Philosophy often serves as a guide for those seeking to live a more meaningful life, yet the vast amount of information available can sometimes feel overwhelming. By returning to foundational concepts, such as existentialism and the importance of choices in shaping individual existence and the openness of the future (a concept referred to as Sartrean choice), we can deepen our understanding of philosophy’s practical value. This article examines these ideas, exploring how they contribute to the philosophical pursuit of a life imbued with greater meaning.
Key features of existentialism
Existentialism is a philosophical movement that focuses on individual freedom, choice, and the search for meaning in life. It emphasizes that human beings are free to create their own path and must take personal responsibility for their actions. One of its central ideas is that life has no inherent meaning, but individuals can shape their purpose through their decisions and values.
This philosophy often deals with themes like anxiety, alienation, and the challenges of living authentically. Existentialist thinkers argue that people must confront the uncertainties of life and accept that meaning is not given by external forces like religion or society. Instead, it is up to each individual to define what matters most to them.
Prominent existentialist philosophers include Søren Kierkegaard, who is often seen as the father of existentialism, Friedrich Nietzsche, who explored the rejection of traditional values, and Jean-Paul Sartre, who coined the phrase “existence precedes essence,” highlighting that our choices define who we are. Similarly, Simone de Beauvoir extended existentialist ideas to examine gender and freedom.
Overall, existentialism encourages individuals to take control of their lives, face their fears and doubts, and strive to live authentically and meaningfully in a universe that doesn’t provide ready-made answers.
What is a Sartrean choice?
Existentialism, particularly as shaped by Jean-Paul Sartre, emphasizes the profound role of individual choice in defining one’s existence. At its core, existentialism asserts that individuals are not bound by a predefined essence or destiny; instead, they shape their identities through the decisions they make. Sartre’s view highlights the concept of radical freedom, where every person has the capacity to choose and to act within their circumstances. This freedom underlines the idea that life is inherently open-ended, with the future remaining undetermined until it is shaped by one’s actions. According to this perspective, the weight of choice carries a deep responsibility, as each decision reflects the individual’s values and contributes to the continuous process of self-definition. The openness of the future, therefore, signifies that individuals are neither fully constrained by their past nor dictated by external forces, allowing them to create their own path through the choices they make.
An example can help shed light on this philosophical perspective. Imagine a young artist standing at a crossroads, torn between pursuing their passion for painting or opting for a more stable career in medicine. The decision they make will not only shape their future path but also define their sense of self. If the artist chooses to dedicate their life to painting, their choice reflects a commitment to individuality and a belief in the value of their creativity. On the other hand, selecting a career in medicine could highlight a desire to serve others while prioritizing security. Both options require the artist to confront their freedom to choose and take full responsibility for the outcome. This sense of responsibility can be daunting, as there is no predetermined answer—every path remains open until a decision is made, and it is through that decision that the artist actively creates their future.
Challenges to existentialism’s view about the significance of choices that define individual existence and the openness of the future (Sartrean choice)
Some philosophers object to or reject existentialism’s emphasis on individual choices as the foundation for defining existence and shaping the future for several reasons. One common critique is that this view places an unrealistic burden on individuals, expecting them to bear complete responsibility for their own meaning and existence. Critics argue that this perspective disregards external factors that significantly influence a person’s decisions and life path, such as societal structures, historical circumstances, and economic conditions. These constraints can limit the extent to which individuals are genuinely free to make choices, making the existentialist emphasis on complete freedom seem overly idealistic or disconnected from reality.
Another objection comes from philosophers who view existentialism as overly subjective. Since existentialism prioritizes personal choice and individual meaning, critics argue it risks neglecting universal principles or common values that guide human behaviour. Without shared ethical standards, they worry that the existentialist approach could lead to moral relativism, where all choices are equally valid, no matter how harmful or irrational. This critique suggests that focusing solely on personal freedom and responsibility undermines the importance of collective moral frameworks that help maintain social cohesion and justice.
Additionally, some philosophers question whether existentialism’s view of the future as radically open aligns with human experience. They argue that many aspects of life are determined by past events, biological factors, or cultural heritage, creating a sense of continuity that existentialism appears to overlook. Critics point out that emphasizing the openness of the future might lead to an unrealistic understanding of human life as entirely malleable, potentially ignoring the substantial influence of the past on shaping one’s identity and choices.
Finally, certain philosophical traditions, such as those based in religious or spiritual frameworks, reject existentialism’s stance because it often lacks a concept of predestined or divine purpose. These critics may see existentialism’s focus on individual agency as incompatible with the belief in a higher power or predetermined design for human life. For them, the absence of this divine structure in existentialist thought diminishes the sense of meaning and direction many find crucial to their existence. These objections highlight the significant philosophical debate about individual freedom and its place in shaping human existence.
Why the significance of choices that define individual existence and the openness of the future (Sartrean choice) is important to existentialism
These are some of the main reasons why grasping the concept of the importance of choices that shape individual existence and the openness of the future (Sartrean choice) is essential to understanding existentialism.
