allow their genetic ir~hcritai~ce arid their environment to choose for them; (3)

humans are only what they make of themselves; and (4) those who do riot makc
their own choices lead "inauthentic" lives.
According to existentialism, lifc comes 10 havc rncariir~gfor [he individual, only
when that individual has riser1 above the cxterr~alforces thal control his life. An
analogy may hclp to make this idea clear. Imagine a leaf falling from a trcc,
buffeted hcrc and therc by occasior~algusts of wind. The leaf is at the rnercy of
r~aturc's apparently random forccs. Typically, an individual, while rrioving
through life, has a s little coritrol ovcr hcr own pal11 as docs [he leaf falling to the
grour~d.Existentialists tend to believe [ha[ [he loss of [his full conlrol derives from
one's imprisonment i r ~routir~cand cor~ver~lional behavior-in other words, from
arl ignorance and even a fear of the mutliplc oplior~sfor and consequences of
acting. For rnany people in the West, an awakening to thc stullifying effects of
routine and convcr~tion,to life's complexities and paradoxes, and lo thc a l o r ~ c ~ ~ c s s
of every ir~dividualoccurs sorrietirr~ci r ~~ h chigh school or college years. Sorrie
EXISTENTIALISM c.xistentialisls like Albert Camus (1913-1960) wor~ldsay [hat ~ h altcrr~ativc
such awakct~ir~g
c
is a forrn of intellectual suicide, where one dcnics thc choiccs
to

and rcspor~sibilitiesprcsenl in every situation, by submitting instead to a rcadily

available and previously shaped idea system as offered, for instance, h y a religion
or political organizatiori.
The breaking with routinc is irnportar~llo existentialism, but it would be mis-
Ivading to imply that the philosophy is by dcfirlilion nonconformist. The goal of
existentialism is to reflect critically on one's choiccs, to becorne self-conscious
Existcnlialism is a philosophy that rcprcserits arl irnportar~tlurr~ingpoir~tin the
and fully responsible for the choices and comniitmcnls orlc makes. Thus, it is
hislory of idcas. In the r~inctecnlhcentury, existential t l ~ i r ~ k chr sr g a t ~qucstior~ing
c*ntircly possible that an cxistcr~lialislwill choose to believe in God, to be an
tlte preccpts originating with the Greeks and generally adhcred to up through the
;i~l~c:ist, and to be pro-choicc or pro-life. An important lrait of existentialists
nineleenth ceritury that [he world was divir~elyordered and that failh and reason
ih ~ l t a l they deliberately and carefully reflect on thc "authcnlic," that is.
could bc used to understand that order, to give meaning to individuality, and to
sc.lf-conscious compared with self-deceptive, choiccs thcy arc capable of
solvc problems concerning the just society. The old rlotions of arr ordered and
~nakir~g.
stal)lc world gave way to a world of rapid cltangc, of incrcasir~guncertainty, arid
b:xistcntialists, because they are aritideterministic, sce routine and cor~ventior~
of growing a ~ ~ x i e t The y . forces that caused such changes are many and ir~clude
;IS ar~atherna.Existenlialism asserts [ha( we arc our choiccs; [hat is, we arc who
thc advanccs in science, the industrial Revolution, the promo ti or^ of democracy
uct arcxnot through arl urifoldir~gof our gcnctic ir~hcritar~cc or the cxlcrrial forccs
and the ideal of the individual, rapid population growth, and unstable class struc-
( 1 1 our cr~vironmentincluding the routines and coriveiitioris of society, all of whicl~
turcs to name a fcw. Despilc lhesc many changes, though, thc ancienl a ~ rnod- ~ d
I ( . I I ~ lo shapc our attitudes arid behaviors, but through our capacily to choosc
ern world continued to share one prirlciplc in common and that was the cmphasis
;111(1 to act. Thc excuse that "I am the product of my society arid upbringing" is
or1 reason.
