reality disengaged from our lived experience, which is of paramount importance. He argued that metaphysicians built complicated abstract theories that do not focus on our fundamental life struggles or the human drive to endure.
A perspectivist believes that our views (or perspectives) are fundamentally subjective and informed by various factors. Individuals can know things about the world, but given the peculiarity and perspective of every individual, our knowledge is always simply an interpretation. Our philosophical claims depend on the factors influencing our opinion and our being. An empirical approach, the scientific method of inquiry and observation through experiments, offers a middle ground.
Moreover, Nietzsche argued that the history of metaphysics describes a history of rationalizing theological, particularly Christian, dogma. The early modern tradition of rationalists, such as René Descartes (1596–1650), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), and Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), often used philosophical principles to justify and support a religious belief, which Nietzsche rejected.
-
Students mustMark as done
As you listen to this podcast on Nietzsche by Walter Kaufmann, list the attributes of Nietzsche's Superman (or Overman). What "crisis" is the speaker referring to? How is Nietzsche's critique of traditional philosophy also a critique of religion? Pay close attention to Kaufmann's description of Nietzsche's critique of traditional theories of knowledge. According to Nietzsche, is it possible to know rationalist philosophy's "thing-in-itself"?
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this video to learn about Nietzsche's life. How did he apply philosophy to fill various voids in his life? Were you surprised to learn about how frequently tragedy struck his short life? What inspired him?
-
-
Nietzsche was influenced by the Ancient Greeks, especially the dialectical interplay between Apollo and Dionysus, and the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer's (1788–1860) concept of the will to live. Nature is a relentless striving for life, a motion that creates and destroys. Because the human will is a natural force, it also strives to live.
Nietzsche found a middle ground between the repressive, authoritarian doctrine of Judeo-Christianity morality and nihilism, which described a world that lacks meaning, value, and purpose.
The death of God results in nihilism, but Nietzsche introduced the three metamorphoses in his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra (published in four parts from 1883 to 1891). Human beings can transform themselves from a camel (an obedient soul that carries and comes to resent its burdens) to a lion (a free spirit that is free from the past, tradition, and authority) to a child (who wills its own will, knows the joy of life, and enjoys the innocence of perpetual creation). This spiritual transformation characterizes Nietzsche's vision of a flourishing life.
Nietzsche's "will to power" refers to the human desire to assert domination or mastery over others, oneself, and the environment. The will to power Nietzsche describes can be beneficial or hurtful. It describes a certain ambition, a drive to achieve, and a striving for excellence. For example, a philosopher or scientist directs their will to power to find truth, an artist channels their will to create, and a businessman strives to become rich.
In The Gay Science (1882), Nietzsche wrote that a noble soul has reverence for itself. He writes:
But that the passion which seizes the noble man is a peculiarity, without his knowing that it is so; the use of a rare and singular measuring-rod, almost a frenzy; the feeling of heat in things which feel cold to all other persons; a divining of values for which scales have not yet been invented; a sacrificing on altars which are consecrated to an unknown God; a bravery without the desire for honour; a self-sufficiency which has superabundance, and impares to men anc things. Hitherto, therefore, it has been the rare in man, and the unconsciousness of this rareness, that has made men noble.
– The Gay Science, p. 55-
Students mustMark as done
Read this excerpt from Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, XXXIV. Self-Surpassing, which explores his concept of the "Will to Power". In what ways is a person's "Will to Power" simply a way they practice self-overcoming? What role does self-sacrifice play in Nietzsche’s thoughts about self-formation?
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch the video to learn more about Nietzsche's thoughts in "The Will to Power". What in us, as humans, really wants truth? Would you be comfortable with untruth, uncertainty, or even ignorance?
-
-
According to Nietzsche, Apollo and Dionysus represent conflicting creative powers and principles of creation: the continuous dialectic, or logical discussion of creation versus destruction. Apollonian creation is rational, while Dionysian (Bacchanalian) creation revels in a sensuous feeling that destroys rationality. They represent two oppositional powers, two kinds of contrasting art that conflict in human life. Insofar as Greek tragedy envisions this conflict, affirming life in the face of individual destruction, Nietzsche sees a way for us to live: life becomes art. Hence, we "have our greatest dignity in our meaning as works of art".
The history of this process is the Overman (Übermensch), who creates values and lives life as a work of art: creation in the face of destruction. When he creates values, the Overman expresses himself. This individual contrasts with those who accept traditional ideas about reality and the good life, such as the Christian. This individual has goodness and values all wrong.
What is good and valuable is not self-sacrifice for the greater good or doing one's duty for the sake of a moral principle. Rather, "good" is "the noble, the powerful, the superior, and the high-minded". In short, what is good, what is rightfully valued, is the morality of the "master". This individual affirms life; the "slave" who exhibits traditional values denies it.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this essay that Friedrich Nietzsche published in 1873. How are values socially constructed, according to Nietzsche? More importantly, why are they constructed in this way?
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this article on Nietzsche's übermensch. Do you think the übermensch was meant to be Nietsche's attempt to build a shrine on which he could kneel? Can an übermensch or "ideal of strength" be a protective mask for someone like Nietzsche, who had a sensitive, passionate interior?
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this excerpt from On the Genealogy of Morals which Friedrich Nietzsche published in 1887. Consider Nietzsche's account of how values and morals are created. According to Nietzsche, what is the origin of the concept "good"? What is the origin of the concept of "evil"? How have these concepts changed through history? What precipitated that change? Finally, how does resentment become creative? According to Nietzsche, how have the terms bad, evil, and good evolved? And how does Nietzsche predict restoring these terms to their original meaning? In other words, what must happen for this restoration to take place?
-
-
In aphorism #108 of The Gay Science, Nietzche declares that "God is dead", but what does this mean? He suggests that God is dead, we have slain him, and we should accept personal responsibility for producing "the tragedy of tragedies". What he means is that the Christian God has become unbelievable.
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this video which discusses a passage from Nietzsche's book The Gay Science. How does Nietzsche use the phrase "God is dead", and what does this statement refer to specifically? Can you explain why Nietzsche's remark about the death of God is not a theological statement – or not about religion? In what way is Nietzsche's proclamation that "we have killed [God]" a condemnation of religion, particularly a critique of those Western values passed down from Christianity? In other words, is God really dead, or are the values and commitments we derived from God's existence dead?
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this video, which discusses Nietzsche's famous passage, "God is dead". How does this statement relate to the Greek philosopher Plato's ideas? Do you think the statement "God is dead" leads us down a slippery path toward nihilism?
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this video. Consider the similarities and differences between Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard based on Kierkegaard's notions of the three stages of life (the aesthetic, ethical, and religious sphere), the "leap of faith", and "truth as subjectivity", as well as Nietzsche's ideas about Christianity as slave morality, the death of God, and the übermensch. According to Kierkegaard, what is the problem with how contemporary society practices Christianity? Is it even possible to be a Christian in the radical sense Kierkegaard suggests? What does Kierkegaard mean when he says Christianity is founded on a paradox? How does Kierkegaard formulate his view that individual existence is a category?
