This book isn't a standard textbook presenting a unified philosophy; it's much more like a story, showing you how certain big, impactful themes echo and change across different thinkers and writers. **What is this thing called "Existentialism" anyway?** First off, let's clear something up: "existentialism" isn't a neat little box you can fit everyone into. It's more of a handy label for a bunch of different reactions – maybe even revolts! – against traditional ways of doing philosophy. If you asked the folks who get called "existentialists" today, most would probably say, "That's not me!" and honestly, some seemed to have a bit of an aversion for each other. It's definitely not a single school of thought with set rules. The few writers everyone agrees are part of this group – Jaspers, Heidegger, and Sartre – don't even see eye-to-eye on the really important stuff. Add in earlier figures often linked to the movement, like Pascal or Kierkegaard (who were devout Christians, unlike the later, often atheist figures) or Nietzsche and Dostoevsky (one fiercely anti-Christian, the other a devout Greek Orthodox), and you see just how diverse this crowd is. Even including people like Rilke, Kafka, and Camus shows that what really ties them together is a strong focus on the individual. At its heart, existentialism is a deep dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy – thinking it's too academic, too focused on surface-level ideas, and just plain remote from the messy reality of life. It’s also a refusal to simply sign up for any existing system of beliefs. You can spot this kind of thinking cropping up throughout history, but it’s really in more recent times that it solidified into a sustained protest and a major area of focus. **The Story Kaufmann Tells** Instead of giving you a dry definition and then listing ideas, Kaufmann tells a story. He guides you through the figures, showing how themes emerge, reappear, and are transformed. The order isn't strictly chronological at the very beginning, starting with Dostoevsky before Kierkegaard, even though Kierkegaard died before Dostoevsky published his key work here. But once you start with Dostoevsky, the sequence of the main figures—Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Jaspers, Heidegger, and Sartre—makes more chronological sense. **Meeting the Key Players** Let's take a quick tour through some of the major voices in this story: - **Dostoevsky: The Overture** Kaufmann suggests that Part One of Dostoevsky's _Notes from Underground_ is the perfect starting point, like the best overture you could ask for before the main show. Published in 1864, this book is seen as incredibly revolutionary and original. What you hear in Dostoevsky's work is something totally new. It's not calm or serene; it's full of strained protest, intense self-preoccupation, and a glaring, almost painful light on man's inner life. Instead of focusing on outside circumstances like literary naturalism, Dostoevsky zeros in on moods, anxieties, and decisions. He delves into what traditional Christianity might call depravity, focusing uncompromisingly on the dark side of inner life, similar in some ways to Augustine and Pascal, who also explored these themes against the backdrop of belief in original sin. But Dostoevsky's "underground man" is different – he holds onto this so-called depravity without believing in original sin or God. His self-will isn't seen as perverse by him, only by rationalists who prefer neat systems over the complex messiness of being an individual. This work is even seen as a powerful argument against figures like Rousseau and the tradition of social philosophy that thought society could fix human depravity. Kafka's _Metamorphosis_ echoes themes found in the underground man's struggle. - **Kierkegaard: The Individual** Kierkegaard hits you as an individual, maybe even with a "strident narrowness" compared to Dostoevsky's vastness. He saw life becoming too easy in his time and decided it was his mission "to create difficulties everywhere". This is echoed by the underground man who rebels against the idea of easy comfort. Kierkegaard seems strikingly similar to Dostoevsky's underground man in his style, content, and feelings, particularly his embarrassing self-consciousness and feeling "out of joint". His suggested epitaph was simply, "That Individual," reflecting his effort to make the individual a central category in thought. His philosophical battles were mainly against Hegel (though he didn't know Hegel's work thoroughly first-hand) and against the prevailing form of Christianity, ultimately challenging the Greek philosophical heritage. He questioned the traditional idea of the self as a fixed thing like a body, suggesting it's better understood through possibilities, dread (like the "dizziness of freedom"), and decisions made in "fear and trembling". These ideas about dread and decision show up again and again in later existentialist thinkers like Jaspers and Sartre. Kaufmann notes that Nietzsche criticized those who didn't want to know the truth about their faith, and suggests this applies to Kierkegaard, who revealed in other writings his "secret writing" and struggles, like breaking an engagement, hinting at self-deception despite his focus on faith. Kierkegaard developed his idea of the "existential" significantly in his _Concluding Unscientific Postscript_. - **Nietzsche: The Multifaceted Influence** Nietzsche's impact is huge, influencing writers, thinkers, and even psychology (Freud, Adler). Existentialism is only one part of his vast legacy. But he definitely fits the core description