Existentialism says you exist first, then you decide what you are.
Most philosophies work backward. They start with human nature, then tell you how to live. “Humans are rational, so be rational.” “Humans have souls, so save your soul.”
Existentialists flip this. You’re born without a preset nature or purpose. No cosmic plan. No essential self to discover. Just raw existence.
This sounds terrifying. It’s meant to.
Sartre called it “being condemned to be free.” You have to choose what to value, how to live, who to become. Every choice shapes you. Every choice is yours alone.
Can’t blame your parents, your genes, your circumstances. Those things influence you, sure. But the final decision is always yours. Even choosing not to choose is a choice.
The existentialists weren’t trying to depress anyone. They thought this was good news.
If there’s no human nature, you can’t be trapped by it. If there’s no cosmic purpose, you can’t fail at it. You’re free to write your own story.
Camus took this further. He said the universe is absurd — meaningless and indifferent. But instead of despair, he recommended rebellion. Keep creating meaning anyway. Not because it’s objectively real, but because it’s yours.
I think they’re right about the freedom part. Wrong that it’s terrifying.
The absence of predetermined meaning isn’t a burden. It’s what makes meaning possible in the first place.
Add internal links to: (1) /posts/camus-and-the-absurd-life/ when discussing absurdism or Camus, (2) /posts/why-purposelessness-might-be-good-news/ when discussing meaning-making or purposelessness, (3) /posts/nietzsche-wasnt-celebrating/ when discussing Nietzsche or ‘God is dead’, (4) /posts/choices-might-not-be-yours/ when discussing freedom and choice, (5) /posts/what-is-stoicism-beginners-guide/ as a ‘Related: What Is Stoicism?’ link near the end