In the whole history of philosophical thought in the West, no other philosophy had a quicker or more intense impact on society than Existentialism.
Soren Kierkegaard was a proponent of a theistic brand of Existentialism in the mid 1800′s, and many consider Nietzsche an Existentialist, but the philosophy really took off in the writings of Sartre, Camus, and Heidegger. Their thought took root in society so fast because they communicated through plays and stories. This literary element to their writings, combined with the efforts of writers like Hemingway and a post-WWII cultural zeitgeist of cynicism, allowed their thought to take root in the popular consciousness with alarming speed.
I’ve always seen Existentialism as a very conflicted philosophy, one that is emotionally built upon an irrational leap of faith. At first glance, it seems very noble, courageous, and brilliant, but a deeper look reveals a stark naked emperor.
Sarte’s thought about human freedom is a case in point. Above all, he thought, man is a subject. A necessary part of being a subject is having a will…a free will. He valued human freedom above just about everything else; if something conflicted with freedom, it had to go. This was one of the reasons that he rejected the existence of God.
I’m not so sure on his rejection of God, of course. There’s a misconstrual of the nature of freedom and God’s nature lurking in there. More to the point, though, I wonder if he ever considered that his brand of existentialism conflicted with human freedom as well.
Remember, Sartre was an atheist, and he banked his existentialism on it. If nature is all there is (as pretty much any form of atheism holds), though, then more’s the pity for human freedom! If atheism is true, then human beings are completely material. We consist bottom up of atoms, particles, and chemicals colliding. What governs this physical world is mechanical cause and effect. There is no room for an “I” or free will. We might *think* we steer our own course, but it’s an illusion; instead, it’s the particles colliding and the chemicals reacting that determine our actions.
So in the end, Sartre’s razor would chop off not only the branch God is sitting on (doubtful, in the final analysis), but his own branch as well. If he was so concerned about freedom the way he defined it, he probably should have left his atheism by the wayside.