-
-
Imagine reliving every moment of your life for eternity. Nietzsche explained that this thought experiment or contemplation encourages us to consider "the greatest weight" because it forces us to confront how we live our lives in every moment.
What sort of life would we live again and again for eternity? What would it look like in terms of our attitudes, dispositions, goals, and values? As the German philosopher Volker Gerhardt puts it:
...even the most insignificant of our actions takes on the weight of all eternity. Accordingly, we must act with the awareness that everything we do can be willed by us in infinite recurrence.
Nietzsche encouraged his readers to find inspiration to affirm life rather than wallow in timidity and regret. This concept of eternal return is of considerable existential import.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read these excerpts from The Gay Science, which Friedrich Nietzsche published in 1882. Pay special attention to "Aph. 341: The Greatest Weight". As you read, consider the following questions: If you were confronted with the question of eternal recurrence, what would you do? How is the aphorism in this reading intended to place the reader in a position to say "yes" to life?
-
-
-
Students mustReceive a grade
Take this assessment to see how well you understood this unit.
- This assessment does not count towards your grade. It is just for practice!
- You will see the correct answers when you submit your answers. Use this to help you study for the final exam!
- You can take this assessment as many times as you want, whenever you want.
-
-
William Edward Burghardt Du Bois (1868–1963), the American author, professor, and activist known as W.E.B. Du Bois, was among the most influential Black leaders of the 20th century. While many do not think of him as an existential philosopher, he wrote during a time when people of color struggled throughout the world to achieve liberation. Authors such as Richard Wright, James Baldwin, and W.E.B. Du Bois explored themes related to freedom, existence, and hardship attributable to living in America as a person of color. In 1996, Lewis Gordon, an American philosopher who teaches at the University of Connecticut, wrote: "At least four Africana theorists, W.E.B. Du Bois, Alain Locke, Ralph Ellison, and Frantz Fanon, have theorized dimensions of anti-Black racism in a way that is so clearly indicative of an existential phenomenological turn…[w]hat these figures have in common are a passion to understand human beings and passion to articulate a liberation project that does not lead to the estrangement of humanity from itself." Philosophers of the Black experience engaged in philosophical reflection about the lived experience of racism and its intersections with other oppressions, including sexism and classism.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 3 hours.
-
Most well-known existential thinkers focused on challenges relating to predominantly White, male, Christian, and Western culture and experiences. People of color and women were less frequently examined in existential contexts and were typically left out of serious analyses. We can read Du Bois' life and work through an existential lens, although he was not renowned as an existentialist. For centuries, his views inspired Africana and Afro-Caribbean thought and American philosophies. He famously said that "the problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color line". From this, he seeks to elucidate the existential strivings of people who endure oppression. Du Bois sought to raise questions related to the human predicament and empowerment.
Du Bois exposed the problem of Black suffering in American society as the concept of "double consciousness" – a philosophical, principally existential issue. Du Bois wanted people to recognize that people of color are victims of structural oppression, not perpetrators, as the dominant racist ideology of the day claimed. Throughout his life, he examined authenticity, alienation, and agency following enslavement, apartheid, and colonialism.
-
Students mustMark as done
As you read this article, consider the many different roles Du Bois played in his life. How do you think they informed his existential perspectives? Can you perceive how his legacy affects people today?
-
-
In his autoethnographic novel The Souls of Black Folk (1903), Du Bois said, "It is a particular sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity". He sought to understand the internal conflict and suffering of human beings, particularly those subordinated within society.
In The Souls of Black Folk, he explores "the strange meaning of being Black" by describing the "spiritual world" and the "spiritual strivings" of "the American Negro". It is this suffering, deep down in one's soul, that leads people of color to face double standards in their ability to achieve equity in post-slavery America. As a result, Black people feel a sort of "twoness" in their identity, the experience of being Black and American, which society dictates as incongruent. The struggle between one's first-person narrative and the narrative of how others see us are in tension and create alienation.
The duality of being relates to being "seen" through the veil of White supremacy and racism while attempting to live as an American citizen or, as Du Bois describes it, "being an outcast and stranger in mine own house." Double consciousness also entails recognizing the injustice of the social system that limits opportunities for some while privileging others, all the while expecting both to perform equally.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this excerpt from the book The Souls of Black Folk. How can you apply Du Bois' thoughts to contemporary existential issues in the 21st century? What does Du Bois mean when he says African-Americans are born with a "veil" that forces them to see themselves through the "revelations of the other world... through the eyes of others"? What does it mean to have a "double consciousness" that "yields... no true self-consciousness"?
-
-
Du Bois said racial inferiority is the existential foundation for the self in relation to others. The American concept of race as a biological essence was especially fraught. He challenged the dominant view of race as an amalgamation of biological and sociohistorical concepts. During his speech to the American Negro Academy in 1897, Du Bois defined race as a "vast family of human beings, generally of common blood and language, always of common history, traditions, and impulses, who are both voluntarily and involuntarily striving together for the accomplishment of certain more or less vividly conceived ideals of life".
Eventually, Du Bois moved away from any determination of distinct racial categories and considered the sociohistorical grouping of people. He aspired to unite those who have been oppressed by essentialist concepts of identity to find commonality, justice, and liberation.
An oppressive society's inability to accept one's humanity or contributions to the historical record exacerbates feelings of alienation. White society not only considers Black people to be the "other" and "a problem", but it also considers Black cultural heritage a problem that is not meaningfully connected to history. Socially-mediated events that ignore and discount Black history promote one's double consciousness, causing one's self to feel distorted and contingent on White privilege's historical domination.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this speech Du Bois delivered at a meeting of the American Negro Academy. How does believing there is a biological and sociohistorical basis for racial categorization influence existential theory? How does Du Bois' philosophy of race transform into an enduring historical, social, philosophical, and political rallying cry to oppressed people worldwide?
-
-
Du Bois' concept of freedom is multifaceted and includes aspects of social and individual freedom. He hoped individuals could be free from oppression, as he wanted their souls to be self-determining as they pursue self-development. He believed one of the finest ways people could liberate themselves from misery, humiliation, and self-loathing was to express themselves through art and writing. Du Bois exercised his freedom when writing The Souls of Black Folk, where he revised history by providing a much-needed cultural critique. He hoped his writing would broaden society's empathy for and understanding of Black American suffering.
Another way to free one's soul and achieve wholeness in an alienating environment is to embrace one's double consciousness. Du Bois wonders, "How do you demonstrate your humanity if, in the eyes of another, it is perceived as lacking self-evidential qualities?" People should not abandon their double self through assimilation or separatism, but they should merge these activities into a "better and truer self" – one that does not deny history but builds upon it.
He says:
This "living in two worlds at once" enhances one's ability to perceive what others miss, freeing one to explore the horizons of thought and human fulfillment. Black Americans are gifted with a "second sight" due to their dual consciousness and therefore have much to teach White Americans....the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world, – a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity.
