19th century philosophical materialism

In discussing the 19th century philosophical materialism, we shall limit ourselves to three main
varieties:

19th century philosophical materialism

Positivism Auguste Comte

Pragmatism Charles Sanders Peirce

William James

John Dewey

Evolutionism Herbert Spencer

(Process Phil.) Henri Bergson

Alfred North Whitehead

Teilhard de Chardin

The three varieties of materialism share a common thread with Marxism, rooted in
immanentism, a philosophy centred on human consciousness, often leading to atheism. Post-
Renaissance, philosophy evolved in two stages, influencing thought and shaping perspectives
on reality and human existence.

1. Reduction of the supernatural to the natural

2. Reduction of the natural to the material

By reducing God to a human construct, man inadvertently demotes himself. Without a

transcendent reference point, the origin of humanity is relegated to a lower plane, tracing back
to animalistic and material roots, stripping existence of higher purpose or meaning.

These materialisms, though distinct, converge with Marxism in reducing reality to physical or
biological processes. Vitalist materialism, emphasizing brute life and evolution, shares common
ground with Marxist thought, incorporating elements of pragmatism, positivism, and
evolutionism. This convergence underscores their shared departure from Christian metaphysics,
instead grounding truth and morality in human action and material progress.

Positivism
By limiting knowledge to empirical observation, we're left with scientific inquiry as our sole
source of truth. This leads to a focus on explaining facts through facts, dismissing metaphysical
or imaginative interpretations. The positivism of Auguste Comte (1798-1857), and later, logical
positivism, exemplify this approach, culminating in a humanity-centred philosophy, where
science is the ultimate authority, shaping human understanding of reality.

Pragmatism
Pragmatism is a philosophical doctrine that can be traced back to the academic sceptics of
classical antiquity who denied the possibility of achieving authentic knowledge regarding the

36
real truth and they suggest that we must be satisfied with plausible information enough to the
needs of practice. The identification of ‘pragmatic belief’ by Kant (1724-1804) was influential
as was the insistence by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) that the intellect is universally
subordinate to the will. Utilitarianism, with its propagation that the rightness of actions is
dependent with their capacity to provide the greatest good of the greatest number contributed
to the development of pragmatic thought. However, pragmatism as a philosophical doctrine
originated from Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914). For him, pragmatism was primarily a
philosophy of meaning, with the meaning of any concept that has application in the real world
lying in the relations that link the experiential conditions of application with observable results.
The meaning of a proposition, for Peirce, is determined by the essentially positivist criterion of
its experiential consequences in strictly observational terms. He was concerned with scientific
practice and predictive success. Peirce developed his theories in opposition to idealism:
pragmatism provided a road to objective and impersonal standards.

Although, Charles Peirce developed pragmatism into a substantial philosophical theory,

William James (1842–1910) catapulted it to intellectual prominence with his 1907 book,
Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, redefining pragmatism as a
personal, subjective approach. The pragmatism of William James focuses on individual
efficacy, where truth is what works for diverse individuals, not just a scientific community. He
viewed truth as contextual, shaped by human experience, and acquired through inventive,
practical engagement with reality, rather than abstract revelation.

John Dewey (1859–1952) expanded the scope of pragmatism, applying it to education and
politics, and cementing its influence in the USA. He viewed inquiry as a self-correcting, social
process, guided by values rooted in everyday human experience, rather than solely scientific
norms. Dewey saw knowledge as a tool for action, not passive contemplation. His pragmatism
is characterized as democratically populist, contrasting with the scientific elitism of Sander
Peirce and personalism of William James, emphasizing collective, communal growth through
shared values and experience.

The multifaceted nature of Pragmatism makes it a versatile approach to addressing issues, and
understanding its key figures can provide valuable insights. The philosophers behind
pragmatism, like Peirce, James, and Dewey, shaped its evolution. Before diving into their ideas,
let's examine pragmatism's broader implications and criticisms, which have sparked debates
about its applications and limitations.

The impact and criticism of pragmatism

Pragmatism had a mixed reception in Europe. In Britain Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller
(1864-1937) was an enthusiastic follower of William James and Alfred Jules Ayer (1910-1988)
endorsed pivotal aspects of Peirce’s thought. However, Francis Herbert Bradley (1846-1924)
objected to the subordination of cognition to practice because of the inherent incompleteness
of all merely practical interests. George Edward Moore (1873–1958) criticised the William
James’s identification of true beliefs with useful ones, among other reasons because utility is
changeable over time. Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) objected that beliefs can
be useful but plainly false. On the continent, despite some Italian enthusiasm, various
37
philosophers regard pragmatism as practical efficacy the expression of characteristically
American social attitudes: crass materialism and naive democratism. Pragmatism was thus
looked down upon as a quintessentially American philosophy, a philosophical expression of
American go-getter spirit with its success-orientated ideology and a manifestation of a populist
repugnance to the long-established ideological tendencies of European philosophy.

Dewey’s argument was that abstract principles cannot determine actions because ends cannot
be separated from means. Thus, we might support overthrowing tyrannies in principle, but, if
the means of ridding a people of tyranny involves many of them dying, we might have second
thoughts. Or again, the strength of our opposition to global warming might be tested if nuclear
power turns out to be the only feasible option for significantly reducing carbon monoxide
emissions in time. Once the means are examined, empirical questions are raised. How many
people might die in overthrowing the tyranny? Is nuclear the only feasible option? Is the global
warming problem urgent or can longer-term options be developed? Thus, Dewey argues that
political questions cannot be resolved by arguments about abstract principles; it is not the ends
(however admirable) that should determine what to do but the outcomes of the means adopted.
What the outcomes are likely to be is an empirical question on which factual evidence and
scientific analysis can be brought to bear. Each issue has to be argued through on the merits of
the case against the background of a particular history and context. The answers might be
different at different times and in different contexts.

In the US, pragmatism initially found widespread acceptance, but as philosophy evolved, it
gave way to more specialized areas like logical positivism and language analysis. According to
Festenstein, the optimistic vision of human potential of John Dewey was overshadowed by
darker perspectives, while the influence of logical empiricism led to a more technical, logic-
driven approach, side-lining contextual philosophy of Dewey. As a result, pragmatism lost its
prominence, even in American academia, where diverse philosophical schools now coexist. The
Cold War era further diminished interest in the approach of Dewey, and today, his ideas are
more likely to be championed outside philosophical circles.

Pragmatism is not the only approach to practical thinking. The common-sense philosophy of
George Edward Moore had a significant following, while Karl Marx and Jürgen Habermas
centred praxis in their work. The critical theory of Habermas, in particular, offers a competing
philosophy of practice, resonating with European academics. His ideas, alongside other critical
theorists, have gained traction, providing an alternative to pragmatism's influence.

Evolutionism or Process Philosophy

Evolutionism presents humans as the pinnacle of evolutionary progress, often cloaked in
scientific legitimacy despite gaps in the theory. Key evolutionist philosophers include Herbert
Spencer (1820-1903), Henri Bergson (1859-1941), Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and
Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), with Bergson and Whitehead being focal points. This
philosophical stance is also referred to as process philosophy, emphasizing dynamic change
and development.

38
William James (1842-1910)
William James, born into a wealthy and intellectual New York City family, led a life marked
by exploration and academic pursuit. Raised amidst Europe’s cultural richness, he initially
pursued painting before shifting to science at Harvard Medical School. Health struggles and
depression intervened, but he persevered, graduating and joining Harvard’s faculty as a
physiology instructor in 1872. His fascination with psychology and philosophy propelled him
to publish influential works, earning him a philosophy professorship in 1880. James taught at
Harvard until 1907, leaving behind a legacy of seminal works, including The Principles of
Psychology (1890), The Will to Believe (1896), The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902),
and Pragmatism (1907).

Acts as if what you do makes a difference

If I am lost in a forest ...that it leads

…that it leads and see a path, I can to food and
nowhere. believe… shelter.

So I follow it
My action made my
So I do nothing and find a way
beliefs come true.
stay lost, starve out of the
and die. forest to safety.

Act as if what
you do makes a
difference. It
does.

As the US emerged from its infancy, New England thinkers like Henry David Thoreau and
Ralph Waldo Emerson infused European Romanticism with a distinctly American flavour.
However, it was the next generation, born roughly a century after the Declaration of
Independence, that broke new ground, giving birth to a uniquely American philosophical voice.
Charles Sanders Peirce pioneered pragmatism, a ground-breaking theory of knowledge, but his
39
work went largely unnoticed. It was his friend William James, Emerson’s godson, who revived
and expanded the ideas of Peirce, bringing pragmatism to the forefront.

Truth and usefulness

The pragmatism of Sander Peirce emphasizes knowledge acquisition through action, not
through passive observation. We retain knowledge only as long as it remains useful, explaining
human experiences effectively. When it fails or better explanations emerge, we adapt and
replace it. History showcases this process: our understanding of the shape of the Earth and
cosmic position has evolved significantly, illustrating that knowledge is an explanatory tool,
distinct from absolute facts. Peirce focused on the nature of knowledge, while James extended
this reasoning to explore truth itself.

For James, the truthfulness of an idea hinges on its usefulness and functionality. If it does not
clash with established facts and enables accurate predictions, it is considered true. He views
truth as dynamic, not a fixed property, but a process where ideas become true through action
and verification. Belief plays a crucial role, as it influences our actions, contributing to the
success of idea. James defines “true beliefs” as those that serve the purposes of the believer,
distinct from facts, which simply exist. Truth, he says, is the function of beliefs navigating these
facts, making it a subjective, context-driven concept.

The right to believe

In life’s complex decisions, we are often short on time or evidence, forcing us to rely on beliefs
to guide actions. James argues that we have “the right to believe” in such cases, trusting our
instincts to fill knowledge gaps. This perspective acknowledges human limitations,
emphasizing the role of faith and intuition in decision-making.

