Existentialism & Enlightenment#

“How strange it is, how moving, that this hardness should be so fragile. Nothing can interrupt it yet all can break it.” Jean-Paul Sartre in Nausea

These words, which elucidate the fragility of human identity, capture the Existentialist movement–a movement that contradicted conventional thinking. It attempted to found concepts entirely on logical thought, and finding a purpose without someone ordering how everything ought to be. Enlightenment refers to the Buddhist way of letting go of worldly pleasures and moving into a state of peace and happiness. These two concepts were founded thousands of years apart on different continents, yet both seem to attempt to satisfy the very human goal of searching for purpose. Existentialism arose in the later 1800s, after organized religion like Catholicism began to lose authority, and people began to question their salvation. Many prominent authors, who were inspired by the World Wars, began writing about their lives’ meaning despite such atrocities. Concepts like nihilism and absurdism were introduced as attempts to describe or personalize meaning in a purposeless world. The movement never really spread outside of Europe. Buddhism, which was started thousands of years before, was founded by a single person- Siddhartha Guatama or the Buddha. He was a noble who decided to leave everything to search for peace after witnessing human suffering. His belief system is meant to relieve suffering. It spread around the world. Buddha came to the conclusion that anyone could be freed from suffering by having an accurate world view, intentions, mindfulness, and actions. Existentialism was brought to fruition by many authors, all having a similar conclusion: meaning of the world is created by the individual. There is no inherent purpose in the universe, other than the one given to it by yourself. They both add a layer of meaning to the question: what are we here for? Buddhism believes that by living in the moment, then we can free ourselves of the depression of the past and the anxiety of the future. Existentialism, on the other hand, has a different outlook. It thinks of the world as not having any predetermined meaning. In the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil, for example, Nietzsche argues that morality exists to maintain the social hierarchy. We can see how these two ideas are similar in Nausea. The book, which was written by Sartre in 1938, puts us into the perspective of a historian who is having an existentialist breakdown. He begins to view things as independent of what we think they are. Buddhism does something similar: it advocates to view the world as it is. Then, why don’t Buddhists become existentialists? Buddhism relies on the assumption that there is morality- that there are good and bad actions. Buddhism was founded on concepts separate from that of Existentialism: had to fight in the trenches or witness chlorine gas. The World Wars pushed people to question the assumption of any sort of innate ‘good’. Additionally, if such atrocities occurred, then why hadn’t a higher power stopped them. Buddha and Sartre both asked a question that is universally relevant: how can one truly live a fulfilling life? They’ve come to separate solutions– one advocates for nonattachment, and the other proposes freedom described by the individual, yet they share a common principle–viewing our small world for what it is, not as what we wish it to be. They give us direction with how we should approach our lives– a combination of care and discernment– two ideas that give action to what matters and indifference towards what doesn’t.