– The Souls of Black Folk, pages 10-11-
Students mustMark as done
Take another look at this excerpt for The Souls of Black Folk and consider whether Du Bois wants us to regard double consciousness as a superpower. Is it a blessing or a curse? Could it be a combination of the two? What does Du Bois mean when he says African-Americans strive to retain the unique characteristics of their "double selves" while they "merge" their two halves into "a better and truer self" that reflects a state of "self-conscious manhood"? How can they attain this self-realization?
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this summary of the life and work of W.E.B. Dubois. This reading includes several excerpts from his book The Souls of Black Folk. Why do you think Dubois wasn't previously recognized as an important existential philosopher? How did Booker T. Washington influence Dubois' understanding of history, despair, and social progress?
-
Students mustMark as done
Du Bois' question "what does it feel like to be a problem?" drives to the core of meaninglessness, hopelessness, and despair. Like many existentialists before him, Du Bois dabbled with the issue of nihilism, but he focused on the existential crisis Blackness presents in an anti-Black culture. Nihilism is the view that life is meaningless and potentially not worth living. Like Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer, who came before him, Du Bois understood that nihilism and pessimism were a natural part of human existence. Like his contemporaries, he believed aesthetic art produces value and meaning for people. In the same way, we can mediate feelings of nihilism and pessimism concerning life, perhaps we can also completely overcome them through aesthetic appreciation.
The American author James Baldwin (1924–1987) was influenced by Du Bois' work. He was also a contemporary of the other existentialists we will discuss later in the course (Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, and Jean-Paul Sartre) and wanted to understand nihilism. In Letter from a Region in My Mind (1963), Baldwin explains how he perceives human beings as those who die and those who are aware they will die. What it means to be human relies on our collective experience of death, along with our collective experience of love. Racism, which causes suffering and death, makes people of color more acutely aware of this fact. Baldwin is not fueling nihilism by mentioning death. Rather, he is thinking about how difficult truths help humans discover their true selves.
Read this overview of the life and works of James Baldwin. How much do you think living abroad in Europe influenced his existential philosophy? What role does religion play in Baldwin's work?
-
Students mustMark as done
As you read this article, try to apply the insights Dostoevsky addresses in his 19th-century Russian novels to the experience of being Black in America during the 20th century. How does the experience of living in an anti-Black culture create feelings of pessimism and nihilism? What are some parallels that Dostoevsky and Black writers, such as Baldwin, experience during their existential musings?
-
-
-
Students mustReceive a grade
Take this assessment to see how well you understood this unit.
- This assessment does not count towards your grade. It is just for practice!
- You will see the correct answers when you submit your answers. Use this to help you study for the final exam!
- You can take this assessment as many times as you want, whenever you want.
-
-
Martin Heidegger's (1889–1976) extensive and illuminating meditations on what he described as the ontological "question of being" established his reputation as one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century. Like other philosophers we call existentialists, Heidegger refused to associate his own thinking with the term. However, his focus on human existence, anxiety, death, and authenticity – themes his predecessors (Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche) and contemporaries (Sartre and Camus) shared – place him at the center of this movement. In this unit, we explore Heidegger's thought, especially the philosophy of existence he introduced in his most famous work, Being and Time (1927).
Completing this unit should take you approximately 5 hours.
-
The German thinker Martin Heidegger turned his attention to philosophy after initially studying for the priesthood. The German philosophers Franz Brentano (1838–1917) and Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) deeply affected his early thinking. Brentano's work influenced Husserl, and Husserl mentored Heidegger, who worked as his assistant. Heidegger was also inspired by the Socratics, the Greek philosophers who predated Socrates, Søren Kierkegaard, and Friedrich Nietzsche.
Brentano and Husserl were phenomenologists, which refers to the philosophical study of how objects and ideas appear to the consciousness. The phenomenological method involves asking questions related to a first-person perspective. Heidegger applied the phenomenological approach to questions of being. What does it mean to exist within the structure of language and time as a person who is part of the world? He framed questions about consciousness regarding what it means to be in the world.
For Heidegger, phenomenological investigation about being was always hermeneutical, meaning these philosophers applied the theories and methods used to study and interpret texts, starting with biblical interpretation, to the study of meaning. Heidegger believed that all phenomenological investigations about being are interpretive. The intentional nature of consciousness focuses interpretation on one aspect of being, as it closes off other aspects.
Another way to think about this approach is that, for Heidegger, the history of philosophical inquiry is a history of language: our words reveal and shape the world for us. Heidegger aimed to interpret being by introducing new terms and refashioning language. In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger describes the phenomenon as "that which shows itself in itself", which is to say, it is "the manifest". Appearance reveals reality or how things are, but it can also be illusory. Things are or exist in the way they show themselves to our consciousness.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this entry on the life and work of Martin Heidegger. How do you think Heidegger's work influenced the history of philosophy and society at large? Many describe him as one of the most important European philosophers of the last century, yet he was also a Nazi. How do you think this happened?
-
Students mustMark as done
As you watch this lecture, pay attention to where Heidegger "picked up" the study of being. How did Heidegger's study of being differ from his predecessors? How would Heidegger help us address the question of authenticity and the meaning of our existence?
-
-
According to Heidegger, only human beings ask, "why is there something rather than nothing?" This describes Dasein, the German word for "being there" or disposition, which Roderick Mundy, a professor at the University of Cambridge, defines as the "entity that is conscious of the meaning of its own existence". In other words, Heidegger said, "we are the beings for whom being is an issue". In our daily lives, we take existence for granted; it is the natural backdrop for everything that happens. Heidegger wants to bring this background to the fore and engage in the inquiry known as ontology (what it means to exist).
When we say something exists (let's say a dog or table), we typically mean an object exists that corresponds to the words "dog" and "table". We may say other things about these items, such as the dog being friendly or the table having four legs. However, when we say they exist, we are not adding anything that is not already there. We take existence for granted and go about our business. Heidegger wants us to focus on what it means for the dog and table to be or exist.
Being can be difficult to discern:
- Tradition may cover it up or obfuscate it;
- It may be difficult to focus on, such as when it is too close to see properly; or
- It may be in "disguise", such as when it is too distressing to confront directly.
Heidegger says Western philosophy falls victim to one or all of these types of concealment. Previous interpretations, such as Plato's theory of a soul imprisoned in a body or René Descartes' proclamation "I think, therefore I am" (cogito), are inadequate. The question of Being is a phenomenological question that requires interpretation.-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this lecture and consider the points of divergence between Heidegger and Nietzsche on various existential themes. Why does Heidegger believe the theories of Descartes and Plato are inadequate for helping us answer the question of being?
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this article about Heidegger. Who are some of his philosophical influences? What other popular philosophical movements (such as Marxism or cultural philosophy) influenced Heidegger's existential philosophy?
-
René Descartes believed God had imbued human beings with certain innate knowledge from birth, including logic, mathematics, geometry, morality, and God himself, who must exist because we can conceive of his perfect existence. The concept of the self and our ability to think is also innate, the belief that led Descartes to make his famous statement, "I think therefore I am" (the Latin cogito, ergo sum).
Descartes' concept of existence was two-fold: There are two types of finite substance: mind and body. Mind is fundamental; I can exist as a "thinking thing" without my body, but I cannot deny my existence without existing, so I can make that denial. More specifically, the act of denial is an act of my self-consciousness. So, to deny my existence as a thinking thing is self-contradictory.
