Being There
Walter Kaufmann’s Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre
Mark Gullick
1,649 words
What, then, is this that we call existentialism? –– Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism
Sartre formulates the basic formula of existentialism in these words: existence precedes essence. — Martin Heidegger, “What Is Humanism?”
Schools of philosophical thought are usually quite clear in their lines of demarcation. Logical positivists, neo-Platonists, and structuralists may be very different creatures philosophically speaking, but they are united in the fact that their proponents are identifiable by their respective methodologies. This is not straightforwardly the case with existentialism.
Jean-Paul Sartre was famously the only existentialist to refer to himself as such, and he and Albert Camus are generally seen as central figures of this disparate band, along with Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. Walter Kaufmann’s 1956 collection, Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, shows an extended existentialist family, including excerpts from, among others, Rainer Maria Rilke, Karl Jaspers, Søren Kierkegaard, and Franz Kafka.
Having gathered this rather motley crew together under the rubric of existential philosophy, the opening line of Kaufmann’s excellent introductory essay is a rather different mission statement: “Existentialism is not a philosophy but a label for several widely different revolts against traditional philosophy.”
Existentialism, then, is reactive, even reactionary. Perhaps this explains its appeal to zealous undergraduates, of which I was one in the early 1980s. My first degree was Philosophy with Literature, and the blurring and even effacing of lines between those subjects was a revelation. One course in particular was Modern European Mind, which compared literary texts with the philosophy that often animates them. It was run by the late and decidedly great Professor Anthony Nuttall, who was responsible more than any other tutor for encouraging my fascination with philosophy and where it might be found.
Kaufmann’s introduction gives a short section to each of the featured writers, and emphasizes the disparity of the writers whose texts he has assembled as existentialist: “I can see no reason for calling Dostoevsky an existentialist, but I do think that Part One of Notes from Underground is the best overture for existentialism ever written.”
“I am a bitter man. I am a spiteful man” both opens Dostoevsky’s novella and leads to the heart of the existentialist experiment: the self.
Kaufmann places existentialism in the context of what it is reacting against, which is essentialism. Existentia and essentia were key terms in Scholastic philosophy, and the latter reflects the central idea of creationism, that human beings are the product of God’s creation and thus the finished article. Existentialism contrasts its position, showing man as changeable and malleable, potentially Protean in his voyage through life. It is surely no coincidence that existentialism bloomed in the century which did more than any other to aid and abet Nietzsche’s Zarathustra with his murder of God.
Christianity has as a founding principle that God’s creation is fixed. Indeed, Darwin’s theory of evolution as the register of mutability — Darwin never states that evolution is progressive — was one of the aspects of the naturalist’s work that most disturbed the British public, along with descent from apes and the universal time frame. I know a Serb in London, a very intelligent man and a superb musician, who believed that the Garden of Eden was 5,000 years old, and would use such creationist arguments as questioning the lack of dinosaurs in the Bible, and asking, if we are descended from monkeys, why there are still monkeys. This rather quaint belief system aside, mankind has evolved a self in a way animals have not.
Thus, existentialism takes literature and philosophy on an interior voyage, “seeing” experience from the vantage point of engagement with life itself — Sartre often used the French phrase engagée — rather than arranged in dry categories. Albert Camus’ famous novella The Outsider (also translated as The Stranger) explodes into a firework display of kinetic verbs during the pivotal scene in which protagonist Meursault murders an Arabic man, taking you to the fated beach and allowing you to see the glint of the Sun on the knife blade. A classic existential moment, but not one appreciated by everyone.
Robert Smith of British post-punk band The Cure told me in 1979 about an incident just before the band took to the stage at a college in their hometown of Crawley. Smith was approached by two well-dressed, polite Arabic students who informed him that the band would not be playing their single “Killing an Arab,” inspired by Camus’ book, that evening. They smiled, Smith said, and could not have been more genial. But the unspoken threat was more than enough to get the song struck off the set list.
For me, Kaufmann’s book was a trip down memory lane, as I first read it 40 years ago. One writer I had forgotten is Karl Jaspers, and I must make up for lost time. Jaspers’ account of his own philosophical development — he was 40 before he took up the discipline — shows him as undeniably an existentialist: “Though one needs knowledge of the concepts that emerge in the history of philosophy, the purpose of such knowledge remains to gain entrance to the exalted living practice of these past thoughts.”
Jaspers also has a sense of philosophers as a community of souls:
The philosopher lives . . . in a hidden non-objective community to which every philosophizing person secretly longs to be admitted . . . Only as an individual can man become a philosopher.
