Philosophically The Existentialists Would Agree That

Existentialism and the Meaning of Life: Philosophical Perspectives on Creating Purpose

Existentialist philosophy, with its focus on individual freedom, responsibility, and the absurdity of existence, offers a unique lens through which to examine the question of life's meaning. When we consider the statement that existentialists would agree that life inherently lacks predetermined meaning, we touch upon the core tenet of this philosophical movement. This perspective does not lead to nihilism for many existentialists, but rather to a call for authentic creation of value. To understand this fully, we must explore the foundational ideas of key existentialist thinkers, the implications of radical freedom, the confrontation with absurdity, and the ethical dimensions of existence.

Introduction to Existentialist Thought

Existentialism is not a monolithic doctrine but a collection of philosophies sharing a common starting point: the individual exists first and defines essence through actions. Unlike essentialist philosophies that propose a fixed human nature or divine plan, existentialists argue that existence precedes essence. This means humans are not born with a predefined purpose; they are thrust into being and must forge their own path. The sentiment that existentialists would agree that life has no inherent meaning is a direct consequence of this principle. In real terms, if there is no God or cosmic blueprint, the responsibility to create meaning falls entirely on the individual. That's why this realization can be both terrifying and liberating. Thinkers like Søren Kierkegaard, often considered the father of existentialism, emphasized the "leap of faith" and the subjective nature of truth, prioritizing passionate commitment over objective certainty. Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed the "death of God," suggesting that traditional moral structures had collapsed, leaving individuals to create new values in a world without absolute foundations. Jean-Paul Sartre, in his seminal work "Being and Nothingness," articulated the concept of "bad faith" (mauvaise foi), where individuals deny their freedom by conforming to societal expectations or deterministic narratives. But for Sartre, to exist authentically is to acknowledge one's complete freedom and the consequent burden of choice. Plus, albert Camus, while often categorized as an Absurdist, shared existential concerns, focusing on the conflict between the human need for meaning and the silent, indifferent universe. His concept of "revolt" involves living passionately despite the lack of ultimate justification. Thus, the agreement among existentialists on the absence of pre-given meaning is a unifying theme that shapes their entire philosophical project.

The Radical Freedom and Responsibility of the Individual

A central pillar of existentialism is the concept of radical freedom. This freedom brings with it profound responsibility. In real terms, because there is no external authority to dictate values, the individual must answer for every choice. Sartre’s famous dictum, "Man is condemned to be free," highlights the inescapability of choice. To give you an idea, choosing a career path not because of genuine passion but because of parental pressure or societal status is an act of bad faith, a denial of one's freedom. The agreement that meaning is absent thus becomes the foundation for a demanding ethical stance: you are free, therefore you are responsible for what you make of that freedom. To live authentically, one must embrace this anxiety rather than flee from it through bad faith. If existentialists would agree that life has no inherent meaning, they must also agree that the individual is entirely free to create their own. Every action, and even inaction, is a choice that defines the self. Now, this is the source of existential angst (angoisse), a deep unease arising from the awareness of one's absolute freedom and the weight of creating oneself. Conversely, choosing a path with full awareness of its challenges and without recourse to excuses is an act of authenticity. But this freedom is not a pleasant liberty but an inescapable condition of existence. This responsibility extends to how one treats others, as our choices inevitably impact the world and other individuals.

Confronting the Absurd and the Creation of Value

The absence of inherent meaning leads directly to what Camus termed the "Absurd": the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and the silent, indifferent cosmos. If existentialists would agree that life is meaningless, they also recognize that humans will inevitably rebel against this meaninglessness. On top of that, the Absurd is not a problem to be solved but a condition to be lived with. Camus argued that one must imagine Sisyphus happy, finding contentment in the struggle itself rather than in a futile goal. Meaning is not discovered but created. This creation is an active, ongoing process. It involves committing to projects, relationships, and causes that give structure and purpose to one’s existence. The painter finds meaning in the act of creation; the activist finds it in the struggle for justice; the parent finds it in the nurturing of a child. These meanings are subjective and contingent, yet they are real and vital within the lived experience. The existentialist does not seek a universal formula for happiness or fulfillment but instead encourages the construction of a personal universe of value. This process requires courage, as it involves facing the void without flinching. It is a continuous act of affirmation in the face of negation. In practice, by accepting the absurd, one can live more fully, investing passion into the finite moments that constitute a life. The agreement on meaninglessness thus becomes a springboard for creative and defiant existence.