In Being and Time, Heidegger set out to "destroy" the tradition Descartes exemplified in Western philosophy of prioritizing the theoretical knowledge of being. Heidegger believed Descartes' approach was too subjective: arriving at the certainty of myself as a thinking entity involves first-person examination. Heidegger believed that Descartes does not get at being, which depends on context. Rather Descartes approached the question of being "with its skin off".
Heidegger does not believe we logically peel layers off the world to get at what is really there; in Descartes' case, it is the "I think, therefore I am", or cogito.
As Heidegger points out:
It requires a very artificial and complicated frame of mind to "hear" a "pure noise". The fact that motor-cycles and waggons are what we proximally hear is the phenomenal evidence that in every case Dasein, as being-in-the-world, already dwells alongside what is ready-to-hand within-the-world.
– Being and Time-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this video. Consider Heidegger's perspectives on coping and survival. What is Heidegger's main issue with the philosophy of René Descartes? According to Heidegger, how is René Descartes' philosophy doomed from the start? What does Heidegger suggest as a starting point for any philosophical investigation?
-
-
Translated from German to mean "being there", Dasein is the characteristic way of being for human beings. More specifically, "Dasein is that being for whom being is an issue". We are aware of our lives; we care about how things are going and will go. Consequently, Dasein's being is already "disclosed to it". Dasein understands or is always open to its own being.
This Being is different from being or things that "are". Unlike other beings, such as a mouse or a lion, which simply are, Dasein is actively engaged in its Being, as a problem to be solved. Dasein asks "How do I be in the world?" and finds the answer by living and projecting into the future. For Heidegger, Dasein's essential characteristic is existence.Do not confuse Dasein with Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" separated from the world. Instead, Dasein, Being-in-the-world, is a Being-with-others. Being-with is an existential category, one of Dasein's characteristics. So, because Dasein is Being-in-the-world, which involves a complex set of relations and activities, we cannot separate it from the "mind" or "I".
Investigating Dasein brings us closer to addressing the larger question of the meaning of Being. Dasein's Being is already "out in the open". Dasein understands its existence, albeit not comprehensively. That is, because this understanding is of its everydayness, it conceals as much as it discloses. An analysis of Dasein's basic structures provides the foundation for any ontology and for being. This analysis is existential because it is an analysis of Dasein's essence, which is existence.
Dasein exists: it projects itself into the future, into possibilities. This projection occurs in the present against a backdrop of the past. Hence, Dasein's concern with being. After all, this projection involves concern about how things will be. It also relates to the significance of time, as Dasein "understands itself through temporality" (Roderick Munday, Glossary of Terms in Being and Time).
The existential analysis of Dasein is a pursuit of the fundamental categories of being. The categories of existence are existentials (that is, existential concepts). To begin, Dasein is essentially in-the-world. Dasein is not understood independently from its world; the world is where Dasein is (being there). Being-in-the-world, the fundamental category of existence, has been concealed, or covered over, by philosophical tradition, which treats Being as a category distinct from what it is to be human. Being-in-the-world is before, or more basic than, for example, claims about knowing what I am, fundamentally, as, for example, Descartes would have it.
Dasein dwells in the world, is concerned with projects, engages with others, and uses tools. This is Dasein's everydayness. Indeed, these tools, the "ready-to-hand", give Heidegger a way into Being. In daily life, Dasein is directly acquainted with an array of functionalities.
For example, a hammer's function is to drive nails. Understanding the hammer comes from Dasein's engagement with it in a project.
A project that involves a hammer requires more than the hammer itself. So, by extension, Dasein fundamentally dwells in complex functional relations. Is there a point where no further involvements occur? Yes. Consider that we do not notice the hammer until it ceases to function: its breaking brings the hammer to the fore.
When it ceases to serve a function, the hammer, as a hammer, disappears, and the "damaged equipment" is pure "presence-at-hand". It is now an object until someone takes it up again in another involvement, such as in a new "to-be-fixed" project. However, Dasein can never be an object, but according to Heidegger, that is exactly how Western philosophy treats it. Tradition has been an exercise in covering up the meaning of being. When the hammer breaks, the entire network of the world or the "worldhood of the world" comes into view. It is this complex network of references, which are suddenly set in stark relief, which constitutes the world.
-
Students mustMark as done
While you view this video, pay special attention to the description of how Heidegger claims that we avoid thinking about our own death in our everyday lives. How is our avoidance of thinking about our own death related to what Heidegger calls authenticity and inauthenticity? When are we at our most inauthentic, according to Heidegger?
-
Students mustMark as done
This article gives an overview of Heidegger's concept of "sense". Do you agree that it's not obvious that the question of "being" should be asked in terms of the word "sense"? How might assuming that the many senses of being can actually be organized around one focal sense limit our existential understanding of being?
-
-
Dasein is never without mood. We might say we never just are, but we are always a certain way. Disposedness describes Dasein's receptivity to having things matter, to care. As Roderick Munday points out, "Dasein's being is always looking out towards the world is therefore is essentially manifested in care". Dasein is "thrown" into the world: we can say we did not choose to be born, but here we are.
In short, Dasein is determined by its thrownness. In this or that situation, however, Dasein finds possibilities for acting; these possibilities provide the fore-structures of projection, or freedom.
Insofar as Dasein projects itself, it is always being-ahead-of-itself. So, while Dasein's thrownness is part of its facticity (the facts about it), it is also dynamic. A possibility not actualized is just as much of Dasein's structural component as the one that is.
Dasein's mood means the world is disclosed in a particular way: joy or sadness, for example, means the world is disclosed as a delightful or sorrowful place. It is not that the mood colors the world, but the world just is this for Dasein. This is what it is for Dasein to be in the world.
Both thrownness and projection are two of the three dimensions of care. The third is fallenness. "Dasein has, in the first instance, fallen away from itself as an authentic potentiality for Being its Self, and has fallen into the world", which is manifested in a lack of critically-examined discourse (idle talk), superficial or novel stimulation (curiosity), and insensitivity to the distinction between understanding and mere chatter (ambiguity). In this way, Dasein is inauthentic. Authentic Dasein is my own, or mine. It is a "my-self" rather than a "they-self". The latter is constitutive of Dasein's existence, so authenticity becomes a way of relating to others without being lost to them.
This continual projection will bring Dasein to contemplate death. There is no phenomenology of death, so a complete analysis of existence is, phenomenologically, impossible.
"[A]lthough Dasein cannot experience its own death as actual, it can relate toward its own death as a possibility that is always before it", its "being-toward-death" (Michael Wheeler). It is a possibility that can never be actualized (again, there is no way to experience one's own death), so death is always only a possibility.