James illustrates this concept with a poignant example: a lost, starving man in a forest. Spotting
a path, the man must believe it'll lead him to safety, as this belief will prompt action, potentially
saving him. By acting on this idea, it becomes true, showcasing how our decisions and actions
can shape reality. James distils this into a powerful mantra: “act as if what you do makes a
difference... it does.”

The idea of William James requires nuance; it is not a blank cheque for wishful thinking. He
does not suggest any belief, no matter how wild, becomes true just because we act on it. There
are prerequisites:

• The evidence at hand should support it.

• The idea must be sufficient to withstand criticism; which means the idea should be
robust enough to hold up to scrutiny
• As we act on the belief, it must keep proving its worth by enhancing our understanding
or accurately predicting outcomes.

Without these conditions, it is not a justifiable belief, but mere fantasy. Truth is often only clear
in hindsight. We can only confidently say a belief has become true after we have acted upon it
and seen the outcome.

40
Reality as a process
James, a philosopher-psychologist, understood the profound psychological implications of his
ideas. He acknowledged the innate need of human beings for certain beliefs, especially religious
ones. For James, belief in a god is not about factual accuracy, but its practical impact. If it
enriches one’s life, fostering fulfilment and courage in the face of mortality, then it is useful –
and thus, true in a pragmatic sense. This belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, shaping
reality through the actions and decisions of the believer.

The radical empiricism of William James is a metaphysical framework that views reality as a
dynamic, unfolding process, mirroring the fluid nature of truth. He rejects rationalist notions of
a static, unchanging reality, instead positing that reality is “still in the making.” This ever-
evolving “stream” of experience defies empirical analysis, as it is constantly shifting and
influenced by observation itself. For James, pure experience is the fundamental substance of
reality, giving rise to both mind and matter.

Continuing influence
Pragmatism, pioneered by Peirce and championed by James, catapulted America to the
forefront of 20th-century philosophical thought. His ideas on truth resonated with John Dewey,
inspiring a neo-pragmatist movement in the US, with thinkers like Richard Rorty carrying the
torch. Across the Atlantic, luminaries like Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein drew
upon the metaphysics of William James. Meanwhile, his ground-breaking work in psychology,
particularly the “stream of consciousness” concept, left an indelible mark on literary giants like
Virginia Woolf and James Joyce, blurring the lines between philosophy, psychology, and art.

John Dewey (1859-1952)

John Dewey, a Vermont native, embodied the spirit of American intellectualism. Born in 1859,
he embodied a passion for learning, studying at the University of Vermont before embarking
on a teaching career. His academic pursuits led him to psychology and philosophy, and he spent
his life teaching at esteemed universities, penning influential works on education, democracy,
psychology, and art. The impact of Dewey extended far beyond academia; he founded the
University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, a testament to his “learning by doing” philosophy,
which remains a thriving institution. As a prolific writer and communicator, he shaped
American public discourse, leaving an enduring legacy through works like How We Think
(1910), Experience and Nature (1925), The Quest for Certainty (1929), and Art as Experience
(1934).

41
 We only think when we are confronted with problems

Problems arise because

The challenges of living
we are trying to make
in a changing world.
sense of …

We only think when we

are confronted with
problem.

Philosophy is not about

… The traditions gaining a true picture of
we have inherited. the world, but about
practical problem
solving.

John Dewey was a key figure in pragmatism, a distinctly American philosophical movement
born in the late 19th century. Charles Sanders Peirce is often credited as the founder, having
laid the foundation with his seminal 1878 essay “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” This
pioneering work sparked an intellectual revolution, and Dewey, among others, built upon the
ideas Peirce, cementing pragmatism’s place in the philosophical canon.

Pragmatism flips the script on traditional philosophy, prioritizing practical application over
abstract truth. It is not about mirroring reality, but about empowering effective action. The
question shifts from “Is this true?” to “What difference does it make?” – a focus on
consequences and outcomes.

For Dewey, philosophy is deeply rooted in human experience. Problems are not abstract
puzzles, but lived challenges that arise from navigating the world. Philosophy emerges from
everyday human struggles and aspirations, making it an active, engaged pursuit – not a detached

42
spectator sport. It is about rolling up your sleeves and tackling the complexities of life head-on,
seeking practical solutions that resonate with human needs.

Evolving creatures
The thinking of John Dewey was profoundly shaped by the revolutionary ideas of Charles
Darwin. Humans, like other animals, are part of the natural world, shaped by evolution and
environment. This perspective stripped away the notion of human beings as fixed, divine
creations, and instead, presented humans as adaptive, embodied beings striving to thrive in a
complex, ever-changing world. Human beings are not ethereal souls yearning for a spiritual
realm, but flesh-and-blood organisms, inextricably linked to the world around us, seeking
survival and flourishing in the here-and-now.

Everything changes
Dewey draws heavily from Darwin’s concept of nature as a dynamic, ever-changing system –
an idea that resonates with the ancient wisdom of Heraclitus. This perspective informs Dewey’s
approach to philosophy, where problems are seen as emergent, context-dependent, and
inherently tied to the flux of life. Change is the only constant, and philosophical inquiry must
adapt and respond accordingly.

In his essay “Kant and the Philosophic Method” of 1884, John Dewey highlights human
existential predicament: we are organisms navigating a world of relentless change and
uncertainty. In the article, he was of the view that we only think when confronted with problems.
Life is a calculated risk, a gamble with an unpredictable environment that is constantly shifting
beneath our feet. One moment we are riding high, the next, the rug is pulled out – a failed
harvest, a sudden storm, or an unexpected illness. Our survival depends on adapting to these
mercurial surroundings, yet the rules are always changing, and the playbook’s perpetually out
of date.

In response to the unpredictability of life, Dewey identifies two divergent paths: seeking solace
in supernatural forces or embracing empirical understanding. We can either abdicate agency,
pinning hopes on higher powers, or take the reins, leveraging knowledge to navigate and shape
our surroundings.

Appeasing the gods

This primal strategy seeks to sway the unpredictable universe through ritual and appeasement,
underpinning the genesis of religion and moral codes. By performing magical rites, ceremonies,
and sacrifices, ancient humans attempted to tame the capricious forces shaping their lives,
laying the foundation for spiritual and ethical frameworks that endure to this day.

Dewey’s narrative reveals the desperate attempts of the ancestors to curry favour with unseen
powers, conjuring gods and spirits to mitigate the uncertainties of life. This primal impulse
spawned myths and legends, like the prayers of seafarers to calm the tempest, and underlies the
evolution of ethics. We have merely refined the bargain, trading sacrifices for moral codes,
promising virtue in exchange for safety – a transactional relationship with the divine that
persists to this day.

43
Instead of relying on unseen forces, we can take the reins and develop practical solutions to the
uncertainties of life. By studying and understanding human environment, we can forecast
weather patterns, construct resilient shelters, and harness environmental forces to improve our
living conditions. This proactive approach focuses on uncovering the workings of our world
and leveraging that knowledge to create a more manageable and beneficial reality.

His sobering insight: total control is an illusion, and uncertainty is an inherent aspect of
existence. We can, however, adapt and mitigate risks, tweaking our environment to make it
more hospitable. The unpredictability of life is a constant, and our best bet is to develop
strategies that acknowledge and navigate this uncertainty, rather than futilely chasing a mythical
sense of complete security.

A luminous philosophy
Dewey’s dichotomy: the struggle of humanity with uncertainty has spawned two divergent
paths – tradition (ethics, religion) and science (arts, technologies). These paradigms often clash,
yielding contradictions that are both theoretical and practical. Philosophy, for Dewey, is the
crucible where these tensions are reconciled, fostering a harmonious interplay between
inherited wisdom and empirical insight. It is an ongoing process of navigating the complexities
of life, forging practical and theoretical responses to the contradictions that arise from our dual
allegiance to tradition and science.

The success of philosophy can be gauged by its ability to illuminate, rather than obscure, our
understanding of the world. A robust philosophy, Dewey suggests, should render our
experience more luminous, shedding light on the complexities of life and making them more
comprehensible. Echoing Peirce, Dewey sees the primary role of philosophy as clarifying our
ideas and experience, stripping away obscurities to reveal the underlying dynamics of existence.
A successful philosophy, then, is one that enhances our grasp of reality, rather than muddying
the waters with unnecessary complexity.

Dewey is wary of philosophical approaches that indulge in obscurantism, rendering experience

more enigmatic and the world more inscrutable. For him, a viable philosophy must pass a
pragmatic test: does it enhance our everyday lives, offering practical solutions to real-world
problems? Does it empower us, fostering growth and increasing our capacity to navigate the
complexities of life, much like ground-breaking scientific theories have done? The worth of a
philosophy, in the view of Dewey, lies in its ability to illuminate and uplift, providing actionable
insights that enrich human existence.

A practical influence
Despite criticisms like Russell’s, alleging pragmatism’s surrender of truth-seeking, the
philosophy of Dewey has profoundly shaped American thought, particularly in realms
demanding practical application. His emphasis on addressing complexities of life has resonated
in education and politics, yielding tangible impacts. By prioritizing problem-solving, the
thoughts of Dewey have filtered into spheres where theory meets practice, informing
approaches to learning, governance, and social improvement, cementing his legacy as a
champion of applied philosophy.
44
 Evolutionism or Process Philosophy

Henri Bergson (1859–1941)

A luminary of French philosophy, Henri Bergson was born in 1859 to a cosmopolitan family –
his mother English, his father Polish – in the heart of Paris. Initially, Bergson's academic
prowess shone brightly in mathematics, a field where he demonstrated considerable aptitude,
laying the foundation for his future philosophical explorations into time, consciousness, and the
human experience.

The trajectory of Bergson took a pivotal turn as he traded mathematical certainties for
philosophical inquiry, initially teaching in schools before catapulting to academic stardom with
the 1896 publication of Matter and Memory. This seminal work earned him a prestigious chair
at the Collège de France, launching a distinguished career as a university lecturer.
Simultaneously, Bergson navigated the realm of politics, representing France in the formative
stages of the League of Nations in 1913. His ideas transcended borders, influencing luminaries
like William James, and earning global recognition – culminating in the 1928 Nobel Prize for
Literature. Bergson passed away in 1941, aged 81, leaving an indelible mark on 20th-century
thought.

His major works including the following: Matter and Memory (1896); An Introduction to
Metaphysics (1903); Creative Evolution (1910) and The Two Sources of Morality and Religion
(1932).

Intuition goes in the very direction of life

There are two kinds of

knowledge

Relative knowledge: knowing Absolute knowledge: knowing

objects in the world from a objects in the world as they
particular perspective. actually are.

This is gained by using our This is acquired through an

intellect and reason; we are intuitive grasp of the truth; it is a
very direct form of knowledge.
distanced from the thing itself.

Intuition goes in the very

direction of 45
life.
In Creative Evolution (1910), Bergson embarked on a profound quest to grasp the essence of
reality, seeking not merely intellectual knowledge, but direct, intuitive understanding. He
delved into the heart of existence, probing the possibility of truly knowing something in its raw,
unmediated reality – to penetrate the veil of abstraction and grasp life itself, rather than just
accumulating facts about it.

The Critique of Pure Reason (1781) of Immanuel Kant cast a long shadow, asserting the limits
of human knowledge. His central claim: we are forever trapped in our subjective experience,
able to grasp phenomena – the world as it appears to us – but forever barred from accessing
noumena, the “things-in-themselves”. This chasm between perception and reality has haunted
philosophy ever since, with many conceding that our understanding is filtered through the lens
of our minds, forever stuck in a realm of relational knowledge, never attaining absolute insight
into the world's intrinsic nature.

Two forms of knowledge

Bergson bucks the Kantian trend, positing that we are not doomed to mere relational
understanding. Instead, he discerns two distinct knowledge pathways: one intellectual,
analytical, and fragmented, which yields practical, scientific knowledge; and another intuitive,
experiential, and immersive, which grants direct access to the essence of reality. This dual
epistemology allows Bergson to sidestep Kant’s strictures, asserting that, through intuition, we
can indeed grasp the intrinsic nature of the world, transcending the limitations of human
subjective lens. These two forms of knowledge can be summarised thus:

1. Relative knowledge, which involves knowing something from our own unique
particular perspective.
2. Absolute knowledge, which is knowing things as they actually are.

Bergson draws a sharp distinction between two epistemological pathways, each with its own
methodology. Relative knowledge, he argues, is the domain of analysis and intellect, where we
dissect, categorize, and understand the world through fragmented, spatialized concepts. In
contrast, absolute knowledge arises from intuition, a direct, unmediated experience that plunges
us into the heart of reality. Bergson contends Kant overlooked the potency of intuition, which
allows us to grasp the unique essence of an object, unencumbered by conceptual frameworks.
This intuitive faculty is inextricably linked to our élan vital, a vital, life-affirming force that
apprehends experience as a fluid, temporal continuum, rather than a static, spatial expanse.

Bergson invites us to consider two distinct ways of knowing a city. The first approach involves
a detached, God’s-eye view, where we compile a comprehensive dossier of photographs,
stitching them together to approximate the totality of the city. Yet, this reconstructed image
remains a proxy, a representation, rather than a living, breathing experience. In contrast,
strolling through the streets of the city, immersing ourselves in its rhythms and textures, yields
a more profound understanding – a direct, unmediated grasp of the essence of the city. This
intuitive knowledge transcends mere representation, allowing us to tap into the city’s vital,
pulsing reality, apprehending its unique, lived essence.

46
Cultivating intuition, Bergson suggests, requires a temporal shift – a focus on the fluid, dynamic
unfolding of time. As we wander the city, we are simultaneously aware of our own inner durée,
a sense of passage of time that is immediate and experiential. This subjective flow intertwines
with the multifaceted temporality of the city: the rhythms of traffic, the pulse of pedestrians,
the cycles of day and night. As these temporalities converge, Bergson believes we tap into a
deeper, more profound connection – a direct, unmediated link to the essence of life itself, a
realm where past, present, and future coalesce, revealing the city’s, and our own, fundamental,
vital nature.

Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947)

The life of Alfred North Whitehead spanned eight decades, from 1861 to 1947, with his
academic journey taking him from Trinity College, Cambridge, where he immersed himself in
mathematics, to the hallowed halls of Harvard University. His early work, fuelled by a
scholarship, delved into the intricacies of Maxwell's ground-breaking Treatise on Electricity
and Magnetism, laying the foundation for a distinguished career in mathematics and
mathematical physics. The academic odyssey of Whitehead continued across England, with
stints at various universities, before he received a transatlantic invitation to join Philosophy
Faculty of Harvard university in 1924, a move that would profoundly shape the trajectory of
his thought, as he shared his insights with generations of students until his retirement in 1937.

Whitehead's intellectual trajectory unfolds in three distinct phases, each marked by a distinct
focus. Initially, his work centred on logic, laying the groundwork for his collaborations with
Bertrand Russell on Principia Mathematica. The second phase saw a shift towards
epistemology, as he grappled with the nature of knowledge and perception. Finally, his mature
thought blossomed into a comprehensive metaphysical system, as he constructed a sweeping,
process-oriented philosophy that reimagined the very fabric of reality, yielding a profound,
holistic vision that continues to inspire and challenge thinkers to this day. The examination of
his three periods shows that Whitehead contemplated on the following:

1. The logico-mathematical field sub specie totalitatis

2. Geometry as a physical science
3. Metaphysics under the category of creativity

The philosophical enterprise of Whitehead was fuelled by an insatiable curiosity, a relentless

drive to scrutinize and re-examine the seemingly self-evident, and to reconfigure the conceptual
landscape. He was acutely aware that language, while indispensable, can also be a double-edged
sword, obscuring as much as it reveals. With a profound sensitivity to the constraints of
linguistic expression, Whitehead sought to transcend the limitations of language, striving to
articulate novel, higher-order abstractions that could more accurately capture the fluid,
processual nature of reality, and thereby unlock deeper insights into the human experience. This
perspective is nourished by a twofold tension:

1. Radical empiricism
2. Complete formalism

47
The radical empiricism of Alfred North Whitehead is characterized by a profound commitment
to pluralism and interconnectedness, recognizing reality as a complex web of events, relations,
and processes. His thought is marked by a remarkable openness to conceptual revolutions,
reflecting his engagement with cutting-edge developments in mathematics, physics, and
philosophy. The early Whitehead was deeply influenced by innovations in algebra and
geometry, while his middle period grappled with the implications of electromagnetism. His
later thought, in turn, reveals the imprint of contemporaries like Bergson, Dewey, James, and
Russell, as he wrought a distinctive metaphysics that synthesized diverse strands of modern
thought, yielding a rich, dynamic vision of reality as a processual, relational field.

48
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900)
The life of Friedrich Nietzsche was marked by both intellectual brilliance and personal turmoil.
Born in 1844 in Prussia to a devout Lutheran family, he was surrounded by the rhythms of
religious life from an early age. However, tragedy struck early, with the loss of his father and
younger brother, leaving him to be raised by his mother, grandmother, and aunts. The academic
prowess of Nietzsche earned him a professorship at Basel University at just 24, where he formed
a significant, if complicated, bond with Richard Wagner, the renowned composer. However,
Wagner’s anti-Semitism ultimately led to a painful rupture. Nietzsche’s own health was fragile,
and a bout of diphtheria and dysentery in 1870 left him with chronic illness. Forced to relinquish
his academic post in 1879, he embarked on a life of travel and intense creativity, producing
some of his most iconic works, including The Birth of Tragedy (1872), Thus Spoke Zarathustra
(1883-85), Beyond Good and Evil (1886), and Twilight of the Idols (1888). His life took a tragic
turn in 1889, when a mental breakdown, possibly triggered by witnessing a horse being
whipped, left him incapacitated. He passed away in 1900, at the age of 56, leaving behind a
philosophical legacy that would profoundly shape modern thought.

Man is something to be surpassed

Christianity says that

everything in this world is
less important than that of
the next after death.

We must surpass this

It says we should turn away limiting idea.
from what seems important
in this life, and try to
transcend it.

And besides
God is dead.

But in doing this we

turn away from life Christianity’s idea of
itself. man undermines us.

49
The seminal work of Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, serves as a philosophical crucible,
where he subjects Western thought to a searing critique. This magnum opus, crafted in three
parts between 1883-84, with a fourth part added in 1885, introduces the provocative notion that
humanity is a transitional phase, a bridge between the animal and the Übermensch (Superman).
Through Zarathustra, Nietzsche launches a three-pronged assault on traditional notions: first,
the reified concept of “man” or human nature, which he sees as stifling individual creativity;
second, the inherited idea of God, which he declares “dead”, signalling the collapse of
traditional metaphysical and moral frameworks; and third, the entrenched moral and ethical
codes, which he regards as life-denying and complicit in the perpetuation of a false,
universalized notion of humanity.

His philosophical assault is characterized by a ferocity and passion that shatters the
conventional boundaries of academic discourse. He wields his ideas like a hammer, targeting
the very foundations of Western thought, and leaving no sacred cow unbroken. The pages of
Thus Spoke Zarathustra seethe with a prophetic intensity, as if the very fabric of language is
being torn asunder to reveal a new, explosive truth. The frenetic pace of the book, written in
mere days, belies a remarkable consistency and coherence, a testament to Nietzsche’s
unyielding vision. Though it defies the staid, analytical tone of traditional philosophy,
Zarathustra presents a searing, unflinching challenge to the status quo, a call to arms that
continues to reverberate through the corridors of modern thought.