~r~~;~c.c.rptablc 10 the existentialist. At all stages of one's life, one is resporisible
Although it is hard to define thc term "exis~entialism,"'il car1 bc undcrstood
1'01. c.lloosirig what to make of, and acling upon, the manifestation of onc's lrcrilagc
a s representing a nurnbcr of ideas, for instar~ce,~ l t eirnportar~ccof individual
; I I I ( I l)r('s('tit ( ~ ~ ~ v i r o ~ ~ r r ~ c r ~ t .
frcedom a r ~ dof the acccptance of responsibility; a skepticisrr~loward c.stat)lished , > 1 11(. 11ri111at-yfocus of existeiltialisn~is on persons as individuals a r ~ dor1 ~ h c
ideologies sucli a s religior~sand various forrr~sof governrrlerlt, whic.11 arc. ronsid- c.01 ~ c , r - c > t (l)ar.~ic~~lars
~ o f cxislcrlcc. Frorr~this focus. there follows a skepticism of
cred as closed frameworks thal have abused the process of rc:asoll i l l ~ ) r o v i d i ~ ~ g
.III,II-;I(.I i ( l ( ' : ~ S \ . S I ( * ~ I I S; I I I ~a fcar of individual cxistcnce becorning buried by
solulior~sa ~ accurate ~ d views of the world; a bclief thal t l ~ cvast 111:1.jori1yof
.IIP.II.;II.I ~ l l ( * o l . i ~'I'II(* i ~ ~ g1):isis . for S I I C ~fcar is [ha1 ally i~~dividual who is involved
l ~ r r r ~ ~ a tis~ i1ral)pcd
ly in a dulled routil~eand alic:rtalcd frortt a c j y ~ ~ ; ~ r tc~. \ ii sc~.( . l ~ c . c . :
1 1 1 I ~ I I , I I I . I / I I I ~I . I \ ~ , :11Iol)li11g I ) O ~ I I I I X * of :I S ~ ( T I : I I who ~ ~ i ~ l ~ i t r ~ : [LIIIS
~ t r l ~away
:111d III(. r~loralol~ligationto acccpt onc's myriad c.hoic,c,s a ~ ~to( ;l) ( . I a r r ~ l t c ~ ~ ~ ~ i c . ; ~ l l \ .
I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 . 01 c ~ ~ , ,11111 ~ i ~ ~~ I ~) I I ~I I I ~I I I I I I I ~ I!IY.:IIISI.
III. O I ' I I I ( , ~ I . I ~ I I I I ) ~ I : I S I SO I I 1111, i ~ ~ ( l i \ i ( I r ~ ; ~ l
111 51101.1. 111ost(~xist(~r~ti;ilis~s l ) ( ~ l i ( ~ v( I( ~ ) :I ~ ~ I I I I ; I ~ I:II-(*
S i ~ ~ ( l i \ i ( l ~ ~ ;~ .~I . lI >l I\, 1 1 1 I I I ' I ~ I , , l l l l l , ~ \ , . l ~ . l1\1 l 1 . l l ~ l ~ l ~ l l l l l l l~. \ l ~ l l ~ l l l l , l l, 1l 1~1 . l ~; ~ l ~ l l l ~ l l~ l l~~ ll l~ll \l \ l ~11,, l l~l~I;,~:;o~l\ Ol~lI1,l-
l ~ l l l l i l ~ (l ~2 ~) l:s \ ( s l l 511. l l l O > I [ ) ~ ~ l . 5 0 1 1 \( 1 0 1 1 0 1 ( ~ \ ( ~ l - l ~ ilI1:11
\(~ l~ll~l~~lllltl: l ~ , l l l l l ~ l .l l l l ~ \
 = - I = =
-. -3.7;;
-5 7 .

-
3
1
'1
C
? 'T:
- 5 x2 E
0 3 r 2 .
2 -5.2
w ga
-. 2 g 'O
:7
- g pq
3 Z . - U
3.G - g
= g: ?
gg5 5.
0
2-
- g 'Om
r m r Q
,.

;.? ag
K Z S
g3 4 %
n- 2g m
6 z -
7 z. F
0 -. w
,w 0- 3 2
w -.-c -.
g.: g 3
u g g
0
-2.2
- $
p 'f u ".
CD 3
;=gm
b c m
5 c m 3
CDm 0 n
2 F22
g O r O .
3 m O p .
2 : 2$
. 2 5 5-
L
2KE"
J F C
- u u
0
3 . 7 7

critically rclcvant decisions. Like the leaf described above, thc lil;. o I ot~c*w l ~ o
lives in the aesthetic stage is ultimately controlIed by outside phc~~ornc.r~a.
Brir~gunable to make lasting and satisfying choices in life, the "acstht~tc~"soon
despairs of a life of immediacy and moves toward the sccond stagc or cxistc~r~c~c,
the "ethical." Eventually hc rejects altogether the life based mcrcly on thc plea-
surablc and interesting. Although it does not seem to matter to Kierkcgaard which
ethical standard the individual chooses, what is important is the iritetisity and
sincerity with which choices are made. Thc first stage, characterized by an aim-
less pursuit of momentary plcasurcs followed by boredom, givcs way to a pur-
posive life that is more secure. It is a life govcrncd by universal priririplcs, which
give shape to authenticity and a well-developed sense of self. Thc iridividual is
capable of making i~nportantdecisions and commitrncnts and of honest and fair
social interactions. However, the sccond stagc fails to bring pcrmanerrt peace oC
mind, for in arriving at a strong and inward knowledge of the self, onc discovers
hurnan fallibility, self-deception, and thc weakness of will. Onc committed otrly
to the ethical life does not posscss the strctrgth of character necessary LO fully
commit to a broad and strong moral path and, thus, is alienated frorn God. He
experiences deep doubts, which brings remorse and guilt, over his choicc of eth-
ical standards arrd his various commitmcnts.
The "religious" phase is the last for Kierkegaard. and in it, the individual
seeks to know a ~ r dservc God; to arrive at this stagt, the individual must rise
beyond the ethical sphere and its concerrr for self-knowledge and duty aitd rnake
a "leap of faith." Such a leap seemingly dcfics reason and fully embraces human
finiteness. It listerts to a voice that rises beyond reason. 'The Biblical story of
Abraham's near sacrificc of his son Isaac typifies thc movcmcnt fro~rithc ethical
to the religious sphere, where tlrc good fathcr, who would do atrythirig to preserve
and nurture the life of his son, submits through faith to what he rcalizes is a
higher moral demand, God's call to sacrifice.
As critic Nathan Scott explains, Kicrkegaard's arlalysis of human stages of
development soon led him to a radical indictment of the Lutheran Church of his
day. Everywhere itr the Europe of his time, Kierkcgaard ohscrvcd social struc-
tures that worked to prevent persons from rcckoriing with their own individual
and subjective beings, making growth through thcse stages impossible; instead,
tlrc g r o i ~ pwas the controlling force of the tinie. In dcnouncirig the pcrvasivencss
of group and "hcrd" bchavior, Kicrkegaard attacked thc Lutheran State Church
of D e ~ i ~ n a r kobserving
, that the clergy were not witnessing on behalf of Christ;
rather, they were preoccupied with the business of perpetuating tl~eirlavish build-
iligs, delivcritlg successful sermolrs, and being "simply a~rotlrerbulwark of bonr-
geois respectability."l Baptism, confirmation, and churcll attendance werc sup-
posed to co~istitute a true Christiarlity, but were fairly infrcqucrrt; also, the
difficulty and strain of mairrtaining faith in the absence of good rcasotls, tlrc Irartl-
ships of rcmainirrg steadfast, and the challcnge to a n ethical irttcgriiy wcrc. loo
rarely acknowledged.
'Scctll. N:II~IL~II,Mirror.<, ! [ I V ( Li f~1 Ik~xi.s~,~r~!i,~/i.s,r~.
New Yn1.k. (:nIli~w.1060.
111 (.11(~.1.~ I ( . I . ~ ( , ~ (lis1111.1)(~d ; I ; I I . I ~ 111(' ( . ( ' t ~ l i i i i l l i ( ' s ~ I ~ O L I I I him
(I by clairni~lgthat
.III, itl(.;~ S , S I ( . I I I (~.c.ligic)rls or j)Ililosophic~il)that has the effect of imposing a pur-
l~(,(. ( 1 1 . (.ss('II(.('011 1)esrsot~s (or including the view that essences are dctcrmined)
II;IS I I I I ~ , I . I ~f;~il(s(l.'I't~vFrc~rcliphilospher Jcan-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was to
c . l ; ~ i r t ~I I I O I . ~ . tltar~a ccrrtury later that "existence precedes essence"; that is, one
I)c.git~slih, 11y ~rlcrclyexisting, with no given purpose or essence. The ultimate
I~-c~c.tlorr~ to c41oosewho and what wc are, in the midst of a world in which purpose
; I I I ( I ~ i ~ ( ~ ; l t ~arc i t r griot givens (or ready-made parts of the human character) obli-
g;~t(-s us to make our own decisions. Ultirnatcly, we are each aloric to corttemplate
III(. ~ ~ l ~ i v c >arrd, r s c through the exercise of our freedom, to rcalizc our purpose.
