THE SUBJECT MATTER OF EXISTENTIAL PHILOSOPHY1

Edoh Sunday Odum2

Introduction

Existentialism is a catch phrase that describes all thinking that considers the human condition as
a major philosophical problem. The root of existentialism as a trend in philosophy is traced to the
Socratic dictum, “know thyself”3. This is because it was Socrates (469-399 BC) who first
questioned human existence, and upheld the imperative of self knowledge while considering man
as both the subject and object of knowledge and inquiry.4 This dictum, interpreted within the
context of its usage, shows that it is almost impossible for man to lead a genuine and authentic
life without fully acquiring self-knowledge.

Be that as it may, existentialism is a recent trend in the history of philosophy that is interested,
above all, in the authenticity of human existence. It received its boast after World War I from the
thoughts of Martin Heidegger and Karl Jasper. It further received its definitive expression and
was brought to the fore by Jean- Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and Simon de Beauvoir amongst

1
Cite as:
ODUM, E. S., “The Subject Matter of Existential Philosophy” in Agundu, O.T., (Edited) Critical Issues in
Philosophy, Logic and Human Existence. Abuja: DonAfrique Publishers, 2019. Pg. 193-212.
2
Edoh Sunday Odum, hold a B.A (Hons) Religion and Philosophy, M. A. Philosophy (Benue State University,
Makurdi), and is currently a PhD candidate in the Department of Philosophy, University of Calabar-Nigeria.
3
James George, in his most celebrated work, The Stolen Legacy, however argued for the African origin of the
maxim, “Know thyself” and the fact that the maxim was not original to Socrates when he averred that, “every school
boy believes that when he hears or reads the command “know thyself”, he is hearing or reading words which were
uttered by Socrates. But the truth is that the Egyptian temples carried inscriptions on the outside addressed to
Neophytes and among them was the injunction “know thyself”. Socrates copied these words from the Egyptian
Temples, and was not the author. All mystery temples, inside and outside of Egypt carried such inscriptions, just like
the weekly bulletins of our modern Churches” (see the introduction of the book entitle The Characteristics of Greek
Philosophy, pages 9-12). Another narrative on the origin of “Know thyself” holds that it is actually one of the
Delphic maxims that was inscribed on the entrance of the temple of Apollo at Delphi. The phrase (know thyself)
was later expounded upon by Socrates in the cause of his teaching as “the unexamined life is not worth living”.
4
Anyone with a modest grasp of the history of philosophy will recall that it was Socrates who changed the discourse
and the major concern of philosophers in history from the cosmos to the individual and the society. One will also
recall that one of the charges levelled against Socrates and the basis for which he was executed in 399BC was that
he was corrupting the Athenian youths through his dialogues. His interface with the youths got them thinking about
the self and perhaps, also furnished them with the boldness to question traditions and customs which were before
that time unquestionable. This type of temper is in consonance with the spirit behind the emergence of the
philosophy of human existence in the post world war I and II era. It is on the basis of the above that it feels safe to
argue that the root of existentialism can be traced to Socrates.
others in the aftermath of World War II. William L. McBride corroborated the above when he
averred that, “existentialism is a philosophical and literary movement that came to prominence in
Europe, particularly in France, immediately after World War II, and that focused on the
uniqueness of each human individual as distinguished from abstract universal human qualities”.5

Regarding the departure of existentialism from abstract ideas and abstract human qualities, Soren
Kierkegaard, reputed as one of the fathers of existentialism, rebelled against the abstract system
of Hegel and his belief that the real is rational and the rational is real. This he did in favour of the
concrete existing human person within the context of his everyday cares, anxieties, fears,
situatedness and fallenness. Consequently, it is clear that existentialism is a reaction of the
philosophy of man against the overbearing influence of the philosophy of ideas and abstraction.

The World Wars I and II according to historical evidence were both terrible and destructive
events that had profound effects on the human person at that time. It led to serious sufferings,
anxieties, depression, anguish, absurdities and increased uncertainty regarding human existence.
These twin wars led man to cast doubts on himself and obviously, on the ability of the all-
powerful God(s) to help man in the face of brutal and chaotic situations. Hence, the need for the
discovery of a new meaning to life within the context of the prevailing existential condition and
this led to the evolution of existentialism or the philosophy of human existence.

This chapter attempts an account of the subject matter as well as the major concerns of
existentialism. It proceeds from a preliminary discourse on the background to existentialism as a
19th – 20th century movement in philosophy to a discourse on the concept and nature of
existentialism. In the final third, it proceeds to a discourse on the strands of existentialism being
Theistic and Atheistic existentialism through a discourse on the basic themes in the study of
existentialism to a discourse on the influence as well as the status of existentialism in the 21 st
century.

Existentialism: An Exposѐ

5
William L. McBride, “Existentialism” in Robert Audi (Ed.) The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), Pg. 296.
Existentialism is also known as the philosophy of human existence or “individualistic
philosophy”.6 However, some scholars have argued against the fact that existentialism is a
philosophy. The basis of arguing against the status of existentialism as a philosophy is that, the
most part of thinkers who were referred to as existentialists repudiated the appellation and denied
being existentialists. In this regard, mention can be made of Martin Heidegger 7 and Albert
Camus. Arguing in the above light, William Kaufmann avers that:

Existentialism is not a philosophy but a label for several widely different revolts
against traditional philosophy. Most of the living existentialists have repudiated
this label, and a bewildered outsider might well conclude that the only thing they
have in common is a marked aversion for each other. To add to this confusion,
many writers of the past have frequently been hailed as members of this
movement and it is extremely doubtful whether they would have appreciated the
company to which they are consigned. In view of this, it might be argued that the
label “existentialism” ought to be abandoned altogether.8
While it is true that existentialism stems from a revolt against traditional philosophy as pointed
out by Kaufmann above, it must be stated that his argument is too simplistic. The fact that some
of the thinkers that have been celebrated as existentialist repudiated the appellation is not enough
reason and does not render the thinking about the human existential philosophy less
unphilosophical. In fact, if the definition of philosophy by Staniland as the critical examination
of the ideas that we live by is anything to go by, then the argument of Kaufmann is lame and
does not stand erect in the court of reason.

6
See Chapter two (2) of Thomas Flynn’s Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2006) entitled Becoming an Individual for a detailed analysis of existentialism as an individualistic
philosophy.
7
Martin Heidegger refers to existentialism as a continuation of the error of modernism. In fact he stressed that, “it is
hardly necessary anymore today to expressly observe that my thoughts deals neither with existentialism nor with
existence philosophy”. However, it must be noted here that despite his rejection of existentialism, Heidegger’s
works carried on the existential tradition of thought as it had been developed by the nineteenth-century progenitors
of existentialism, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, and also was tremendously influential on the later development of
existentialism. Heidegger’s standing in the existential tradition is secured by his exploration of the existential
structure of Dasein or human being, his historicised account of essences, his critique of the banality of conformist
everyday life, and his reflections on guilt, anxiety, death, and authenticity (see Mark A. Wrathall and Hubert L.
Dreyfus, “A Brief Introduction to Phenomenology and Existentialism” in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Mark A. Wrathall
(Ed.) A Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism for a more lucid discourse on the Heidegger’s repudiation
of being called an existentialist).
8
William Kaufman, Existentialism From Dostoevsky to Sartre (New York: Pengium Books, 1975), Pg. 11.
Be that as it may, existentialism can be defined as “the philosophical theory which holds that a
further set of categories, governed by the norm of authenticity is necessary to grasp human
existence”.9 It is a catch-all term for all those philosophers who consider the nature of the human
condition as a key philosophical problem and who share the view that the problem is best
addressed through ontology.10 It is the philosophy that confronts human situation in its totality, to
ask what the basic conditions of human existence are and how man can establish his own
meaning out of this condition.11 By existentialism, one means the philosophical attitude which
consists in the clarification and the realisation of the significance of existence as such. By
existentialism, one means the mode of being which is specific and originally of man, and
irreducible to that of any other entity, thing, or object subsisting...”.12

Deducible from the above definitions is the fact that existentialism is a philosophical attitude,
and a mode of being that is not reducible to anything subsisting. It is also concerned with human
existence. It emphasises the distinctive qualities of the human person rather than man in general.
It is “the only philosophy that considers individuality as supreme and it is an attempt to reach the
inmost core of human existence in a concrete and individual fashion”.13 Existentialists share
several basic philosophical beliefs that border on human existence. They share the belief that the
concrete existing individual subject is the basic and starting point of thought. They hold, for the
most part, the thinking that existence precedes essence, that man is basically free and
undetermined by factors or forces outside of himself and is of course, responsible for his actions
and for determining his values. Existentialists are concerned with the authenticity of human
existence; they are concerned with such existential issues as the facticity and fallenness of man
in the world, freedom, death, anguish, anxiety, absurdity amongst others. Existentialism as a
philosophical trend is an attempt to grasp these problems and engage these themes within the
context of the prevailing human existential conditions.