Moreover, "my awareness of that possibility illuminates me, qua Dasein, in my totality. Indeed, my own death is revealed to me as inevitable, meaning that Dasein is essentially finite" (Wheeler). Care is reinterpreted as "being-toward-death". Here, too, both authentic and inauthentic modes appear. Concerning death, inauthentic Dasein is fearful, while authentic Dasein is anticipation, the making death my own by, as it were, going out to meet it in this anticipation. Note the distinction that Heidegger makes between primordial understanding and basic understanding.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this article and consider what Heidegger means by "care". How is Heidegger's notion of care different from how we usually understand the concept of care? What role does care play in Heidegger's analysis of our own being? What about this notion of truth makes it radically different from how you might commonly think of truth?
-
-
Heidegger's early work reflects a positive view of Nietzsche's concept of the will. However, his later work takes a significant turn. In Being and Time, Heidegger presents the will as essential to Dasein's temporal experience, particularly when he discusses Dasein's realization of its own mortality. Later, however, Heidegger believes Nietzsche's concepts of the will to power, truth, and the eternal recurrence of the same are "co-extensive" or reflect elements of traditional Western metaphysics, which Heidegger rejects.
Heidegger's view of the self contrasts with Kierkegaard's. Hubert Dreyfus, an American philosopher from the University of California, Berkeley, explains that for Heidegger, "who you are is the social role you have taken over". For example, if you decide to become a wife, you may accept certain traditional aspects of the role you are thrown into (the particular role different societies dictate for you), or you can create your own social persona or change your role altogether if you wish. But it is still just a role. "It is never really you". What is essential about you is that "you can take a stand on your own being".
Kierkegaard believed that the person you are is based on an unconditional commitment, such as your love or commitment for another, be it another person, a group of people, or God. The temporal is easy – you are living in time, and you can reinterpret its meaning throughout your life – but the moment you profess an unconditional commitment, you create your own identity for life. The unconditional commitment you choose provides existential meaning and is eternal.
For Kierkegaard, your unconditional commitment to God provides you with an identity and is the highest stage of the self, associated with religiosity. The ethical self is the second highest, while the aesthetic self is the lowest. In some respects, Kierkegaard's aesthete is similar to Heidegger's condition of fallenness.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this article, which explores the anti-modernism present in Heidegger's work. Do you agree that the anti-modernist movement longs for the traditions and certainties before modernity? Does this longing equate to the principles of existentialism? Do most of us wish to return to a world that no longer exists?
-
-
-
Students mustReceive a grade
Take this assessment to see how well you understood this unit.
- This assessment does not count towards your grade. It is just for practice!
- You will see the correct answers when you submit your answers. Use this to help you study for the final exam!
- You can take this assessment as many times as you want, whenever you want.
-
-
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) is the public face of existentialism. His fictional and philosophical works affirm the existentialist priority of concrete, situated, and historical human existence. He stresses the value of choice, responsibility, and authenticity in human self-fashioning. Sartre was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1964 – an honor he refused because he maintained it conflicted with his professional, personal, and political commitments. In this unit, we examine Sartre's contributions to existentialist philosophy and highlight his place in the movement's history. In particular, we explore how Sartre expanded on the existentialist themes his predecessors dealt with, such as the notions of authenticity, anxiety, and freedom.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 3 hours.
-
The French philosopher and playwright Jean-Paul Sartre was trained in philosophy. His early education concentrated on Cartesian (René Descartes), neo-Kantian (Immanuel Kant), and Bergsonian (Henri Bergson) philosophies. He was then deeply influenced by the German phenomenologists Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) and Martin Heidegger (1889–1976).
Sartre has become the public face of existentialism. He did more to popularize the movement than any previous philosopher. Sartre's particular brand of existentialism, his popular 1956 lecture "Existentialism is a Humanism", and the horrors of World War II brought existentialism into the mainstream.
Sartre was concerned with human freedom, choice, responsibility, and authenticity. In Being and Nothingness (1956), we see that he derived these concepts from his thinking about consciousness and his commitment to atheism. His most famous phrases, "existence precedes essence" and "man is condemned to be free", reflect Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Marx's significant influences and reveal the direction of 20th-century existentialist themes.
The phenomenological movement held that we can reduce or trace all human knowledge back to an original "lived experience". Proponents prioritized concrete, descriptive analyses of our basic experiences over logical, abstract reasoning. Like Heidegger, Sartre appropriated the phenomenological method and applied it to the subject of "existence".
Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir were personal companions and professional collaborators from 1929 until Sartre's death. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx influenced Sartre's political sensibilities. Gustave Flaubert (1821–1880), the French writer who wrote philosophical novels, stories, and plays, was a longstanding literary influence on Sartre.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this article about Sartre's life and work. Pay attention to how Sartre uses the idea of consciousness. When do we become aware of our consciousness? In other words, when do we become self-aware?
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this article about the work and life of Sartre. How was Sartre's attempt to reconcile existentialism with Marxism similar to, yet different from, what Heidegger attempted to do? Which of Sartre's novels do you think best expresses his existentialist philosophy?
-
-
Sartre distinguishes among objects, consciousness, and self-consciousness. Sartre calls the world of things "being-in-itself" and our consciousness or perception of these things "being-for-itself". Self-consciousness transcends both.
We know ontology is the philosophical discipline that studies being or existence. There are two kinds of being: the in-itself (en soi) and the for-itself (pour soi). Things that are in-itself just are: they exist. However, we can use our intentionality of consciousness and directedness to interpret or negate the for-itself from the world.
Consciousness is not a thing in itself. In other words, consciousness has no essence – it is our relationship, interpretation, or perception of the in-itself. Our consciousness can negate the in-itself to the extent that "categorization requires saying where the class ends: where the lack of that class lies. And this is a part of the job of the for-itself, as the 'source of all negation'" (Ron McClamrock, Final Lecture on Sartre).
Again, consciousness has no essence: it is part of the objects to which it is directed. In this sense, the in-itself occurs before consciousness. The essence of things and our awareness of things are the same (because we apply our interpretation to what we perceive in the world as conscious human beings).
This leaves self-consciousness, the ego, or the "I". There is awareness, and then there is reflected awareness; in a sense, we are aware of our awareness in a special way. For example, when we read a novel, we are aware we are reading a novel. Our awareness is, ontologically speaking, transcendental; we are not in the world in the same way that being-in-itself or being-for-itself are.
-
Students mustMark as done
As you watch this video, think about what consciousness has meant for previous philosophers concerning Sartre's conception of the term. What does it mean to say that consciousness is a nothingness? Compare what Sartre means by the "for-itself" and the "in-itself". Make a list of the differences between these two concepts. Also, pay special attention to Sartre's notion of bad faith. Try to adopt Sartre's view on this concept. In what ways do human beings consider themselves to be in bad faith?
-
-
Sartre first presented his work Existentialism and Humanism at a public lecture in Paris. He wanted to define and defend existentialism since his critics complained his philosophy was too pessimistic and relativistic, centering too squarely on the subjective misery of humankind.
-
Students mustMark as done
As you watch this lecture, pay attention to why Sartre argues existentialism is a type of humanism. Make a list of the criticisms he received regarding existentialism. How does Sartre respond to his critics? Are the criticisms valid? Do you agree with any of them? Sartre argues that existentialism does not lead to isolationism or quietism, but rather that existentialism conceives the human subject as always in the world, with others. Pay close attention to how Sartre presents and justifies this argument.
