Existentialism and Modernity

Existentialism, which rejected the teleological world view, possibly emancipated the human lives from cognitive enslavement, emanated from over-deterministic world views of European Enlightenment. Four different thinkers, annoyed by metaphysical dogmatism and euphoric empiricism asked certain authentic questions, which were more fundamental than the ontological quest of Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Marx.

These existential thinkers, including Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus, did empathize on "existence over essence", went on searching a world view which is less theoretical than "ready in hand" (Heidegger, Being and Time). Kierkegaard, one of the greatest theologians of all time raised the question of dizziness, finite and infinite, which, for him, has paralyzed human's actions. We're less concerned with actions and, are more involved in the evaluation of what action is good or bad. Over-deterministic approach in excersing choices resulted into the action-paralysis, and it is only the "leap of faith" which, as per his belief, may play a role in emancipating the human's suffering in the modern age. 

Heidegger, on other hand, influenced by Nietzsche and Husserl went on a journey of phenomenonlogical questions to live more than know "what it means to be in the world?". This question was novel, like a Kantian Copernican revolution, in the sense that it went underneath all the pre-suppositions and meta-categories vis-a-vis being or Being.  For him, Dashein (being) is thrown into the world (Facticity), adapts in the conventional practices (Fallingness), suffers from the deposedness (the futuristic anxiety or projection). Dashein in that sense is caught in the dilemma of past, present, and future, either to remain in as a cog in the wheel, or to escape from the over-reliance of historical and cultural apparatuses, which appears to be a "Philosophical Suicide" (Albert Camus, The Myth of Sysyphus). A being, for him, may choose a truly authentic life or inauthentic one. And for that the anxiety of death may be instrumental in retrieving being, engrossed and immersed in effective forgetfulness. As per Heidegger, the best knowledge one can have is the "ready in hand", and "unready in hand" instead of "present in hand". To explain it further, a car mechanic can fix the things from some tool, but he may not explain theorically what essence lies behind his actions. 

Heidegger in a way advocates to have a knowledge of "how" instead of "what" or "why". Pragmatism as a new orientation of philosophy here comes from the Heideggerian construct of knowledge and skills, like the best knowledge is to have some skill to fix the things. But in today's world, the technology has replaced human agency, and technology has becomes a means and the end. This convergence has ecclplised all the self-searching ethical point of views. It is the sovereignty of the object which has enslaved human's agenc ies and their capacity to freedom. We are heavily dependent upon the technology, which is mastering us in every possible ways. This phenomenon could be called as de-personalisation. Our subjectivity is not get reflected in excersing our volitional choices. In fact, free will is a misnomer in our world view, a fiction, a story, which justifies the freedom of contract and the romantic conception of "free consent". Heidegger was in quest of some existential questions in order to get out of this trap. Retrieving self which apparently appeared as under-siedge was the life time project of Heidegger. For him, Dasein must care about a mediated life with the world, like being in the world, inseparable from each-other. Only death anxiety could compel Dasein to live up, to create the full existential choices, and may be a compelling factor to temporalise the life to remain in the moment.

Sartre, the master philosopher and Marxist activist, did emphasize on the consciousness, not as a value but the activities which cares for freedom and also unfreedoms, and emphatically decalrared, "Man is condemned to be free" (Sartre, Being and Nothingness). He popularised the term "existentialism", and his well known remark, "existence precedes essence" became the slogan in the first world countries, particularly United States. It was euphemistically misused for hippy cultures which downgraded the human existence to the level of "desperation and destruction" of ethical self. Sartre became the committed fellow of Stalinist policy which committed some horrendous crimes and atrocities against humanity. When it came to the question of comparison between the Nazi regime led by Hitler and Stalinist Gulag, both became the sign mark of "radical evil" (Hannah Arendt, The Totalitarian State).

Albert Camus, one of the non-existentialist thinkers, as he claimed once, raised certain quintessential questions regarding the absurdity of life, it's meaninglessness. His famous works like Stranger and Myth of Sysiphus came out with these existential questions. Camus evidenced a world view suffering from two suicidal anxieties, Actual Suicide and philosophical suicide. For him, People often avoids the third choice to exercise, I.e., to embrace what is here and now, be it pleasure, absurdity, or suffering, but never get so attached with these phenomenons. He sounds like the great Budddha. To me, Buddha was the first and foremost existentialist philosopher who did path breaking work in emancipating existence over essence. His world view of suffering was unparalleled in the history of humankind. Existentialism came as a reaction against all the essentialising philosophies, and it remained as an alternative world view.