Existentialism: Being Fully Human in the lens of Kierkegaard and Sartre Soren Kierkegaard, a known 19th century philosopher

and Jean Paul Sartre, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, gave humanity ideas that can help mans search for meaning regarding to his/her existence. Although both of them have divergent views regarding God, in relation to mans existence, a convergence on many aspects between their ideas have contributed to the concept of human freedom and existence. Kierkegaard, who lived in the 19th century, is widely known to be a Christian, stated that Existence is the individuals direct and conscious participation in the act. In this regard, he stated the three levels of human existence, namely the aesthetic stage, the ethical stage and the religious stage. The third stage, the religious stage, is the idea where Kierkegaard and Sartre separate, for Sartre was outspoken of his ideas about the absence of God in the human existence. But before going to that point, I shall discuss briefly the first two stages. The aesthetic stage of our existence is where the main motivation of our existence is to enjoy all the pleasures in life through the senses. The ethical stage of Kierkegaards idea on human existence goes beyond the first level because a person on that level of existence recognizes ethical norms and rules of human conduct as formulated by reason. The religious stage, the third level of Kierkegaards existence, goes beyond the ethical level because time will come that a person in the ethical stage will realize that there is still something that is incomprehensible beyond our objective moral reasoning and upon realizing on this, we still found out that we cannot follow the moral law. Instead, we are brought to the awareness of God. For Kierkegaard, a person transitions to the third stage not by reason but by ones faith in God. Although he stressed that we cannot pursue God in an objective manner, a persons experience of being with God depends on every person whose faith cannot be measured by plain human reason but in the end, we are confronted with our question of our faith which can be achieved, according to Kierkegaard, through selffulfilment in our faith in God. Sartre, meanwhile, lived during the 20th century and is notable for his rejection of the existence of God in his works on existentialism which is really different from Kierkegaards way of thinking which is influenced by his Christian faith and upbringing. He pointed out that man is an abandoned being, therefore God does not exist. Sartres reason for giving this idea on a mans existence is that even if we know that God exists or our values are grounded in God, we still do not know the absolutes of right and wrong and even if we know the absolutes, it is still subject for subjective interpretation and the dilemma resulting from it is much the same as if we have no God in our existence. This idea of Sartre can be summarizes as existence precedes essence. Although Kierkegaard and Sartre have divergent ideas regarding some topics in existentialism, they have similar points on many topics that are related to existentialism. I shall base my presentation and discussion of their similarities on the order on how Prof. Lawhead presented them. The first point wherein they have a similar idea is that one must be authentic on searching and finding answers and it should come from ones self, not from others.

Quoting Kierkegaard, he said that there is a big difference of knowing the truth and being in the truth. Elaborating further these statements, man may know all of the objective truths in this world but he/she will only find out and appreciate knowledge and truth when a person participates or immerses in the truth itself. For example, you may know all of the formulas and theories of accounting, but for Kierkegaard, you will only know accounting if you are out there through participating in the process. It is through the subjective experiences one finds the truth and knows reality. In a similar way, Sartre gives us an example of this situation through his essay Existentialism and Humanism regarding a student torn between joining to fight the Nazis or accompany his old mother. He said that even if the student consults other people or clings to his principles (i.e. Christian faith and morals), we cannot escape our burden of making the ultimate decision and to be responsible in its consequences. So he advised the student that he is free, therefore he must make a choice. Basing on this example, we can infer that the decisions that we make on our existence is both a personal and an objective undertaking. The second point is that all of us must be the participant in our own existence, not merely a spectator. We shall start by quoting Sartre, who said that Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is. This quote simply points that man exists only when he realizes that he/she is th e one who has control over his/her existence and in order to fulfil this, he/she must go beyond by being the actor in his/her life, not merely a spectator. As adapted from Kierkegaards idea, an example of this is that what use is in our studying if we are merely focused on getting a high grade, not on how studying gave a lasting impression on how we enrich our existence. Simply stated, we are the ones who decide and control on what direction our life will go. The third point of convergence that defines existentialism is that risk, choice, commitment and responsibility cannot be broken down into separate pieces because in existentialism, the idea is that we are on our own whenever we make difficult choices in our lives. I shall cite Sartres example of life during the World War II. France, during that time was occupied by Nazi Germany. During this time, the French were stripped of all of their rights during the Nazi occupation. But he then said that they are freer than ever before. It may sound ironic, but it is the reality. People are free not in the sense of the enjoyment of civil liberties but free in the sense of authentic freedom. They are free because they are forced to make choices which entail responsibility, which is the hallmark of authentic freedom, because evading ones self in making authentic choices is not the main end of our existence. Also, Kierkegaard aired out his dislike of the strategy of following an approximation process which one will withhold his/her decision until one can achieve an absolute level of certainty. For example, I may gather arguments, for or against, for the different options available, weigh them and then make a decision. The fourth vantage point between them is that in the end, it is you who will make the decision, no matter on how you rationally apply your considerations to every option available. Even Kierkegaard, a

highly educated man, is no stranger to this. He, in the end did not marry his girlfriend, Regina Olsen, but even his background on philosophy did not totally suffice in reducing this judgment into a logical or a structured one. Back again to Sartres example of the student, even if the student is educated with Christian ethics or any other schools of thought regarding ethics, he himself must decide whatever path he wants to take and be responsible for his decision and for whatever outcomes that may happen in the process. Applying this principle to my life, I may have learned a lot in my education and in my experiences but at the end of the day, it is still up to me whether to use it for the common good or for evil. Lastly, all of us must be true to ourselves and live with the choices that we make in a real manner. To start, I shall present Sartres concept of bad faith. Bad faith for Sartre is that it is about living a life of inauthenticity wherein a person hides himself/herself in a cloak wherein they can escape their responsibilities and because of their actions, they are at odds with their conscience. Instead, Sartre promotes that we must accept our responsibility that we are bound to make our choices by our own. According to him, We are to make our world that gives meaning to our lives. For Kierkegaard, he gave an example of a person who is known by the people to be an ideal person. But for Kierkegaard, he has no self. He is nothing but a person performing different roles in the society. Because of this, man forgets his/her uniqueness as a person and instead, succumbs to his/her roles in the society which will make a person empty, finding no meaning to his/her own existence. In existentialism, we must be always true to our self and to our nature. Even if I am a student who has many roles to play, I must not forget the real meaning of my existence and through making the choices in life which are really my choices, and not the choices of others, I live a life of meaning. In the end, we are still in control of what we want in our life and how we will make it into a reality. The choice and responsibility all lies in ones self. This is existentialism, a school of thought that goes beyond to the confines of the classroom, a way of life that is beyond the search of the absolutes. References and Bibliography: The Pursuit of Being Human: An Introduction to Philosophy by Christopher Ryan Maboloc, 2012 The Philosophical Journey by William F. Lawhead (2009), pp. 658-665 Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of Philosophy by Stumf & Fieser (2008), pp.340-345 Philosophy: The Power of Ideas by Moore & Bruder, (2005), pp. 160-175 Philosophy by Papineau (2009), pp. 154-157