'1'l1(. I.(.SLI~I, bolh Kierkegaard and S a r ~ r erealized, is the dread and despair of
I)c.it~galorrc, without family, friends, church, or other idea systern to scrvc as
S I I I ) I ) OHowever, ~I. despair and anarchy were not thc end points of cithcr philo-
sol)l~c.r'sthought. Both pursued lives of constructive action, Kicrkcgaard through
t~iswritings and Sartre through his writings arid his political activities. and both
~lt.gc~l others on to such lives.
I t 1 his analysis of social arid religious conditio~~s of his time, Kierkegaard
;~llirrr~cd God's ultimate love and care for his creatures. His own purpose was to
clisc,losc the sham in the institutionalized church and to rcvivc thc power and
;1111ltorityof sacred scripture.
(;c%rrrlanphilosopher Fricdrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), who is the secotld
~~i~~c.tc-cr~th-centt~ry philospher to lay the foundation for existentialis~n, took a
IIIOI.(' radical step by denying thc fundametltal vitality of the Christiart scripture
;IS I)rac:ticed by those around hirn and by claiming that God was, indeed, dead.
Although Nictzsche never read Kierkegaard's writings. the two men shared sim-
i l ; l l . iclcas. Both loathed the controllirrg power of thc Church and the rrriddle-class
III;ISSCS, what Nietzsche referred to as the "powcr of the flock and no shcphertl."
4150. both seemed to sharc siniilar personalities in that they wcrc combative and
givcw to introspection.
Nietzsche's fathcr was a Lutheran pastor who died by the time Friedrich was
l i v r . Raised by his mother and grandmother, surrounded also by his sister and
two maiden aunts, Nietzschc studied philosophy at the University of Bonrr, wlierc
II(. was a brilliant student. Somewhat likc Kicrkegaard, who had a slight I~ump-
1)irc.k. Nietzsche was physically frail and at times psychologically unstable, qual-
i t i c b s which some think made the men ontsiders and, therefore, capable of pcric-
tt.i~tiriglyur~corrvet~tional insights. That should not, however. bc taken as a sign
t l r i t t Nietzschc's mind was impaired, which it was not until his last years, when
I I ( ~ltad a rlcrvous breakdowri and is said to have gone rirad.
1 1 1 1868, Nietzschc developed a close relationship with the famous corrrposcr
lli(.l~i~r(j Wagner; to undcrstartd Nielzsclrc's important conccpl of' "the will to
3,
~)ow('r. it is irnporta~~t to ut~derstand this relationship. Both men shared an
c-~~ttl~~siasrrr for I I I ( ~ writirigs of the Gcrnrnn philosopher Arthur Scl~oper~haucr
( 1788- 1 t ( 0 0 ) ~ I I ;II.+I ~ I W;IS i~ssoc~intrd with t l ~ eidca of wiH, and a repulsiori for
i l l ( , I I I ( * ( I I ~ ( . I ~\ ~ I, I I I ( I ~ I ; I ; : I iIo:1I1 I w t r s ( ~ ii t 1 1)ourgcois (;(-r~nilnso(.icty. Wag-
III.I.-.\ ~ I I I I . I . ; I ~: I I I I I 51 I I I ~ I I I O I I I I , ~( I I ~ I I I I ; I I ~ ~I I II (Y* ~grcb;tt~l(.ss IIC 1 1 e ) ~ ) c y j
;t11(1 ~~t:igttit~~ci(>
111,. 1% l-~::
t l ~ cGcrman culture would attain; Nietzscl~ewas tlrawn to Wagner's idcas and to longer dclivcr the all-encompassing guidelines for ~lctior~ a r ~ dreason for l i \ ; I I ~ . ; I
his Gcrrnan paganism, which Wagt~erhoped would lead to a llew Germany. world in which people looked elsewhere (to material success, to tcachcrs. ; I I I ( I I I I
However, problerns soon dcveloped in the relationship. T h r roots of newspapers) for dircction. in whic11 all were alone in a world without any nrc,;~l~i~~;
