An Introduction to Existentialism Book

Philosophy professor Robert Olson's book An Introduction to Existentialism provides a wide swath of mostly digestible explanations of the different facets of this seemingly abstruse philosophy. The book manages to walk a fine line between appealing to philosophical neophytes and maintaining an in-depth approach, and it quickly becomes clear that there could be no answer less than the full length of a book to unpack the following question adequately: What is existentialism?

Olson gives snippets of certain aspects of existentialism that help to provide clarity. He notes that existentialism eschews concerns of "God, abstract ideas, laws of nature, or empirical knowledge of human beings" only to focus on "the human condition." He even states that " . . . the fundamental existentialist conviction that although life is inescapably tragic and man necessarily doomed to frustration, values sufficient to make life worth the effort are available to him within the very heart of despair." But even statements like these can seem vague and only give a partial philosophy. The best brief description I can give would be to say that once people uncover their surreptitious knowledge that the world is incomprehensible, they must use this anguish to lead a life not of happiness but of intensity.

The push toward intensity is one major distinction between existentialism and most other philosophies. The most frequent position of the common man or woman is that happiness is the supreme value, and the three ways to achieve happiness are through wealth, physical pleasure, and honor (which later became fame or social acceptance). The Stoics felt happiness resided in a calm acceptance of life's dealings. Enlightenment thinkers felt that happiness was a product of the arduous work for the benefit of all humanity. Others like Plato and Aristotle believed happiness was attained through the contemplative life. The existentialists, on the other hand, discounted happiness as an impossible ideal that obscured life's true values.

And, this is one area where the book really excels: it puts existentialism in context by breaking down both the opposing and similar views of other philosophies. Not only does this help clarify many existentialist positions, it illustrates how widespread philosophical issues are. They can be much more than theoretical musings; they can help people determine how to live a good life and have sought to do so for thousands of years.

Now, I would be lying if I said I understood every position and argument made in this book. While Olson is often able to translate the opaque language of thinkers like Jean Paul Sartre, there are times when his own language is as unintelligible as anyone else's. Also, arguments he recounts at times feel incomplete or poorly thought out. One existentialist argument against humanism is partially based on the idea that respect "is by nature recognition of superior merit." After thinking about it and looking up the exact definition of "respect," this seems to be faulty reasoning. "Respect" can often mean due regard for others, and this definition does not imply the bestowing of any superior status. If so, the argument becomes much weaker. However, this might be more of a critique of philosophy itself than the book.