- Empowers Personal Responsibility
The idea of Sartrean choice emphasizes that individuals are responsible for the decisions they make, which helps illustrate the weight of personal responsibility in human life. Every choice carries consequences, not only for oneself but often for others as well. This concept challenges people to carefully consider their actions and fully own the paths they take. By prioritizing accountability, Sartrean choice encourages individuals to think critically and act intentionally, rather than relying on external forces or circumstances to determine their fate. It presents a framework where the focus is placed on ownership of one’s life, helping people see the role they play in shaping their reality.
- Highlights the Freedom to Shape One’s Future
Sartrean choice underscores the freedom inherent in every moment of decision-making. This freedom is not defined by external conditions or constraints but by the human capacity to envision possibilities and act upon them. Recognizing this freedom can be both liberating and intimidating, as it places the power of shaping the future directly into an individual’s hands. This perspective inspires a sense of empowerment, as it encourages people to view the future as an open canvas that can be crafted through their choices. It reminds individuals of their ability to initiate change and continuously redefine their lives, no matter the circumstances.
- Encourages Meaningful Self-Reflection
The importance of choices in Sartrean thought prompts individuals to reflect deeply on what truly matters to them. By recognizing the impact of their decisions, people are encouraged to evaluate their values, goals, and desires. This self-reflection fosters greater awareness of personal identity and life direction. It helps individuals align their actions with their deeper purposes and advocate for honesty with oneself. Over time, this reflective process can lead to personal growth and a clearer understanding of what it means to live an authentic life.
- Reveals the Complexity of Human Relationships
Sartrean choice demonstrates how our decisions are interwoven with the lives of others, as the consequences of our actions often ripple outward. This recognition brings attention to the ethical and relational dimensions of human existence. People are not isolated entities; instead, their choices shape and are shaped by their interactions with others. Understanding this interconnectedness encourages empathy, compassion, and a careful consideration of how one’s actions may impact loved ones, communities, and society as a whole. It reminds individuals of the shared responsibility of living together in a complex, interdependent world.
- Challenges the Idea of Predetermined Fate
Sartrean choice opposes the notion that life is governed by fate or predetermined paths, emphasizing instead the unpredictability and openness of the future. This perspective challenges individuals to break free from feelings of helplessness or inevitability when faced with life’s challenges. By emphasizing human choice and agency, it inspires hope and motivates individuals to take active steps toward their goals. People are encouraged to see themselves as capable of creating meaningful change and navigating uncertainty, rather than resigning to external forces or past decisions.
Contrasting existentialism with Spinoza’s philosophy
Existentialism, particularly through Sartre’s concept of choice, emphasizes the profound impact of individual decisions in defining one’s existence and shaping the openness of the future. Sartre believed that each person is free to make choices that create their essence, underscoring the weight of personal responsibility. This stands in contrast to Spinoza’s philosophy, which is grounded in determinism. Spinoza argued that everything that occurs is a result of necessary causes, governed by the natural order and the laws of the universe. For Spinoza, human actions and desires stem from an understanding (or lack of understanding) of nature’s fixed, underlying structure.
The primary difference lies in the perspective on freedom and determinism. While existentialism proposes that individuals have radical freedom to make choices and create meaning in a seemingly open future, Spinoza viewed freedom as the understanding and acceptance of necessity—aligning oneself with the deterministic flow of nature. For Spinoza, freedom is not about changing the world or rewriting one’s essence but gaining clarity about the unchangeable truths of existence. Sartre’s notion of “Sartrean choice” celebrates the unpredictability of existence and the refusal to adhere to predetermined paths, whereas Spinoza perceived freedom as intellectual harmony with the natural order. These differing views highlight the contrast between existentialism’s focus on personal responsibility within an open future and Spinoza’s emphasis on universal causality and rational understanding.
Sartrean Choice, existentialism and the philosophy of life
Existentialism, particularly through Sartre’s concept of choice, emphasizes the profound impact of individual decisions in defining one’s existence and shaping the openness of the future. Sartre believed that each person is free to make choices that create their essence, underscoring the weight of personal responsibility. This stands in contrast to Spinoza’s philosophy, which is grounded in determinism. Spinoza argued that everything that occurs is a result of necessary causes, governed by the natural order and the laws of the universe. For Spinoza, human actions and desires stem from an understanding (or lack of understanding) of nature’s fixed, underlying structure.
The primary difference lies in the perspective on freedom and determinism. While existentialism proposes that individuals have radical freedom to make choices and create meaning in a seemingly open future, Spinoza viewed freedom as the understanding and acceptance of necessity—aligning oneself with the deterministic flow of nature. For Spinoza, freedom is not about changing the world or rewriting one’s essence but gaining clarity about the unchangeable truths of existence. Sartre’s notion of “Sartrean choice” celebrates the unpredictability of existence and the refusal to adhere to predetermined paths, whereas Spinoza perceived freedom as intellectual harmony with the natural order. These differing views highlight the contrast between existentialism’s focus on personal responsibility within an open future and Spinoza’s emphasis on universal causality and rational understanding.