Nictzsche's parting wit11 Wagner lay in Wagner's aversion to Christianity's Jewisl~ apart from that which people created for themselves. Nictzschc realized t h a ~II(.~II;
roots and t11e centrality of hurr~ilit~, mcckncss, a ~ love
~ d in the Judco-Christiar~ alone without God meant living in a grcat void, but it also had anot11t.r hitl~..I 1
tradition, ur~dercuttit~g what Wagner believed was the importat~ceof power. In God could not look out for humanity, then humanity was responsible for all ( . I - , * ; I -
1 8 8 2 , w l ~ e rW~lguer's
~ opera Ptrrsifij,l, based on the esser~tially(:l~ristia~~ qucst tures and all events on earth. Nictzsche realized that there was arr cxl~iliratio~r III

for the Holy Grail. was staged, it was the racial d o c t r i ~ ~irllrercnt
e i t 1 that work
i t y establish values and laws and tnust chirr~I I I ( ,
that burden that h i ~ t ~ ~ a n rrrust
that caused Nictzschc to brcak relations. Nietzschc's discomfort with t l ~ cideas waters and lands. He called t l ~ eresponsibility we must face "a rcevaluatio~~,"I),
that later evolved into the ~nonstrouscvil of Hit1c.r.'~racc ideology ditl not becornc which he meant a reinvention of purpose and meaning, a rcdcfir~itiot~ of V ; I ~ I I ~ .
clear to the world until long after 11is death, for his sister Elizal)ctl~selectively itself. Thus, in his masterpiece, Thus SPCLLTZ ~ I ~ ~ I I A(1892),
U S ~ ~ and
U i l l his (.()I-
edited l ~ c rbrothcr's works in ways that n~atlethem appear to support the idea of lection of notes T/LP Will to Pouer, Nictzschr urged a new type of human lo
an cxrlusive super race. I n fact, Nietzscl~ehad always rc.jectcd allti-Scnritisrn and emerge whom he called ~6errnensr.h(variously translated as "overma~r" 01.
iisuperman"). For such a person, the "will to power" meant the striving for
nationalism, advocating cl~ltu~.al diversity and racc mixture.
Modern scholars have co~~vir~cingly show~r that the center of N i r t ~ s c l ~ r ' s grcatcr achieven~el~t, creativity, and vitality. for a trar~scer~dcr~ce
all persons wc.l.t.
thor~gl~t is not to champion the power of a superior "man" over others d c c ~ n c d capable Here again there is rnovcn~entaway from the ancient world wit11 its
racially inferior; rather, it is his realiza~ionthat the loss of a faith that had lrecn frequcrl~assumptions of a fixed reality and of a definite place and purpo~c.for
rrurturcd for centuries signaled nothing less than the death of God and a nuajor each person; for Nietzschc, dynamic growth or bccornir~g,not being, was t l ~ c x
t t ~ r l ~ point
i ~ ~ g for the world. Nictsche's will to power referred to his idcals or fundamental reality.
pcrsor~alir~tegrityand con~rr~itn~cnt to execller~ce1hrougI1 suj?jective rr~o~ncnts of T l ~ c s ccarly existentialists reminded the European middle class that it was f a s ~
thr bill. His clearcst stalen~entof that position occurs i l l T ~ LGay
C S(-ien(.e(1882): bccorr~irrgtoo conrfortable with its successes and reminded thc Church that it had
forgotten the cer~trallncssagc of Christ. As Jacob Rronowski rcrninded us, we are
110 \*(, rot II~.,II- at~?thi~rg
yet of ~ h r .~loisc.of 1111.gr;~vcdiggc.l-sw h o arcz burying (;od? 110 \*c I I O ~ r~otcreatures of thc lal~tlscape;we are shapers of the l a r ~ d s c aand ~ ~ even, nlorc
h r r ~ c l li r l ~ ? ~ l r i lyr ~c ~o f (;rid's ( I C C O I I I ~ ~ S ~ I ~ O I I(;~ds
? too dccotr~~,~s(..