Zarathustra descends
Nietzsche’s choice of Zarathustra, the ancient Persian prophet, as the mouthpiece for his radical
ideas is a deliberate provocation. The name evokes a figure of ancient wisdom, a sage who
spoke truth to power, and Zarathustra of Nietzsche is similarly driven by a mission to challenge
the dominant values of his time. The 10-year sojourn of the prophet in the mountains serves as
a metaphor for the solitary, introspective journey of self-discovery, where he accumulates a
wealth of wisdom. However, this solitude ultimately gives way to a sense of disillusionment, a
feeling that his insights are being hoarded, unused, and unshared. The decision of Zarathustra
to descend to the marketplace, to share his wisdom with the world, marks a turning point, a
transition from solitary contemplation to public proclamation, as he seeks to awaken humanity
from its slumber and ignite a new era of self-overcoming.

The encounter of Zarathustra with the old Hermit serves as a poignant reminder of the vast
chasm that separates the newfound understanding of the prophet from the conventional wisdom
of the world. The observation of the hermit that Zarathustra now carries “fire” rather than
“ashes” speaks to the transformative power of his solitary sojourn, and the passion that drives
him to share his message with the world. Yet, the cautionary words of the Hermit also
underscore the risks of being a messenger of radical truth, and the likelihood of being
misunderstood or rejected. The Hermit’s own existence, a life of solitary devotion, is revealed
in his simple, yet profound, response to the question of Zarathustra – a life of quiet, unassuming
worship. And it is precisely this conventional piety that Zarathustra finds so telling, so...quaint.
The old Hermit remains blissfully unaware of the seismic shift that has occurred in
understanding of Zarathustra, a shift that has rendered the old certainties obsolete. The phrase
50
“God is dead” echoes in the mind of Zarathustra, a refrain that will soon resound throughout
the land, shattering the complacent assumptions of a world still reeling from the aftershocks of
secularization.

Behold the Superman

The proclamation of Zarathustra, “Behold! I teach you the Superman!” echoes through the
marketplace, a clarifying cry that shatters the complacent certainties of the crowd. With these
words, Nietzsche’s prophet unleashes a radical vision, one that redefines the very essence of
human existence. The notion that “man is something to be surpassed” serves as a rallying cry,
a call to transcend the limitations of conventional morality and embrace a new, uncharted future.
Yet, the response of the crowd is telling – they laugh, dismissing the message of Zarathustra as
mere spectacle, a sideshow to the “real” entertainment about to unfold on the tightrope. This
disconnect between the prophet’s fervour and the indifference of the crowd highlights the
profound chasm separating the visionary from the masses, and sets the stage for the subsequent
revelations of Zarathustra on the nature of morality, the will to power, and the advent of the
Übermensch.

The deliberate choice of Nietzsche to introduce his philosophy through the provocative figure
of Zarathustra, and the prophet’s subsequent misadventurous encounter with the crowd, betrays
a deep-seated anxiety about the reception of his ideas. It is as if Nietzsche is pre-emptively
acknowledging the likelihood of being misunderstood, of being dismissed as a mere intellectual
provocateur, a peddler of flashy ideas rather than a genuine philosopher. By highlighting the
obtuseness of the crowd, Nietzsche is, in effect, issuing a warning to his readers: beware of
dismissing my ideas as frivolous or obscure, lest you fall into the same trap as the crowd. To
truly grasp the essence of his philosophy, one must be willing to engage with the underlying
concepts, to venture beyond the surface level of provocative rhetoric and confront the radical
implications of his thought. Only then can we hope to avoid the pitfalls of misinterpretation and
unlock the true significance revolutionary ideas of Nietzsche.

Overturning old values

Nietzsche’s notion of the “death of God” is a masterstroke of philosophical subversion, a
seismic shift that unravels the intricate web of concepts that has defined Western civilization.
When Zarathustra declares God dead, he's not merely targeting a supernatural being; he is
targeting the very foundations of traditional morality, the entire edifice of higher values that
have been sacrosanct for centuries. “God” becomes a synecdoche for the collective ideals, the
Platonic ideals, the moral absolutes that have been venerated as eternal and unchanging. The
death of God, then, is a declaration of the obsolescence of these values, a recognition that they
are human constructs, created to impose order on a chaotic universe, but now rendered null and
void. This is not just a philosophical critique; it is a cultural reckoning, a stripping away of the
veils that have shrouded humanity’s understanding of itself and its place in the world.

The philosophical project of Nietzsche is a radical revaluation, a systematic interrogation of the

entrenched values and assumptions that have shaped the understanding of ethics, purpose, and
meaning of Western civilization. This “revaluation of all values” is a deliberate attempt to
shatter the complacent certainties of traditional morality, to expose the hidden power dynamics
51
and vested interests that have masqueraded as universal truths. Yet, Nietzsche insists that this
iconoclastic exercise is not a nihilistic rejection of life, but a liberating affirmation, a call to
embrace the complexity, ambiguity, and creativity of existence. He contends that conventional
notions of “good” and “evil” have been hijacked by a life-denying ethos, a fear of the unknown,
and a resentment of the exceptional. By challenging these values, Nietzsche aims to unleash a
new era of vitality, creativity, and self-overcoming, one that celebrates the full range of human
experience, unencumbered by the constraints of traditional morality.

Nietzsche’s critique of traditional morality is a searing indictment of the ways in which we have
been conditioned to suppress human instincts, desires, and creativity. He argues that the notions
of “goodness” have been shaped by a toxic mix of fear, shame, and resentment, leading one to
view human natural impulses as sinful or shameful. This has resulted in a culture of self-
repression, where duty is prioritized over desire, conformity over creativity, and security over
self-expression. By internalizing these values, we become complicit in our own diminishment,
sacrificing our vitality, passion, and authenticity on the altar of societal expectations. The call
of Nietzsche for a “revaluation of all values” is a summons to reclaim our humanity, to
rediscover our natural instincts, and to unleash our full potential. He envisions a world where
individuals are free to create their own values, to dance to their own rhythm, and to affirm life
in all its messy, beautiful complexity.

Blaspheming against life

Zarathustra’s scathing indictment of traditional religion is a clarifying thunderbolt, illuminating
the profound shift in moral perspective that Nietzsche is advocating. By declaring that the
greatest blasphemy is now to blaspheme against life itself, he is effectively inverting the
conventional moral hierarchy, where devotion to a transcendent deity was paramount. This
move is not merely an intellectual exercise; it is a passionate repudiation of the life-denying
ethos that Nietzsche sees as pervasive in Western culture. The story of how this ethos came to
dominate is a complex one, and the essay of Nietzsche, “How the ‘Real World’ at last Became
a Myth”, provides a dazzling, if condensed, genealogy of the error that has led humanity astray.
Beginning with Plato, Nietzsche traces the trajectory of Western philosophy as a progressive
devaluation of the world, a flight from the messy, imperfect realm of becoming into the illusory
realm of eternal, unchanging truths. This is the “error” that has led to the death of God, and it
is an error that Nietzsche sees as suffocating the very lifeblood of human existence.

The real world

The philosophical framework of Plato is a towering edifice that has shaped Western thought for
centuries, and Nietzsche’s critique of it is a searing critique of the very foundations of Western
civilization. By positing the existence of a “real” world, a realm of eternal, unchanging forms
or ideas, Plato sets in motion a chain of reasoning that will have far-reaching consequences.
The world we experience through our senses is deemed “apparent”, fleeting, and imperfect,
while the realm of abstract concepts, like the triangle, is seen as the true, eternal, and immutable
reality. This dichotomy is not merely a philosophical curiosity; it is a profound ontological
claim, one that devalues the world of becoming, the world we experience, and elevates the
world of being, the world of abstract concepts, to a position of primacy. Nietzsche’s critique of
52
this framework is not just a quibble with metaphysics of Plato; it is a challenge to the very
notion of a transcendent, eternal realm, and the morality that flows from it.

The intellectualist paradigm of Plato, inspired by the certainties of mathematics, has had a
profound impact on Western thought, shaping our understanding of reality, value, and human
existence. By positing the existence of a realm of eternal, unchanging Forms, Plato creates a
hierarchical ontology, where the world of the intellect is privileged as the locus of truth,
goodness, and beauty. This move has far-reaching consequences, as Nietzsche astutely points
out, because it devalues the world of sensory experience, rendering it mere appearance, a
shadowy reflection of the “real” world of abstract Forms. The implications are profound: the
pursuit of knowledge becomes a matter of accessing the eternal, unchanging realm of the
intellect, while the world of becoming, the world we experience, is relegated to a secondary
status. This dichotomy has shaped Western philosophy, influencing everything from Christian
theology to modern science, and Nietzsche’s critique of it is a searing indictment of the life-
denying consequences of this worldview.

Christian values
Nietzsche’s genealogy of the “two worlds” concept reveals a striking continuity between
Platonic and Christian thought, despite their apparent differences. Christianity, he argues,
merely substitutes a future, otherworldly realm for the eternal Forms of Plato, but retains the
fundamental structure of devaluing the present world. This move has profound implications, as
it creates a perverse incentive to deny the value of life in the here and now, to sacrifice one’s
desires, passions, and creativity on the altar of a promised, future bliss. The present world is
reduced to a mere testing ground, a vale of tears, a preparation for the afterlife, rather than being
affirmed as the only life we can truly know. Nietzsche sees this as a form of “slave morality”,
a life-denying ethos that stifles human potential, creativity, and vitality, and he argues that it is
time to challenge this dominant narrative and create new values that affirm life, in all its
complexity and beauty.

Nietzsche’s critique of the Platonic and Christian worldviews reveals a profound concern about
the impact of these ideas on human existence. By positing a “real” world beyond the reach of
our senses, these traditions have created a culture of life-denying asceticism, where the present
world is seen as flawed, imperfect, and unworthy of affirmation. This has led to a pervasive
sense of disdain for the world, a feeling that true happiness, fulfilment, and meaning can only
be found in a realm beyond the one we experience. Nietzsche sees this as a form of “nihilism”,
a rejection of the value and worth of life itself. His concept of “priests of all religions” as
“preachers of death” is a scathing indictment of the way in which traditional religious teachings
have been used to control and manipulate individuals, turning them away from the world and
towards a mythical, otherworldly realm. But the declaration of Nietzsche that “God is dead” is
not just a rejection of traditional religion; it is a philosophical claim that has its roots in the
critique of metaphysics of Immanuel Kant, and it is here that we must turn to understand the
full implications of Nietzsche’s ideas.

53
A world beyond reach
The philosophical critique of metaphysics by Immanuel Kant sets the stage for Nietzsche’s
radical declaration that “God is dead”. By arguing that the “real world” is forever inaccessible
to human knowledge, Kant effectively pulls the rug out from under the feet of traditional
metaphysics and theology. If the “real world” is something we can never know, never
experience, and never attain, then what is the point of positing its existence? Nietzsche seizes
on this Kantian insight and takes it to its logical conclusion: if the “real world” is useless,
superfluous, and inaccessible, then it is time to bid it farewell. The idea of God, or the “real
world”, has become a mere fiction, a concept that no longer serves any purpose. Nietzsche’s
“God is dead” is not just a rejection of traditional religion; it is a philosophical obituary, a
declaration that the concept of God has lost its cultural and philosophical relevance. And in this
sense, the critique of metaphysics of Kant is the unmistakable culprit, the philosophical
equivalent of the “murder weapon” that has rendered the idea of God obsolete.

Philosophy’s longest error

The abolition of the “real world” by Nietzsche marks a seismic shift in the history of philosophy,
as the very foundation of the Platonic-Christian worldview is torn asunder. With the distinction
between the “real” and “apparent” worlds rendered obsolete, the entire edifice of traditional
metaphysics comes crashing down. In its wake, Nietzsche sees a new dawn breaking, a moment
of unprecedented possibility for humanity. The “apparent world”, once deemed inferior, is now
revealed to be the only world there is – the world of becoming, of flux, of life. By abolishing
the “real world”, Nietzsche is not advocating for a simplistic affirmation of the “apparent
world”; rather, he is pointing to a more profound understanding of reality, one that transcends
the tired dichotomy of appearance and reality. This is the moment when humanity can finally
begin to shed its nihilistic tendencies, its life-denying values, and affirm the world in all its
complexity, beauty, and chaos. It is a moment of radical possibility, and Nietzsche sees himself
as the herald of this new era, the one who will proclaim the Übermensch, the individual who
will create new values, new meaning, and new purpose in a world freed from the constraints of
traditional morality and metaphysics.

The philosophy of Nietzsche is all about challenging traditional values and embracing life as it
is. When we realize there is only one world, the distinction between “real” and “apparent”
worlds collapses, and we are forced to re-evaluate everything. This is where the concept of the
Übermensch comes in – it is Nietzsche’s vision of a life-affirming way of being, where
individuals create their own values and meaning in this world, rather than relying on a mythical
beyond.

The Übermensch is not just a superior being, but a state of being that embodies self-overcoming,
creativity, and a deep connection with the world. It is about embracing the complexities of life,
affirming one’s own existence, and creating one’s own values. As Nietzsche puts it, the
Übermensch is “the meaning of the Earth”, a being who finds purpose and meaning in this life,
without relying on external authorities or transcendent ideals. This idea is both liberating and
daunting, as it requires individuals to take full responsibility for their lives and create their own
meaning. But it is also incredibly empowering, as it allows people to break free from
54
conventional moralities and forge their own paths. The Übermensch is not a destination, but a
journey – a continuous process of self-overcoming, growth, and self-creation.

Creating ourselves
The ideas of Nietzsche were largely overlooked during his lifetime, and he even had to self-
publish the final part of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. However, about 30 years after his death, his
concept of the Übermensch was co-opted by the Nazi regime, particularly by Hitler, who
misinterpreted Nietzsche's ideas to justify their own twisted agenda. The call of Nietzsche for
a rejection of traditional Jewish-Christian morality and his emphasis on individual self-
overcoming resonated with Hitler, but the Nazi leader completely distorted the message of
Nietzsche. While Nietzsche sought a return to life-affirming values, Hitler used his ideas to
justify brutal violence and oppression.

In reality, Nietzsche was a critic of nationalism and patriotism, seeing them as forms of
alienation. He believed that true humanity begins where the state ends, as evident in his
statement, “Only where the state ends, there begins the human being who is not superfluous”.
Scholars agree that Nietzsche would have been appalled by the Nazi’s misappropriation of his
ideas, and it is clear that his philosophy was hijacked to serve a purpose that was antithetical to
his values. The philosophical ideas of Nietzsche had a profound impact on 20th-century
thought, resonating with existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre, who built upon the concept of
individual freedom and responsibility of Nietzsche. The existentialism of Sartre, in particular,
was influenced by the idea of Nietzsche that human beings must create their own meaning in
life, echoing the notion that “we must each define the meaning of our own existence”.

Nietzsche’s critiques of traditional Western philosophy and religion have had far-reaching
consequences, influencing not only philosophy but also art, literature, and culture. His ideas
have inspired countless thinkers, writers, and artists, shaping the intellectual and cultural
landscape of the 20th century. The emphasis of Nietzsche on self-evaluation, individual
creativity, and the rejection of dogmatic thinking has made him a key figure in modern thought.
His ideas continue to be felt in various fields, from philosophy and psychology to art and
literature, cementing his position as one of the most influential thinkers of the modern era.

(Students should read the article: Nietzsche and European Nihilism)

55
Existentialism
Existentialism emerged as a philosophical response to absolute idealism of Hegel, shifting focus
from objective systems to individual subjective experience. This movement, influenced by
romanticism and immanentism, emphasizes personal freedom, choice, and responsibility. The
key thinkers that contributed distinct perspectives include among others the following: Arthur
Schopenhauer (1788-1860) prioritized the will over reason, Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
emphasized existence over essence, and Nietzsche (1844-1900) championed active life over
passive conformity. These ideas laid groundwork for 20th-century existentialism, influencing
thinkers like Sartre and shaping modern thought. By focusing on individual subjectivity,
existentialism highlights human agency and creativity, encouraging people to create their own
meaning and values in life. The impact of this philosophy extends beyond academia,
influencing art, literature, and culture, and continues to resonate with those seeking authenticity
and purpose.

The emphasis of existentialist movement on individualism was a direct response to the

collectivist ideologies of Hegel and Marx, which seemed to diminish the significance of
individual existence. By prioritizing the collective or the universal, these philosophies appeared
to erase individual identity and agency. In this context, the focus of existentialism on individual
subjectivity and experience was a necessary corrective, highlighting the inherent value and
reality of individual existence. This perspective asserts that individuals are not merely
instantiations of a universal essence, but unique, irreplaceable beings with their own
experiences, choices, and responsibilities.

The existentialist critique of collectivism is rooted in its rejection of Marx’s idea of a classless
society, which existentialists see as a threat to individuality. By subsuming individual
differences under a universal category, Marx’s notion inadvertently erases the unique
experiences, perspectives, and freedoms that make individuals who they are. In contrast,
existentialists prioritize individual existence, emphasizing that freedom and creativity can only
flourish when individuals are acknowledged and affirmed in their singular existence. This
perspective asserts that individuality is not something to be transcended or overcome, but rather
something to be celebrated and nurtured. Existentialists argue that true human flourishing can
only occur when individuals are free to create their own meaning, values, and purpose,
unencumbered by the constraints of external ideologies or collective expectations. This
philosophy is a powerful affirmation of individual existence, emphasizing the inherent value
and dignity of each person's unique experience.

The term existentialism is often associated with the philosophy of Kierkegaard, which
emphasized individual subjectivity and existence. This perspective was later developed by
20th-century thinkers who blended the ideas of Kierkegaard with neo-Kantianism and the
phenomenology of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938). Existentialism’s central dichotomy between
existence and essence leads to a perceived separation between individual subjectivity and the
objective world. This polarization can evoke feelings of despair, anxiety, and isolation, as
individuals confront their own mortality and limitations. By highlighting the inability of
individual to transcend their temporality, existentialism underscores human vulnerability and
56
the inherent uncertainty of life. This philosophical perspective can be seen as a stark reminder
of human finitude, prompting individuals to confront the reality of their own existence and the
meaning they create in life.

Two chief types of existentialism have emerged:

1. Atheistic Existentialism: Atheistic existentialist philosophers include among others the

following:

1. Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

2. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
3. Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961)

2. Religious Existentialism: Religious existentialists deny the validity of reason in the field
of metaphysics. They include the following:

1. Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

2. Martin Buber (1878-1965)
3. Gabriel Marcel (1889-1974)

We can also associate Karl Jasper (1883-1969) and other neo-Kantians influenced by Nietzsche,
such as Max Scheler (1874-1928) and Paul Nicolai Hartmann (1882-1950) as Religious
existentialist philosophers.

The subjectivist approach of existentialist philosophers, despite their professed beliefs, keeps
them rooted in immanentism. By starting with human experience and consciousness, they
remain trapped within the limits of individual perception. This immanentist stance makes it
challenging to transcend human boundaries and access a broader, objective reality. As a result,
even discussions of God or transcendence are filtered through human subjectivity, rendering
them inherently anthropocentric. This perspective highlights the tension between
existentialism’s emphasis on individual experience and its attempts to engage with concepts
that imply a more universal or transcendent reality. By prioritizing human existence,
existentialists may inadvertently reinforce a human-centred worldview, making it difficult to
break free from the confines of individual perspective We shall discuss some individual
philosophers in relation to their specifications.

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

Soren Kierkegaard, the founder of existentialism, was a complex figure shaped by his Danish
heritage and personal experiences. Born in 1813, he inherited his father's pious and melancholic
nature, which would later influence his philosophical works. The academic pursuits of
Kierkegaard took him to the University of Copenhagen, where he studied theology and
philosophy. Upon receiving an inheritance, he dedicated himself to philosophy, exploring the
human condition and the nature of faith. His personal life was marked by a pivotal relationship
with Regine Olsen, whom he loved and eventually rejected, citing his melancholy as an
impediment to marriage. This experience deeply influenced his thoughts on individual
subjectivity and the human condition.

