I'm a skeptic. I don't look at a philosophy, a moral code, or some kind of ethic without first questioning it. That being said, when I first learned about existentialism, I pretty much went mentally insane for a few minutes. That being said, I don’t think it’s as good as it’s all cracked up to be, for a number of reasons.
The addition of structures to society is what creates benefactors for people. No structures, no communication, no entertainment, no cities, harsh survival, nothing civilized to speak of. Everything civilized is created through non-existentialist ideals. If ever person were to think through an existentialist lens, we would make no discoveries as a whole, because a person that made that discover would have no initiative to tell anyone else, or others just wouldn’t have a desire to care. It doesn’t really apply to them, and it’s a structure, so it’s no good. Forcing an existentialist perspective, we would live in an anarchistic society, denying humanistic desires for a primitive lifestyle.
What do I mean by humanistic desires? Well, simple. People work much better in groups than as individuals. we desire to work in groups to achieve goals. One person can’t build a building, although existentialists would never build buildings, because that concept, in on itself, is a societal structure. Entrepreneurs are great, and inventors as well, but who’re going to be the work horses? You can’t come up with a brilliant idea and expect it to last under existentialism, because no one else would have a desire to help you! You’re creating a structure, literally and figuratively, so that becomes a no go.
Finally, and this is the most important point, existentialism (drum roll please) is a contradiction of itself. In order to embrace existentialism, you must embrace a philosophy. Humans embrace their surrounds, it’s a natural instinct. It’s how we learn to communicate, how to identify things, etc. rejecting this, you end up created a structure. Existentialism, therefore, IS a structure. This makes it everything it opposes, and therefore a contradiction.
Other tid bits: Language, ITSELF, is a societal structure. There are hundreds of languages across the world. So what gives? Language is used to describe existentialism, so how can you USE a societal structure to describe something that is supposed to abandon all societal structures?Mersault isn’t a complete existentialist. He still holds a job, has a house, pays others for food, etc. Being a complete existentialist is not on ridiculous, it’s impossible.
Maybe this doesn't apply directly to The Stranger. I wouldn't call Mersault an existentialist, atleast as a whole.
Recent Comments