( A d i ~tlr;~d.
i . . . Atld w c important, shapcrs of ourselves. For both these carly exis(entialists, Christianity
Ila\c. killcd I ~ i ~ r .r . . . W'ha~\*as lrolics~a ~ r dInos1 I)owcrful nf all I I I ~ I (Ire world has yc.1 o w ~ r c ~ l
was becoming a rigid and dangerous hulwark of conscrvatisrn, encouraging con-
l~:rsl)lr%d l o tlca~lrI I I I ~ C I . O C I I h~ri\cs.~ ' I I o will wirre tllis hlotrd OK us? . . . Is rrol IIIC*grcatrrcsh formity and cornplaccr~cy,and thus insensitivity. For Kierkegaard, the Christian,
o l tllisd w d loo grc.;~~ fol- osY MIJ.SI r l o l w c olll.srlvr.s hccorrlc gods s i r ~ ~ p l oy sccrrr \*or~lr)of i l ? a r ~ dfor Nietzsche, the atheist, the goal of thcir philosophies was a revitalization
of faith.
Like Kierkegaard, Nietzsct~c.obscrved that faith was not subjcctivc.1j sig~lifi-
cant ill the lives of his c o ~ ~ t e n ~ p o r a r iNictzschc's
cs. importance is that hc, offered
the news to the world that the Church had lost its prophetic. power, (hat Gotl had THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTENTIALISM IN
1)een killed by humans, that thosc hurrrans were, therefore. on trial. and that wc
nlust scarch out a way of living witl~outfaith in God and with doulrt LIIICI urlccr-
THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
tair~ty.Nictzsche did not a~~alytically speculate about tlre c x i s t e ~ ~ cofe God as 'I'II(~ der,eloprr~cr~t of existentialism in the twentieth century occurred most dra-
rrlarly pllilosophers had; rather, his corrclusion was based 0 1 1 a k i d of empirical 111i1tic-allya f ~ c rWorld War 11, when the philosophy crossed the fronticr of aca-
observation-God simply did not exist for no st Europeans and was, in effect. (I('tlli(' life into the world of practical affairs. Through the first half of this century,
d t ~ i d .Nietzschc realized that what was new about humanity's plight was that the clcspitc its nineteenth-century origins, c-xistentialisrr~was ignored in academic cir-
grcat foundation of faith, the great rock of thc Judco-Christia~~tradition that had c.los ant1 was rlot gcr~crallvaccepted as a "philosophy." It took a second great
served hur~~anity for lnorc than three thousand years, was for him a ~ r dso inany wol.ltl war to rhangt. that. especially from a European perspective. With the rise
others gone, a r ~ dnothing was lcft in its place. Nietzsche was, thcrrforc, 1101 claim- o f tlrc. 'I'hirtl I < c ~ i c ~ l r .1111. vrisis of rncaning and purpose that existentialists talked
ing that therc was no Gotl; he was saying that God was no longer a c ~ ~ l t ~ ~ ~ . i ~ l l y :11rot11 I I ~ S O I I I I ( ~ Y ~ tlrr f t ~ l tof LI w11oIc civi1izatii)n.
significant and dcter~rrininginfluence. Finding God "dead" in the s o ~ ~ of l s his 11 is O I I ( * I I I ~ I I K to ; I I . ~ I I ( , t l ~ c *rr~(~;~~ri~~gI(~ssr~(~ss
of cxistcncc, to t1n.o~terms like
contemporaries, Nict~schcobscrved the f u r ~ d a n ~ c n t asrcrlla~.
ll~ t~;llrlr.(.or s o c . i c * ~ v ..I I I ( . ;. I I I..I I..IIII,
I ~ . III*:IIII o f ' (;o(l.'. ;III(I " ( ~ I ~ o i ( :rro~~r~cj;
~(~" i t is q~iit(-a ~ ~ o t h ctor
and speculated about thc implications.
Nietzsche asked what it meant to live irr a worltl i l l ulric.lr t . ( ' I i ; ; o l ~ (.o111,1110
cxpcricllce it. The world of 1933-1945 seerncd utterly in thc Ila~lcls01' I I I ~ I ~ I I I ~ . I I .
