dudeoi
Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual freedom, choice, and the responsibility to create meaning in a world that may seem inherently meaningless. It challenges the idea of universal truths, asserting that meaning is not given but must be forged by each person through their actions and beliefs.
Nietzsche and Sartre’s ideas about creating one’s own values stem from a rejection of absolute truths and external sources of meaning, like religion or universal moral codes. They believed that humanity, in the absence of a divine order, must construct its own meaning to live authentically, which holds some truth.
While this philosophy is empowering, critics argue that it has significant flaws when applied universally. Here’s why some say they were wrong, and why the creation of individual value systems is problematic:
1. Human Interdependence and Shared Values
The Flaw: Humans are social beings, deeply interconnected with one another. A society where everyone creates their own set of values risks descending into chaos. Without a shared moral framework, there is no way to resolve conflicts between competing values.
Why We Can’t Create Our Own Values: Personal value systems often come into conflict with others, and without shared standards, there’s no common ground for justice, cooperation, or community-building. Absolute relativism undermines the possibility of societal harmony.
2. Lack of Objective Standards
The Flaw: Nietzsche and Sartre’s views reject the existence of objective moral truths, yet this creates a paradox. If all values are subjective, then no value system—including theirs—can claim to be valid over another, even those promoting harm or oppression.
Why We Can’t Create Our Own Values: Without objective standards, it’s impossible to determine whether a chosen set of values is genuinely “good.” For example, if someone creates a value system based on exploitation or cruelty, what grounds exist to condemn it? A purely subjective framework leads to moral nihilism.
3. Burden of Responsibility
The Flaw: Sartre’s idea of radical freedom and the obligation to create one’s values is existentially overwhelming. Most people struggle to define the meaning of their lives without external guidance, leading to anxiety, paralysis, or despair.
Why We Can’t Create Our Own Values: Building a personal moral system from scratch requires profound self-awareness, philosophical rigor, and moral courage. Many people aren’t equipped to shoulder such a burden, which can lead to instability and poor choices. Established systems of values provide a tested framework that alleviates this existential weight. I we could indeed create our own values, then we would be able to justify hedonism and remove guilt altogether which is far from being the case.
4. The Illusion of Individualism
The Flaw: Both philosophers assume that individuals can stand apart from societal, cultural, and biological influences when constructing their values. However, our sense of self and morality is deeply shaped by external factors like family, history, and culture.
Why We Can’t Create Our Own Values: Even when we believe we are creating our own values, we are often unconsciously influenced by societal norms or personal biases. This makes “radical individualism” more of an illusion than a reality.
5. Loss of Transcendence
The Flaw: Nietzsche’s declaration of the “death of God” and Sartre’s rejection of divine order leave humanity without transcendence or higher meaning. This can result in despair or moral relativism, as people lack an ultimate purpose or guiding principle beyond themselves.
Why We Can’t Create Our Own Values: Values tied to transcendence—whether through religion, spirituality, or universal moral truths—offer a sense of purpose and meaning beyond the individual. Without this, self-created values often feel hollow, leading to existential emptiness, nihilism, cynicism and resentment.
6. The Problem of Power
The Flaw: Nietzsche’s emphasis on the “will to power” as the driver of value creation risks justifying domination, oppression, and exploitation. In practice, those with greater power may impose their subjective values on others.
Why We Can’t Create Our Own Values: A society where everyone creates their values would ultimately favor the strong over the weak, as power dynamics inevitably shape which values dominate. This undermines equality and justice.
7. Inherent Human Limitations
The Flaw: Both Nietzsche and Sartre place immense trust in human reason and willpower. However, humans are flawed, emotional, and often irrational. The idea of individuals consistently making wise, ethical decisions is idealistic.
Why We Can’t Create Our Own Values: Established moral systems provide guidance precisely because humans are prone to error. Relying solely on personal judgment often leads to selfishness, shortsightedness, and harm to others.
