Existentialism has a reputation problem. The word conjures images of chain-smoking French intellectuals in café-bars, brooding over the meaninglessness of existence. The vocabulary doesn’t help: absurdity, anguish, nothingness, dread, thrownness. To a casual observer, existentialism looks like an elaborate philosophical justification for being miserable about life.
This reputation is almost entirely wrong — or rather, it captures the diagnosis while missing the treatment. Existentialism begins with the recognition that existence lacks inherent meaning (which can feel depressing) and then proceeds to argue that this makes genuine freedom possible (which is the liberating part). The absence of predetermined meaning is not the problem existentialism describes; it’s the starting point for what it actually advocates. Whether existentialism is depressing or liberating depends almost entirely on which part of the argument you stop reading.
In this article: The core claims of existentialism · The major thinkers and what they actually said · Why existentialism is more liberating than it appears · Authentic vs. inauthentic existence · What existentialism actually asks of you
The Core Claims of Existentialism
Existentialism is a philosophical tradition, not a single doctrine, but several core claims run through most versions of it. The most fundamental is Sartre’s formulation: existence precedes essence. In traditional thinking — theological or essentialist — the essence of a thing (what it is, what it’s for) comes before it exists: God conceives the plan and then creates the being. For humans, Sartre argues, this is reversed: we exist first, without predetermined nature or purpose, and our essence is something we create through our choices and actions.
This is not a claim that nothing matters — it’s a claim that what matters is determined by you, not given in advance. The anxiety this produces (what Kierkegaard called the “dizziness of freedom” and Heidegger called Angst) comes from the realization that you cannot appeal to predetermined nature, God’s plan, or social expectation to justify your choices — you are fully responsible for them. This is heavy. It is also, existentialists argue, the only honest account of what it is to be human.
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” — Jean-Paul Sartre. Condemned: because the freedom was not chosen. Free: because it cannot be escaped, only denied.
The Major Thinkers and What They Actually Said
Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) is often considered the first existentialist, though he wouldn’t have used the term. His work focuses on the individual’s relationship to authentic existence and to faith — he described three “stages” of existence (aesthetic, ethical, and religious) and argued that genuine selfhood requires a passionate, subjective commitment that cannot be justified by rational argument alone.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) is associated with existentialism through his insistence on individual self-creation and his proclamation that “God is dead” — meaning that the cultural framework that had provided inherited meaning was no longer tenable. His response was not despair but the project of value creation: the Übermensch (often mistranslated as “Superman”) is a figure who creates values rather than inheriting them, takes full responsibility for that creation, and affirms life unconditionally.
Albert Camus is often grouped with existentialists but explicitly rejected the label. His philosophy of the absurd — the collision between human desire for meaning and the universe’s silence — is related to existentialism but reaches different conclusions. Where Sartre responds to the absence of given meaning with freedom and responsibility, Camus responds with revolt: the defiant affirmation of life against the absurd, without false consolation but also without despair. His Myth of Sisyphus ends with the famous conclusion: “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”
Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) brought existentialism into engagement with feminist ethics and politics. Her key insight: freedom is not purely individual — it is always situated in social and political conditions, and the freedom of some is limited by the oppression of others. Genuine existentialist ethics, for de Beauvoir, requires working for the liberation of all, not just cultivating individual freedom in isolation.
Authentic vs. Inauthentic Existence
One of existentialism’s most practically useful concepts is the distinction between authentic and inauthentic existence. Authenticity, in the existentialist sense, does not mean “expressing your true self” in the pop-psychology sense — it means owning your freedom and responsibility fully, rather than pretending your choices are determined by forces outside yourself.
Sartre called inauthenticity “bad faith” (mauvaise foi): the self-deception of treating yourself as determined — by your nature, your past, your role, your circumstances — when you are in fact choosing. “I had no choice” is almost always bad faith, in Sartre’s analysis. You had a choice; you chose; you’d rather not own that. Bad faith is not a moral failure so much as a cognitive error — and one that has real costs, because it prevents you from actually exercising the freedom you have.