of existentialism: rejecting schools of thought, systems, and traditional philosophy, all while valuing individualism. Jaspers, Heidegger, and Sartre are described as "unthinkable without him". Jaspers wrote multiple books about him, and Heidegger later considered him even more important. However, simply calling Nietzsche an "existentialist" might miss the full scope of his significance, much like calling Aristotle a "Thomist" – he's foundational, but broader than the label. Nietzsche focused on psychology in a way philosophers hadn't before. He questioned the despair of truth that came after Kant and aimed for a "tragic view" of life. His views on loneliness and freedom resonate with the "cave of inwardness" where philosophers seek refuge from tyranny. Like Kierkegaard, he didn't see himself as a prophet or authority figure, even telling his readers and disciples to turn against him. Kafka is seen as standing between Nietzsche and the later existentialists, depicting the godless world Nietzsche spoke of. - **Jaspers: Existenzphilosophie** Jaspers is where the ideas from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche really start to form what he calls _Existenzphilosophie_. He didn't like the term "existentialism" because it sounded too much like another philosophical school. For Jaspers, true philosophy isn't about doctrines but about springing from a person's individual existence and helping others achieve their own true existence. He saw traditional philosophy professors (like Kuno Fischer) as just reproducing ideas without truly engaging with them. Trying to summarize Kierkegaard (or "referieren," as the German word goes) made Jaspers realize it was impossible. He decided he wanted his own philosophy to be unsummarizable too, aiming instead to "kindle a fire" in the reader. His main work, _Philosophie_, isn't meant to give you a doctrine; it's meant to make you dissatisfied with easy answers and push you to philosophize actively, focusing on your inner constitution and choices. He often presents what others have said and then offers judgments to provoke this dissatisfaction. Jaspers was interested in psychology but primarily to show its limits, believing that understanding what science _cannot_ explain is necessary before turning to _Existenzphilosophie_. He valued illuminating the human condition (_Existenzerhellung_) and appealing to readers (_Apellieren_) over merely describing things. His extensive work on Nietzsche wasn't because he fully agreed with him, but because engaging with Nietzsche shakes up thought and prepares you for _Existenzphilosophie_. Jaspers is considered closer in thought to Kierkegaard than Nietzsche, seeing his work as a philosophical peak of Kierkegaard's protest against Hegelianism, emphasizing "truth is subjectivity" and communication. His political stance during the Nazi era was keeping quiet with his Jewish wife, contrasting sharply with Heidegger's actions. He developed the concept of the "Encompassing," which is not a concept to be objectively grasped but a horizon or space within which we understand reality and ourselves, tied to the historicity of _Existenz_. - **Heidegger: The Question of Being** Heidegger, especially known for _Being and Time_ (Sein und Zeit), is widely seen as central to existentialism. However, he strongly rejected the label "existentialist" himself. His main reason, stated in his "Letter 'On Humanism'," is that Sartre's famous definition ("existence precedes essence") is just a reversal of a traditional metaphysical idea and thus remains trapped within metaphysics, failing to reach the fundamental question of "Being". For Heidegger, his philosophy is about Being itself. He uses the term "existence" (Existenz) specifically for the being of man, not just anything real. It describes a state of being open to the truth of Being, which involves "standing it" or "enduring" through what he calls "care". This isn't about subjectivity in the traditional sense, but about man's unique way of being-in-the-world. Heidegger's writing can be quite difficult and obscure, especially his later works, which use intricate terminology and draw on poets like Hölderlin. He felt most readers completely missed the point of _Being and Time_. Unlike Sartre and Jaspers, he insisted his work was not psychology. He also shared a bias against science, believing it didn't grasp the deepest questions. A controversial point is his political action, joining the Nazis and giving an inaugural address as Rektor supporting the regime, a stark contrast to the existentialist theme of resolute authenticity (though he later claimed to abandon Nazism quietly). - **Sartre: Existence Precedes Essence** Sartre is likely the figure who brought "existentialism" to the broadest international attention. Although sometimes dismissed as just a writer (_littérateur_), his work, both fiction and philosophy, is deeply tied to his own life experiences, especially the war years. His philosophical masterpiece, _Being and Nothingness_ (_L'être et le néant_), emerged from these experiences. While he draws on Heidegger's themes, Sartre's discussions of dread, death, and decision feel more connected to lived experience than Heidegger's sometimes abstract analyses. Sartre has no problem being seen as writing psychology and openly bases his ideas on experience. He engages critically with Freud, even proposing his own "existential psychoanalysis". He shares Nietzsche's multiplicity of styles and a core vision of man. His short story, "The Wall," is suggested as an excellent introduction to his core ideas, particularly the confrontation