Episode 21 - Existentialism - another Dharma Road

We each have to find, or maybe construct, a dharma road upon which we can walk in peace with care and attention – cultivating wellbeing and living a good life. The many forms of Buddhism offer possible dharma roads but there are also other routes that may be just as beneficial. The diversity of world religions and philosophies are testament to the variety of paths that have been, and are being, taken by dharma travellers. In this episode I am going to explore some of the ideas and beliefs espoused by existentialist thinkers – ideas that have proved helpful to many people over the past century and a half. As I proceed, I will mention in passing a few parallels with the ideas and the beliefs of Buddhist thinkers and practitioners. I hope other similarities and differences will become apparent to you as we go along.

Transcript

When we read about existentialism, we notice at the outset that the existentialist description of how we are in the world has an affinity with how the Buddha describes existence. However, the ways in which existentialists tend to respond to the basic conditions of existence are very different to how the Buddha responds. A Buddhist description of human existence emphasises transience, the interdependence of all entities, the absence of an essential ‘self,’ the widespread nature of human suffering, and the importance of self-awareness and responsibility for determining how one acts and what one does in the world. In many ways, existentialists would go along with this description – but, while Buddhists tend towards an optimistic belief in the possibility of alleviating suffering and the development of peace and understanding, existentialists, certainly in their writings and artefacts, tend towards a more pessimistic view of human existence, often with little sense of liberation or release.

During the 1940's, 50's and into the early 60's, a movement that became known as ‘Existentialism’ excited both the popular imagination, and intellectual and artistic circles. For a while at least, it seemed to have taken the place of Surrealism at the vanguard of Western thought. It's popular appeal - centred on the cafe society in Paris dominated by Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) - gave rise to the ‘Beat' movement in Europe and the United States. Novels like Sartre's, Nausea, and Albert Camus', The Stranger, epitomised an attitude to life which seemed new – and which took account of the physical and ethical ravages of World War II, and the realism or cynicism brought on by this catastrophic conflict. From the late 40s to the 1960s, being ‘hip’, ‘beat’ or ‘cool’ owed much to popular conceptions, or misconceptions, of existentialist thought. 

So, who are the ‘existentialists’? The term is loosely applied to the views of a cluster of individuals who shared some beliefs and ideas but in other respects were very different to each other. Though Sartre became perhaps the most famous existentialist (despite being infrequently read) his atheistic approach was only one strand in a complex current of ideas which could be said to have begun with the writings of Soren Kierkegaard (1813-55), a Danish theologian who achieved great fame and notoriety for both his presence, his life and his powerful attacks on the Christian establishment. More recent Christian existentialists include Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) and Paul Tillich (1886-1965). 

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is often considered an influence upon existentialist thought. We must also add to our list more recent thinkers like the Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber (1878-1965), the Spanish philosopher, Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936) and the German thinker, Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) fits in somewhere, as does the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, which had an undoubted influence upon Sartre. And while Sartre, no doubt, saw himself as the lynchpin of existentialist thought, Simone de Beauvoir has come to be considered as an equally significant thinker who has had a profound influence on the development of feminist philosophy. 

The writer, Colin Wilson, with his book, ‘The Outsider,’ (1956) became a popular and influential advocate of existentialist thought.  The playwright, Samuel Beckett, is often viewed as dealing with existential ideas and issues - ‘Waiting for Godot’ (1953) being an obvious example. The writers, Albert Camus and Fyodor Dostoevsky also explore existential themes. Visual artists such as, Alberto Giacometti and Francis Bacon, as well as many American Abstract Expressionist painters are also often described and discussed in existentialist terms.

Just noting some of the titles of existentialist texts gives a flavour of their contents: for instance, ‘Irrational Man’ (Barrett), ‘Being & Nothingness’ (Sartre), ‘Eithor/Or’ (Kierkegaard), ‘Fear & Trembling’ (Kierkegaard) and ‘The Courage to Be’ (Paul Tillich).

*

So, what is ‘existentialism?’ If we go back in our imaginations to the dark smoky bars of Paris in the late 40s and 50's, where pale-faced, intense, rather austere-looking young women exchanged Gauloises and opinions with loose-sweatered older men, one phrase succeeds in overcoming both the chatter and the smoke for long enough to become well-known: Existence precedes essence. Typically, the phrase appears both technical and precise, while remaining vague and difficult to open out into an explanation – but I will try. 

When we ponder on the concept of a chair, or a triangle or gravity, we have formed in our minds a certain essence or blueprint - characteristics essential to a chair, triangle or manifestation of gravity. We can form this essence in our minds even when there is no object or event in the world with this essence. For instance, we can formulate a concept of a unicorn before a unicorn has been observed or otherwise shown to exist. 

With regard to almost everything essence precedes existence. But, in the case of human beings, existentialists argue, the situation just outlined is reversed. First a human being IS: and WHAT he or she is, is settled in the course of his or her existence and is not predetermined. 

Of course, we must be quick to spot both arrogance and prejudice here, which is typical of so much western philosophy. That is - an arrogance in assuming human beings are alone in their self-consciousness, and a prejudice against other creatures for their apparent lack of self-awareness. 

But let's accept this notion for a moment. 

We awake one day to find ourselves in the world. We did not ask to be here. There is no obvious and certain reason for our being here. There is no obvious and certain reason for our remaining here. Nor is there an obvious and certain reason for our departing! And yet, here we are. 

The human being, in his every action, defines his own essence. Every man and woman through the manner and course of their existence determine their own essence. Hence the aphorism: Existence precedes essence. 

In a way we are only saying that, of all beings, a human being is pre-eminently self-aware – it is possible, though not proven, that humans are the only creatures to manifest self-consciousness. Humans seem to be the only beings without a blueprint. There may be echoes here of the seventeenth-century philosopher, John Locke, who argued that the mind is a tabula rasa - a clean slate upon which we write our own identity and define what we are. 

CHOICE 

Given this idea that existence precedes essence, it is no surprise that for many existentialist thinkers, the most fundamental attribute of a human being - the cause of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction - is the capacity we have to choose what we think and do. We are most truly human in our acts of choice. Indeed, the literature of existentialism reads like an interminable walk over hot coals, in that each moment of existence presents us with a dilemma: what are we to do? How should we behave? What should we believe, think or say? 

Much of the humour and pathos of Samuel Beckett's famous play, Waiting for Godot, stems from the way in which the two central characters, Vladimir and Estragon, try to make up their minds about what they should do next. The play’s action, or inaction, revolves around their desire to do something and their uncertainty and prevarications about what this might be. The humour, pathos and meaningfulness of the play, to a large extent, hinge on their waiting for an answer to the question, ‘what next?’ In many of Beckett’s plays and novels the characters rack their brains for reasons to do this rather than that, to go left rather than right, to think this rather than that, to speak rather than to say nothing - and with very little success. In the end one choice seems little different to another, let alone ‘better’ or ‘worse’. At the end of The Unnameable, a novel first published in 1952, the ‘subject’ says: ‘…where I am, I don’t know, I’ll never know, in the silence you don’t know, you must go on, I can’t go on, I’ll go on.’ (in Beckett, 1979) The compulsion to go on seems almost biological, something wired into us rather than the result of rational decision-making.

In many of Beckett’s writings he is very equivocal about the nature of the ‘self’. The idea of an essential self is taken apart, often using the device of a narrator who constantly interrogates himself - asking himself who he is, why is he here and what is he to do. In many of his works, Krapp’s Last Tape (1958) being a fine example, it is sometimes not clear who is the ‘subject’ or speaker, or we are offered many voices within one. Often the subject is represented as an arena or stage within which competing voices, thoughts and intentions argue and disagree about who they are. The ‘self’ becomes a site of uncertainty, instability and unresolved questions of identity. Beckett reminds us that the self is never a given, a predetermined entity, it has to be constructed day-by-day, moment-by-moment, establishing a temporary identity within the flux of the world. The great, and possibly only, consolations for the awesome indifference of the universe and our brief stay in it are, for Beckett, companionship, human warmth, humour and a resigned tattered nobility of determination to tread life’s unpredictably predictable path.

The problem of choosing - of first becoming aware that we have the power, the duty to choose, and then deciding on what basis to make the choice, and finally the act of choosing itself - becomes both the ultimate blessing of human beings and their lifelong curse. Sartre, particularly, presents us with the constant anguish of existence, the burden of becoming. In much of his writing there is a palpable sense of the enormous weight of our responsibility to choose if we are to remain fully human. Karl Jaspers concludes that a man who makes no decisions has no existence, or at most he exists like a thing rather than a human being.

While the existentialist tends to feel the burden of choice, the Buddhist tends to feel the potential of choice – the possibilities for growth and realisation that arise from how we choose.

VALUES 

If choice is fundamental, human values become the subject of endless debate. The basis upon which we choose becomes a perpetual dilemma - for generations as for individuals. Sartre is quite explicit about this: The human being invents values. There are no pre-ordained values, there is no a priori meaning to life - nothing provided by God, state, history or evolution. Each person must choose alone, and through choice invent their values and hence their life's meaning. No one else can do this for us - and if they did, they would deny us both our freedom and our humanity. 

So, the existentialist argument moves from the notion of existence, to choice and to freedom. And from freedom to responsibility - for the freedom to choose places total responsibility on each individual. We each have to take full responsibility for what we are, what we have done, and what we will do. We are each our own invention, we make ourselves. This reinforces our sense of solitude, our anxiety. According to Sartre, human beings are condemned to be free. Integrity, responsibility and authenticity are the highest virtues. Self-deception is the greatest vice.

In one Encyclopedia of Philosophy the entry on ‘existentialism’ includes this statement: ‘…existentialists are concerned with identifying the most authentic and fulfilling way of life possible for individuals. In their view, most of us tend to conform to the ways of living of the ‘herd’: we feel we are doing well if we do what ‘one’ does in familiar social situations. In this respect, our lives are said to be ‘inauthentic’. To become authentic, according to this view, an individual must take over their own existence with clarity and intensity. Such a transformation is made possible by such profound emotional experiences as anxiety, or the experience of existential guilt.’ (Anon. 2000: 265)

Another dictionary has this entry: ‘For Heidegger, man is a temporal being, conscious, through his will, of a future whose only certainty is his own death. To live authentically is to live in the light of this bleak and unrationalisable fact, in full awareness of le neant (nothingness), both as one’s own ultimate destiny and as one’s own nature, until one has chosen a character for oneself.’ (Bullock & Trombley 2000: 297-298)

While the Buddha might go along with many of these ideas, his way of thinking about, and living with, freedom, responsibility and authenticity is very different. In Buddhist worldviews the transience of life is counterbalanced by an awareness of how all beings are interconnected and interdependent – this feeling of kinship and shared experiences is a powerful complement to the isolation that we might feel in the face of life’s challenges.

COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY 

One somewhat unexpected twist of existentialist thought compounds the burden of responsibility still further. According to Sartre, in a sense, as human beings we make choices as a representative of humanity. Not to choose would be to deny our humanity (and let the side down, so to speak). In making choices for ourselves, we share a collective responsibility for the choices of everyone. This social dimension to Sartre’s thinking leads him later in life to an accord with Marxism. This belief that individual choice and responsibility are inseparable from collective responsibility, is not so far from William Blake's position when he says in his poem, Auguries of Innocence: A robin red breast in a cage / Puts all heaven in a rage. (Blake 2019)

CHRISTIAN EXISTENTIALISM 

While Sartre, Beauvoir and otherexistentialist thinkers were agnostics or atheists there were a number of influential Christian philosophers who developed forms of existential thinking. The earliest of these was the Danish theologian, Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), who lived in Copenhagen for most of his life. Kierkegaard recounts how, as a student, he rejected Christianity to become a follower of the German philosopher, Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), only to find him lacking. Hegel was one of the most influential of German philosophers. His dense and difficult philosophy proposed that the only reality was the reality of the whole. Separateness was an illusion. Parts only made sense insofar as they were considered aspects of the whole. Only the whole truth was the truth! Hegel called the whole the Absolute. Followers of Hegel's way of thinking came to believe in the supremacy of the state over the individual in that the state more closely resembles the Absolute. In a similar way, a catholic might consider the church, as an institution, to be more important than any individual catholic. 

Kierkegaard, on the other hand, could never place the Church or the State above the individual. Hence his importance to the later development of existentialist thought. Despite its early attraction for him Kierkegaard rejected Hegel's thought and the tradition of speculative philosophy in general. He was to move in his own life from a philosophy of pure thought and systematic knowledge to a philosophy of BEING. He searched for truths which could form a foundation for living. 

Kierkegaard's life and philosophy are inseparable. Though he was considered one of the great intellects of his day, he used his intelligence to explore the reality of his own existence. His life became a life of doubt - at times despairing, for moments ecstatic, but consistently vibrant, engaged, alive. Day by day he seems to have sought his own path, his own identity, his own authentic existence. In doing so he questioned and, in a way, revitalised the fundamental meanings and beliefs of the Christian church. 

For a Christian existentialist like Kierkegaard at the heart of being a Christian lies the completely absurd act of believing in an event which is not open to scientific enquiry or proof – that is, the life of Jesus and Christ's existence as the Son of God. All our normal powers of reasoning, observation and discrimination fall by the wayside when confronted with such a perplexing mystery - every Christian has to take what Kierkegaard describes as a leap into faith. Kierkegaard in the l840's advocates an existential act of choosing as the cornerstone of Christian practice. 

ALIENATION

Jean-Paul Sartre’s novel, Nausea, is particularly concerned with existentialist notions of angst (anxiety) and alienation. Alienation - a feeling of separateness from the world, from others, and from ourselves - inevitably arises as a result of dualistic thinking (and feeling). Existentialist thinkers tend to present us with a heightened awareness of the self as an isolated entity. Existentialists struggle with the question of how to deal with the alienation that arises from this sense of isolation. Is there a way to heal the feeling of separateness, dislocation? How can we develop a more unified understanding and equanimity in the face of life’s difficulties? The Buddha also ponders on these questions, but he comes up with very different responses.

For Karl Marx alienation is mirrored in class-division, hierarchical social orders and conflicts of interest - disputes about wealth, ownership, rights and justice. For Marx alienation can only be ended by a transformation of social conditions (private property, division of labour, class divisions, etc.). No wonder Sartre developed a form of ‘existentialist Marxism’ later in his career!

In The Second Sex, first published in 1949, Simone de Beauvoir mounts a powerful critique of the ways in which, throughout history, women have been led to passively accept roles assigned to them by men, and thus feel a sense of alienation from their own powers of choice and self-determination. (Beauvoir 1997)

QUESTIONS, NOT ANSWERS! 

Existentialist philosophy tends not to propose solutions to the major questions posed by life - it uses philosophical analysis to drive home the questions themselves until they engage the whole person and are made personal, urgent and anguished. Abstract generalities are replaced by specific conditions. The clear and vibrant recognition of a human being’s existential solitude; an engaged awareness of ourselves, of others and of the world; our need for individual freedom and the burden of responsibility - are themes which run through all existentialist writing and art - and are also central to Buddhism, though handled and resolved in very different ways. 

BEYOND DESPAIR? 

Even a brief reading of existentialist texts will present the reader with an abundance of despair, anguish and absurdity - a sense of pessimism perhaps and an over-emphasis on what could be called negative responses to life. Joy, equanimity, cheerfulness and love of life tend not to be very evident – though, in Beckett and others there is a lot of humour, however dark or bleak it may be. 

A Buddhist or Stoic could go along with the tough existential analysis of the ‘human condition’ but draw from it, if not different conclusions, then markedly different attitudes to how to live life. 

For Sartre and many other existentialists, responsibility and choice often seem like burdens or prisons, but it is important to keep in mind that choice and responsibility can also be viewed as agents of freedom – enabling us to determine how we live our lives. Whether we think of our lives in terms of optimism or pessimism, passivity or action, confinement or freedom, is itself something we can choose. The holistic view of many ancient Greek writers - of life as a tragicomedy full of funny details, great pleasures and pains, acts of weakness and of great courage – suggests that the existentialist analysis of life doesn’t necessarily have to lead to a narrow egocentricity, let alone despair. A life of mindful choosing and taking responsibility can enable existentialists and Buddhists to lead a good life – caring for themselves, for others and for the world of which they are an integral part.

Kierkegaard once said, the important thing is not just to cultivate the mind but to mature the personality. This wise remark is something that existentialists, stoics, sceptics and Buddhists would all agree is vital to individual fulfilment and collective wellbeing.

Thank you for listening and bye for now.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anon. 2000. Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge.

Barrett, William. 1990. Irrational Man. Anchor Books. 

Beauvoir, Simone de. 1997. The Second Sex. Vintage Classics.

Beckett, Samuel. 1979. The Beckett Trilogy: Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnameable, Pan.

Beckett, Samuel. 2006. Waiting for Godot. Faber.

Blackham, H.J. 1959. Six Existentialist Thinkers. Harper. 

Blake, William. 2019. William Blake: Selected Poems. Oxford University Press.

Buber, Martin. 2000. I and Thou, Scribner.

Bullock, A. & Trombley, S. eds. 2000. The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, HarperCollins.

Camus, Albert. 1989. The Stranger. Vintage. 

Heidegger, Martin. 2008. Being and Time. HarperCollins.

Kierkegaard, Soren. 1974. Either/Or. Princeton University Press.

Kierkegaard, Soren. 1985. Fear and Trembling, Penguin.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1986. Nausea. Penguin.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. 2020. Being and Nothingness. Routledge.

Tillich, Paul. 2014. The Courage to Be. Yale University Press.

Unamuno, Miguel de. 2005. Tragic Sense of Life. Cosimo Classics.

Wilson, Colin. 2001. The Outsider. Phoenix Mass Market.