The Ethical Dimension of Existential Choice

Existentialism is often mistakenly viewed as a philosophy of selfish individualism, but this is a misinterpretation. While it emphasizes the individual's role in creating meaning, it does not absolve one of ethical considerations. If existentialists would agree that individuals must create their own values, the question arises: what values should they choose? Sartre, despite his emphasis on radical freedom, argued that one must consider the impact of one's choices on the freedom of others. Worth adding: to choose inauthentically is to deny not only one's own freedom but also the freedom of others. An act of cruelty, for instance, imposes a limiting framework on the victim, denying their potential for self-creation. That's why, existentialist ethics are grounded in the concept of "the Other.In real terms, " Our choices exist in a web of human relations, and we must acknowledge the inherent dignity and freedom of others. This leads to a form of responsibility that extends beyond the self. Simone de Beauvoir, in "The Ethics of Ambiguity," explored this tension between freedom and solidarity. She argued that one must choose not only for oneself but in a way that fosters the freedom of all. An authentic existence, then, is one where the individual creates meaning while simultaneously recognizing and respecting the creative freedom of others. The initial agreement on meaninglessness does not lead to moral relativism where anything goes; instead, it places the burden of ethical creation squarely on the shoulders of the individual, demanding a conscious and responsible engagement with the world.

Want to learn more? We recommend which structure correctly represents the bonding in a hydrocarbon molecule and Why Fractional Distillation Is Better Than Simple? Real Reasons Explained for further reading.

Common Misconceptions and Criticisms

It is crucial to address common misunderstandings about the existentialist position. First, the assertion that existentialists would agree that life is meaningless is often conflated with pessimism or nihilism. In real terms, while nihilism declares that nothing matters, existentialism insists that something must matter because the individual chooses it. The despair of meaninglessness is a starting point, not an endpoint. Second, existentialism is sometimes criticized for being overly focused on the individual, ignoring social and structural factors. That said, thinkers like de Beauvoir and Sartre engaged deeply with issues of race, class, and gender, showing how structures can limit freedom. Existentialism calls for a recognition of these constraints while maintaining that individuals must still choose how to respond. Finally, the idea that existentialism promotes a selfish "me-first" attitude overlooks the profound emphasis on authenticity and responsibility. To create meaning authentically is to engage with the world honestly, which often involves commitment to causes larger than the self. Understanding these nuances prevents a caricature of the philosophy and reveals its depth and applicability to real-life struggles.

Conclusion: The Courage to Create

In examining the philosophical stance that existentialists would agree that life lacks predetermined meaning, we arrive not at a conclusion of despair, but at the beginning of a profound ethical and creative task. The absence of an external blueprint is not an invitation to apathy but a call to action. Here's the thing — it demands that we confront our radical freedom, acknowledge the absurdity of our situation, and step into the responsibility of crafting our own values. So this journey requires courage, as it involves facing uncertainty and making choices without guarantees. Yet, it is precisely this act of creation that imbues life with significance.

The existentialist message is ultimatelya humanistic one, not because it offers a tidy doctrine but because it places the weight of meaning‑making squarely on human agency. In real terms, ” This question is never answered once and for all; rather, it recurs in each decision—whether to pursue a career, to love someone, to protest injustice, or to simply sit with the quiet moments of everyday life. When we accept that the universe does not hand us a pre‑ordained script, we are compelled to ask, “What will I choose to invest my consciousness in?Authenticity, then, becomes the compass that guides these choices: it requires us to examine whether our actions align with the values we have consciously adopted, rather than those imposed by tradition, authority, or convenience.

In practice, this existential ethic manifests in a variety of concrete ways. An artist may devote years to a craft not for fame or profit but because the act of creation itself feels like an affirmation of personal freedom. A teacher might choose to work in an under‑resourced school, recognizing that the act of nurturing curiosity in others is a deliberate construction of meaning that also extends to the broader community. Even the decision to live modestly, to reject consumerist excess, can be seen as an intentional shaping of a life that values depth over accumulation. In each case, the individual is exercising the freedom that existentialism celebrates, while simultaneously acknowledging that such freedom is always situated within a web of cultural, economic, and historical constraints.

Critically, this freedom is never solitary. Sartre’s famous assertion that “existence precedes essence” carries an implicit relational dimension: our self‑definitions inevitably intersect with the projects of others. De Beauvoir’s insistence that “one is not born, but rather becomes a woman” (or a man, or a non‑binary subject) underscores that personal authenticity is inseparable from the social conditions that shape us. When we create meaning, we also define the possibilities for those around us. By choosing to act responsibly—whether through solidarity, advocacy, or simple acts of kindness—we transform our individual projects into collective possibilities, thereby turning the absurdity of a meaningless cosmos into a shared canvas on which humanity can paint its own narrative.

In the long run, the existentialist invitation is not a call to nihilistic surrender but to a courageous, ongoing act of self‑authorship. It asks us to confront the void with honesty, to embrace the responsibility that comes with radical freedom, and to craft meanings that are both personally resonant and ethically mindful. In doing so, we honor the paradox at the heart of the human condition: we are finite beings thrust into an indifferent universe, yet we possess the unique capacity to imbue that universe with purpose through our choices. The philosophical stance that existentialists would agree that life lacks an inherent blueprint thus becomes a catalyst for a life lived deliberately, responsibly, and with an eye toward the freedom of others. It is, in the final analysis, a call to step forward—imperfect, aware of limitation, yet undeterred—in the continual project of making one’s existence a testament to what it means to be truly human.