9
Crowell Steven, “Existentialism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/existentialism/>. Retrieved 12.11.2018, Pg. 2.
10
Douglas Burham and George Papandrepoulos, “Existentialism” in James Fieser (Ed.) Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. https//www.iep.utm.edu/existentialism.html. Retrieved 12/10/2018. Pg. 1.
11
William Barret, Philosophy in the Twentieth Century (New York: Random House, 1962), Pg. 43.
12
Richie, A. M., “Language, Logic and Existentialism” in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (Vol. 10,
1950), Pg. 398.
13
Javid A. Mallah, “Historical Roots and Basic Themes of Existential Philosophy: An Analysis. In Pune Research
World: An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. (Vol. 1, Issue 2. August, 2016), Pg. 1-2.
The basic characteristic feature of existentialism is that it begins from and emphasises man rather
than nature. It treats man as an existent being rather than as a thinking subject. It is a reaction and
response to certain dominant approaches in ancient and modern philosophy which have given
primacy to essence over and above existence. This response is obviously clear in the existential
philosophy of Sartre who argued that existence precedes essence. According to him, “man first
exists, turns up, appears on the scene and only afterwards, defines itself. If an existentialist
conceives him, as indefinable, it is because at first, he is nothing. Only afterwards will he be
something and he himself will have made what he will”.14 From the above, Sartre could be read
as stipulating that man is nothing but what he makes of himself after coming into existence. The
human person exists before it can define its essence. Hence, existence precedes essence.

Two Strands of Existentialism

Existentialists are divided along two poles and it is also along these lines that they are properly
classified: the first pole being the Theistic Existentialism and the second pole being the Atheistic
Existentialism. A distinction of these strands is here considered necessary.

i. Theistic Existentialism: Theistic existentialism represents the strand of

existentialism that emphasises and weaves its thought around the existence of God
and does not as much as deny the existence of the same. Theistic existentialists
consider “man’s relationship with god as an important philosophical problem”.15
Examples of philosophers that share this sentiment and can be rightly placed in this
group are Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Buber, Paul Tillich, Gabriel Marcel, Karl Jasper
amongst others. Maurice Friedman further sub-divided the Theistic existentialists into
the Religious Existentialists and the Theological Existentialists. The distinction
between the above for Friedman is in the fact that the religious existentialist
understands the answers in a thoroughly existentialist term as the question, while the
theological existentialist follows an existentialist analysis of the human condition or
the situation of the modern man with an apparent appeal to traditional theology as the
only valid response to such a situation.16 Friedman further situated Martin Buber and

14
Jean- Paul Sartre, The Age of Reason Trans Erics Sutton (London: Hamilton, 1947), Pg. 18.
15
Nellickappilly, S., Aspects of Western Philosophy (Chenni: India Institute of Technology Press, N.D.), Pg. 2.
16
Maurice Friedman, The World of Existentialism: A Reader (New York: Random House, 1964), Pg. 240-41.
 Berdyaer as the Religious Existentialist and Paul Tillich, Jacques Maritain and
Reinhold Niebuhr as the Theological Existentialists.17
ii. Atheistic Existentialism: This group of existentialists deny the existence of God or
do not consider it as posing any philosophical problem.18 For them, it is either God
does not exist, it is doubtful if he exists or that they have not considered his existence
as an ingredient or problem warranting philosophical appraisal. In this regard, Jean-
Paul Sartre, Simon de Beauvoir and Martin Heidegger are referred to as the atheistic
existentialists philosophers. However, because of the uniqueness of Martin
Heidegger’s thought, William Barret distinguished and separated ontic existentialist
philosophy from ontological existentialist philosophy under the sub-group of atheistic
existentialism. According to him, “an ontic inquiry is concerned with individuals and
actual facts or events, and seeks to establish some general classification and laws for
these actualities; an ontological inquiry is concerned with the general structure...
which pervades human existence”.19 Now, the ontic existentialist considers the actual
to be prior and to precede the possible. Ontic existentialism is usually what comes to
mind when we think of existentialism and it can be represented by the thoughts of
Jean-Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Camus as well as the thoughts of the
theistic existentialists earlier mentioned which are both humanistic and ontic.

Considering the fact that Being was the primary concern and the major subject matter
of philosophising by Heidegger, despite being considered as atheistic, his philosophy
is both ontological and a-humanistic. The fact that his subject of inquiry differs from
and separates him from the atheistic existentialists and, by a much wider margin,
from the theistic existentialists makes him stand out. While other existentialists are
concerned with the everyday problems, fears and the anxieties of the average man,
Heidegger begins his inquiry from existence and being itself. And this both sets him
up and stands him out as an ontological existentialist.

Selected Themes in Existentialism

17
Maurice Friedman, The World of Existentialism: A Reader. Pg. 241.
18
Nellickappilly, S., Aspects of Western Philosophy. Pg. 2.
19
William Barret, What is Existentialism? (New York: Groove Press Inc., 1964), Pg. 157.
The following selected themes and concepts are both crucial and central to the understanding of
the philosophy of human existence. The goal of the chapter is not to describe every existential
theme or concept exhaustively but rather to describe reasonably, those that are relevant to the
prevailing existential human concerns with the intent of leading newcomers to the enterprise of
philosophy to the point of having a modest grasps of the subject matter of existentialism.

i. Freedom

Human freedom is one of the major themes that are at the core of existential philosophy.
Existentialists argue that freedom is one of the valuable features of the human condition; hence,
they hold that man is free and unrestrained. As one can glean from the existential philosophy of
Jean-Paul Sartre, man’s freedom is not negotiable. In fact, “the whole of Being and Nothingness
may be seen as a passionate defense of freedom as an existential characteristic of man”. 20 Sartre
averred that, “I am necessarily a consciousness of freedom since nothing exists in consciousness
except as the non-thetic consciousness of existing… I am condemned to be free, this means that
no limits to my freedom can be found except freedom itself; or, if you prefer, that we are not free
to cease being free”.21 Hence, for Sartre, man is condemned to be free and cannot cease to be
free. Sartre further insisted that man does not have freedom. For him, freedom is identical with
essence; it points to common sense that the formula to be free does not mean to obtain what one
has wished, but rather by oneself to determine oneself to wish. Man is not an agent who
possesses a nature and who can experience his will in freedom. For Sartre on the contrary, man is
freedom. Sartre presents his argument as follows:

I am indeed an existent who learns his freedom through his acts, but I am also an
existent whose individual and unique existence temporaries itself as freedom. As
such I am necessarily a consciousness (of) freedom since nothing exists in
consciousness except as the non-thetic consciousness of existing. Thus, my
freedom is perpetually in questions in my being; it is not a quality added on or a
property of my nature, it is very exactly the stuff of my being; and, as in my
being, my being is question. I must necessarily possess a certain comprehension
of freedom.22

20
Lavine, T.Z., From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest (New York: Bahtam Books, 1984), Pg. 358.
21
Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, Trans. Hazel Barnes. (New York: Routledge, 2003), Pg. 461-462.
22
Jean- Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness Pg. 461.
In the foregoing, it has been clearly spelt out that Sartre advocated for and does hold that man is
freedom himself and his freedom is freedom with responsibility. According to Sartre as quoted
by Lescoe, “as an unqualified and ungrounded freedom, man must carry the entire responsibility
of the world by himself. He is abandoned in the world in a very positive sense. This
abandonment does not involve a passivity on his part; rather, it is a positive realisation that
absolutely nothing will permit me to tear myself away from the awesome responsibility.23 If it is
true that it is not enough to will but it is necessary to will as Sartre puts it in his Being and
Nothingness, then it is necessary also to be responsible; he is responsible for everything he does.
The fact of our being absolutely responsible for our actions is a logical following of our absolute
freedom.

The freedom of man goes hand in hand with much burden, since the idea of being free implies
that there is no excuse for man’s actions; this responsibility that man has is a responsibility in
anguish. Lavine quoting Sartre posits:

I have the shattering awareness that by being totally free, I am totally responsible
for my choice, totally responsible for what I am and do… I totter on the brinks of
nothingness; I experience dizziness, vertigo, anguish. Anguish is the realisation
that my total freedom is also, my total responsibility to define my situation, to
choose meaning of my world.24
Key to Sartre’s notion of freedom is the inescapable nature of choice. Freedom for him
presupposes choice. Because man is free, he cannot avoid making choices. He chooses either
ways as even a refusal to choose is itself a choice not to choose.

ii. Authenticity

The concept of authenticity is another major theme in the philosophy of human existence. It is
“one of the most important and fruitful ideas to emerge from the existential tradition in
philosophy, especially in the works of Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Sartre”. 25 The idea of
authenticity belongs to a cluster of ethical and psychological conceptions of the individuality that
stands in an uneasy relation to traditional norms of justice and the demands of morality. The

23
Lescoe F. J., Existentialism With or Without God (New York: Alba House Press, 1973), Pg. 319.
24
Lavine T. Z., From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest. Pg. 360.
25
Taylor Carman, “The Concept of Authenticity” in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Mark A. Wrathall (Ed.) A Companion
to Phenomenology and Existentialism (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), Pg. 229.
concept of authenticity, however, also differs in crucial ways from Romantic and popular notions
of the uniqueness of character, individual integrity and personal fulfillment.26 It can be said to
“consist in somehow being true to oneself. One way to be true to oneself is to be honest with
oneself, which is to say, inwardly sincere”.27 Put differently, it can be said to be the degree to
which one is true to his own person and it is a pointer to a genuine state of human existence. It
also presupposes acting as oneself and according to the dictate of one’s freedom. Conversely, the
inauthentic is not true to himself, neither does he act according to his freedom. Thomas R. Flynn
stressed the following regarding the concept of authenticity:

Authenticity is a feature of the existential individual. In fact, existential individual

and authenticity seem to imply one another. One is no more born an individual (in an
existentialist sense) than is one born authentic. To be truly authentic is to have
realised one’s individuality and vice versa. Both existential individuality and
authenticity are achievement words. The person who avoids choice, who becomes a
mere face in the crowd or cog in the bureaucratic machine, has failed to become
authentic. So we can describe the person who lives his or her life as ‘they’ command
or expect as inauthentic.28
Flynn could be read as stipulating that existential individuals and authenticity imply and connote
one and the same thing. This is because, to be authentic presupposes realising one’s
individuality, and the realisation of one’s individuality presupposes an authentic human
existence. For Steven Crowell, “authenticity, from the German Eigentlichkeit, names that attitude
in which I engage in my project as my own (eigen)”.29 Crowell further avers through the
example of keeping a promise that,

In keeping my promise I act in accord with duty; and if I keep it because it is my

duty, I also act morally (according to Kant) because I am acting for the sake of duty.
But existentially there is still a further evaluation to be made. My moral act is
inauthentic if, in keeping my promise for the sake of duty, I do so because that is
what “one” does (what “moral people” do). But I can do the same thing authentically
if, in keeping my promise for the sake of duty, acting this way is something I choose
as my own, something to which, apart from its social sanction, I commit myself.30

26
Taylor Carman, “The Concept of Authenticity” in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Mark A. Wrathall (Ed.) A Companion
to Phenomenology and Existentialism. Pg. 229.
27
Taylor Carman, “The Concept of Authenticity” in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Mark A. Wrathall (Ed.) A Companion
to Phenomenology and Existentialism. Pg. 229.
28
Thomas R. Flynn, Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction. Pg. 74-75.
29
Crowell Steven, “Existentialism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Pg. 11.
30
Crowell Steven, “Existentialism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Pg. 11.
Deducible from the above is the fact that keeping a promise does not necessarily mean acting
authentically. One can keep a promise; hence, act out of duty but still inauthentically if he does
so because it is a convention or custom. Keeping a promise is considered acting authentically
when and only when that is done out of freewill and personal commitment. Hence, ones
realisation of his freedom, choice, responsibility and individuality is an important building block
to living an authentic life. Authenticity defines a “condition on self-making: do I succeed in
making myself, or will who I am merely be a function of the roles I find myself in? Thus to be
authentic can also be thought as a way of being autonomous. In choosing “resolutely”, that is, in
committing myself to a certain course of action, a certain way of being in the world, I have given
myself the rule that belongs to the role I come to adopt. The inauthentic person, in contrast,
merely occupies such a role, and may do so “irresolutely,” without commitment”.31

Martin Heidegger uses the term authentic (eigentlich) literally throughout his book entitled Being
and Time. This he does according to Taylor Carman in two different senses: one, evaluative and
the other, merely descriptive. While commenting on Heidegger’s use of the word ‘authentic’,
Carman avers that:

On the one hand, what is “authentic” in the descriptive sense of the word is what
is formally unique and particular to each individual human being. The eigen in
eigentlich, like the auth in “authentic,” means own, proper, or peculiar. What is
authentic, then, is what is most my own, what is essentially most proper or
peculiar to me. For Heidegger, then, as for Kierkegaard, authenticity has to do
with the unique first-person structure of existence, what Heidegger calls its
“mineness” (Jemeinigkeit). Authenticity in this sense is neither good nor bad, but
has to do instead with my unique relation to myself in my existence, in contrast to
my relations to others, or to myself regarded from a second or third person point
of view. So, for example, Heidegger maintains that fear is inauthentic, not
because there is anything wrong with it, but because it is an intentional state
directed at things outside oneself; fear is fear of something, or of someone.
Anxiety, by contrast, is authentic, again not because it is somehow right or good,
but because it has no external object, but relates immediately to one’s own
individualized being-in-the-world. On the other hand, and in spite of Heidegger’s
frequent protestations to the contrary, the term “authentic” obviously refers to
something desirable, a choiceworthy way of life. Authenticity in this sense is
clearly something good, inauthenticity bad.32

31
Crowell Steven, "Existentialism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Pg. 11.
32
Taylor Carman, “The Concept of Authenticity” in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Mark A. Wrathall (Ed.) A Companion
to Phenomenology and Existentialism. Pg. 233.
Two things can be deciphered from the above quotation: first is that, in the evaluative sense of
the use of the word authentic by Heidegger, an action is considered authentic or inauthentic, not
because it is adjudged good or bad, but depending on whether such an action is directed at or
influenced by something internal or external to man. Secondly, authenticity is (in the merely
descriptive sense) something that is desirable and good while inauthenticity is bad and should not
be desired.

Jean-Paul Sartre in his attempt to assimilate Heidegger’s interpretation of human existence

contributed to the discourse on authenticity and inauthenticity while putting forward his idea of
bad faith. According to Sartre, authenticity is the “self recovery of being which was previously
corrupted”.33 Bad faith which is a refusal to accept one’s freedom, choice as well as take
responsibility is synonymous with inauthenticity. Nellickappilly corroborated the above stance
when he stated that, “according to Sartre, thoes men who refuse to take responsibility refuse to
accept that they are free. They wish to believe that they are conditioned by factors which are not
under their control. Sartre calls this bad faith. This is to exist inauthentically”.34

iii. Absurdity

“Absurdity,” or, alternatively, “the Absurd,” generally refers to the experience of groundlessness,
contingence, or superfluity with respect to those basic aspects of “the human condition” that
seem as if they should be open to rational justification. Although first coined by Kierkegaard, the
father of existentialism, and largely associated with a select group of existential philosophers,
novelists, playwrights, and poets, the philosophical problem to which absurdity refers arose with
modern philosophy and has continued to persist beyond the existentialist moment proper. 35 The
concept of absurdity “contains the idea that life has no meaning beyond what meaning we give it.
Existential philosophers believe that life is absurd; it does not have any pre-given meaning. It is
meaningless and has no ultimate purpose, but we humans need to make sense of it and to give it

33
Jean-Paul Sartre quoted in Taylor Carman’s “The Concept of Authenticity” in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Mark A.
Wrathall (Ed.) A Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism. . Pg. 237.
34
Nellickappilly, S., Aspects of Western Philosophy. Pg. 8.
35
David Sherman, “Absurdity” Hubert L. Dreyfus and Mark A. Wrathall (Ed.) A Companion to Phenomenology
and Existentialism. Pg. 271.
a meaning. In the world, anything can happen to anyone; any tragic event may occur and could
plummet because of the world’s absurdity”.36

Douglas Burnham and George Papandrepoulous in their contribution to discourse on absurdity

held that human existence might be described as absurd in three basic senses. First, many
existentialists argued that nature as a whole has no design, no reason for existing. Although the
natural world can apparently be understood by physical science or metaphysics, this might be
better thought of as ‘description’ than either understanding or explanation. Thus, the
achievements of the natural sciences also empty nature of value and meaning. Human beings can
and should become profoundly aware of this lack of reason and the impossibility of an immanent
understanding of it. A second meaning of the absurd is that my freedom will not only be
undetermined by knowledge or reason, but from the point of view of the latter my freedom will
even appear absurd. Absurdity is thus closely related to the theme of ‘being on its own’, Even if I
choose to follow a law that I have given myself, my choice of law will appear absurd, and
likewise will my continuously reaffirmed choice to follow it. Third, human existence as action is
doomed to always destroy itself. A free action, once done, is no longer free; it has become an
aspect of the world, a thing. The absurdity of human existence then seems to lie in the fact that in
becoming myself (a free existence), I must be what I am not (a thing).37

Albert Camus in his most celebrated work, The Myth of Sisiphus, using the description of the
Sisiphusean struggle, showed the meaninglessness of life which makes life not worth living and
apparently leads to suicide. And for him, “there is but one truly serious philosophical problem,
and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the
fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest –whether or not the world has three dimensions,
whether the mind has nine or twelve categories, comes afterwards”.38 In this book, Camus asserts
that “Sisiphus, who was condemned by the gods to eternal futile labour (namely, interminably

36
Javid A. Mallah “Historical Roots and Basic Themes of Existential Philosophy: An Analysis” Pg 5.
37
Douglas Burnham and George Papandrepoulous, “Existentialism” In James Fieser (Ed.) Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Pg. 5.
38
Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisiphus, Trans. Justine O’ Brien (New York: Random House, 1955), Pg. 4.
pushing a boulder to the top of a mountain only to watch it fall back again), is the ‘absurd hero’
as well as the prototype of the modern individual”.39

However, the answer of Camus to the question of whether one should take a leap of faith in this
life or commit suicide is that, individuals should embrace this condition (that is, the absurdity) of
human existence while at the same time exploring and searching for the meaning of life.

iv. Anxiety

Within the context of existential philosophy, anxiety refers to some form of worry that arises as a
result of a reflection on the self in the world. It presupposes some form of existential solipsism. It
is also called anguish, dread, angst, nausea, and uneasiness. A person’s “awareness of his
unlimited freedom can be a source of anxiety or anguish. Our freedom makes us anxious because
there is nothing other than our freedom which can stop us from performing dangerous,
destructive, embarrassing or disreputable acts at any moment. Hence, when we choose our
actions and decisions, the act of choosing is sometimes the source of anguish or human
anxiety”.40