with death and the value of integrity independent of social use. In _Being and Nothingness_, he distinguishes between the _en-soi_ (being of things, like a table) and the _pour-soi_ (self-aware being, man). He uses the phenomenon of self-deception (_mauvaise foi_) as a key to understanding the _pour-soi_, exploring how man can deny his own being. His famous lecture, "Existentialism is a Humanism," though widely known, is seen as an occasional piece with some flaws, not a definitive statement. Here, he lays out his core tenet: "existence precedes essence". This means man first exists, encounters himself, and then defines himself through his actions. Since there's no God or predetermined human nature, man is entirely responsible for himself and, in a way, for all humanity. This view is presented as the opposite of quietism, emphasizing that reality is found only in action – man is the sum of his deeds. While this might seem grim to someone who hasn't lived the life they dreamed of, Sartre sees it as a "stern optimism" because it means people are not defined by fixed natures (like being born a coward or a hero) but make themselves through their choices and commitments. Willing freedom for oneself, Sartre argues, necessarily involves willing the freedom of others. He calls those who deny this freedom "cowards" and "scum". Although the specifics of morality change, the underlying form – the will to freedom – is universal. Sartre argues that without God, man must invent values, giving life meaning through his choices. He rejects a humanism that sees man as a fixed, supreme value (which he links potentially to fascism), opting instead for a view where man is still in the process of being determined. His view of man's situation is tragic and absurd (man wishes to be God, but the idea is contradictory, making man a "useless passion"), but he doesn't see this as pessimistic; integrity and nobility are still possible. Unlike Heidegger, Sartre was active in the resistance against Hitler. **Beyond the Core Philosophers** The story isn't limited to just these main figures. Writers like Rilke (whose _Notes of Malte Laurids Brigge_ influenced Sartre and Heidegger) and Kafka (whose works capture the absurdity of the human condition and influenced French existentialists) are also crucial voices who express existentialist themes, sometimes arguably more effectively than philosophers. Kafka is seen as picturing the godless, "thrown," absurd world described by Heidegger and Sartre. His stories, like the parables, intentionally invite multiple interpretations rather than a single, fixed meaning. Notably absent from the main narrative are later religious existentialists like Buber, Bultmann, or Tillich. Kaufmann explains this isn't because they aren't important, but because religion itself has always dealt with existential themes (suffering, death, dread, changing one's life). These later figures, often influenced by Kierkegaard and the others discussed, use modern language to reiterate traditional religious messages and haven't had the same kind of formative impact on philosophy or literature as Kierkegaard did. **What's the Point? A Moral?** Existentialism, in this story, is fundamentally a protest and a challenge. It's about contrasting an "inauthentic life" – one lived passively, without confronting reality or making genuine choices – with an "authentic life". Many existentialists criticized English-speaking philosophy for being too focused on trivial, academic problems, sometimes seeming both "frivolous and dull". The existentialists aimed to make philosophy relevant to life again, much like Socrates did. Kaufmann suggests that today, neither existentialists nor analytical philosophers capture the whole picture; they are "each only half a Socrates". Existentialists bring the passionate concern for life's big questions, the moral intensity, and the belief that philosophy must be lived. Analytical philosophers, like Socrates, insist on clear ideas, solid arguments, and avoiding confusion. True philosophy, perhaps, needs both sides, operating in the tension between analysis and existential passion. **Ideas for Further Exploration** Reading about these thinkers and their interconnected ideas might make you wonder: - How does the "timeless sensibility" of existentialism show up in art or literature outside of the examples given? Are there characters or themes in books, movies, or even music that feel "existential"? - If existentialism emphasizes individual responsibility and choice, how do modern societal structures (technology, social media, political systems) support or challenge this? Do they make it easier or harder to be "that individual"? - The book touches on the political actions of Heidegger and Jaspers during the Nazi era. Does an existentialist philosophy _require_ a certain kind of political stance? How can thinkers who emphasize authenticity justify their own choices in complex political situations? - Kaufmann suggests some existentialist ideas might be better expressed in art than philosophy. What are the strengths and weaknesses of philosophy versus art when trying to grapple with concepts like dread, freedom, or the absurd? Can art ask questions philosophy can't, or vice versa? - The relationship between these thinkers and psychology is interesting – some embrace it (Sartre), some reject it as insufficient or distracting (Heidegger, Jaspers, Kierkegaard). How do modern psychological theories (like those focused on anxiety, identity, or decision-making) connect with or diverge from these existentialist ideas about the self and the human condition?