Favorite Answer

They are not immediately compatible, although it depends on the sense in which you are an existentialist and the sense in which you are an empiricist; there are different kinds of existentialism and empiricism.

Empiricism is largely a theory of knowledge. It holds that all knowledge comes from experience. Existentialism, however, is a theory about our experience of our freedom and capacity to make choices free from social and historical constraint. In the forms we find in Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Sartre, existentialism is initially an anti-epistemological theory in that it claims our basic relationship with the world in not one that can be reduced to a relationship of knowing. Existentialism is not a theory of knowledge, but rather a philosophy that addresses how we live.

Moreover, Sartre's and Heidegger's existentialist philosophies operate on phenomenological premises, which means that they both reject the subject-object distinction as the starting point of philosophical reflection. Whereas empiricism is a subject-object theory that distinguishes between body and mind (ie they are dualist), phenomenologists are not dualists and are concerned with "meaning" rather than with "objects". Neither Sartre nor Heidegger would call himself an empiricist.

Finally, empiricism usually aligns itself with determinism (except for skeptical empiricists like Hume), which is immediately at odds with existentialism, which explicitly affirms the absolute freedom of the subject.

The major existentialists would claim that empiricism would undermine their position, since existentialism is not initially a theory of knowledge and addresses the inwardness of the individual (which is not a subject-object relationship). You should also be aware that the empiricist notion of "experience" is not the same as the existentialist notion of experience, since the latter is concerned with moods like anxiety, fear, anguish, boredom, etc.

Hope this helps.