By: Michael Cordova

This essay will explore the philosophical and cultural significance of the movement known as existentialism. The breadth of this essay will focus on the basics of existentialism so that both the novice and adept reader can comprehend with general ease-The hope being to refresh those on the path and those seeking to join existentialist thinkers on their journey. Most of the concepts discussed will focus on Atheistic Existentialism, with an emphasis on Sartre, along with a tinge of Camus’ Absurdism. If you as a reader feel there is a need for revision of information, the addition of information or seek to critique info, feel free to message or email me.“Existence precedes essence”.[3] This is the basis for modern existentialism, a refutation and complete juxtaposition of a platonic assessment: essence precedes existence. So, what is this existence and essence mumbo jumbo? Both of these concepts can be attributed to the self - you - and explore what you are. Plato believed that your essence, basically your nature and what you are by definition, comes before your existence or consciousness. So the mailman was destined to be a mailman before his inception and his existence was thrown into that already existing essence. Negating the power of the conscious mind to choose, Plato felt that “forms” - essence- have always been in existence while one’s being - existence - is simply thrown in after. A very washed down and ancient argument for determinism.Sartre, however, felt that such an analysis of being negated the conscious being found in the concept of existence, for existence requires consciousness, so how can one already be defined before one already exists? If we were to take this from a religious perspective, God should have already defined our essence, but that continues the deterministic belief. In truth, this belief that our essence has always been requires some frame for existence before existence. When philosophers no longer found it logical for God to exist, they continued with this notion of essence precedes existence. “Man has a human nature; this human nature, which is the concept of the human, is found in all men, which means that each man is a particular example of a universal concept, man”.[3] This was the revised essence precedes existence, essentially a universality that all man is naturally subscribed to, or should be. In sum, “the essence of man precedes the historical existence that we find in nature”.[3] This is essentialism, we have always been and we - the greater human definition of you - will always be, then our existence is thrust upon this pre-existing condition of human nature. What we become is of no importance as our being is already defined, but Sartre begs to differ.It was Dostoyevsky who first proclaimed in The Brothers Karamazov, “if there is no God, everything is permitted”. It is this quote that one could attribute for the basis of atheistic existentialism, as this deeply devoted Christian admitted to the folly of morality and the power that man has. Sartre states, “if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and this being is man, or as Heidegger says, human reality”.[2] It is here that man is himself for there is no certainty of the beyond and your here has not been causally defined. Rather, the opposite is the case, man is capable and inadvertently responsible for defining themselves. That is what is meant when one professes that existence precedes essence. This antithesis of essentialism is what existentialism is, comprehending that our very being here and the ability to choose is what defines us. Man must be in existence - consciously here - before he is even remotely defined. The mailman may be a mailman, but he chose such a job for himself prior to such an essence even being defined. What makes man is, in reality, himself, but not just that, the answer to how must man live is actually explored by existentialism.But where does this question of how one must live originate from? It stems from the question: why one must exist? Religiosity often answers such a question, yet it does not account for what can be seen, experienced and understood. So this question of why must initiate in the cruxes of Nihilism, a philosophy centered around how our being is utterly pointless. That is the pessimistic outlook, one that has been in the auspices of continental thought for a long time. So, if life retains no inherent meaning, what is the point to live? Well naturally there should not be one, yet we retain the capability of composing a meaning. many philosophers who work under the proposition that there is no known meaning to life often posit that our very being here is absurd. And in such an absurd existence, why must we continue, why must we struggle on through a life that naturally is nonsensical. It is here “that in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger”.[1] For man is now alienated in this realization, he is stuck to attempting to understand his own being above anyone else’s, and this is where philosophers such as Camus entrench themselves.For understanding the absurdity of being requires one to comprehend the very existential nature of such a question, and Camus does so with astute and flowery prose in The Myth of Sisyphus. This desire to comprehend the self, to truly come to terms with being and to attempt to form some means of living is in the most natural sense absurd in the eyes of Camus. But it is not without merit-when one realizes the truest sense of alienation and absurdism that is rooted in one's life, then they are capable of seeing reality from the scope that Camus sets out to expound. To truly cope with being is to cope with the Absurd, and to live in this world without terminating oneself for no clear reason is to rebel. To rebel not just against absurdity but against the constructs that attempt to confine us within the absurd condition of being. To Camus, this revolt against the absurd is scaled as a more complete means of living when compared to the act of suicide, as the absurd must be challenged in all possible ways.But Sartre felt that a true means of coping with the absurdity of existence was not to explicitly rebel against this concept that Camus constantly refers to: the Absurd. Rather, Sartre saw hope in the ability of man to challenge this constant absurdity found in our being, the absurd fact that we can not be honest to ourselves, and the absurdity that we all do not constantly live as our authentic selves. Rather, we are a deadlock in which we conceive ourselves to be living authentically yet blindly follow some other conception that should supposedly work for us. In a sense, we allow our essence, our very being, to be defined by someone else. What makes the mailman the mailman was not defined by him, but rather was defined by his desire to appease his mother who wanted him to be a mailman. He did not earnestly choose this role, rather someone else chose it for him and he attempts to gratify this person by fulfilling the role for them. This is absurd to Sartre, this being for someone else rather than oneself, this being within the confines of a nonsensical universe. It is here that Sartre discovers why one must exist, to live as their truest form. To live authentically.So, in what regard is authenticity an answer to the absurd? The absurd is derived from the external reality which our internal reality - our consciousness - interacts within the confines of the external. This absurdity is often felt with the realization of how meaningless our placement in this state of being is. Rather, the shallowness of why is now brought into the internal reality. There is no magical 42 we can chase, for all that we can solve is confined to the internal reality which defines our being. So, our meaning to life is one derived from ourself. There is no absolute answer, for an absolute answer requires our relative universe to be the absolute universe we exist within. But such is not the case, because most obviously none of us are God. So the ultimate answer to why could be found in living as one's truest self within the confines of their relative universe. Authenticity being the tool with which one can discover their purpose and as Nietzsche said "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how". Once one fully, or even partly, comprehends themself, then one can find their way to their most authentic part of themselves. Such can only be done once one understands the importance of their relative universe and seek to answer the important questions within it.We are here on this Earth, perhaps by the whims of another, but what is important is that we exist in our relative reality. Our existence is one we may not have asked for, but it was one thrust upon us the moment we were stripped from nonexistence. And here we are, stuck in a quite profoundly absurd situation and still chugging on through. The semblance of the why as to why you are chugging on through is within the confines of yourself. Once one can discover it through authentic actions, then authenticity will provide an answer to the absurd situation we are stuck within. To understand oneself to the truest extent possible provides the answer to existence. "Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does".[2]Sources[1] Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus. translated by Justin O’Brien, New York, Random House, 1983.[2] Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology. 1943. translated by Hazel E. Barnes, New York, NY, Washington Square Press, 1992.[3] Sartre, Jean-Paul. Essays in Existentialism. edited by Wade Baskin, New York, N.Y., Citadel Press, 1993.