-
-
Sartre's declaration that "existence precedes essence" means that essence is a creative act: "there is no given human nature". We are free to make who and what we are (to create our essence) through our choices (Warnock, Philosophy Bytes, 1:46). Before our choices, we exist as physical beings but have not established our essence.
As Rob Harle, the artist and philosopher, explains, Sartre believed that if God were "a supernal artisan" and created human beings in His image, the person's essence would be predetermined, and humans would not be free to make their own choices or define their own essence. Human beings would lack the ability to choose the essential what-it-is-to-be-me.
On the contrary, Sartre argued that this type of divine creative force does not exist:
Conscious "subjects" [human beings as opposed to animals, plants or inanimate objects] are characterised by: being free, responsible for themselves, have no determined essence and therefore are not caused, are not fixed and can never be complete.
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this lecture. Do you think Sartre believes we are responsible for who we are? What else are we responsible for? Do you agree with Sartre's assertion that existence comes before essence? Does a distinct human nature exist?
-
-
Sartre acknowledges our facticity, or facts about ourselves that we cannot control. For example, we have no control over when or where we were born. These facts are irrelevant to our freedom. Some features of our lives are determined but do not make us free or unfree.
For Sartre, freedom correlates, from a practical standpoint, with our choices. The choices we make are ours. No one else can choose for me, and our choices are not illusory: we do not believe we are making a choice when, in fact, we are not. Instead, these choices are real.
The ontology Sartre develops in Being and Nothingness provides the metaphysical framework for understanding freedom:
We choose everything about our world, in that even the way in which we conceptualize the world – as a matter of the for-itself – is something that we choose rather than something that is forced on us by the in-itself. Thus in some extremely pervasive sense, we choose the way the world looks to us.
– Ron McClamrock, Final Lecture on SartreWhile human freedom is a cornerstone of existentialist thought, Sartre goes further and argues we are "radically free". This is because Sartre believes God does not exist. However, Sartre characterizes radical freedom as humanity's greatest burden.
-
Students mustMark as done
As you watch this video, consider the role existential themes play in culpability and responsibility. What do Sartre's existential themes of freedom, commitment, despair, and choice mean in the context of self-identity? What does he mean when he says "being is slavery, nothingness is freedom"? Is Sartre's philosophy nihilistic or pessimistic?
-
-
Sartre believes we cannot avoid human freedom. He would say it like this. Since every choice I make is mine, mine alone, and characteristic of who I am, I am responsible for what I choose and what I become. To recognize this responsibility is to be authentic. I act in bad faith when I try to project blame or claim my situation dominates my actions.
Bad faith is self-deception. When I do not take responsibility for my choices and actions but foist the responsibility on someone or something else, I act as if I am a thing, not a conscious human being, determined by forces outside my control.
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch the video and consider how Sartre's passion for writing and literature may have informed his existential philosophy, particularly his concept of authenticity. Which of the plays listed in the article most contributed to his concept of authenticity? Do you think his willingness to be a provocative person involved in war efforts and political struggles positively influenced his existential thoughts?
-
-
-
Students mustReceive a grade
Take this assessment to see how well you understood this unit.
- This assessment does not count towards your grade. It is just for practice!
- You will see the correct answers when you submit your answers. Use this to help you study for the final exam!
- You can take this assessment as many times as you want, whenever you want.
-
-
A novelist, social critic, and philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) was trained in philosophy and wrote her graduate thesis on the German logician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716). Her influential feminist work, The Second Sex (1949), is of particular note. She extended previous existential theory into the social and political realms. She developed a philosophy based on existentialist ethics and feminist theory that would have a lasting influence on the feminist political movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Like previous existentialists, de Beauvoir emphasized the importance of individual freedom to human existence. However, unlike the existentialists before her, she argued that individual freedom was only possible if others were also free. In other words, de Beauvoir believed that equitable social relations are required for meaningful freedom. In this unit, we discuss de Beauvoir's existentialist ethics and feminism.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 2 hours.
-
De Beauvoir was active in France's mid-century intellectual circles. She was not only a philosopher but also a memoirist, novelist, playwright, travel writer, and reporter. The breadth of her authorship is evidence of her existential commitment to being in the world. While Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) claimed she was "the midwife of Sartre's existential ethics" (Debra Befgoffen). She described herself as an author rather than a philosopher. Her place in the history of existentialism is based on the strength of her original ideas. While she and Sartre worked closely together and deeply influenced each other's thoughts, de Beauvoir's work stands on its own merits.
Scholars debate how Beauvoir and Sartre influenced one another and struggle to disentangle the contributions of each philosopher, which followed 50 years of "discussions and critiques of each other's work". Did de Beauvoir merely elaborate on Sartre's thinking, as she maintained? Did Sartre "steal" the core concepts in Being and Nothingness from de Beauvoir's novel She Came to Stay (also published in 1943)? Their letters and de Beauvoir's diaries do not settle the matter. However, readers study de Beauvoir's literary and philosophical output to decide which philosophical ideas are her own.
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this article. Pay special attention to how de Beauvoir's philosophy connected to previous existentialists and took existentialism into new exciting realms. How were her contributions unique to existentialism and the wider social movements developing during her time?
-
-
De Beauvoir first developed her existential ethics in an essay called "Pyrrhus et Cinéas" (1944), which described a war-torn France trying to emerge from the shadows of World War II. In this dense philosophical text, she focused her existential ethics on one's ethical responsibility to oneself, others, and oppressed groups. Her writing incorporates themes from Hegel, Heidegger, Spinoza, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Sartre. However, de Beauvoir both criticizes and admires these philosophers. For example, she criticizes Heidegger's emphasis on being-toward-death as undermining the need to establish projects that are goals in themselves rather than simply projections toward death.
Unlike existentialists such as Nietzsche and Sartre, her concept of individual freedom includes ethical considerations of other free subjects in the world. According to de Beauvoir, living in the world can feel oppressive and objective, yet the "other" can reveal our fundamental freedom. Without a God to guarantee morality, it is up to the individual to form bonds with other people through ethical action. Our bonds with others require us to engage in activities that express our own freedom (and thus responsibility) while encouraging the freedom of fellow humans.
De Beauvoir constructs an ethical framework that emphasizes freedom, responsibility, and ambiguity, expressing existentialist themes. Unlike Sartre, who perceives the other as a threat to one's freedom, de Beauvoir perceives the other as a necessary axis of one's freedom – without our relationships with other people, we cannot be free. De Beauvoir is concerned with issues of oppression that are largely absent in existentialist philosophy to elucidate existentialist ethics.
-
Students mustMark as done
As you read this encyclopedia entry on de Beauvoir, pay attention to the discussion of de Beauvoir's literary fiction and how it served as a vehicle for her philosophical ideas. What is the role of the other in individual human existence? Do we have any responsibility toward the other? If so, what exactly is that responsibility? Do we have an ethical responsibility to acknowledge and act on this responsibility?
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this video about de Beauvoir's life and works. Was there anything that surprised you about her life and career trajectory? What aspects of de Beauvoir's life and career would make you classify her as an existential philosopher?