57
A vocal critic of the Danish Lutheran national church, the faith of Kierkegaard was unwavering,
yet he continually challenged the hypocrisy of the institution. His philosophical works,
including Fear and Trembling (1843) and Either/Or (1843), showcased his unique perspective
on human existence, faith, and individuality. Others are The Concept of Anxiety (1844) and
Works of Love (1847). His legacy is a testament to his unyielding commitment to exploring the
human experience, leaving behind a profound impact on existentialist thought and philosophy

The philosophical quest of Kierkegaard was centred on finding a unifying truth that would give
his life meaning. He believed that individuals must discover their own subjective truth, a
guiding principle that would inspire them to live and even die for it. This emphasis on individual
subjectivity was a direct response to impersonal Idealism of Hegel, which Kierkegaard saw as
neglecting the significance of individual experience. The critique of Hegelianism by
Kierkegaard was multifaceted, targeting its inadequate explanation of evil and its failure to
account for individual agency. He similarly lambasted the Danish state church for its
institutionalized Christianity, which he saw as a shallow, conformist approach to faith. In a
society where everyone was nominally Christian, Kierkegaard argued that true Christianity was
lost, and individuals were not being challenged to genuine faith. For Kierkegaard, true faith
required a personal, subjective commitment, rather than mere cultural or societal affiliation. His
philosophy emphasized the importance of individual decision-making, responsibility, and
authenticity, urging people to confront their own existence and make choices that gave their
lives meaning.

The anthropological speculations of Kierkegaard reveal a complex, dualistic view of human

nature. He sees human beings as a synthesis, a paradoxical blend of opposing forces, torn
between their natural, animal instincts and their capacity for self-awareness and spirituality.
This internal struggle is characterized by a perpetual battle between the “natural man” and the
“new man”, reflecting the tension between finite and infinite, temporal and eternal, freedom
and necessity. The concept of paradox by Kierkegaard is central to this understanding,
highlighting the contradictions that define human existence. Human beings are poised between
the infinite and the finite, with God as the transcendent, unbridgeable Other. This separation
underscores human limitations, emphasizing our earthly, temporal existence. Yet, Kierkegaard
sees human beings as uniquely positioned as a “mediating point”, a paradoxical fusion of
opposing forces, navigating the complexities of existence

The anthropology of Kierkegaard is a basic dualism; an indefinite series of either-ors.

Everything dialectically is the product of opposites and it is the task of the individual to bring
about some sort of synthesis. The dialectical method of Kierkegaard shows an ironic similarity
with Hegel and would have a profound influence on the Crisis theology of Karl Barth (1886-
1968) and Heinrich Emil Brunner (1889-1966). Yet, this antimony is not resoluble in the present
and can neither be completely bridged nor dissolved. The truth of this is inherent in the
dialectical fact that the self is a synthesis, the one of which is constantly the opposite of the
other.

The spiritual quest of Kierkegaard is centred on the genuine pursuit of becoming a Christian,
distinct from the nominal Christianity of the state church. He sought to reclaim the primitive,
58
authentic essence of faith, untainted by worldly influences. For him, primitivity represented the
unmediated connection with the divine, a life aligned with the Kingdom of God. This pursuit
involved rejecting societal cleverness and embracing a radical, subjective faith. The concept of
faith by Kierkegaard was often misconstrued as irrational, yet it was rooted in a profound
personal conviction. He saw faith as a wager, a life-defying choice made in the face of objective
uncertainty, echoing the philosophical gamble of Pascal Blaise (1623-1662). By emphasizing
the subjective nature of faith, Kierkegaard underscored the importance of individual decision-
making and personal responsibility. His philosophy beckoned individuals to embark on a
journey of authentic discipleship, unencumbered by external authorities or dogmas.

The concept of faith by Kierkegaard is a radical, risk-filled endeavour that defies rational
explanation. Faith requires a willingness to venture into the unknown, embracing uncertainty
and ambiguity. This leap of faith is not a rational calculation, but a passionate, subjective
commitment to the absurd, transcendent truth of Christianity. By acknowledging the limits of
reason, The philosophy of Kierkegaard highlights the distinct realms of faith and rationality.
Faith is not a supplement to reason, but a separate, autonomous sphere that demands surrender
and trust. This dualism underscores the inherent tension between the rational, calculable world
and the mysterious, transcendent realm of faith. His philosophy emphasizes that true faith
involves a crucifixion of one's understanding, a willingness to abandon the security of reason
and embrace the paradoxical, absurd nature of Christianity. This existential choice demands a
profound, personal commitment, unmediated by external proofs or rational justifications.

The concept of anxiety (angst) for him is a fundamental aspect of human existence, stemming
from human responsible finitude before God. Anxiety arises from the attempt of human being
to self-sufficiently maintain its own finitude, reflecting a flawed, sinful state. This anxiety is
intertwined with original sin, representing a turning away from God. Kierkegaard’s personal
experiences, including his broken engagement, influenced his views on anxiety, leading him to
associate it with femininity. He saw anxiety as a ubiquitous aspect of human existence, with the
ability to transcend it being characteristic of either an angel or an animal. For Kierkegaard,
anxiety is essentially impatience, a restless, unsettling state that reflects the inherent
contradictions and limitations of humanity. This anxiety serves as a catalyst for self-reflection,
prompting individuals to confront their existential predicament and seek a deeper connection
with God.

Salvation, in the view of Kierkegaard, is a profound transformation that occurs within the
personality of an individual, marking a radical shift from a superficial, secular existence to a
deeper, faith-filled one. This transformation reveals the true individual, not the rational, self-
sufficient persona, but the person of faith and grace. The individual, in this context, is a
Christian believer, often hidden beneath a veneer of secularism. The philosophy of Kierkegaard
peels away this disguise, exposing the authentic individual, forged in the crucible of faith. This
authentic individual is not driven by reason alone, but by a passionate, subjective commitment
to God. In this light, salvation is not merely a theological concept, but a lived experience, where
the essence of an individual is transformed, and their true self is revealed. But salvation could

59
only occur as the individual progress dialectically through three stages of human existence,
which include:

1. The Aesthetic Stage

2. The Ethical Stage
3. The Religious Stage

The Aesthetic Stage is characterized by a hedonistic pursuit of pleasure, where the individual
is consumed by the present moment, seeking immediate gratification. This fleeting existence is
marked by a lack of universals and absolutes, leaving the individual without a sense of direction
or purpose. However, this pleasure-seeking existence inevitably leads to boredom, and
ultimately, despair. Kierkegaard sees despair as a necessary step towards salvation, a “sickness
unto death” that must be confronted. This despair is a state of spiritual crisis, where the
individual self is fragmented and lost. The paradox is that this despair is a sign of the capacity
of individual for self-awareness, and their deep-seated longing for transcendence. The only way
to overcome this despair is through a leap of faith, acknowledging the limitations of the
aesthetic stage and surrendering to a higher power. This leap is not a rational decision, but a
passionate, subjective commitment to a new way of being. By embracing faith, the individual
can transcend the despair of the aesthetic stage and embark on a journey towards salvation and
spiritual wholeness.

The Ethical Stage represents a higher plane of existence, where the individual transcends the
fleeting pleasures of the aesthetic stage and grapples with moral responsibilities. This stage is
not a natural progression, but rather a quantum leap, requiring a deliberate choice to embrace a
life of duty and obligation. In the Ethical Stage, the individual is bound by universally accepted
moral norms, striving to conform to an absolute standard. This sphere is characterized by a
sense of moral struggle, where the individual wrestles with conflicting duties and imperfect
choices. While this stage offers a sense of temporary victory, it is ultimately marked by
frustration and despair, as individuals confront their own inadequacies and inability to sustain
a life of perfect moral rectitude. Kierkegaard notes that the Ethical Stage, though more
structured than the aesthetic, is still insufficient, as human beings inevitably fail to meet its
demands. This failure sets the stage for a further leap, one that acknowledges the limitations of
human morality and seeks a higher, divine authority.

In the book Fear and Trembling of Kierkegaard, particularly the story of Abraham, highlights
the stark contrast between the ethical and religious stages. The willingness of Abraham to
sacrifice Isaac exemplifies the absurdity of faith, defying rational understanding. This act is not
justifiable by moral or rational standards; it is a leap of faith, driven by trust in God’s command.
In the religious stage, faith transcends reason and ethics, embracing the absurd and the
unknown. This leap is not a rational decision, but a passionate, subjective commitment to God.
Through this surrender, individuals find freedom and authenticity, acknowledging their
limitations and sovereignty of God. The slogan of Kierkegaard “believe because it is absurd”
encapsulates this radical faith, where trust in God is not based on rational proof, but on
revelation and personal experience. This faith is not a solution to life’s puzzles, but a
transformative journey into the unknown.
60
The emphasis of Kierkegaard on subjectivity has faced criticism for lacking objective content,
raising questions about the basis for choice and the nature of God’s availability. Critics argue
that his approach can lead to arbitrariness and relativism, as it prioritizes individual experience
over objective truth. Despite these challenges, the ideas of Kierkegaard have profoundly
influenced 20th-century philosophy and theology, shaping existentialism, phenomenology, and
postmodern thought. His concept of “truth as subjectivity” highlights the importance of
personal experience and authentic existence, resonating with thinkers like Martin Heidegger,
Jean-Paul Sartre, and Rudolf Bultmann. The influence of Kierkegaard extends to theological
discussions on faith, revelation, and the nature of God, inspiring new perspectives on the human
condition and the search for meaning.

The reaction of Kierkegaard against rationalism and Idealism led him to emphasize the
importance of theology and the transcendence of God. He stressed that God is separate from
the world, countering Hegel’s ideas. This emphasis on God’s “otherness” significantly
influenced Neo-Orthodoxy in Protestantism.

The thought of Kierkegaard is Christocentric, focusing on Jesus Christ as the sole divine
intervention. He highlighted the sinful nature of humanity, separated from God by choice,
challenging the views of Rationalism on human autonomy.

By emphasizing human freedom and responsibility, Kierkegaard’s ideas paved the way for
secular existentialism, stressing individual subjectivity and decision-making. His critiques of
rationalism and emphasis on faith continue to shape philosophical and theological discussions

Martin Buber (1878-1965)

Martin Buber’s dialogical philosophy, as outlined in I and Thou (1923), has had a profound
impact on 20th-century thought, influencing Christian Existentialism, theology, philosophy,
politics, and psychotherapy. Buber's central idea revolves around the distinction between two
fundamental relationships: “I-It” and “I-Thou”. In the “I-It” relationship, individuals treat
others as objects, whereas in the “I-Thou” relationship, they engage with others as persons,
acknowledging their inherent value and uniqueness. This distinction highlights the qualitative
difference between interacting with things and connecting with people. The philosophy of
Buber emphasizes the importance of genuine, reciprocal relationships, where individuals meet
and engage with each other authentically. His ideas have shaped discussions on ethics, theology,
and human existence, encouraging people to cultivate a deeper sense of responsibility and
connection with others.

Martin Buber describes the concept of “I-It” as a detached, impersonal relationship where
individuals treat others as objects, lacking genuine engagement. In contrast, the “I-Thou”
relationship is a dynamic, reciprocal connection where individuals meet as persons,
acknowledging and affirming the significance of each other. In the “I-Thou” encounter,
communication is a two-way dialogue, fostering participation and communion. This
relationship is characterized by openness, vulnerability, and a deep sense of connection. Buber
sees the “I-It” relationship as a monologue, where individuals are self-centred and isolated,
lacking authentic interaction. For Buber, the “I-Thou” relationship is the ideal, promoting
61
mutual understanding, respect, and empathy. He views the “I-It” approach as a form of egoistic
pretension, hindering genuine human connection and community.

The distinction between “I-It” and “I-Thou” relationships has profoundly impacted
Existentialist thought, influencing both secular and religious perspectives. In his religious
Existentialism, faith is not merely a set of beliefs or intellectual assent, but a deeply personal,
relational experience. For Buber, faith emerges in the encounter between persons, where
individuals engage with each other authentically, without objectification or reduction to
concepts. Meaning is not derived from abstract ideas or theological systems, but from the
dynamic, reciprocal interaction between individuals. This emphasis on relational faith
challenges traditional, idea-centred theology, instead highlighting the importance of personal
experience and encounter. The ontology of Buber underscores the significance of human
connection, suggesting that true understanding and meaning can only be found in the “meeting”
between persons

The life and thought of Martin Buber were shaped by his Jewish heritage and his exposure to
Hasidism and Kierkegaardianism in Vienna. Hasidism’s emphasis on inward renewal, joyful
worship, and living in the present resonated with Buber, while Kierkegaard’s ideas on
individual faith and subjectivity influenced his philosophical outlook. Buber saw Hasidism as
an attempt to create a genuine community, but believed it fell short. He envisioned the
establishment of Israel as an opportunity for a renewed people and faith, transcending
nationalism. For Buber, Zionism was a messianic mission, aiming to inspire peace and harmony
globally through the example of a rejuvenated Jewish community. The thought of Buber is
characterized by a deep sense of hope and responsibility, seeking to bridge the gaps between
individuals, communities, and faiths, fostering a more harmonious world.

The philosophy of Buber emphasizes the interconnectedness of loving God and loving
humanity, advocating for a Hebrew Humanism that transcends collectivism and individualism.
He critiques modern society’s tendency to reduce individuals to mere objects, stripping them
of their unique existence and relational depth. For Buber, true community is realized in the I-
Thou encounter, where individuals engage authentically with one another. This relational
dynamic is mirrored in his understanding of God, who is not an object or abstract concept, but
the Eternal Thou, present in every finite “thou”. Buber’s conception of God has led to diverse
interpretations, with some labelling him a mystic, pantheist, or renegade Hegelian. His thought
resists categorization, instead offering a profound exploration of human existence,
relationships, and the divine

The thought of Buber defies traditional philosophical categorization, being more accurately
described as an “anti-philosophy”. His ideas resist objective analysis, instead offering a holistic,
experiential approach to understanding human existence. His philosophy is characterized by a
lack of systematic structure, instead conveying a mood, a life-experience that transcends
cognitive understanding. This approach positions him beyond conventional philosophy and
Judaism, speaking to a broader, universal human experience. The key aspects of Buber’s
contribution to religious Existentialism can be summarized as follows, highlighting his unique
perspective on human relationships, faith, and the nature of existence.
62
1. The philosophical approach of Buber seeks to grasp human existence in its entirety,
embracing the complexities and multifaceted nature of human being. He moves beyond
reductionist analyses, instead opting for a holistic understanding that encompasses the full
spectrum of human experience. His thought resists compartmentalization, instead embracing
the intricate web of human existence, including emotions, relationships, and the search for
meaning. His philosophy is characterized by a deep appreciation for the richness and diversity
of human life, seeking to understand individuals in their concrete, lived experience

2. His anthropology emphasizes the significance of the individual subject and their existential
experience, highlighting the relational nature of human existence. For Buber, humanity is not
defined in isolation, but in the dynamic, reciprocal encounter with others. The “I-Thou”
relationship is the crucible of authentic human existence, where individuals meet as persons,
acknowledging and affirming each other’s inherent value. This relational paradigm underscores
the importance of mutuality, empathy, and genuine connection in realizing one's humanity

3. The emphasis of Buber on community highlights its essential role in human existence,
underscoring the inherent social nature of humanity. His concept of “religious socialism” has
far-reaching implications, influencing not only anthropology but also ecclesiology. By stressing
the importance of genuine relationships and community, his thought challenges traditional
notions of individualism and isolation. His ideas inspire a vision of community as a dynamic,
reciprocal network of relationships, where individuals grow and flourish through their
connections with others

The ideas of Kierkegaard spawned two divergent branches of Existentialism. One trajectory,
led by Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre, evolved into atheistic or secular Existentialism. This
strand emphasizes human finitude, highlighting the constraints of space and time, while
stressing individual freedom and responsibility. In this view, human beings are thrown into
existence, left to navigate the complexities of life without inherent meaning or purpose.
Decision-making becomes a fundamental aspect of human existence, with individuals
shouldering the weight of their choices

In contrast, Religious Existentialism, exemplified by Martin Buber, emphasizes the relational

dimension of human existence. This perspective highlights the dynamic, reciprocal relationship
between individuals and the divine, as well as with others. Buber’s thought challenges the
stereotype that Existentialism is inherently French, Sartrean, or nihilistic. Instead, Religious
Existentialism offers a distinct vision, focusing on the transformative power of relationships
and the human search for meaning and connection.

Edmund Husserl (1859–1938)

Edmund Husserl, a renowned philosopher, was born in 1859 in Moravia, which was then part
of the Austrian empire. His academic journey began with studies in mathematics and
astronomy, culminating in a doctorate in mathematics. However, he soon shifted his focus to
philosophy, a field where he would leave an indelible mark.

In 1887, Husserl married Malvine Steinschneider, and they had three children together. That
same year, he became a Privatdozent (private lecturer) at Halle, a position he held until 1901.
63
He then accepted an associate professorship at the University of Göttingen, before joining the
University of Freiburg in 1916 as a professor of philosophy. Notably, Martin Heidegger, a
prominent philosopher in his own right, was among the students of Husserl during this period.
Tragically, the life of Husserl took a dark turn in 1933 when he was suspended from the
university due to his Jewish background, a decision that implicated his former student Martin
Heidegger. Despite this adversity, Husserl continued to write prolifically until his passing in
1938. Some of his most influential works include:

Logical Investigations (1901): A foundational text in phenomenology, exploring the nature of

logic and consciousness. The Idea of Phenomenology (1907): A seminal work outlining the
phenomenological approach of Husserl. Philosophy as a Rigorous Science (1911): An essay
advocating for philosophy as a rigorous, scientific discipline. Ideas toward a Pure
Phenomenology (1913): A comprehensive exposition of phenomenological philosophy of
Husserl. The contributions of Husserl to phenomenology and philosophy continue to influence
thinkers to this day, offering valuable insights into consciousness, experience, and human
existence.

Experience by itself is not science (Phenomenology)

Science aspires to certainty about the world.

But science is empirical: it depends upon

experience.

Experience is subject to assumptions and

biases.

So experience by itself is not science.

64
Edmund Husserl, a philosopher consumed by the pursuit of certainty, grappled with a
conundrum that has perplexed thinkers since ancient Greece. Socrates, the iconic philosopher,
first posed the problem: while we effortlessly agree on quantifiable matters, such as counting
olives in a jar, philosophical inquiries like “what is justice?” or “what is beauty?” seem to defy
resolution. This predicament raises a daunting question: if we cannot pin down the essence of
justice, can we truly say anything meaningful about it? The quest of Husserl for certainty
stemmed from this fundamental concern, driving him to develop phenomenology, a systematic
approach to understanding conscious experience. He sought to establish a foundation for
knowledge that would allow us to grasp the essence of things, untainted by assumptions or
biases. By examining the structures of consciousness, Husserl aimed to uncover the underlying
principles governing human experience, thereby providing a rigorous basis for philosophical
inquiry. In essence, his work was an attempt to bridge the gap between the certainty of empirical
knowledge and the ambiguity of philosophical discourse. His phenomenology would go on to
influence generations of thinkers, shaping the contours of modern philosophy and continuing
to inspire new perspectives on the human condition

The problem of certainty

Edmund Husserl, a philosopher with a mathematical bent, was driven by a vision of certainty.
He aspired to resolve age-old philosophical problems, like “what is justice?”, with the same
precision and confidence that mathematicians bring to problems like “how many olives are in
the jar?”. The grand ambition of Husserl was to establish an unshakeable foundation for all
branches of human knowledge, from mathematics and physics to ethics and politics. He
recognized that scientific theories rely on experience, but argued that experience alone is
insufficient, as it is often tainted by assumptions, biases, and misconceptions. Husserl sought
to purge these uncertainties, seeking absolute certainty for scientific inquiry. To achieve this,
he drew inspiration from René Descartes, who famously doubted everything except his own
doubting. The insight of Descartes – “I think, therefore I am” – provided a starting point for
Husserl’s own philosophical project. The phenomenology of Husserl aimed to systematically
explore conscious experience, stripping away preconceptions to reveal the underlying structures
of knowledge. By doing so, he hoped to provide a rigorous foundation for all sciences, ensuring
that human understanding would rest on solid ground. His work continues to influence
philosophical thought, offering a profound exploration of human consciousness and the pursuit
of certainty

Phenomenology
The phenomenology of Edmund Husserl was an attempt to reboot philosophical inquiry,
stripping away assumptions to reveal the essence of experience. Inspired by methodological
doubt of Descartes, Husserl advocated for a radical approach: bracket out every preconception,
including the assumption of an external world, to start anew. This “phenomenological” attitude
involves a painstaking examination of experience, laying aside biases to uncover the underlying
structures of consciousness.

Husserl’s goal was ambitious: establish a secure foundation for knowledge, tackling perennial
philosophical problems. However, his followers diverged in interpreting and applying his
65
method, yielding disparate results. As Husserl himself acknowledged late in his career, the quest
for a firm scientific footing for philosophy ultimately proved elusive. Despite this, the
phenomenology of Husserl left an indelible mark on 20th-century thought, spawning a rich
tradition of philosophical inquiry. His ideas continue to influence thinkers, offering insights
into the nature of experience, consciousness, and human existence. The legacy of Husserl’s
work lies not in providing definitive answers, but in shaping the contours of modern
philosophical discourse

Martin Heidegger (1889–1976)

Martin Heidegger is a towering figure in 20th-century philosophy. He was born in 1889 in
Messkirch, Germany. Initially aspiring to the priesthood, but the encounter of Heidegger with
the Work of Edmund Husserl redirected him toward philosophy. He quickly gained renown as
a mesmerizing lecturer, earning the nickname “the magician of Messkirch”. The academic
career of Heidegger peaked when he became rector of Freiburg University, a position that led
to his membership in the Nazi party. The extent of his involvement with Nazism remains a
subject of intense debate, with questions about how his philosophy might be implicated in the
ideologies of the regime. For the last three decades of his life, Heidegger travelled, wrote, and
engaged in intellectual exchanges with luminaries like Hannah Arendt and Werner Heisenberg.
As a self-described metaphysician, Heidegger employed phenomenological methods to explore
fundamental questions about existence and being. His most notable works including the
following:

Being and Time (1927): A foundational text exploring the concept of Being and its relation to
human existence.

Overcoming Metaphysics (1936-53): A critique of traditional metaphysics and an exploration

of its implications for modern thought.

The Principle of Reason (1955-56): An examination of the principle of sufficient reason and its
role in shaping Western philosophy.

Identity and Difference (1955-57): A exploration of the relationship between identity,

difference, and the nature of Being.

The philosophy of Heidegger continues to be the subject of intense study and debate, offering
profound insights into the human condition, existence, and the nature of Being.

66
 We are ourselves the entities to be analysed

Philosophy has
always asked deep
questions about
“Being”.

We need to ask Us!

these questions
by looking at the
being for whom
Being is an issue.

We ourselves are
the entities to be
analysed.

This anecdote from ancient Athens highlights the challenges philosophers have faced in
defining humanity. The story goes that followers of Plato struggled to pin down the essence of
human existence, initially settling on the definition of a human as a “featherless biped”.
However, the clever intervention of Diogenes with a plucked chicken exposed the inadequacy
of this definition, forcing the philosophers to revisit and refine their answer.

The revised definition, “a featherless biped with broad nails”, attempts to incorporate more
specific characteristics, but still falls short of capturing the complexities of human existence.
This tale illustrates the difficulties inherent in crafting abstract, general definitions that
encompass the multifaceted nature of humanity. The story serves as a testament to the ongoing
quest for self-understanding, underscoring the need for philosophers to continually probe and
refine their conceptions of human existence. It also showcases the importance of critical
thinking, intellectual humility, and the willingness to challenge prevailing assumptions – all
essential tools for grappling with the profound question, “what is a human being?”

67
An insider’s perspective
The approach of Martin Heidegger to understanding human existence marked a significant
departure from traditional philosophical methods. Rather than attempting to define humanity
from an external, objective standpoint, Heidegger opted for a more intimate, insider’s
perspective. He recognized that human beings exist embedded within the complexities of life,
and thus, the best way to grasp human existence is to examine it from within.

The philosophical framework of Heidegger was heavily influenced by his mentor, Husserl, and
the phenomenological method. This approach focuses on exploring phenomena, or how things
appear, through a systematic examination of human experiences. In the context of
understanding human existence, phenomenology shifts the inquiry from asking “what is a
human being?” to “what is it like to be human?” This subtle yet profound distinction allows for
a more nuanced, experiential understanding of humanity.

By adopting this insider’s perspective, Heidegger aimed to uncover the fundamental structures
and meanings that underlie human existence. His philosophy delves into the intricacies of
human experience, seeking to illuminate the essence of being human. Through this approach,
the work of Heidegger continues to offer profound insights into the human condition,
encouraging us to re-examine our understanding of ourselves and our place within the world.

The human existence

For Heidegger, this constitutes the fundamental question of philosophy. He was most interested
in the philosophical subject of ontology (from the Greek word ontos, meaning “being”), which
looks at questions about being or existence. Examples of ontological questions might be: “what
does it mean to say that something exists?” and “what are the different kinds of things that
exist?” Heidegger wanted to use the question “what is it like to be human?” as a way of
answering deeper questions about existence in general.

In his book, Sein und Zeit – Being and Time, Heidegger claims that when other philosophers
have asked ontological questions, they have tended to use approaches that are too abstract and
shallow. If we want to know what it means to say that something exists, we need to start looking
at the question from the perspective of those beings for whom being is an issue. We can assume
that although cats, dogs, and toadstools are beings, they do not wonder about their being: they
do not fret over ontological questions; they do not ask “what does it mean to say that something
exists?” But there is, Heidegger points out, one being that does wonder about these things, and
that is the human being. In saying that we are ourselves the entities to be analysed, Heidegger
is saying that if we want to explore questions of being, we have to start with ourselves, by
looking at what it means for us to exist.

Being and time

The inquiry of Heidegger into the meaning of being is a profound exploration of human
existence, one that eschews abstract notions in favour of direct, experiential insight. He posits
that human existence is inextricably linked to time, and that human lives are characterized by a
thrownness into a pre-existing world. This world presents us with a unique historical, material,
and spiritual context, which human beings navigate through various projects and pursuits.
68
Through these endeavours, human beings project themselves toward potential futures, crafting
human existence and defining human being. However, Heidegger notes that human existence
is bounded by an ultimate limit: death. This horizon of mortality serves as the backdrop against
which we live, influencing human choices and understanding of the world.

The philosophical framework of Martin Heidegger is often challenging to grasp, largely due to
his deliberate attempt to eschew abstraction and speak to our concrete experience. His concepts,
though complex, aim to illuminate the intricacies of human existence, revealing aspects of our
being that more traditional definitions might overlook. By acknowledging death as the
outermost horizon of our being, Heidegger offers a profound insight into the human condition,
one that resonates deeply with our lived experience.

Authentic Life
The philosophical framework of Heidegger introduces a critical distinction between authentic
and inauthentic existence. He argues that human daily lives are often consumed by various
projects and pursuits, causing one to overlook the fundamental nature of human existence. This
forgetfulness of mortality leads to an inauthentic existence, where we are disconnected from
the deeper dimensions of our being.

However, when human beings are confronted with the reality of their own mortality, they are
compelled to re-evaluate human priorities and existence. This awareness of death as the ultimate
limit of human possibilities allows one to tap into a more profound understanding of what it
means to exist. For instance, experiencing loss or grappling with our own mortality can prompt
a shift in perspective, revealing that our everyday concerns and projects may be insufficient or
even meaningless.

This newfound awareness can inspire a transformation, prompting one to reassess human values
and redirect human energies toward more authentic pursuits. By acknowledging and embracing
human mortality, we can transcend the superficialities of daily lives and connect with a deeper
sense of purpose and meaning. In this way, the philosophy of Heidegger encourages us to
confront our own finitude, not as a morbid exercise, but as a liberating path to authentic
existence.

A deeper language
The later philosophy of Heidegger embarks on a distinct trajectory, one that eschews the
rigorous, systematic approach of his earlier work in favour of a more poetic and introspective
exploration of being. He comes to recognize the limitations of philosophical inquiry,
acknowledging that the most profound questions of human existence may be beyond the reach
of rational discourse. Instead, Heidegger turns to the language of poetry, which he believes
possesses a unique capacity to evoke and reveal the depths of human experience. This shift
reflects his growing conviction that philosophy must transcend mere conceptual analysis,
embracing a more holistic and expressive mode of understanding.

69
Heidegger’s influence on 20th-century thought is immense, with his early work inspiring a
generation of philosophers, including Jean-Paul Sartre, Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995), and
Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002), and contributing to the development of existentialism. His
later, more poetic philosophy has also resonated with ecological thinkers, who find in his ideas
a powerful framework for rethinking humanity’s relationship with the natural world. Through
his work, Martin Heidegger challenges us to confront the most fundamental questions of
existence, encouraging us to adopt a more authentic and contemplative stance toward the world.
His philosophy remains a rich source of inspiration, inviting us to explore the complexities and
mysteries of human existence.

70