"I like my essence like I like my La Croix: with a dash of hedonism and somewhere down the line maybe a splash of coconut."
Topic: Existentialism
If big-time philosophers like Nietzsche, Sartre, Kierkegaard, and Camus come to mind when you think of existentialism, you’ve hit the nail right on its head. While all of those big-thinkers and sexy heads of Metaethics play an immense role in the evolution of existentialism, Jean-Paul Sartre solidified its prominence in modern philosophy after seeing the war-torn, broken state of Europe during and after the total and utter destruction of humanity post-WWII. The scars left by jagged, dehumanizing political moral fabric led the entirety of Europe to aimlessly drag itself across loss with bones made of broken glass. The stripped bones of ethical indignation left by the NSGW party were being gnawed by thoughts of the true direction of human nature, morality, and essence by all those affected. Did God abandon us?
Like most Neo-Existentialism philosophies, much of the philosophical background of Existentialism comes from Nihilism, which bases its premises and conclusion on the idea that all life has no meaning. It’s important to make the distinction that while it does state that life has no meaning, meaning in the scope of Nihilism refers to no clockwork or higher deity, and the absence of the “essence”. The "essence" here is a crucial framework which dictates the direction of the premises in both Nihilism and Existentialism. Simply put, for the longest time- we’re talking “two dusty Greek daddies Aristotle and Plato” long time- philosophers accepted that people are innately born with an essence. This essence can best be explained by a trait, behavior, driver, morals, all that which make one specific thing or the person who or what it truly is: The most “authentic”, or “real”, self-actualized version of that thing or person. Without its essence, it just wouldn’t be it. Just as if you took lead out of a wooden pencil, it then just becomes a stick. The essence of the “pencil” ceases to exist, and Existentialism argues that the pencil itself is also gone.
Existentialism, as Sarte compiled it, plays on two key principles: the existence of the essence as a developmental and progressively acquired attribute (as opposed to the innate essence proposed in the latter stems of Existentialism). Due to this externally derived essence, and the lack of a deity or higher power (as asserted in Nihilism) asserts another yet crippling assertion that in the midst of finding essence in a meaningless and directionless universe, we are met with the totalitarian feeling of freedom to manifest our own essence through our decisions, actions, moral placement, and judgment. To find essence in a world which seems as though has dealt you cards of blanks are the very essence of absurdism, but we’ve perused through this topic in an earlier blog.
FREEDOM AT LAST! I have the power to establish my own morality! I have the power to choose how I think, what I think, who to fuck! Such splendor! And I know what you’re thinking, “Julia, I’ve reached my essence! I’m liberated! Three cheers for self-actualization and Betty White!” Well, I can’t say it’s that easy. How much of the direction of your life is really, truly “you”? (Also props to you for the Betty homage).
Really think about this for a while, and for ease of navigation, think about your moral compass (ew) and think of the times you gave up something you’ve always wanted to do for personal growth or even in the name of passion. A dilemma that most accurately poses this navigation, and just how answerless Existentialism leaves us, is one of many people with aging, bed-ridden, parents or grandparents face. Imagine for a moment you had the opportunity to become a college professor (and say this has been your dream and aspiration for the majority of your young adult life). Now, imagine an extremely close relative has fallen gravely ill and needs immediate and constant monitoring of their health needs, which would require you to abandon your job opportunity to tend to your loved one. You are a helper, always have been. It’s what you’ve loved to be and to do. It’s what made you want to become a college professor. Help through sharing knowledge and spreading inspiration to help younger generations think constructively. However, your loved one is in dire need of your help as well, and of course, you’re naturally inclined by your essence to perform and are happy to do so. The essence of you is helpfulness. However, the question isn’t the essence, it’s the decision. Which one is the right decision? Well, all other moral judgments aside, according to Existentialism, both are right and both may also be wrong. Once you act out of your own essence or don't manifest it, you cease to become you. Or more lightly-put, you cease to become yourself, instead you live unauthentically, floating around in a dictated existence. You are no longer a pencil, you're just a wooden stick (sorry!).
The freedom we see ourselves experiencing is one that is riddled with externalities where the confounding variables of free-will and the mere feelings or hard-wirings of our lives in making our own decisions are fundamentally faux. Unchecked beliefs handed down by parents, worship, friends, anything really is great examples of this. Externalities which makes things harder to navigate our true essence. We create our essence ourselves, through our experiences, tabulations, and internal functions. With no clockwork, predetermination, and helping hand, we must rely on our developed morals to manifest our essence into existence and deliberate understanding. We have the freedom to do so, but freedom can be terrifyingly crippling.
We are moral creatures bound by the shackles of freedom. Our limitless moral freedom bows its head to existentialism. We cannot escape it. We may run, leap or drag ourselves from the terrifying possibilities of what total, perpetual freedom enables us to break away from- in what ways it can consume us- inevitably falling to its feet once more like the very literal essence of our being longs to take flight. The true absurdity, as I’ve seen and experienced it, is the discovery and the moral archeological dig of the essence- its contradiction with free will, and its limits based on the natural evolution of our being’s essence given varying times, circumstances, environments- it begs the questions: How do we respond to this freedom? Run away from it? Stare at it?
The unexamined life is not worth living.
Also, I've decided that coconut La Croix's superiority is rather pseudo-argumentative, it reigns as the best.
Comments