-
-
In her book The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947), de Beauvoir builds on themes she introduced in her essay, "Pyrrhus et Cinéas". She demonstrates her long-standing concerns with freedom, oppression, and responsibility, her philosophical grasp of history, and her unique contributions. De Beauvoir suggests that there is no reason for humans to exist and, as a result, no predetermined human essence or standard of value. She expounds on the idea that human freedom requires the freedom of others to be realized and continues with her concern about freedom, oppression, and responsibility.
De Beauvoir writes:
From the very beginning, existentialism defined itself as a philosophy of ambiguity. It was by affirming the irreducible character of ambiguity that Kierkegaard opposed himself to Hegel, and it is by ambiguity that, in our own generation, Sartre, in Being and Nothingness, fundamentally defined man, that being whose being is not to be, that subjectivity which realizes itself only as a presence in the world, that engaged freedom, that surging of the for-oneself which is immediately given for others. But it is also claimed that existentialism is a philosophy of the absurd and of despair. It encloses man in a sterile anguish, in an empty subjectivity. It is incapable of furnishing him with any principle for making choices. Let him do as he pleases. In any case, the game is lost.
– The Ethics of Ambiguity, Ch. 1, p. 2A human being's lived experience is one of ambiguity. For example, at the most basic level, we are aware of our death as we live. Our awareness of life and death leads us to further realize the ethical implications of the ambiguity of human existence. Rather than try to "mask" or propose an imaginary solution, such as an immortal soul, the ethics of ambiguity contemplates the difficulty head-on.
The fallibility of humans makes ethics possible by giving us an ideal to pursue. In other words, our fallibility should not prompt us to give up on improvement. Rather, our fallibility gives us reason to think about what improvement should look like.
-
Students mustMark as done
As you watch this video, pay attention to the role ethics plays in existential theory. How does de Beauvoir frame her ethical existential critique? What are the strengths and weaknesses of de Beauvoir's characterization of ambiguity and how she uses it in her argument? How does ambiguity characterize human existence, according to de Beauvoir?
-
-
De Beauvoir is best known for her revolutionary magnum opus, The Second Sex (1949), which was well-received due to the lack of feminist theory and fiercely criticized (the Vatican added it to their list of prohibited books). The main thesis is that men have long oppressed women because they are his "other". Like Sartre and Hegel, de Beauvoir agreed that the self needs otherness to define itself. However, self-understanding through alterity should be reciprocal. But what actually happens is that men – who assume the role of the self – consistently define women as the other. As Beauvoir explains, woman "is the incidental, the inessential, as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other". Woman is not man's equal but his inferior. According to de Beauvoir, the difference should not equate to inequality.
De Beauvoir investigates how this radically-inequitable relationship among genders arose and what structures, attitudes, and presuppositions continue to sustain social power. De Beauvoir argues that patriarchal societies have generated impossible standards of femininity that frequently conflict. These measures permeate all aspects of European literary, social, political, economic, and religious traditions.
Recall that Du Bois discussed the internal and external struggle of people of color, while De Beauvoir expands upon Du Bois' ideas of "double consciousness" to include the oppression of women and their fight for freedom. She calls women's experience within realms of oppression the notion of "other". Both believed that neither women nor people of color are born into their status as inferior, but they are socially forced into cultural subordination. In The Second Sex, de Beauvoir even states, "'The eternal feminine' corresponds to 'the Black soul' and to 'the Jewish character'". De Beauvoir wants to emancipate women from the private realms while recognizing the linkages in social positions and ultimately escape from the inferior position of "Other".
-
Students mustMark as done
As you read this overview of de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, pay close attention to the historical story she gives about the development of woman as "the other" of man. What is an abstract concept, according to de Beauvoir? How is woman an abstract concept? Also, consider how, according to Sartre and de Beauvoir, no one is born with a predetermined essence: You become who you are. What does de Beauvoir mean when she suggests that a person is not born a woman but becomes one?
-
-
According to de Beauvoir, the phrase "applied existentialism" is redundant. Broadly construed as a philosophy of existence, existentialism is always concerned with being in the world or being human. We can think about the phrase in terms of de Beauvoir's existentialism, as honing in on the ways that our being (not ontologically-distinct substances, such as a Cartesian mind and body) runs up against the restrictions of our situation. This is not to say de Beauvoir rejects the radical freedom Sartre presents in his work, but she incorporates the phenomenology or the lived experience of being in the world as a person who cannot ignore their situation.
The concept of applied existentialism is particularly evident in de Beauvoir's argument against an abstract concept of "woman" in her book The Second Sex. There is no "woman", only individuals living under oppression. Another way to explain this is to think of de Beauvoir's monumental contribution to feminism and apply existentialism to the problem of patriarchy.
-
Students mustMark as done
The French West Indian philosopher and psychiatrist Franz Fanon (1925–1961) was a fierce critic of colonialism and the violence that came with it. He condemned physical and conceptual violence, including how many use language to oppress, marginalize, and hurt others. Consider the differences and similarities between Fanon and de Beauvoir. In what ways does de Beauvoir's existentialism encourage or lead to revolutionary action?
-
-
-
Students mustReceive a grade
Take this assessment to see how well you understood this unit.
- This assessment does not count towards your grade. It is just for practice!
- You will see the correct answers when you submit your answers. Use this to help you study for the final exam!
- You can take this assessment as many times as you want, whenever you want.
-
-
Albert Camus (1913–1960) was an Algerian writer and intellectual. He refused to be labeled a philosopher because he did not believe human reason could systematize human experience in all its complexities. A friend and subsequently a critic of Sartre, his writings reflect comparable themes to Sartre's. In 1957, Camus was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. In this unit, we explore Camus' existentialism by examining his book The Stranger and his essay "The Myth of Sisyphus" (both published in 1942), which highlight the absurdities of human existence and the absurdity of existentialism itself when the philosophy is taken to an extreme. He was internationally well-known and famous for his concepts of the Absurd.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 1 hour.
-
Unlike Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and de Beauvoir, Camus was not an academic philosopher. He worked as a journalist, playwright, and political activist and refused to be called a philosopher or existentialist. Despite these denials, Camus explored the meaning of existence throughout his novels, plays, and essays.
It is best to classify him as a writer – we can add the adjectives "philosophical" and "existentialist" for greater clarity because Camus centered most of his work on existential concerns. In his writings, he emphasizes the absurdity of existence and its unavoidable conclusion (death). He believed we should embrace the absurd – that life is devoid of purpose, and humans cannot know that meaning if it existed. The critic in him prompts him to: debunk mythologies, be skeptical of superstition, seek to eliminate terror, be the voice of passion and compassion, and ardently defend freedom.
Camus also addressed the subject of suicide. "There is only one truly important philosophical subject, and that is suicide", he wrote. Suicide, according to Camus, arose spontaneously as a remedy to the absurdity of existence.
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this lecture on the life and works of Albert Camus. Pay special attention to the breadth of his life and work. Why is Camus critical of the existentialists as a group of philosophers and the term existentialism itself?
