It should come as no surprise that one of my favorite philosophers is Gordon H. Clark. Even twenty plus years posthumously his critique of secular philosophy remains as a source of insight and rejoinder to the prevailing philosophical underpinnings of our present day culture.

In a very short section from his book Introduction to Christian Philosophy he catalogs a few of the errors in the ethical program of Existentialism. Right off the bat, Clark reveals that Existentialism can find no place for either Hegel or Aristotle. The abstract idealism of Hegel is less spurious for existentialists than the so-called “spectator” philosophy of Aristotle.[1] The Aristotelian categories of substance, quantity, unity, and cause must give way to categories of action that read more like the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. These categories include such bright and happy notions such as dread, crisis, anxiety, and nausea.[2]

Existentialists encourage us to live authentically and create our own essence by acknowledging above all else our freedom. Clark sees the insoluble dichotomy between a philosophy that encourages freedom and authenticity without a normative ethical principle that would provide justification for one action over against its opposite. [3] Moreover, as an extreme form of Romanticism the existentialist must re-prioritize the value of life over against the value of thought. In so doing, the existentialist has designed and walked into an epistemological trap. If the existentialist has a concept of life, they have unwittingly committed the unpardonable sin of existentialism, they have reverted back to a mode of thinking that is dependent upon the relationship between a subject and its predicate, a distinction they are want to rise above.

If man is utterly free, so much so that values are not dependent upon an absolute standard of right and wrong then man creates his values based on his choice. Clark notes that freedom thus understood empties life of meaning. [4] Perhaps this criticism needs further explication. If man makes a choice today based on his freedom not to steal, and tomorrow chooses to steal, neither choice has any meaning whatsoever. Since he retains the freedom to choose, the value imposed on his action or inaction is entirely subjective and there is no ethical value attached to either. Hence, life has no meaning if by choosing man creates the value by his choice.

[1] Clark, G. H. (1993). An Introduction to Christian Philosophy . Unicoi : The Trinity Foundation .

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid