Evolution of the Existential Individual: Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre

Abstract
In the present paper, the issue of the existential individualism is explored from the perspective of its evolution in philosophical thoughts of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre. Various aspects of philosophers’ perception of the individual in the universe are compared and evaluative conclusions made. The main philosophical categories used for research include self-cognition and self-awareness, free will and freedom of choice, limits and control of free will, motivation and responsibility, value systems and clash of individual interests.
The combined notion of the existential individual is given, and its placement in the framework of the modern art and popular culture is described. Typological distinction of existential individuals is also given.
Key words: existential individual, free will, values, freedom of choice, self-awareness.

Evolution of the Existential Individual: Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre
Humanity has been always looking for the answers to numerous questions disturbing its mind through the centuries of self-examination, attempts to comprehend nature and the universe surrounding it. At certain points answers were so obvious and almost tangible, at others far as stars in the night sky. While discourses and types of questions changed through epochs, the essence of them may be summarized in two simple questions, ones written by ancient Slavs in their book of wisdom “Book of Veles” – “Who we are, and where are we going to?”. Each epoch and its philosophers had their own answer to those questions. Those answers were conditioned by the time and stage of human civilization. There were times when people were considered descendants of Gods, and that their destinies were predicted and controlled by higher forces. In other times, people were slaves of a single God and their lives were nothing but a suffering and penance for sins. There were also times when the human mind and spirit were liberated from the conditionality of divine power and were given free will and self-consciousness. The epoch of the Enlightenment gave human civilization a new image of the human being – the existentialist individual. When the existential individual was born, a new stage in human self-perception has begun. The image of the existential individual is present through the whole history of both XXth and XXIst centuries. If the first part of the eternal question can be answered by the notion of the individual, the second one can be comprehended only through analysis of the notion evolution and formation. The central idea of the present research is to analyze how the existential perception of the individual had evolved and examine its place in contemporaneity. With this regard, development of the existential approach to the individual is explored through the analysis of three existential philosophical thoughts, represented by Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre. The structure of the present research consists of comparison of various aspects of philosophers’ perception of the individual from the evolutionary perspective. In other words, development of the thought is tracked from Kierkegaard, than to Nietzsche and eventually to Sartre as a final definition of the existential individual. In the end of the research, contemporary framework of existential individual is outlined and appropriate conclusions given.

Characteristic feature of existentialism is in prevalence of real life over afterlife, rejecting with classical thoughts of the Middle Ages. The supreme divinity became no longer the main driving force and motive of human activity, and a human being finally gained independence, free will and opportunity to choose (Solomon, 2005). The aim of the present research is not to describe only what the existential individual looks like, but to analyze his development and gaining strength as an image of the future. The first criterion to track this evolution is the self-awareness, as characteristic feature of existentialism. Human being is no longer seen as dependant element of the social or religious system, which has no rights or should subordinate to higher authority. According to Kierkegaard, cognition of universe is possible through the exploration of inner self; through self-cognition the individual is able to comprehend the universe and his place in it (Walsh, 2009). The reason why Kierkegaard is considered to be the first stage of existentialism is that he still uses divinity in the name of God as superiority over the individual. For Kierkegaard, an ideal embodiment of the individual is Abraham from the Bible. Subsequently, individual’s self-awareness and cognition result from surrendering his individuality to God and regaining it through faith (Golomb, 1995). In this context, self cognition and exploration of individuality are experienced through self-sacrifice and expectation of further reward. This reminds greatly of classic Christian submission. In fact, Kierkegaard’s philosophy is transitional between the Middle Ages and Enlightenment, due to the presence of God and blind faith in it. On the other hand, it contributes to the development of free will and self-awareness, distinctive feature of existentialism (Walsh, 2009). The main difference between existentialism and Middle Ages philosophy is that the individual is not obliged to act in a certain way, he is the one to decide what he wants to do and why. It does not matter if he decides to follow God’s will; the essence is that he was the one who made the decision. The process of decision-making, in this context, was not found in God’s voice, but in the inner self of the individual. Abraham was looking for the answer in himself, his will to establish his individuality in the action which might have been considered insane by the rest o the world. Thus, the free individual for Kierkegaard is a “knight of faith” (Golomb, 1995).

On the ground of Kierkegaard’s attempt to separate the individual from the religious and social realms, Nietzsche and Sartre proceeded to the “radical” self-exploration and self-awareness. Unlike Kierkegaard, Nietzsche considered God irrelevant in self exploration and made origins of moral bias the essence of self-exploration. According to Nietzsche, individual’s self-exploration rises from evaluation of moralities and comprehension of values (Nabais, 2006). In this context, moral bias of master and slavery moralities, with which individual can recognize himself, appears. While slavery moral is compulsory and dictated, only a master morality can be positive for the individual’s development. The master morality is based on free will and comprehension of the universe through the inner self and place of the individual in it (Solomon, 2005). Unlike Kierkegaard, Nietzsche emphasizes presence of the third party, but not a divine one. He also developed a transitional morality of mores, which corresponds to legal, administrative and social norms, prescribed to the individual by society. Nietzsche denied supremacy of this morality in the individual’s development; it served only one purpose – to elaborate a master from a slave. In case of Nietzsche, individual morality is superior to social (Golomb, 1995).

Sartre can be considered the final stage of the existentialist individual development, because he applied systematic approach to his philosophic thought. First of all, referring to the individual in his philosophy, he addressed not only a single person but humanity in general. Thus, the individual/ humanity should search for the answer in itself, but in direct connection with universe and its impact on it (Flynn, 2005). If Nietzsche proclaimed twilight of gods, Sartre had confirmed their death. According to him, human behavior can be motivated either by divinity or free will; there are no half measures possible. The answers to all questions are inside the individual/humanity. This is another difference between Nietzsche and Sartre, the first one was pessimistic about humanity in general, and self-conscious individual was seen as uniqueness and a hero of his time; while the second believed that every man is capable of equal self-awareness and comprehension and that each individual should gain full responsibility for his existence in respect to other individuals and the universe (Nabais, 2006; Flynn, 2005).
Another criterion for comparison is a correlation between source of fee will and its control. All three philosophers agreed that the main source of free will and human activity is inside the individual and is conditioned by the degree of self-perception and awareness. On the other hand, the source or inner strength, richness of the inner world were different. According to Kierkegaard, this conditionality developed from the union of the individual with God and essence of revelation (Walsh, 2009). Further, Nietzsche and Sartre derived the source of free will from the individual’s value system. According to Nietzsche, free individual is the one whose values are originated in his own value system, and his actions do not depend on needs and desires of surrounding environment or other individuals (Nabais, 2006). While Kierkegaard considered that absolute freedom can be gained through surrender to divinity, Nietzsche suggested that it can be reached exclusively beyond universal level of morality - supralevel, which can be developed only by the individual (Nabais, 2006). Contrasting with those suggestions, Sartre considered that free will of the individual can exist only if his values system is based on it. If the individual prefers material substitutions for freedom, he cannot posses free will and implications of choice (Flynn, 2005).

From the perspective of free will origins, the evolution of human consciousness can be tracked. At the first stage, there was inconsistent belief in a fantastic origin of the inner self and place of the third party in it. Gradually, belief was substituted by denial of any external factors in the free will rising, and then it became the reason for itself. This reminds of Christian religion – first there was fantastic resurrection, than denial of other religious believes like pagans, and then existence of the religion for itself. This comparison is not an attempt to elevate existentialism to the level of one of the world religions, but to show that human thinking on various matters remains relatively the same, and evolution of any thought goes through those stages.

Except for origins of free will it needs control. Nothing can exist in the universe without its limits. While Kierkegaard considered God the main limitation of human will, Nietzsche suggested that on the universal level the free will is limited by universal order, but when it reaches the level of the highest potential it goes to a the level exceeding universal boundaries. Nietzsche believed in the supremacy of human potential over all conditionality of existing limits, either social or universal, but this potential of unstoppable free will was a gift of the chosen individuals who were beyond normality and commonness (Nabais, 2006). From the modern perspective, such idea might seem discriminative, but what he meant was a potential given by birth, and rather intellectual ability than physical features. In other words, his approach can be applicable for the small percentage of gifted individuals or geniuses, whose existence is undeniable (Nabais, 2006).

Unlike Nietzsche, Sartre was referring to humanity in general. He was quite altruistic in his belief in human potential. As it was mentioned before, he believed all individuals are capable of favoring free will entirely. The controlling element of free will and its exercising is the individual himself, his comprehension of the consequences of his decisions in the form of personal responsibility. The individual is responsible not only for himself, but also for other individuals and the universe around him; this particularly refers to decisions which effect third parties (Solomon, 2005). Sartre managed to give the evolution of the existential individual complete and final character by inserting it into the system of interpersonal and inter-environmental interactions. This, in its turn, contributed to the consideration of cause-effect relations of individual decision as an integral system (Flynn, 2005).

Overall, the existential individual, through the process of abstracting of his free will from divinity and reaching deeper into himself, can be characterized as an individual with high self-awareness and self-perception, which is not conditioned by environmental and social influences. The source of his freedom of choice is derived from his values system based on free will as an essential need and reason for action. This individual is independent in his decision-making, and his actions can be controlled only by his inner consciousness of right and wrong, influence on other people and universe in general. Cause-effect relation of individual decision-making process is a distinctive feature of the existential individual. Unlike the Middle Ages, there is no predisposition of an individual to follow a prescribed path, either in profession, or personal life of moral values (Solomon, 2005). Fate and destiny are no longer ruling the life of the existential individual. He is the master of his own life and since he does not depend on anyone, he is entirely autonomous in his decision-making and dealing with consequences. The main cause for all human activity is the individual’s inner motives and system of moral values. In ideal, the main values of the existential individual should be freedom, and in most of the cases it is, when referred to personal freedom. On the other hand, when free wills of two individual’s clash, whose will is right and good? According to Sartre both free wills are good and right from the perspective of each individual; clash with other free wills cannot be seen other than clash of two good and righteous wills (Flynn, 2005).

For further exploration of the existential individual placement in the contemporary intellectual and artistic trends, it would be essential to make distinction between entirely evolved image of existential individual applicable to all humanity as it was above and Nietzsche’s selected existential individual, who refers to the limited percentage of genial people and hero symbols. This type of existential individual can be characterized by asocial behavior and alienation from society or certain spheres like public relations, politics or social goodness, etc. From the perspective of the existential development, such individual could not evolve to the social stage described by Sartre, and remained on the alienated stage of Nietzsche’s philosophy. This is conditioned by abnormal abilities and potential such individuals posses, and inability of society and other individuals to accept them (Nabais, 2006). According to Nietzsche, those existential individuals are strong enough to live that way due to the eternal struggle with tribal instinct of unification and the preciousness of their gift – ownership of themselves. In respect to this, he wrote the following:
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the
tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is
too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself” (as cited in Golomb, 1995, p. 67).

From the mentioned above distinction, it would be appropriate to analyze presence of both types of existential individual in the modern artistic trends. First of all, it should be outlined that both types are present in the contemporary intellectual and artistic field. Existentialism as philosophical thought did not cease to exist but transformed into post-existentialism or postmodern existentialism, evolving with other philosophical thoughts such as feminism, represented by Judith Butler and her development of queer theory and nature of gender and sexuality. For this research further development of existential theory is of a little interest. Piles of books were written in the topic, it is essential to see how two images of existential individuals are implemented in practices of the real life.

The common existential individuals are seen on regular basis on screen and in books, sometimes in the real life. It should be mentioned that nowadays heroes are far from conditionality of positive-negative bias. Their characteristics become more based on concrete life situations rather than general, social or moral opinions about their deeds. Human life and personal experiences are no longer seen as blessing of higher divinity but as a cause-effect relation of their decisions and circumstances under which those decisions were made. People’s and artists’ attention became more direct inside rather than outside of a human being. In fiction and movies, more often, the inner world of a person is shown rather than supernatural forces causing it.

How modern mass production artists depict the freedom of choice is of particular interest. The most expressive example might be movie “Troy”, where famous Trojan War is depicted from the modern perspective of existential individualism, rather than the classic Greek philosophy. Although authenticity of the rituals and certain garments is remarkable, the message of the film is far from authentic. Instead of showing bloodshed and conflict between two warrior egos, the struggle between two individuals’ free wills was described. Hector and Achilles are the most remarkable examples of artistic depiction of the existential individuals in the modern film art. They both had their own motives to fight each other; their decisions were conditioned by previous cause-effect relation and personal meaning of goodness and justice; no one, irrespective of status and authority, could influence their free wills. The most essential thing was that they both denied participation of gods in their lives, and did not believe that they could influence human freedom of choice. The example of this film was chosen because it depicts modern – existential perception of reality in the XXst century, where existential individuals are almost real. On the other hand, “Troy” is a bright example of how ancient philosophy/mythology is interpreted nowadays, meaning that even initially non-existential matters such as Greek mythology, where gods ruled the universe, are shown from the lens of the existential individualism. The final reason why a film was chosen as art is because it shows popular or common perception of the issues which correspond to the common type of existential individualism depicted by Sartre.

Since it can be concluded that the common existential individualism is present in common social consciousness of mass culture, where is the place for the existential individual described by Nietzsche? This type is embodied in two imageries both in real and fiction realms – heroes/antiheroes and geniuses. Both heroes and antiheroes are described beyond bias of good or evil characteristics in their motives, they both act from the point of personal or common goodness. Both are alienated from society because of their need to keep their secrets safe. Their social interactions come to minimum. While hero character or real person usually suffers from the messiah complex, antihero is driven by personal revenge or profit interest, in both cases actions are aimed to satisfy personal, inner needs. Transition from one state into another is also common. When matters are beyond good and evil, the line to cross is barely visible. Another group, which entirely fits Nietzsche’s abnormal individualism, are geniuses. Leonardo Da Vinci, Beethoven, Einstein and Nietzsche himself were alienated from an active social life. They could not be accepted entirely due to the nature of their intellectual abilities and supra-potential which exceeded normal limits of the individual. Just as Nietzsche wrote, those individuals come to life to show their potential but to keep their inner self to themselves (Nabais, 2006).

Overall, the existential individualism is worth studying for a better comprehension of the modern philosophy and practical implementation of the previous thoughts in contemporary art, both popular and intellectual. Evolution of the existential individual and its embodiment in the modernity show the development of common human consciousness and diversity in perception of the same issues by various people. This research also contributes to comprehension of the essence of entire epoch in human history. XXth and the beginning of XXIst centuries can be characterized as epoch of free will proclamation and implementation. It can be justly called the epoch of existentialism and supremacy of realism over idealism. The reality is beyond good and evil, it is somewhere in between, and human beings should determine where they are, in order to know where they are going to.


References
Flynn, T.R. (2005). Sartre at One Hundred-A Man of the Nineteenth Century Addressing the
Twenty-First? Sartre Studies International, 11(1-2), 1-21.
Golomb, J. (1995). In Search of Authenticity: Existentialism From Kierkegaard to Camus
(Problems of Modern European Thought). London, LD: Routledge.
Nabais, N. (2006). Nietzsche and the Metaphysics of the Tragedy. (E.Martin, Trans.). New
York, NY: Continuum International.
Solomon, R.C. (2005). Existentialism. Oxford, OX: Oxford University Press.
Walsh, S. (2009). Kierkegaard: thinking Christianly in an existential mode. Oxford, OX:
Oxford University Press.