A small essay (or not) of existentialism
In history, the notion of being was widely contested. Not because of the question being rather useless and some might claim, or rather that it is established already and cemented of the contemporary landscape such argument was laid on. But it is rather because we are contested between what is to be defined of. Who are we? Of whom we are, do we have a role before born of essence, or do we truly trek our way afterward, bears the mark of being thrown into it, and thus hang around configuring ourselves in such path? One of the disposition in such discourse, is then of the befitting name, existentialism.
Existentialism basically posits that existence precedes essence, of a particular agent toward the world they are thrown into. In simpler term, once invoke existentialism when the question of plurality is asked, and of which the order in which creations and assignments are refused, just so to say that the actor exists first, then comes the play, and thus the bravado and the improv that is each person’s life. As such, it bears the mark, implicitly, toward the general notion of Heidegger, of which is Geworfenheit, or thrownness.
Every actor was born, not defined, not recognized, not even intended to be so, much to the disdain of those fathers whom never wanted a child, and of those mother never wanting to bear such pain into existence. It realizes quickly that there is no one with the same blueprint, as for everyone is thrown in the world differently, of the different wishes bearing their birth, of the different distaste of which their existence hinders certain actor’s plan of which uncertainty is what we do not know, but can sense such to be. Even a twin, while confirming such as being rather one of the rare case for similarity in context, is not similar, as for the fact that they are twin, situated them in different proposition of which the world then move.
By itself, existentialism invalidates the controversial but rhetorically power motion of religion, and of existential claiming on universality of purpose, from religions as said toward totalism at large. At its core, it revolves around refusing obligation and defined purposes of the question being who am I, what I live for, what is there to die, and what is it to survive. Lives, in such sense, must be realized as what was formed in the process of the machine running, as said, not by a certain god, not by a mortal politician tell us to, and not by anyone but ourselves to ring the bell and focus on what treed of the unknown path that is ours, while of the intersection others tried to pull them close to theirs.
Another tension is validated, or rather debated, toward which two extremes in interpretation meets: do you simply forget the past, or let the past take on the person as their persona? Such question, under existentialism implies the notion of equivalent forgiveness - of which the past is recognized, yet there exists the condition of possibility - what if it was changed? What if I did not do that? Such is the delegation of freedom, and hence free-will by the operational notion of the uncertainty of life and the insufficiency of actors on themselves, such is to say that we haven’t handled any definition but of which we are responsible of it ourselves.
And such also brings about the implication of the future. Whether the person in question truly invoke existentialism for comfort, or by virtue of it being the final destination of acceptance is unknown. While it is easy to say freedom and responsibility are inseparable, and thus every choice contributes to who we become, it is rather easier to neglect the principle of which is rather not, and conform to the baseline of which one respects of the opinion, yet deliberately reject it. Such is to say, instead of framing such, the better framing is there to be that choices matters, but also consequence pays the cost on the road. Every action pays, and of which consequence follows to see the landscape. In a sense, the tension is this. The past is not the same as the future, but conflicts and define the landscape of manoeuvrability of which the future actor must choose. The liberating factor is rather not liberating, but also not the end of the road, simply because there exists the temporal causal chain. The world does not stop at the slightest invocation of choice and delegation of personal interpretation, yet also does not stop when you forget the past, because even the confusion and deliberate choice to forget the past is the pressure built from the past, to justify the reaction itself. Thence, while rather roundabout, existentialism confirms simply two things. Every action has consequence, and under temporal observation, there is no going back. Second, however. Since every action has consequence, there is none universal, and thus there is none that is right. So are the freedom, and so are the consequence of responsibility.