Dostoevsky’s Crime and punishment
Raskolnikov, the central figure in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, represents the intense struggle between ideology and morality. In many ways, he attempts to embody Nietzschean philosophy by constructing his own set of values. As a former student burdened by poverty, he formulates a theory asserting that extraordinary individuals possess the right to rise above societal norms and commit morally dubious acts if it serves a higher purpose.
This belief leads him to murder a pawnbroker, whom he deems a parasite unworthy of life. However, Raskolnikov’s intellectual justification quickly crumbles under the weight of guilt and psychological torment, exposing the chasm between his cold, rational ideology and the inherent moral laws ingrained in his conscience.
His descent into paranoia and despair reveals Dostoevsky’s exploration of the human soul, grappling with the limits of rationalism and the undeniable presence of divine justice. Ultimately, Raskolnikov’s journey toward redemption highlights the necessity of humility, repentance, and the acknowledgment of universal moral truths, contrasting sharply with his earlier nihilistic worldview.
Why we are not autonomous when it comes to value?
We cannot simply choose our values because they are deeply rooted in the fabric of our nature and shaped by forces beyond our control.
What we admire, desire to pursue, or find beautiful seems less like a conscious decision and more like a revelation of our inner disposition, shaped by biology, culture, upbringing, and experiences. For instance, we cannot force ourselves to admire something we find uninspiring or pursue something our hearts do not resonate with, no matter how rationally we might try to convince ourselves. That’s why students even though they chose their cursus can’t find the motivation to reads some scholar books.
Taste, too, operates in a realm beyond pure logic; it arises organically, often mysteriously, reflecting both innate tendencies and subconscious influences. This inability to dictate our values points to the deeper, often hidden, interplay between who we are and the greater context of the world around us.
Revealing Values
Values are not created; they are discovered, often through experience, introspection, and engagement with the world around us. They emerge as we navigate life’s challenges, observe beauty, confront suffering, and grapple with moral dilemmas. For example, we don’t invent the deep admiration we feel for acts of courage or selflessness—it reveals itself when we witness such acts and recognize their inherent worth.
Similarly, values like honesty, kindness, or justice resonate with something fundamental within us, as if they are truths waiting to be uncovered rather than constructs we consciously invent. This process of discovery suggests that values are part of a greater moral, aesthetic, or existential order, one that we tap into as we grow, learn, and seek meaning in life. In this sense, values act like stars in the night sky—constant, guiding, and revealed to us when we lift our eyes to search for them.
A Possible Counterpoint
Nietzsche and Sartre were not entirely wrong in suggesting that individuals should question inherited values and seek authenticity. Blindly adhering to traditional systems without examination can perpetuate injustice or oppression. However, their solutions of radical individualism and subjective value creation are insufficient for addressing humanity’s collective needs.
The Middle Path: Personal Growth Within Universal Truths
Existentialism can help us differentiate between societal constructs and deeper truths. However, its main flaw lies in the assumption that humans are a blank slate. While the world may appear indifferent to our value systems, as human beings, we cannot live without some form of inherent filter or framework through which we interpret our experiences to give it meaning.
This framework must, by its very nature, transcend our personal intellectual beliefs. It is not merely a construct of our individual minds, but a deeper, more universal structure that guides our understanding of the world. It serves as a foundation upon which we build our perceptions, actions, and values, surpassing the limitations of our subjective viewpoints.
This transcendent framework is what allows us to navigate life in a way that aligns with something greater than ourselves, offering a sense of coherence and meaning that goes beyond mere personal preference or intellectual reasoning. Without it, our choices and beliefs would become nothing more than fleeting and arbitrary.
For instance, even scientists and existentialists hold the belief in an ultimate truth as the highest value; otherwise, their philosophy would collapse into nothing more than a pointless, subjective viewpoint.
Rather than rejecting shared moral frameworks altogether, we can strive for a balance:
- Seek authenticity and personal growth while respecting universal principles like justice, compassion, and truth.
- Question values critically but aim to align with higher, transcendent truths that unite rather than divide.
This middle path respects the strengths of their philosophies while avoiding the pitfalls of absolute relativism and nihilism.
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings