This week, we’re studying existentialism. You might have heard this term before or at least seen the ideas it represents in movies like I Heart Huckabees. Existentialism is not a clearly defined area of philosophy, as Soccio points out. Existentialism is born when people decide that systems of thought are not effective in dealing with the problems of humanity, and especially with problems of the individual. Existentialism stands up for individual freedom and rallies against conformity.

Soren Kierkegaard is the existentialist we’ll be studying this week. For Kierkegaard, the question of action is paramount to the question of belief. After some trying life experiences, he concluded that immediate situations facing the individual are more important than any universal truths like “You can’t step in the same river twice.” What is such “wisdom” compared to the immediate choices of life? The picture on the right uses a part from the Nintendo game, The Adventure of Link (one of my favorites!) to illustrate a point about existentialism.

Inauthenticity and Authenticity

Kierkegaard made a distinction between inauthenticity and authenticity. Inauthenticity happens when one’s actions ignore the needs of the individual. So, for example, a war general is living inauthentically by ordering troops to their death for “the good of the nation.” This general is sacrificing the immediate needs of the individual for some abstract idea of the greater good. Authenticity happens when a person lives in the moment and is ready for any outcome—with no excuses and no falling back on membership in some group. Kierkegaard, not surprisingly, attacked organized Christianity, calling it inauthentic. Authentic Christianity, he thought, is taking a “leap of faith.” The leap of faith is a blind, personal commitment to God at every moment of your life. The very fact that this leap is completely independent of reason is what makes it so strong. (Below is a waterslide called "The Leap of Faith" at the Atlantis Resort on Paradise Island. The slide takes you through a tube filled with sharks. Not quite what Kierkegaard had in mind, I don't think.)

Subjectivity and Objectivity

What is the significance of a philosophical system if it doesn’t tell me anything about me and about my life? I can evaluate Aristotle’s idea of good against Plato’s day and night, but what does that have to do with my day to day life? Clearly, some sort of understanding is still important, but for Kierkegaard it must be an understanding in relation to my personal life and actions. While objective facts are important, they cannot account for the existential feel to life. Think about it this way. Can reading the recipe for lasagna in a cookbook do justice to the actual taste of lasagna when you really eat it? Objective facts can account for scientific truths, but not truth per say. Hence his claim that “truth is subjective.” Objective, scientific truths do not do justice to subjective, personal truth.

Not only does scientific and academic language reduce human existence to a number, but objectivity involves a subjective choice according to Kierkegaard. What is objectivity? To choose consistency and coherency in a theory or idea is itself a subjective choice of one set of values over another: consistency and coherency over inconsistency and incoherency. (Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” which seriously questions the objectivity of science.)

Kierkegaard thought that the search for truth and objectivity that began with Descartes and other enlightenment thinkers was actually harmful to humanity; science and technology could never fix real human problems. Still, people conform to the idea that science and reason can save everything. But conforming to some collective idea is inauthentic. Your identity in a crowd is a false identity, says Kierkegaard.

Kierkegaard says that people belong to an abstraction, something that doesn’t really exist. He was talking about his time in the 19th century, but think about our present age. Don’t we all conform, belong to some kind of abstract idea? I am a “Professor,” you are a “Student.” Some people are “Christians,” others “Buddhists,” and others still are “Stoners,” “Procrastinators,” or “Hard Workers.” Clearly, these are generalizations and they are useful in many situations. But they also strip people of their individuality. Sure, we can say that “everyone is the same” to show that all men and women are equal in some sense (for example, in the sense that all men and women deserve equal rights). But taking this attitude too far can lead to mediocrity and a lack of true understanding of individuality.

The question Kierkegaard is addressing here is relevant today. How can you be an individual (express your individuality) in an age of increasing conformity? There is pressure on many people to “get a job” or “get married” or “have children.” Of course, you could disagree with Kierkegaard. Is there a need to express individuality? Maybe conformity is not so bad? (The picture below expresses an interesting view on conformity.) Check out a South Park episode that has a funny take on non-conformists called "Raisins" here: http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103939. Again, South Park contains material not suitable for everyone!

Kierkegaard’s Stages

Kierkegaard identified three stages of life: aesthetic, ethical, religious. Even when we are merely existing (and not really living) we can become aware that something is missing. Thus, we start pursuing pleasure, especially physical pleasure. We attempt to live in the moment as much as we can. This is the aesthetic stage. In this stage we are bored and frustrated easily because the pleasures we seek are fleeting. (Will Ferril's character from the movie Old School is likely in the aesthetic stage below.) Because the pleasures of this stage are fleeting, the person in this stage lives a monotonous, boring life. Everything starts to seem the same. In the ethical stage, we face the problems we ignore in the aesthetic stage. We, for example, work on a meaningful marriage rather than superficial one-night stands. In this stage, we make the choice to have a will, to confront our lives with passion. (The guy in the cartoon to the lower right is likely in between stages, wishing he had more passion in his life.) We choose both good and evil. However, in this stage’s preference for man above God, it misses something that is present in the final stage. The final stage is the religious stage. The ethical stage is limited in that it depends on the infallible nature of man: our beliefs and values change. The way to escape the ethical stage is to leap to the religious stage; this is the “leap of faith” mentioned above.

Existentialism is disturbing to many people for its emphasis on subjectivity. Another existentialist, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980 c.e.), began his philosophical system with a denial of God’s existence. A bit controversial, no? Despite its problems, existentialism, I think, still has something to offer. I’ll leave you to decide whether or not it’s worthy of study.