Deducible from the above is the fact that anxiety is a corollary of freedom; that is, it is choice
and responsibility that brings about anxiety. Anxiety or anguish comes to play when people
reflect on their existence and are confronted with the burden of finding purpose and meaning in
life as well as living authentically. For Kierkegaard, dread or anxiety is in some way spiritual;
that is, it is what God has put in man to call man into making a commitment to a spiritual and
moral way of life when confronted with the reality of the meaninglessness of human existence.
The position of Kierkegaard is, of course, in consonance with the fact of his classification into
the theistic existentialist tradition.

v. Death

Death is yet another key concept that has elicited responses from existential philosophers.
Incidentally, the existentialists do not view death negatively. Rather, the awareness of death is

39
David Sherman “Absurdity” in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Mark A. Wrathall (Ed.) A Companion to Phenomenology
and Existentialism. Pg. 277.
40
Javid A. Mallah, “Historical Roots and Basic Themes of Existential Philosophy: An Analysis”. Pg. 5.
for them, a basic human condition and it is the awareness that shapes human existential life. To
the existentialist, “death is not just the ending of life, or some unfortunate incident which befalls
man but a vitalising structural component of the human being”.41 It is rather a “possibility which
is already imprinted in our being which we cannot overcome no matter how we try”. 42 It is for
man such a distinction that one cannot renounce it, without which one cannot live. This
manifestly means that differently from other beings, we posses this distinct sign that death is
something for us.43

For Martin Heidegger, Dasein cannot evade the possibility of death. Death is “the possibility of
the absolute impossibility of Dasein”.44 Death for Heidegger is impending, that is something that
stands before us and stares at us. Commenting on the above, David Couzens Hoy avers that
Heidegger’s point is that the idea of death as an end that completes life is an inappropriate
characterisation of Dasein’s dying.45 Death is a phenomenon that one cannot experience for
another. One has to die his own death. The temper of existentialism teaches that:

The authentic relation to death involves being in denial but instead recognising
the certainty of death. What Heidegger calls the anticipation of the certainty of
death shatters one’s tenaciousness to whatever existence one has reached. In this
sense, anticipatory beings being-towards-death individualises Dasein.
Anticipation frees Dasein from inauthentic everydayness and from the
anonymous other so that it can act of its own accord.46

The above can be read as stipulating that the refusal to accept the reality of death constitutes
inauthenticity while the recognition of the fact that man is a being-unto-death and the consequent
anticipation of death connotes existing authentically. It must be noted that the existentialist
concern and subsequent philosophising about death is not about how to die, neither is it an
unwholesome voyage. It is rather intended to help man manage his existential life. The
phenomenon of death, when properly understood, “the question of why, where, and how one dies
is of no consequence. Not even the question of who is responsible for one’s death is the
41
Unah Jim, Philosophy, Society and Anthropology (Lagos: Fadec Press, 2002), Pg. 96.
42
Alloy S. Ihuah, Death, Change and Continuity: Somethingness from the Nothingness of Man. Pg. 4.
43
Baptista Mondin, Philosophical Anthropology (Rome: Urbannian University Press, 2005), Pg. 269.
44
Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward. Robbinson. (New York: Harper and
Row, 1962), Pg. 294.
45
David Couzens Hoy, “Death” in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Mark A. Wrathall (Ed.) A Companion to Phenomenology
and Existentialism (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), Pg. 282.
46
David Couzens Hoy, “Death” in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Mark A. Wrathall (Ed.) A Companion to Phenomenology
and Existentialism. Pg. 283.
matter”.47 Conversely, we should see death with the eye of positivity and as a regulator of our
existential life. To quote Alloy Ihuah,

Death awareness must continuously regulate our lives; that, death is something we
do not bargain for, something not negotiated for, but which must, in the final
analysis, happen to us. Death is a possibility which is already imprinted in our
being which we cannot overcome no matter how we try. As we walk the streets of
human life; marry, educate ourselves to the highest levels, engage in business and
make money by hook or crook, heal or kill our neighbors, and steal much money
that cannot be exhausted in our life time, we are called upon to re-examine our
lives, our ways and score ourselves as we journey towards the achievement of
authentic selfhood. This is a quest for self-knowledge which entails a brand of
wisdom that positively transforms individual human consciousness and society.
Such was the human quality that guided and guarded Socrates, Buddha and Jesus
to achieve self-transcendence and liberation from sorrow, violence, hatred, and
overcame for them the fear of public death.48

Existentialism in the 21st Century

As I indicated in the introductory lines of this chapter, a discourse, although in brief, on the
influence of existentialism as well as its status in the 21st century is here considered necessary.
Although existentialism remains a frequently mentioned term in the 20th century, “one hears the
claim that the movement is over, that it has been supplanted by two successive waves of French
thought, Structuralism in the 1960s and Poststructuralism in the 1970s and 1980s, after which the
momentum dissipated as the cohorts of the philosophical personage passed away”.49

The claim that the movement is over is basically simplistic and it is doubtful how far one can
sustain this claim. This is because individual philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin
Heidegger, and Jean-Paul Sartre have remained influential in the 21st century. Again, such
existential questions as that of how to live a good and authentic life have not ceased to elicit
responses from philosophers of all persuasions in the 21st century. “The Society for
Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy, as well as societies devoted to Heidegger, Sartre,
Merleau-Ponty, Jaspers, Beauvoir, and other existential philosophers, provide a forum for
ongoing works both of a historical, scholarly nature and of more systematic focus that derives

47
Alloy S. Ihuah, Death, Change and Continuity: Somethingness from the Nothingness of Man. Pg. 14.
48
Alloy S. Ihuah, Death, Change and Continuity: Somethingness from the Nothingness of Man. Pg. 13.
49
Thomas R. Flynn, Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction. Pg. 104.
from classical existentialism, often bringing it into confrontation with more recent movements
such as structuralism, deconstruction, hermeneutics, and feminism”.50 Michel Foucault also
embraces certain conceptions of freedom from the forerunners of existentialism with his notion
of the care for the self. Jacques Derrida’s works on religion without God, as well as his
contributions to discourse on such existential themes as freedom and death are pointers to the
massive influence of the existentialist tradition. To quote Flynn,

Existentialism in its various avatars has played a major role in Continental

philosophy for over 50 years and has now entered the perennial philosophical
conversation in which it voices the abiding moral concerns of the human
condition. In other words, it continues to defend individual freedom,
responsibility, and authenticity in the midst of various forms of determinism,
conformism, self-deception, technologism and the like so prevalent in our day.
And it often does so in an imaginative mode that employs art and example to
bring home in concrete fashion abstract principles that otherwise risk being
dismissed as scholastic irrelevancies or admired from a distance as interesting
intellectual curiosities.51
In the same vein, Douglas Burnham and George Papandreopoulos raise three examples of less
direct but sublime influence of existentialism to philosophy: one, both the issue of freedom in
relation to situation, and of the philosophical significance of what otherwise might appear to be
extraneous contextual factors remain key, though altered in the works of Foucault. Two, the
philosophical importance that the existentialists placed upon emotion has been influential,
legitimising a whole domain of philosophical research even by philosophers who have
demonstrated profound apathy towards existentialism. Three, existentialism was and is a
philosophy that insisted that philosophy could and should deal very directly with real world
topics like death, freedom etc, topics that have now been frequently approached within the
philosophical tradition.52

Diametrically opposed to the claim that existentialism as a philosophical movement is over, it

feels safe to argue that existentialism is not over. This position is based on the fact that “from the
social and historical perspective, philosophy’s goal in the twenty-first century should be to
ensure that the carnage of the twentieth century is not covered up and forgotten. By remembering
50
Steven Crowell, “Existentialism” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/existentialism/>. Retrieved 12.11.2018, Pg. 21.
51
Thomas R. Flynn, Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction. Pg. 106.
52
Douglas Burnham and George Papandreopoulos, “Existentialism” in James Fieser (Ed.) Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, Pg. 21.
the victims, philosophy now has a better chance of realising its greatest hope and overcoming its
deepest fear. The hope is that in the new century, the record on life and death will be better. The
fear is that it could turn out to be even worse”.53

Conclusion

At the start of this chapter, it was indicated that I intend to proceed from a preliminary discourse
on the background to existential philosophy through a discourse on the meaning and nature of
existentialism to a discourse on selected themes in existential philosophy. The preceding
paragraphs have attempted to fulfill the above requirement. It must be noted that existentialism is
a 19th-20th century philosophical tradition that emphasises individuality and the existing human
subject as the starting point of thought. Existentialism is a revolt against the prevailing
philosophical traditions which held the precedence of essence over existence and argues
otherwise. Regarding the themes here discussed, five themes were selected (freedom,
authenticity, absurdity, anxiety and death) with an eye on both their interconnectivity and
relevance, with the hope to perhaps, gesture towards the variety and complexity of the tradition.
What is apparently true is that this piece cannot be considered as an exhaustive treatment of the
entirety of the subject matter of existentialism but a modest attempt at laying bare the subject
matter of existential philosophy to newcomers to the enterprise of philosophy.

53
David Couzens Hoy, “Death” in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Mark A. Wrathall (Ed.) A Companion to Phenomenology
and Existentialism. Pg. 287.