IIIIII,I.II. ~ . \ I \ I I . I I I I ; I ~ ~ \ I I I I I S ~ I I ~ S I I S I * ~10 ~ (*xl)r~~ssiot~
i t t li~craturcrrtorc completely
who werr able lo assume and maintait~power because of the profotttt~lsilc.t~r.r..
I 11.111 . I I I \ 01111.1~ ~ l ~ i l o s o I)(Y~;IUSC
~ ) I t ~ 01' its crril~l~asis OII individuality, on the skep-
or really acquiescence, or) the part of millions of people and on thc. par1 01' 1 1 1 ~
I ~ I , I \ I I I 01' ; I ~ ~ I I . ; I I . I~ltc.or-izing, ort tltc dramas of individual cltoice within social and
establsihed institutions of church, state, and culturc that shirkrd thcir primary
~ I I I I I I I I I (I '~ ~ ~ i ~ l;it~d g s ,on living i r ~cxtrerrle (or absurd) situations.
responsibility, the protectio~lof civilization. No abstraction, his was tlte irtc%scap-
ably blatant and disastrous failure of traditional institutions. The averagc citizct~
had but two choices: to acquiesce (that is, to cooperate, to submit. to bc silent)
or to resist. This was a corrtext in which being authentic (that is, making rcspoll-
sible and thoughtful choices and reevaluating one's values) itself seerned absurd,
for the likelihood of failure, torture, and death far outweighed that for success. MATTHEW ARNOLD, "DOVER BEACH"
Given the circumstances, it is remarkable indeed that a resistar~ceeffort evert
existed, for from 1940 to 1 9 4 3 it nus st have seerned lo resisters like Albcrt b:duc,alcd a1 Rugby, Wirrchestc~r.wllc.re his c.l(.rgyrtra~~ f a ~ h c rwas I~radrrrastrr.and at
I l ~ r l l i o l(:ollrg(,, Oxf'orci IJr~ivrrsi~y, whrrr hr cartred tlre rrputatior~as a dandy arld a
Camus or theologian Dietrich Boilhoeffer that Hitlcr's claim was true, that the nit. Ma~thrwArl~old(1822-1888) 1)c.c.arnc: a Tc.llow at Oricd Collrgr soon aher he
Reieh would last a thousand years. w a s graduatc,d. For- 35 yrkirs. Ilr srrvrrl as irrsprrtor oT schools, wtiic~l~ gave h i r r ~thc
For people in the Nazi concentration camps, of course, conditions were murl~ c.ll:ir~c~c. to 11-avrl widrly ~ h r n u g h o e ~Erigland
t a n d obscrvr the. c o ~ ~ d i ~ofi on ~rorlrrlry
~s
worse, as thc story by the Polis11 writer and Auschwitz prisorler, Tadeusz cluirkly ehangir~gfrom a n agrariar~to arl irrdrlstrial society. 111 1851, I I rn;i~.ric.d ~
Borowski. which follows, shows. To rr~aintainone's humanity while living in the E ' ; r r r r l ? Wightman, w h o 1ror.c. l ~ i r ~six c childrrri. Par1 oT "Dover Ueac.li" (1807)dares
most brutal of conditions was alrnost the only form of resistance available. How Crorr~his Iror~cyrr~oor~ cupcr.icrlcc.
M o s ~of Arrrol(i's reputaliorr st(>tt~s his exrct~sivrprosr writings OII edirc,atior~,
1.1-o~r~
radically one must reevaluate, in Nietzsche's terms. when one is in a world devoid 1itc.rat11r.e. politics, and socicly. Rrl~ra~rdl) irr his w o r k s , hc a s k 1 4 Ilow o n c slioulrl
of value-no justice, no mercy, no sense of God or hurnarlity, no law-except l i \ c . I I I V good lil'r i r ~arr rrnrrging irrduslrial c.ul~ul-c.. Al~troughAI-~roltlis 1101co~~hidcrrrl
punishn~entand death. There seerlted to be no ethically responsible choices, only : I I I r x i s ~ r ~ ~ tthinker,
ial t i l t . pot-rrr t h a ~follow rlmrI4 delrrons~ratesthe rr~l~rrral sl~if~
existence or nothingness. For most, there was no choice whatever, ordy dcath. t o ~ n r dr x i s l ~ n l i a l i s ma n d away Trorrr ~r.arlitio~rnl rrligiorr irr the n i ~ ~ e t e e ~c,c.rltury.
~th
He. spoke with arr urbnrir arid inTorlned v0ic.e tlla~ir1spirc.d Irusl, arrd Ilr gained a
World War 11, then, invited the world to witness the systematic atrocities of
wide hllowirlg l h r o ~ ~ g h rllui.l~ o ~ ~ t of' his c;irccr.
the "advanced," "induslrializcd," and "cultured" regime of the Nazis. Although O n his o w n poctry, Arrrold olirc wrcrlc i l l .I Iet~erto his rnothcl-, "My porr~~s rrp-
6'
civilization" was shocked, it did little. Clearly, there was reason for despair. If 1-c.sc.nl. (111 llrc wholr. thr rrrairi rnovert1c.rrl of III(. I I I ~ I of I ~ lhr la51 qrrartrr oT a ccwtnry.

God was dead, or as Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said, only absent and on and thus thry will p~-ol,abl! have t h ~ i dr a y a s peoples tlc~corrrrcorrscious to thr~rrselvrs
leave, hen anything was possible, even genocide. In response to such events, 01' w l r e ~11131 I I I O V ~ I I ~ ~ofI ~rnind I is, arrd irr~rrcs~rd in ~ h rliterary produc,tiorrs wtiiel~

twentieth-century existentialists interpreted life as an absurdity. in a world where rt~flt~i.1 i~."O r ~ ccritic wrolc t h a ~"as a pot.1 hc. ~ISIIHIIY n-cords his o ~ r cxprriel~c~es, r
his owrr frclil~gso f lorrrli~~css arrd isola~iorras a lovrr, his longing h11-:I s r r r r ~ i l ytlra~
each new technological rnarvel was matched by a new wave of destruction, result- hc. c,arlnol (irltl. his rrrrlar~eholysenst. of the passir~gof' you~li.. . ."
ing in all unsettling realization that we do not really have a firlr~grasp on our
livps.
Tlte high priest of the second, modern wave of existet~tialistt~ was Frenchtnar~
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980). We should also mention the French novelist
Albert Camus (1913-1960), Gern~anphilosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-
1976), feminist Simorle de Beauvoir (1908-1986), the French Roman Catholic Dover Beach
Gabriel Marcel (1889-1 973), and the Jewislt philosopher Martin Buber ( 1878- MATTHEW ARNOLD
1965). The variety of these voices should make it clear that existentialism is not
a system only for atheists. What is commorl arnong all these writers is tlicir belief
in the centrality of the experience of the individual who hangs onto lifc without Thc sea is calm to-night.
the support of litniting ideologies or systems, who grapples with complex 111odert1 'I'II(. lid(- is ftrll, tllr moon lies fair
phenomena, the decline of religion, the sense of rootlessness, and the Crcling that, 1 1 1 ~ 11t(-
~ 1 slrai~s:-or1 tltc Frertch coast. the liglit
irt the words of William Barrett, each man is "solitary and unshrltcred bc,fore his (;l(.atr~sarttl is gottc.; 11tv cliffs of Engl:lnd stand,
own death," and who maintains that there is an obligation for affirrr~irtg~rroral ( ; I ~ ~ I I I I ;It t l(( ITt:1.51.
~II~ 0 1 1 1 i t 1 tit(, tt~:tt~(~ui]
bay.
in~egrityand authentic behavior. (:OIIII, 10 1111. \ \ ~ I I I ~ I I \ \ .\ \ \ c ~ ~ lis I I ~ ~ I ;lit.!
II
The readings that follow include more literary than philosol)liic~t~l uor-ks. OllI\. l l l ~ l t ll l l l ~ loll;: l l l l l ~ 01 -l)l.;l\

\\ l l l ~ l ll ~l l l ~\ l . . l 1 1 1 ~ ~ lilt, l;1111l.
1 ~ 1 l ~l l ~ ~ ~ l, ll l l ~ l l l I ~ l l ~ I l