-
Students mustMark as done
Read this biography about Camus, and consider how his career trajectory may have influenced the types of projects he sought and the things he did with his life. Do you think he practiced what he was writing about?
-
-
In his literary essay The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), Camus introduces his philosophy of the absurd. His story opens with a provocative statement: "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide". In the realm of logic, an absurdity is a contradiction. The claim "life has and does not have meaning" includes two contradictory phrases which cannot be simultaneously true and false. For example, we cannot logically say that "all dogs are animals" and "some dogs are not animals".
But this is not what Camus believed about the absurd. To say the world and life are absurd is to say it is pointless. Camus wrote:
...man stands face to face with the irrational. He feels within him his longing for happiness and for reason. The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world. This must not be forgotten. This must be clung to because the whole consequence of a life can depend on it.
Camus pointed to the Greek myth of Sisyphus to concentrate our attention on what life means and how we should respond. Zeus punished Sisyphus, "the futile laborer of the underworld", by condemning him to have to roll a massive boulder up a hill for eternity. As soon as he reaches the top, the boulder rolls back down, and the process repeats indefinitely. The exercise sees no achievable purpose, and his effort is futile. Camus believed this allegory represents life: which has no purpose and is futile. In short, life is meaningless.
The most important philosophical question for Camus is "whether or not life is worth living". Camus' philosophy of absurdism aims to determine whether life has meaning. If nothing exists that provides meaning, then perhaps there is something deeply absurd about human's quest to find meaning.
We are left to question whether our realization of meaninglessness and the absurdity of life require us to commit suicide. Does the absurd dictate death? Camus thinks not. He eventually condemns suicide: instead, he suggests we must accept and embrace the task of living. Suicide is not an appropriate response to the meaninglessness of life. Recognizing there is no meaning does not imply we should give up or succumb to the absurd. Rather, the proper response is to learn how to live with it.
When we learn to live with the absurd, we conduct an open revolt against meaninglessness and are rendered free of the preconceptions and artificial meaning life imposes on us. We begin to live fully and passionately in the present.
For this reason, according to Camus, Sisyphus is the "hero of the absurd". According to Camus, Sisyphus descended from the top of the hill to begin again. He was aware of his condition and conscious of the utter pointlessness of his eternal task. And yet, Camus proposes Sisyphus is happy. Because he embraces his reality, he has defeated his punishment.
-
Students mustMark as done
As you listen to this lecture about Camus' life and work, consider what makes existence absurd. How can people overcome it? What are the consequences of Camus' thoughts about living and dying in terms of the purpose of our lives? Considering the many ways we battle the absurdity of life, why does Camus believe suicide is not an option? According to Camus, what has Sisyphus done that sets an example for us all?
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this video about the Myth of Sisyphus and consider how the story of Sisyphus relates to some of the major themes in Camus' work related to the absurd, meaning, and existentialism.
-
-
Besides the actual act of suicide, Camus discusses "philosophical suicide" when we accept something as true because it is convenient and easy. He believes that trusting a ready-made belief system like religion is a type of intellectual suicide. Many believe Camus' approach to the religious question in existentialist thinking is his reaction to Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky. Both writers discuss the absurdity of the universe before embracing stronger confidence in God.
Kierkegaard described himself as a Christian, despite his criticism of the church. The only reasonable choice for establishing whether God exists is to take a "leap of faith" toward Christianity, which Kierkegaard believes is an ultimately irrational experience.
Camus has said that several of Dostoevsky's atheist characters, such as Ivan Karamazov, influenced his perceptions of religion and faith. Ultimately, Camus said, "I do not believe in God and I am not an atheist", which appropriately summarizes his rejection of religion. He was skeptical of Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky's leap into what he perceived to be an irrational faith. He argued that accepting Christianity was an inappropriate reaction to the absurd.
-
Students mustMark as done
As you read the article, consider how Camus' philosophy of absurdism relates to our study of existentialism and previous philosophers such as Søren Kierkegaard. According to Camus, what attitudes should we have toward life concerning absurdism? How does confronting the absurdity in life give us reasons to keep going?
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this video below and consider your responses to some of the questions Camus asked. Do you agree that all humans are born with the same human essence and that we all wish to find meaning?
-
-
From the first descriptive lines of The Stranger, Meursault, our anti-hero, is explicitly disconnected from life. He responds to his mother's death and the rituals surrounding it with noncommittal curiosity rather than grief. His lack of emotional distress is not the issue. Rather, he is not engaged with life at all. The death of his mother is neither distressing nor consoling. In one sense, Meursault, the main character, is the stranger.
To become aware of the absurd is to come face to face with reality, which neither comforts nor frightens: it does nothing at all. Camus says that reality is silent: it does not respond to the apparent human need to understand, let alone discern a purpose to existence. Before the murder, however, Meursault did not confront this fact.
On the one hand, why should Meursault care about his life any more than he cared for the life of the man he murdered? Life is, after all, meaningless. There is no reason to be good or bad because there is no good or bad at all. Yet Meursault begins to care at the moment when escape becomes impossible and death is inevitable.
From early in our lives, we know we will die. However, what death means and its impact on how we live do not necessarily come with this knowledge. Death does not resonate because we are detached. Who cares about death? I am alive now: what does death have to do with me? Indifference to life and death is a blind acceptance, not revolt.
Meursault's initial detachment may be his way of rejecting societal rules. From the beginning, he refuses to conform to social norms. He does not express sadness, let alone grief, over his mother's death. He does not engage with his girlfriend or develop other meaningful relationships. Worst of all, he violates the fundamental social prohibition against unjust killing and seems unperturbed by society's response: his being put to death.
-
Students mustMark as done
Watch this discussion about the book The Stranger. Do you think Camus is right when he says that most human life consists of irrational relationships, decisions, and actions? Do you think Meursault was not simply an emotionally-inept, socially-incompetent psychopath? Perhaps he represents what it means to live a life in full view of its utter lack of meaning. Do you think passivity is an acceptable way of experiencing life and treating others?
-
-
-
Students mustReceive a grade
Take this assessment to see how well you understood this unit.
- This assessment does not count towards your grade. It is just for practice!
- You will see the correct answers when you submit your answers. Use this to help you study for the final exam!
- You can take this assessment as many times as you want, whenever you want.
-
-
This study guide will help you get ready for the final exam. It discusses the key topics in each unit, walks through the learning outcomes, and lists important vocabulary terms. It is not meant to replace the course materials!
-
Please take a few minutes to give us feedback about this course. We appreciate your feedback, whether you completed the whole course or even just a few resources. Your feedback will help us make our courses better, and we use your feedback each time we make updates to our courses. If you come across any urgent problems, email contact@saylor.org.
-
Take this exam if you want to earn a free Course Completion Certificate.
To receive a free Course Completion Certificate, you will need to earn a grade of 70% or higher on this final exam. Your grade for the exam will be calculated as soon as you complete it. If you do not pass the exam on your first try, you can take it again as many times as you want, with a 7-day waiting period between each attempt. Once you pass this final exam, you will be awarded a free Course Completion Certificate.
-
Students mustReceive a gradeReceive a passing grade
-