This paper explores existentialism as a philosophical framework, drawing on definitions from multiple sources to establish its core emphasis on individual freedom, personal responsibility, and the rejection of universal values. The author then applies these principles to their own life, examining how adopting an existentialist worldview would affect personal relationships, academic ethics, career aspirations in law enforcement, family goals, and the capacity for empathy. The paper concludes that while certain existentialist ideas hold appeal — particularly the drive to leave a lasting impact — a full embrace of the philosophy would be incompatible with the author's deeply social nature, belief in universal moral standards, and commitment to empathy.
It is difficult to define the concept of existentialism because the term is used to describe a group of philosophies. According to Wikipedia, "existentialism is a unilateral philosophical movement that emphasizes the individual, the self, the individual's experience, and the uniqueness therein as the only reality. Existentialists believe in sheer freedom and accept the consequences and ramifications of their actions wholly. Existentialists prefer subjectivity, and view general existence as arcane, believing that they are isolated entities in an indifferent and often ambiguous universe" ("Existentialism").
Wyatt defines existentialism as the "doctrine that among sentient beings, especially humanity, existence takes precedence over essence and holding that man is totally free and responsible for his acts" (Wyatt). In existentialism, an individual is defined by thoughts and actions, rather than by any state of being. Furthermore, the freedom that humanity possesses is not a source of relief, but rather a source of anxiety.
In contrast, Banach chooses to approach existentialism with a series of questions: (1) What is human freedom? What can the absolute freedom of absolute individuals mean? (2) What is human flourishing or human happiness? What general ethic or way of life emerges when people take their individuality seriously? (3) What ought people to do?
The one thing that the authorities really agree on is that existentialism emphasizes the individual rather than the universal. Each person is responsible for their own choices and their own consequences. Therefore, the idea of good and evil is not absolute, but is merely a construct of reality.
My current personal philosophy could be described as semi-existentialist. I am a firm believer in the concept of personal responsibility and personal freedom. However, I also believe in the idea of universal values and mores, which guide people in their behavior. To me, those who do not comply with those universal values and mores are those people presently considered sociopaths. Therefore, a movement toward a life of pure existentialism would, in my view, be a movement toward sociopathy.
The most dramatic change in my life that would occur if I were to embrace an existential philosophy would be the effect on my personal relationships. I am a very social person who enjoys the company of groups of people. I take comfort in finding similarities among people and believe that people are more alike than different, once the trappings of individuality are stripped away.
In contrast, existentialists believe that they are unique in the world. Therefore, many existentialists are plagued by feelings of alienation and loneliness. Instead of finding meaning in shared human experience, existentialists focus on the differences between individuals. In this sense, existentialists believe that each person is an island.
The first relationship that would be affected if I were to embrace an existential philosophy would be my relationship with my parents. We currently have an extremely close relationship that focuses on our common experiences. Not only do we celebrate the experiences we have shared, but we also celebrate those experiences we believe are universal to the human condition. For example, we believe that the parent-child bond is the primary motive behind most human behavior. To embrace existentialism would be to deny that the bond between us is more than just a relationship forged between individuals.
The second relationship that would be affected would be my relationship with my romantic partner. Right now, I approach our relationship with the idea that my role is to give as much love and understanding as I can. I do not question his motives for being in our relationship, but take the love he offers at face value. However, if I were to embrace existentialism, one thing I would have to contemplate is why my partner wants to be loved at all.
Furthermore, I believe that existentialism also places an unfair burden on romantic love. Because existentialists believe that they are judged solely by their actions and thoughts, the romantic partner becomes the prime barometer of personal worth. Therefore, I believe that my romantic relationship would suffer if I were to become an existential philosopher.
My friendships would also be impacted were I to embrace an existential philosophy. My friends and I share the belief in universal goods and evils — that some things are so egregious that they are uniformly condemned by humankind. Some examples include pedophilia, cannibalism, and torture. While there have consistently been members of society who have engaged in those behaviors, they have continuously been considered taboo and subject to penalties. If I were to reject the idea that some behaviors are intrinsically evil, I would lose one of the major areas of bonding with my friends. To us, society depends not just on individuals resisting impulses they believe are evil or immoral, but on collective societal pressure to resist those impulses.
"Existentialism's effect on school ethics and law career"
"Family goals and legacy-seeking under existentialism"
"Empathy loss and rejection of existentialism as personal philosophy"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.