existentialism vs. the lack of free choice

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Existentialism and the lack of free choice
For thousands of years, the individual’s freedom notion has been a major subject of debate among many philosophers, as to whether people are free to do what they want, or it is limited. Broadly defined, freedom can be identified as the ability to think, say, and act whatever an individual wishes to, while for Hobbes, it is “the silence of the law” (Blackburn 141). The philosophy has been to deal with the freedom concept, as we must all then decide “whether human beings are free, whether they should be free, what this means, and what institutions” can be built on these ideas (Manzi N.p). Existentialism, the set of philosophical ideas that are “concerned with free will, choice, and personal responsibility,” (Soll N.p) has evolved over time. In this essay I explore the differing facets, pitting the proponents and opponents of existentialism and its advocacy for free choice against the lack of free choice, espousing that individual indeed lack free choice, relying on various philosophers and their arguments on the subject.
Existentialism is a philosophical movement that is concerned with a person’s choice, freedom, existence, and being; that there is always a component of choice. As Montoya (N.p) states, we will have a choice always, and as long as we select anything, whether positive or negative, we set the definition of who we are, free! Existentialists believe that there are no universally acceptable guidelines for a majority of the decisions we make, because the choices we make are often unique to us, as they are founded on our biases, beliefs, and experiences without any objective truth form.

While we live in a world where there are external standards, in the manner of laws, regulations, traditions, or ethical rules, Existentialism believes that we have the ability to recognize our uniqueness and identity and still chose to live how we want. However, although the capacity to make choices makes individuals free, they are wholly responsible for the choices they make, and thus, freedom must be accompanied by responsibility. Additionally, if people are forced to make decisions, their freedom, and equal responsibility is thrust upon them, the “free condemnation” (Manzi N.p).
Existentialism thus makes responsibility to be the “dark side of freedom” (Soll N.p). Upon the realization that individuals have complete responsibility for their actions, beliefs, and decisions, they become overwhelmed by anxiety. Escape from such anxieties is only made possible if they ignore or deny their freedom and subsequently responsibility. However, because this only sums to ignorance or denial of their actual circumstance, they end up creating deception for themselves. Existentialists offer criticism for this ‘running away from responsibility’ to self-deception, insisting that every person must take full responsibility for their actions and behavior, however much difficult it may seem. For the person to live an authentic and meaningful life, they must display the full awareness of the human nature and accept it fully.
Soren Kierkegaard, a Danish Christian philosopher, is commonly regarded as the modern existentialism founder. Kierkegaard strongly opposed the ‘systematic absolute idealism’ that existed during the nineteenth century, stressing the ‘ambiguity and absurdity’ of the personal circumstances. The only comprehensive response to such situation would be to live a life exhibiting total commitment, which could only be understood by the person making it. His ultimate advocacy was for the Christian life which, although it was entirely risky and incomprehensible, represented the only avenue that could shield an individual from giving up. While he talks much about religion and faith, he explains that any person has the choice to believe in God or not. By faith, whether in religion, marriage or other life commitments, we can establish meaningful lives. Therefore, we cannot pretend that we are forced, whether biologically or socially, to have a particular behavioral mode or committing to specific matters (determinism). For him, the actions and choices an individual makes or takes are linked to their anxious or dismay experiences, upon which it is realized that rational and balanced approximations are not enough. Therefore we must always heed to our inner intuition, whether focusing on moral contradiction or in other life decisions. Just like many other existentialists, Kierkegaard is a subjective view, believing that knowledge is not required for an individual to understand or stay committed to a certain aspect of an issue. Individuals are thus free to find and express commitment to whatever or whoever they wish without any outside influence.
Kierkegaard’s philosophy would, however, be challenged by Fredrich Nietzsche, who proclaimed God’s death and a rejection of the whole Judeo-Christian morality traditions, favoring pagan ideals. He described the individual will which opposed conformity to the morality expressed and idealized by the majority. Nietzsche was’ apprehensive of religion,’ believing that by subscribing to any religion, the individual would have sacrificed their freedom because it is a manipulation of the person’s self-belief and self-confidence. A person is thus not able to make many decisions freely because many of their conscious decisions are limited to what their religion says or teaches. He is the view that individuals must be able to follow their values and morals instead of relying on what society, or God or other supreme or supernatural being dictate what is right, true, and ought to be done. Such influences limit the person from identifying their unique identity and from exercising their freedom to shape their distinct character. Nietzsche identifies the weak people as those who feel like to gain some power they should hurt others, while the strong are those that have no intention to implore harm on the others. These two types of individuals give approval and acceptance of their nature, are independent and have no need to exercise dominion over others. According to him, God and society are weak as they seek to exercise domination over their actions and moral behavior through the creation of laws and norms, leading to a disruption of their conscience and freedom of choice (West 131-133).
Jean-Paul Sartre is an existentialist, whose philosophy is almost explicitly ‘atheistic and pessimistic’; a declaration that individuals need a reason for their lives (rational foundation) but do not have the ability to achieve one. Together with other philosophers like Albert Camus, he was widely acknowledged for his “involvement in the resistance, unforgiving nature of collaborationism and conformity, and for having an active interest in revolutionary movements” (Paolucci 255). He stated in an interview that “In the end, you are always responsible for what is made of you,” further saying that “I believe that a man can always make something out of what is made of him. This is freedom” (Solomon 2). Sartre highly advocates for existentialist freedom, stating that “the existential notion of liberty is worth to consider in political thought as it portrays an action doctrine” (Manzi N.p). He believes that existentialism exists, not to plunge people into hopelessness, but to allow their decision to realize their distinct and unique humanness, because to him, freedom is just the existence (consciousness) of our being.
For Sartre, freedom is not the free will to undertake something. He states that a person is free because they have a choice (Sartre 437). However, because this leads to the creation of anguish and anxiety, the individuals would flee in self-deception and thus continue to live un-authentically. People are decision free when they conscious appreciates the lack of something when they make an intention of themselves, and when they do commit. As such, therefore, the individual transcends himself and consequently, each action undertaken becomes a commitment. Therefore, the individual asserts their freedom and thus during times of peace, people think about various issues and portray a less likelihood of realizing what it means to be human. What this means is that the freedom concept described by Sartre provides no actual freedom to the individuals. This may further be purposefully misrepresented and misinterpreted to justify restricting political freedoms (Manzi N.p).
Sartre holds that “existence precedes essence, freedom is absolute, and existence is freedom” (Manzi N.p). He has no basis to believe that any substance or essence could be individually attributed before they exist, and therefore the individuals live first. This freedom exercised is limitless, but we must consider the world’s physical limitations. He states that there are no limits that can be identified to his freedom except for freedom itself, and if one prefers, that we do not have free will to stop being free (Sartre 439). Individual beings are born into the universe, a ‘situation’ that he identifies as ‘facticity,’ which involves appropriate limits to impose on the individual. Therefore, even if a human being may have the option to decide whether to jump off from a skyscraper and fly off to the ground, he would most likely have to crash, and perhaps even tragically die, because he does not have the safeguards, wings. Therefore, in as much one may have the freedom to choose whatever they want to do, they would still have to cope or deal with the consequences of their actions. An incarcerated person in prison may thus not be free to leave prison even if he may have wished to, but an element of indicating his freedom could be an attempt to try escaping from the cells. The bottom line is, the person is not free in the actual sense. Sartre defines freedom as “by oneself to determine oneself to wish” (Sartre 443); thus success may not be as valuable as freedom may be.
The philosophy of liberty as espoused by Sartre brings to the fore the implications of responsibility and transcendence. The individual must be able to transcend himself to reach the ‘outside of himself’ for a conscious realization of himself. That is the only way the individual be able to exercise an authentic life, and inch closer to the realization of his true humanness, and not through “turning back on himself” but seeking past himself the liberation goal (Sartre 66). He introduces a new dimension of the society, in general, stating that while we exercise our freedom, we realize that it depends almost wholly on others’ freedom, adding that we cannot make freedom our aim while we do not equally consider the freedom of others (Sartre 62). This is essentially limiting the choice that an individual has in an exercise of their freedoms, demonstrating the lack of free choice and will. Individuals have an enormous responsibility towards their liberty and that of others. When a person takes a decision, he owns it, and it becomes a part of him and also the perceived changes he may make in the universe due to that decision also forms an integral element of him. He states that “what happens to me happens through me” and that the individual must fully assume “the situation with the proud consciousness of being the author of it” (Sartre 554). Sartre’s conclusion is this: that all individual beings must live exercising a freedom virtue.
In conclusion, while existentialists opine that people are free to undertake whatever they may want, out of their will, there are significant departures between the philosophers and their views regarding an exercise of this freedom. These observations are related to free will; choices freely made, and the personal responsibility attached to these actions. Soren Kierkegaard was of the view that individuals were free to believe whatever they wanted and express their commitment to whatever they wanted without any external influence. However, his advocacy for the adoption of a Christian life would be strongly opposed by Fredrich Nietzsche, who espoused atheistic ideals and denounced the existence of God. Nietzsche stated that a subscription to religion meant a sacrifice on the freedom of an individual, as it amounted to the manipulation of their self-belief and self-confidence. Further, Jean-Paul Sartre denounced the applicability of true freedom to any person, because so many limitations to the decisions we may decide to take exist. This creates a ‘mockery’ of the whole freedom aspect, because then we are unable to exercise our will and choices from our inner conscious, further complicated by the requirement that we must take responsibility for our actions and choices. As such, there does exist a widespread phenomenon of the lack of free will and to choose freely, based on so many limitations around us, whether taking responsibility for our decisions, or many external influences such as religion, society, and specific standards set for guidance.
Works Cited
Blackburn, S. 2008. Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Manzi, Yvonne. “Jean-Paul Sartre: Existential “Freedom” and the Political.”
Montoya, I. “(The Cry) —— Existentialism.” Thecry.Com, 2016, http://www.thecry.com/existentialism/.
Paolucci, Gabriella. “Sartre’s humanism and the Cuban revolution.” Theory and Society 36.3 (2007): 245-263.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: an essay on phenomenological ontology. 1943. Reprint, London: Methuen & Co, 1972. 432-555
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism and humanism. New ed. London: Methuen, 2007.
Soll, Ivan. 2013. Existentialism 101. World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia. The University of Wisconsin. Madison.
Solomon, R. 1981. Introducing The Existentialist. Indiana: Hackett.
West, D. 1996. An Introduction to Continental Philosophy. Cambridge: Policy Press.