Laura McGovern

PHIL 010U
Existentialism

is

philosophical

approach

about

human

existence with its main focus being on meaning and the individual;
therefore, existentialism is the study of the meaning of human
existence for the individual. Its origin reside in the question where
does meaning come from? with Soren Kierkequard and Friedrich
Nietzsche having founded this specific philosophical viewpoint in the
1800s.
The two main types of existentialism are atheistic and theistic, or
religious, existentialism.

French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre is a

strong example of atheistic existentialism. Atheistic existentialists do

not believe in god or the existence of a higher power that controls or
has any influence on being. This type of existentialism is also rooted in
the belief that meaning is not given nor is it predeterminedsince
there is no god to predetermine it. Rather the individual must search
for and create meaning independently; essentially, the individual must
be his or her own god.
Sartres existential theory is strongly based around these
atheistic ideas and viewpoints, especially his theory of values. To fully
understand Sartres theory of values, other aspects of his viewpoint on
the meaning of human existence must first be explained. As I stated
before, atheist existentialist do not believe in god, but do believe

that the individuals task in life is to search for and create meaning for
themselves and their own life.

Once this is understood, Sartre then

explains that the way to find meaning in life is to make choices. His
theory emphasizes that choices are always present, in every situation
in life, and most importantly the individual has the freedom to choose
what choices to make, since everyone is born with, and always has,
freedom. Another key theme in Sartres theory is his believes that
existence precedes essence, which means that actions precede
values. Actions are based on the choices you make and values come
as a result of those choices; therefore, since existence precedes
essence, things cannot be explained by a fixed human nature. This
brings us to a key part of Sartres theory of values: it being that values
are

not

predetermined

since

nothing

about

human

beings

is

predeterminedeverything comes as a result of choices and actions.

Sartre uses sin as an example to disprove the existence of a priori
ethics.

He mentions how it is in our nature, or ontology, to sin;

however, sinning is not valued by society. This means, that if a priori

ethics did exist, either no one would ever sin, or sinning would be of
much value and the world would be in disarray.
Another important aspect of Sartres theory of values includes
the idea that values are broad. What this means is that when making
a choice, it is hard to know what is going to come of it.

This often

causes people to seek out others for advice; however, Sartre

emphasizes the importance of being your own advisor, for if you seek
others opinions the consequences and value that will result of that
choice will not reflect you because the choice was not yours. Seeking
others advice will not help you on your path to finding meaning since
only you can find meaning for yourself.
As for theistic existentialism, Christian philosopher Paul Tillich
exemplifies this second type of existentialist excellently. The belief in
the existence of God is the main component of theistic/religious
existentialism, which makes it different from atheistic existentialism.
As a theistic existentialist, God is believed to be the source of meaning;
therefore, meaning already exists for the individual, it is just hidden.
The individuals task in life thus becomes to discover what their
hidden, pre-existing meaning is, rather than having to create the
meaning on their own. The individual is to find meaning by looking for
signs from God in their life experiences.
Tillichs existential theory would not make sense if it did not
promote and revolve around the belief of the existence of God and
incorporate the rest of the components mentioned above.

His

existential theory is based around three main concepts of love, power,

and justice and how they all relate to one another. Since meaning
already exists, Tillich explains how this means that part of ones being
is constantly estranged or separated from itself; therefore, the
individuals task to figure out the pre-determined meaning, is really a

task to find and reconnect with what has been separated or estranged
from their being in the first place. This leads Tillich into explaining his
idea of love and how it is the drive toward reunion with what has been
separated. From there, the concept of power can be explained as the
self-affirmation of being, which is actualized in the presence of others.
This brings us to Tillichs idea of justice. Tillich explains justice as the
form that the power of beingself-affirmationrealizes itself in the
case of the encounter of power with power. By form he means real,
physical formsuch as an atom or the human mindthat brings
together the dynamics of life, allowing being to actualize itself. The
basis of justice is that everything that has being should have justice
the ability to realize itself in others. The four main principles of justice
that Tillich explains are adequacy, equality, personality, and liberty.
The principle of adequacy is about the satisfactoriness of the form to
the content in that the form always remains relevant to the content
over time, rather than staying the same since things have a tendency
to change. The principle of equality is about equality of justice based
on being qualifiedessentially, the justice one receives is equivalent to
the amount they deserve based on who they are, not based on them
just being a being in the first place. The principle of personality is the
demand to treat every person as a person, not a thing. Personality is
also about freedom, specifically spiritual freedomones person and
their declaration of their right to be considered as a personand ones

inner dominance of being a person over restrictive external conditions.

Lastly, the principle of liberty stresses the importance of political and
social autonomy as essential to personal existence. Moreover, Tillichs
ideas of justice include his rejection of the form of tributive justice
since it uses a priori logic to gauge the outcome of an encounter of
power with power in the future, based on previous power with power
encounters. Tillich claims that doing this is unjust since every situation
differs in some respect.

Instead, Tillich emphasizes creative justice,

which is based on the fact that intrinsic justice is dynamic and

indefinable in one, clear-cut way.

Creative justice goes beyond just

proportional justice and refers to the ultimate innate claim for justice in
being, which is fulfillment through the unity of universal fulfillment
the unity with God.

With this being said, Tillich explains that creative

justice is expressed through divine grace, which is forgiving in order to

reunite. Divine grace is asking for forgiveness from God and accepting
Jesus as our savior. Divine Justice is God having mercy on an individual
by creatively changing proportions so that those, who according to
proportional justice, would be excluded from fulfillment can still be
fulfilled. Through the act of divine grace, divine justice occurs. Love,
power, and justice all relate in that justice operates and exists within
power and love.

Being could not have power without having an

adequate form, and without justice, self-surrender would occur, which

would destroy being that loves, leaving there nothing to reunite.

Justice sustains what is to be united by love, which brings us back to

creative justice and how it is the ultimate meaning of justice since
creative justice is defined as the form of reuniting love.
In relation to Sartres theory of values, Tillichs ideas of justice
differ. First of all, Tillichs ideas of justice take-in account his belief in
God.

Since meaning already exists because God exists.

This leads

justice to be something that occurs in the realization of the presence of

meaning.

For Sartre, meaning is not realized and cannot be found

because it is created by the individual, and is not predetermined.

In

respect to the focus on the individual, both Tillich and Sartres theories
are similar. Tillichs ideas of justice, especially in the principle about
equality, stress the focus on the individual, which is also stressed in
Sartres theory of values.

Again, the two relate in the sense that

freedom plays some role; however, the role it plays still differs slightly.
For Tillich, freedom is about spiritual freedom in the principle about
personality, where everyone has the right to claim his or her person
and be treated as a person, not a thing. For Sartre, freedom is about
the ability to freely make your own choices to create your own
meaning; it does not have to do with how one is treated.

A major

similarity is that both philosophers theories reject a priori logic; albeit,

Tillich only rejects it in the sense of tributive justice where as Sartre
rejects everything about determinism, which is why he would still
disagree with Tillichs notion, that meaning pre-exists.

Tillich does

however make clear that how you go about finding your meaning is up
to younot pre-determined, leading the two to show slight
similarities again since an important part of Sartres theory of values is
ones freedom to make their own choices.

But all in all, the fact that

Tillich is a theistic existentialist and Sartre is an atheistic existentialist

causes much tension between the philosophers theories and leads
their ideas to differ more than they do relate.
Existentialist Viktor Frankl was a neurologist as well as a
psychiatrist.

Frankl was also a Holocaust survivor.

Through his

experiences in the concentration camps Frankl learned a lot about

suffering, survival, and the meaning of human existence. Categorizing
Frankl under either theist or atheist existentialism is difficult since he
does talk about how faith and his belief in God were important to him
to maintain his hope and meaning in life, but on the other hand he also
does not stress the importance of others belief in god, or a higher
power, in order for them to maintain faith and find meaning. I think
that Frankl is more similar to atheist existentialism because he believes
that ones task is to create meaning in their life and that searching for
meaning is necessary to sustain life.

The only way he relates to

theistic existentialism is that he himself believes in god, and he states

that having faith in a god is a good way to maintain hope; however, it
is not the only way. His background as a neurologist and in psychology

also influences his existential theory and could lead him to be

considered an existential psychologist.
Frankl believed, similar to Sartre that finding the meaning of
ones life is the most important task for an individual for it is the
strongest motivational drive in life. From his experiences, Frankl was
led to develop his own form of psychological counseling: logotherapy.
Logotherapy is the will to meaning and is focused on the future. In
therapy, logotherapy helps patients figure out the possibilities in their
life, without the therapist just telling them what their possibilities are.
The main principles of logotherapy include: our motivation for living is
our will to find meaning in life, life has meaning under all
circumstances, even the most miserable ones, we have freedom to find
meaning in what we do and what we experience, and the individual is
unique, therefore meaning is individual and unique.
Sartre and Frankl share similar ideas when comparing both of the
existentialists theories, leading me to believe that Sartre would agree
with Frankls principles of logotherapy. In Sartres theory of values an
important aspect involves the idea that humans have freedom.

His

theory states that everyone always has freedom since there are always
choices, no matter what the situation.

Since choices are always

available, meaning is always there since meaning comes from making

choices. This is essentially the same idea as Frankls principle about
meaning always existing in every circumstance and always having

freedom to find meaning in any situation.

Also, Sartre strongly

believes that finding meaning is essential for life because we cannot

live without meaning. As its been stated, meaning is found through
making choices, which reveal our values. Frankls logotherapy principle
about how our motivation for living is our will to find meaning relates
to this viewpoint of Sartres since both emphasis the importance of
finding meaning in life in order to go on living.

From Frankls

experiences in the concentration camps, he saw that people who lost

hopetheir motivation to find meaning and felt that they had no
meaning in lifedied because they literally had nothing to live for.
Frankl kept his motivation by remaining hopeful and thinking of things,
like his wife, which helped give meaning to his life and therefore proves
the necessity and urgency of meaning. In addition, Frankls principle
about meaning being unique and individual is identical to Sartres
theory of values since he too emphasized that meaning is individual
and that people must make choices on their own in order to reveal
their own, individual values and their own, individual meaning in life.
Both theories stress that if others influence ones choices, then the
values and meaning that come of those choices are not actually theirs
and in the end does nothing for them since everyones main task in life
is to find meaning for themselves.

Moreover, Sartre would approve of

the way logotherapy has people figure out their possibilities in life on

their own due to his same belief that the individual needs to make their
own choices to find their own meaning.
In comparison, both Tillichs ideas of justice and Frankls
principles of logotherapy share commonalities with Sartres theory of
values. After much analysis, it is clear that Frankls theory has more
similarities than Tillichs, which seems to have a lot to do with the fact
that Frankl and Sartre are more similar in respect to the type of
existentialism they representthis being atheist.

Although Tillichs

ideas of justice were not different from Sartres theory of values in

every aspect, the differences were more prominent and can be
strongly attributed to the fact that Tillich is an existential theologian,
which is the opposite of Sartres atheistic viewpoint.