Individuality, the conscious separation of the self from other selves, is the core of existentialism, and the writers assembled here could be said to have released the individual into the world Jaspers describes. Kierkegaard wished the inscription on his tombstone to read simply “That individual,” and with individuality inevitably comes the inner search for the self rather than philosophy’s usual theater of operations in the external, or objective, world. And this search for the self, which I term “autognosis,” is not necessarily easy, but it is a noble profession, one which Nietzsche took utterly seriously:
Sigmund Freud could not have said of Kierkegaard what, according to Ernest Jones, he often said of Nietzsche: “That he had a more penetrating knowledge of himself than any man who has ever lived or was ever likely to live.”
It is natural that this collection will wake the reader to “existential” writing wherever it may occur. Sartre’s short story, “The Wall,” is included here. The tale concerns a group of young men who are about to be executed during the Spanish Civil War. It has a brilliant twist, but it also takes the reader to other places in literature which could only be described as existential. “The Wall,” with its tick-tock approach of death and the inconsequential behavior of those doomed to die, took me back to George Orwell’s 1931 essay, “A Hanging.”
Set in Burma, where Orwell was stationed with that country’s police force, the essay concerns, as its title suggests, the last moments of a condemned man. As he is manhandled to his doom, a small paragraph appears which, if it is not existential writing, I don’t really know what it is:
It was about forty yards to the gallows. I watched the bare brown back of the prisoner marching in front of me. He walked clumsily with his bound arms, but quite steadily, with that bobbing gait of the Indian who never straightens his knees. At each step his muscles slipped neatly into place, the lock of hair on his scalp danced up and down, his feet printed themselves on the wet gravel. And once, in spite of the men who gripped him by each shoulder, he stepped slightly aside to avoid a puddle on the path.
The pathos of that little skip by a man minutes from death, one last twitch of humanity in a man about to die, has stayed with me in the decades since I read the essay for the first time. Aside from the proximity to lived experience conjured by Orwell, I recall one other example of proto-existentialism published over 400 years earlier.
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola not only gave the world the girl’s name Miranda, with Shakespeare inventing it for The Tempest almost certainly as an homage to the great Renaissance philosopher, he also wrote Oration on the Dignity of Man, published in 1496, which is as good an introduction to Renaissance philosophy as any. As God addresses man, his creation, in whom existence and essence mingle together:
We have given you, O Adam, no visage proper to yourself, nor endowment properly your own, in order that whatever place, whatever form, whatever gifts you may, with premeditation, select, these same you may have and possess through your own judgment and decision . . . by your own free will, to whose custody We have assigned you, [you may] trace for yourself the lineaments of you own nature . . . We have made you a creature neither of heaven nor of earth, neither mortal nor immortal, in order that you may, as the free and proud shaper of your own being, fashion yourself in the form you may prefer. It will be in your power to descend to the lower, brutish forms of life; you will be able, through your own decision, to rise again to the superior orders whose life is divine.
Not so much condemned to be free, a phrase Sartre would mint, as blessed by freedom. It would take a better historian of religious philosophy than me to locate this as the turning point at which Christian essentialism becomes the existential project, but Mirandola has a part to play in existentialism’s tale.
Existentialism has now taken its place in philosophy’s archives, and its connection with the later movements of structuralism and post-structuralism would need longer treatment. But whether you have read the core existentialist texts or are a newcomer to the subject, Walter Kaufmann’s Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre is a valuable collection of writers who may literally be yesterday’s men, but have much to say to us today.
Being%20There%0AWalter%20Kaufmannand%238217%3Bs%20Existentialism%20from%20Dostoevsky%20to%20Sartre%0A
Share
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
Related
-
Heidegger, Schelling, and the Reality of Evil, Part 13
-
Read All About It
-
And Now, A Word From Our Anti-White Sponsors!
-
John Doyle Klier’s Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882, Part 3
-
Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints
-
John Doyle Klier’s Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882, Part 2
-
John Doyle Klier’s Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882, Part 1
-
Religion and the Right Pt. 1: The Christian Question
6 comments
“existence precedes essence”
If I’ve understood it correctly, isn’t that claim incompatible with what we know about genetics? A man’s got to know his limitations.
Jean-Paul Sartre – of all people – was attracted to Messianic Judaism as he neared his end, saying, “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to god.”
So many books to read, so little time. Thanks but no thanks for this reminder of being towards death.
We can be both individuals and part of a collective. We are not the product of spontaneous generation. Individual oddballs and other thinkers are needed as point men if only to reveal the mines by stepping on them first.
As an aside, one of the most philosophical fellows I ever encountered was a stereotypical hillbilly from the southern Ohio coalfields. His father used to chain him to a tree out front when he was a little kid because he always ran away. I guess this gave him time to think.
He had little formal education or any that stuck. He was always getting into trouble because he was naïve and trusting, but he introduced me to pan-psychism among other concepts in his homespun way on hikes in the desert.
The draft was once a great educator for young people.
Seriously though, thank you for these recommendations.
About Sartre I know only what I read about him in INTELLECTUALS by Paul Johnson, and Mr. Johnson’s depiction of Sartre is not positive.
About Camus for me it is interesting if the version, that his death in the car accident was in reality the murder, done by the KGB, can be true.
Mark, thanks for the essay, but I beg to differ. I would distinguish two types of existentialism – superficial and serious. Seriously engaged in posing the problems and nuanced of exactly one question – about the role of man in the world and his meaning of his existence.
Heidegger spoke best about the serious type of existentialism in his black notebooks of 1932:
What should we do? Who are we?
Why should we be? What are beings? Why does being happen?
Philosophizing proceeds out of these questions upward into unity.
Any other existentialism at best may be aesthetically interesting, but nothing more. At worst, it’s chatter about nothing.
Kaufmann places existentialism in the context of what it is reacting against, which is essentialism. Existentia and essentia were key terms in Scholastic philosophy, and the latter reflects the central idea of creationism, that human beings are the product of God’s creation and thus the finished article. Existentialism contrasts its position, showing man as changeable and malleable, potentially Protean in his voyage through life. It is surely no coincidence that existentialism bloomed in the century which did more than any other to aid and abet Nietzsche’s Zarathustra with his murder of God.
*
Surely Gabriel Marcel would find some flaws in this description. Existentialism is a certain general attitude towards ones own existence, and as such it doesn’t exclude neither Sartre’s atheistic ides nor Catholicism.
**
From . J. Blackham, Six Existentialist Thinkers
“The main jet of Marcel’s thinking, like all existentialism, is forced from the conclusion that the type of thought which dominates or encloses or sees through its object is necessarily inapplicable to the total situation in which the thinker himself as existing individual is enclosed, and therefore every system (since in principle a system of thought is outside the thinker and transparent to him) is a mere invention and the most misleading of false analogies. The thinker is concerned with the interior of the situation in which he is enclosed: with his own internal reality, rather than with the collection of qualities by which he is defined or the external relations by which his position is plotted; and with his own participation in the situation, rather than with the inaccessible view of its externality. His thought refers to a self which can only be pre-supposed and not thought and to a situation in which he is involved and which he therefore cannot fully envisage; so that in the nature of the case philosophic thought cannot have the complete clarity and mastery of scientific thought which deals with an object in general for a subject in general. To look for this type of thinking in philosophy is to overlook the necessary conditions of human thinking on ultimate questions; for philosophers to produce it at this time of day is sheer paralysis induced by superstitious regard for the prestige of contemporary science or of the classical philosophies.”
Or
“The peculiarity of existentialism, then, is that it deals with the separation of man from himself and from the world, which raises the questions of philosophy, not by attempting to establish some universal form of justification which will enable man to readjust himself but by permanently enlarging and lining the separation itself as primordial and constitutive for personal existence. The main business of this philosophy therefore is not to answer the questions which are raised but to drive home the questions themselves until they engage the whole man and are made personal, urgent, and anguished. Such questions cannot be merely the traditional questions of the schools nor merely disinterested questions of curiosity concerning the conditions of knowledge or of moral or aesthetic judgements, for what is put in question by the separation of man from himself and from the world is his own being and the being of the objective world. …These questions are not theoretical but existential, the scission which makes the existing individual aware of himself and of the world in which he is makes him a question to himself and life a question to him. …Existential philosophies insist that any plain and positive answer is false, because the truth is in the insurmountable ambiguity which is at the heart of man and of the world.”
European philosophy must have come a long way down to consider the puddle-avoiding side step of a condemned or the murder of an Arab a philosophical relevant feat or to discover “l’absurdité de l’existence et de la condition humaine”.
Add to this the profound definition of Sartre, “Existentialism Is a Humanism”, and you get the same feeling being mocked as in an art exposition of Dada painting.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment