Is existentialism a beneficial concept for society?  

Susie Triffitt, Woldingham School

Abstract: Existentialism is a complex theory that is addressed by many different philosophers. In this argument I will focus specifically on the pessimistic existentialism of Camus and contrast it with the more optimistic position of Kierkegaard. While Camus’s position would destroy society Kierkegaard’s would preserve it. 

Camus never classed himself as an existentialist but he does create an extreme type of existentialism throughout his writings by focusing on the nature of existence. This extreme existentialism would see the end of an ordered society. ‘Man alone is an end unto himself. Everything one tries to do for the common good ends in failure’. This quote shows that according to Camus, to exist truly one must exist individually. 

‘I rebel; therefore I exist’- Camus’ existentialism would damage society because it would cause universal extrication from society. In the attempt to be an individual and gain meaning through action, the rules of society would be broken. This would harm society because the human race functions best as a group instead of individually. If each person lived selfishly only for their own existence the best elements of society would collapse. Relationships, love and community would be exchanged for rebellion, self-love and the lone individual. In this way through the break down of society existentialism would ruin societal existence and the many benefits such living entails.

In Camus’ most famous work, L’Etranger (The Stranger), he highlights perfectly the egotism at the heart of his existentialism. The book starts with the death of the mother of the main character, Meursault. The first chapter describes Meursault’s lack of feeling towards his mother’s decease because apparently society has conditioned him to numbness. He does not cry. At this point Meursault is not yet an existentialist, he simply represents what Camus thinks society does to the mind by hypnotizing it into a state of paralysis. Yet as the book develops and Meursault steps out of society he actually ends up as a murderer. This book shows that the extrication from society (even its supposed mental paralysis) causes more harm. If this is the kind of person that Camus envisions for society’s archetype, a man so completely deficient in emotion, it is obvious that existentialism would not benefit society but gradually dissolve its bonds so that all that remained were individuals who happened to exist in the same geographical area.

A significant challenge to Camus’ existentialist theory is the lack of purpose in life that it implies. Camus wrote in The Myth of Sisyphus that ‘The only serious philosophical question is whether to commit suicide ’. Camus used The Myth of Sisyphus, in which the title character exists happily even in the absurdity of his task of pushing a rock uphill before letting it fall down the hill again, to question the absurdness of life. Camus’ writing suggests that he viewed life as meaningless and therefore ipso facto pointless. This lack of purpose even raises the question of why one should strive for individualism if life is insignificant. However it is arguable how detrimental a lack of purpose in life would be to society. Schnell of the University of Innsbruck did a survey of 603 Germans of whom 35% were ‘existentially indifferent’. Apparently ‘without commitment to sources of meaning, life remains superficial- but superficiality is not a state of suffering’. This study suggests that there does not need to be meaning in life to make it bearable; as shown by Camus and his example of Sisyphus.  However the prominence of religion in the world suggests that people need a purpose; 84% of the world’s population has a faith. A belief system such as existentialism therefore would be detrimental as there is a universal need of purpose. An example of mankind’s despair without purpose is shown in the fact that suicide is more likely in the unemployed. Since the recession there have been 10,000 ‘economic suicides’ in North America and Europe. These examples show society’s need for a purpose because unlike Sisyphus we cannot simply continue in the cycle of life without meaning.

However although both rebellion and a lack of purpose in life are highlighted in the works of Camus, it is possible for existentialism to be compatible with purpose and even religious beliefs. Kierkegaard, a man often called the ‘father of existentialism’ was religious. To Kierkegaard the focus of existentialism was not simply individualism but individualism with God. To exist we must know ourselves and we must have a relationship with God (both of these ideas are influenced by Jesus in John’s gospel ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’). Our existence is determined by God because he is the one who gives us being- ‘if people have forgotten what it means to exist religiously, they have probably also forgotten what it means to exist humanly’ (Kierkegaard). To Kierkegaard something is true if it is in accordance to God. This is why in ‘Fear and Trembling’ Kierkegaard justifies the actions of Abraham because ‘he remained true to his love’ of God. In this understanding, existentialism can benefit society as it gives mankind a purpose.

However is Kierkegaard’s approach beneficial for society? If society’s members must always value God in their existence above the good of society (Kierkegaard justifies Abraham’s actions towards Isaac) then the rule of society is again threatened. Yet if truth is in accordance to God’s will, society as a whole should be protected from egotism because ‘God is love’(1 John 4:16). In the infinite love of Kierkegaard’s God who saved Isaac, the good of society is paramount. Also egotism would be discouraged because of the Christian unity of society in ‘love of neighbour’. In this way existentialism can benefit society in its understanding of individualism based on love and not egotism.

To conclude, Camus’ existentialism exists as a philosophical bi-product of Marxism, an over-correction of the Marxist lack of individuality. (This is ironic because existentialism is about existing beyond society and yet Camus is very influenced by his society). Camus’ existentialism would lead to a society of egotists without purpose. Yet the individualism of existentialism highlighted by Kierkegaard would benefit instead of implode society. Kierkegaard shows that existentialism itself can benefit society while Camus’ own understanding is detrimental for ‘Man alone’ cannot provide ‘an end unto himself’.