Authentic Existence
Owning your choices fully · Acknowledging freedom and responsibility · Making decisions from genuine values, not social pressure · Confronting death-awareness without denial · Taking your own existence seriously enough to direct it consciously
Inauthentic Existence (Bad Faith)
“I had no choice” when you did · Living by others’ expectations without examining them · Treating your role or past as determining your behavior · Denying death to avoid its clarifying pressure · Following the crowd without genuine endorsement
Why It’s More Liberating Than It Appears
The liberating core of existentialism is often missed because the diagnosis — there is no given meaning — sounds bleak in isolation. But the implication is not nothing matters. The implication is that meaning is genuinely available — you can create it through genuine commitment, authentic choice, and real engagement with the world — rather than merely waiting to be discovered in a form that may not match your honest experience. This is actually better news than the alternative, because it means meaning is not dependent on cosmic luck but on what you do with your freedom.
There is also something genuinely clarifying about Sartre’s “condemned to be free.” Most anxiety about choices comes from the hope that there’s a correct answer you might miss — a right career, a right partner, a right life, validated by some external standard. Existentialism denies this, but in denying it, it also dissolves the anxiety about getting the objective answer wrong. There is no objective answer. There is your choice, made from your values, held with full responsibility. That is the only standard available — and it is entirely within your reach.
A genuinely useful existentialist practice: Identify one area of your life where you regularly say “I have to” or “I have no choice.” Reframe it as “I choose to, because…” and finish the sentence honestly. This is not about denying genuine constraints — it’s about recognizing that within those constraints, you are making choices, and those choices reflect your actual values. This shift from passive to active is one of the most immediately useful applications of existentialist thought.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is existentialism compatible with religion?
Yes — Kierkegaard, one of the founders, was a deeply religious thinker, and there is a substantial tradition of Christian and Jewish existentialism (Gabriel Marcel, Martin Buber, Emmanuel Levinas). What religious existentialism shares with secular existentialism is the emphasis on authentic personal engagement rather than rote adherence to doctrine. Where they differ is on whether genuine meaning is created or given — religious existentialists generally hold that genuine meeting with the divine provides meaning, but that this meeting requires authentic personal engagement, not just institutional compliance.
What’s the difference between existential dread and clinical anxiety?
Existential dread, in the philosophical sense, is a response to genuine features of existence — freedom, mortality, responsibility — that cannot be eliminated by changing circumstances. Clinical anxiety typically involves a disproportionate fear response to specific triggers that can be addressed through treatment. They can coexist, and sometimes philosophical engagement with genuine existential concerns reduces clinical anxiety by distinguishing what’s genuinely anxiety-worthy from what is not. If anxiety is functionally impairing, it warrants clinical attention regardless of whether it also has philosophical dimensions.
What’s the best place to start with existentialism?
Camus’s The Myth of Sisyphus is accessible and makes the case against despair powerfully. Sartre’s Existentialism Is a Humanism is his most accessible defense of the tradition. For Heidegger, Walter Kaufmann’s anthology Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre provides excellent context before engaging with the difficult primary texts. De Beauvoir’s The Ethics of Ambiguity is a crucial and underread text.
Does existentialism lead to nihilism?
Existentialism and nihilism are often confused but are quite different. Nihilism holds that nothing has value and meaning is impossible. Existentialism holds that objective given meaning doesn’t exist but that created meaning — through commitment, choice, and authentic engagement — is genuinely possible and constitutes the only kind of meaning available to finite beings. Sartre explicitly argued against nihilism; Camus’s revolt is explicitly a rejection of nihilistic despair in favor of life-affirmation under absurd conditions.
The Short Version
- Existentialism’s core claim: existence precedes essence — you exist without predetermined nature, and your essence is what you create through choices
- The depressing part is only the diagnosis — the treatment is the liberation of genuine freedom and authentic self-creation
- Bad faith is the core error — treating your choices as determined when you are in fact free, which prevents you from exercising the freedom you have
- Authentic existence means owning your choices fully — including the uncomfortable ones, and including the responsibility that comes with them
- Existentialism is not nihilism — it holds that meaning is created rather than given, which is different from claiming meaning is impossible
People Also Search For
existentialism explained simply · Sartre existentialism is humanism · Camus absurdism vs existentialism · what is bad faith Sartre · existentialism vs nihilism · authentic existence meaning · existential dread vs anxiety · Simone de Beauvoir existentialism · Kierkegaard existence · existentialism liberating or depressing · how to live existentialism
Sources
- Sartre, J.-P. (1946). Existentialism Is a Humanism (C. Macomber, Trans.). Yale University Press.
- Camus, A. (1942). The Myth of Sisyphus (J. O’Brien, Trans.). Vintage Books.
- de Beauvoir, S. (1947). The Ethics of Ambiguity (B. Frechtman, Trans.). Philosophical Library.