When one looks at existentialism, one will find a certain distinction in it and I‘m not talking here about the common distinction between ‘‘atheistic existentialism‘‘ and ‘‘religious existentialism‘‘ (christian existentialism, jewish existentialism…).
Before I‘ll get to the distinction I‘m talking about here, I‘ll first give a definition of existentialism.
Definition of ‘‘existentialism‘‘:
‘‘Existentialism is a family of philosophical views and inquiry that explore the human individual's struggle to lead an authentic life despite the apparent absurdity or incomprehensibility of existence. In examining meaning, purpose, and value, existentialist thought often includes concepts such as existential crises, angst, courage, and freedom‘‘.
Just to clarify, I will be using a very broad meaning of existentialism here, also including what is sometimes called pre-existentialism/proto-existentialism, aswell as ‘‘philosophy of life‘‘ (Lebensphilosophie).
When one looks at the most famous existentialists one will notice a major distinction between them. Some of them believe in some sort of internal ‘‘will‘‘ that humans contain and which shapes them, whereas others have no such thing.
I would include on the ‘‘will‘‘ side people like Baruch Spinoza (conatus), Arthur Schopenhauer (will to live), Philipp Mainländer (will to death), William James (will to believe), Friedrich Nietzsche and Alfred Adler (will to power) and Henri Bergson (élan vital). One could however also potentially include people such as Søren Kierkegaard, who has a ‘‘will to meaning‘‘ (although I think he doesn‘t call it like that, people like Sigmund Freud, who‘s ‘‘pleasure principle‘‘ has occassionally been regarded as a ‘‘will to pleasure‘‘ and people such as Martin Heidegger, who sometimes speaks of a ‘‘will to will‘‘ (Wille zum Willen).
I am well aware that not all of these people would be regarded as ‘‘existentialists‘‘ per se or even as philosophers, but I think you get what I‘m saying.
On the other hand you have existentialists who (to my current knowledge) seem to hold no such concepts of an internal ‘‘will‘‘ in humans, such as for example Fyodor Dostoevsky, Franz Kafka, Jean-Paul Sartre, Hannah Arendt, Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus and Emil Cioran (to only name a few).
In this blog I want to particularly talk about those existentialists that do hold a concept of an internal ‘‘will‘‘ in humans.
I want to here particularly look at the existentialism of people like Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche however because I think their philosophies probably most clearly illustrate the point I‘ll be trying to make here.
Schopenhauer‘s philosophy largely revolves around the concept which he called the ‘‘will to live‘‘ (Wille zum Leben).
Definition of ‘‘will to live‘‘ (according to Schopenhauer):
’‘The will to live (German: der Wille zum Leben) is a concept developed by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, representing an irrational "blind incessant impulse without knowledge" that drives instinctive behaviors, causing an endless insatiable striving in human existence. This is contrasted with the concept of the will to survive under life threatening conditions used in psychology since Schopenhauer’s notion of the will to live is more broadly understood as the “animal[istic] force to endure, reproduce and flourish.” ‘‘.
Nietzsche‘s philosophy in turn (inspired from Schopenhauer) largely resolves around what he called the ‘‘will to power‘‘ (Wille zur Macht).
Definition of ‘‘will to power‘‘:
‘‘The will to power (German: der Wille zur Macht) is a concept in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. The will to power describes what Nietzsche may have believed to be the main driving force in humans. However, the concept was never systematically defined in Nietzsche's work, leaving its interpretation open to debate. Usage of the term by Nietzsche can be summarized as self-determination, the concept of actualizing one's will onto one's self or one's surroundings, and coincides heavily with egoism‘‘.
While Schopenhauer‘s ‘‘will to live‘‘ and Nietzsche‘s ‘‘will to power‘‘ are not the same thing, they do share commonalities. It could be argued that the ‘‘will to live‘‘ is common to both of them, but it is often argued that Nietzsche‘s ‘‘will to power‘‘ goes even further, since while Nietzsche did ultimately derive his concept from Schopenhauer, he thought Schopenhauer didn‘t go far enough.
When one tries to do existentialism with a concept of ‘‘will‘‘, even if it‘s something like Spinoza‘s ‘‘conatus‘‘ (inclination/striving) or Bergson‘s ‘‘élan vital‘‘ (vital impetus/vital force), it is arguably a very different type of existentialism than that of for example Sartre and Camus.
Now what do I mean by that?
As you may or may not know, Schopenhauer was quite influenced by both stoicism aswell as by buddhism (to only name a few examples). Some people have compared the stoic concept of ’‘ataraxia‘‘ (unperturbedness/tranquility) with the buddhist concept of ‘‘nirvana‘‘ (liberation from suffering), although they‘re definitely still different concepts, but they do have certain similarities.
One of the core teachings of buddhism is known as the ‘‘Four Noble Truths‘‘, which roughly go:
1. There is suffering (Duḥkha)
2. The cause of suffering is craving (Samudaya)
3. The end of suffering comes with the end of craving (Nirodha)
4. We can achieve this by following the Noble Eightfold Path (Marga)
In a somewhat modified form these teachings can be found in stoicism aswell (Seneca, Gaius Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius…).
Schopenhauer was aware of both buddhism aswell as stoicism and he somewhat incorporated them into his philosophy. For example he tought that the ‘‘will to live‘‘ causes suffering and the main way to avoid suffering is to deny the ‘‘will to live‘‘ (which doesn‘t mean to die but to live minimalistically).
This is rather different from the existentialism which you for example find in Simone de Beauvoir, since it is an existentialism that is (or at least tries to be) based on objective facts which guide human life.
In french existentialism for example the focus is usually much more on not letting ‘‘essentialism‘‘ and/or the external world limit your lifestyle and life choices, but to recognize that as Sartre said: ‘‘existence precedes essence‘‘.
In the case of Schopenhauer, we can see that the ‘‘will to life‘‘ influences how we (according to him) live our life and that if we don‘t want to suffer we have to deny the ‘‘will to live‘‘ and live a minimalistic life, somewhat resembling stoicism and buddhism.
With Nietzsche it is yet different, according to him the ‘‘will to power‘‘ is a good thing and we suffer when ‘‘slave morality‘‘ and the ‘‘last men‘‘ prevent us from acting in line with our ‘‘will to power‘‘.
So this is a pretty different kind of existentialism both in the case of Schopenhauer and of Nietzsche, aswell as in the case of the others mentioned above who hold a concept of an innate ‘‘will‘‘ in humans.
I will be making a part 2 of this blog sometime soon, otherwise this blog will become too long.
As always, I hope you liked this blog and feel free to share your opinion on it, if you want to.
Comment