Lecture: Existentialism, the Meaning of Life, and the Course Synthesis
Lecture script · about 15–20 minutes spoken · Week 15
Opening
Picture a farewell lunch at an office. A coworker who has sat at the same desk for decades is leaving a steady job to train as a carpenter. Somebody at the table asks it out loud: "Why now? What is it all for?"
You don't have to be changing careers to feel that question. A nursing student sits with patients who wonder what their lives have meant. An engineering student volunteers on a project that never quite finishes. A business major weighs whether to start over. Each of them is asking whether a life can be meaningful, and what makes it so.
You've built a lot to get here. Weeks 1 and 2 gave you the method: test a claim with a counterexample, put an argument in standard form, and judge whether it's valid. Then you used that method on reality and knowledge, on the mind and free will, on God, on ethics, on politics, and on Confucian, Daoist, Buddhist, and ubuntu philosophy. In this lecture I'll do two things. First, we'll meet three existentialist thinkers and three answers to the question of life's meaning. Then we'll gather the whole course into one method you can keep.
1. Existence before essence
Look at a coffee mug. Before anyone made it, someone had a plan: a cup with a handle that holds a hot drink. The purpose came first, and then the mug. That's my example, not Sartre's, but it sets up his idea.
An essence is what a thing is: its defining nature or purpose, such as a mug's purpose of holding a hot drink. For the mug, essence comes first.
Jean-Paul Sartre argued that people are the reverse. In a lecture given in Paris in 1945 and published in 1946, called Existentialism Is a Humanism, he put it in three words: existence precedes essence. That's Sartre's formulation of the claim that human beings exist first and make themselves through their choices, so no nature or purpose fixed in advance decides who a person is. The family of views that starts there is existentialism: it starts from the individual person who exists, chooses, and acts, and asks how to live when no fixed human nature or given purpose settles who you are.
Here's the view the way its best defenders would put it. Nobody hands you a purpose in advance, so you're free, and you're responsible for what you make of yourself. "I can't help it, that's who I am" is never the whole story. Who you are is partly what you keep choosing.
Every view gets its strongest objection, and this one is the situation objection. A person's body, history, and society limit what they can make of themselves. The coworker can't choose to be young again. The reply from the existentialist side is that the view doesn't deny those facts. It says that what the facts come to mean in a life still depends on how the person takes them up.
Now a trap people fall into. They hear "no given purpose" and conclude that existentialists think nothing matters. Sartre's reasoning runs the other way. If nothing settles who you are ahead of time, your choices matter more, not less, because they're how you become someone.
Pause and try this. For the coffee mug, which comes first, its existence or its essence?
Think about what the maker had in mind.
Here's the answer. Essence comes first for the mug, because its maker had its purpose, holding a hot drink, in mind before the mug existed.
2. Sisyphus and the absurd
Now the case at the center of this week, the last entry on the course's thought-experiment roster. Picture a steep hillside with a heavy rock at the bottom. In the Greek myth, Sisyphus is condemned to push that rock up the hill forever. Every time he nears the top, it rolls back down.
Albert Camus took that story as a picture of a human life in The Myth of Sisyphus, published in 1942. The roster's question for the case is this: can a life be meaningful in a world without given meaning?
Camus calls our situation absurd. In his sense, the absurd is the clash between our demand for meaning and a world that offers none. On one side is Sisyphus, who wants his labor to count. On the other is a world where nothing answers. The absurd is in the meeting.
So what does Camus recommend? Face it honestly, with no false hope, and live fully anyway. Sisyphus knows the task will never be finished, and he walks back down for the rock. And here's how the book ends, in my words, not Camus': it ends by imagining Sisyphus happy.
That ending invites the brave-face objection. Imagining Sisyphus happy changes nothing about his task. The rock still rolls back, so maybe his happiness is a brave face, making the best of a bad situation, rather than meaning found. The reply from Camus' side: the claim was never that the task gains a purpose. It's that a life lived in full awareness, owning its task instead of hoping to escape it, can be embraced as it is. People still argue about whether that reply works, and the course keys no verdict.
Pause and try this. Is the absurd, in Camus' sense, a feeling of despair?
Go back to the two sides of the clash.
Here's the answer. No; the absurd is the clash between our demand for meaning and a world that offers none, and Camus' response ends with Sisyphus imagined happy, not in despair.
3. Freedom in a situation
Go back to the farewell lunch. The coworker who's leaving has savings for a year of training, health for physical work, and a family ready to help. A second coworker at the same table has the same wish, no savings, and a parent to care for. Are they equally free to start over?
Simone de Beauvoir helps you say what's going on. In The Second Sex, published in 1949, she argues that woman has been defined as the Other in relation to man, and that becoming a woman is shaped by society rather than fixed by nature. Behind that argument sits a view of freedom.
Freedom, on this view, is always exercised in a situation: the body, history, and society in which a person's freedom is exercised, which can widen or narrow the choices a person really has.
Run it on the two coworkers. Both choices are real, and no one else makes them. But the first coworker's situation leaves carpentry training really open right now, and the second coworker's situation leaves fewer doors open. Beauvoir keeps the existentialist claim that people make themselves, and she gives the situation its full weight.
The trap here is thinking it must be one or the other: either we're free, or our circumstances decide everything. For Beauvoir, both are real at once.
Pause and try this. On Beauvoir's view, does the second coworker's situation cancel that coworker's freedom?
Ask whose choice it still is.
Here's the answer. No; the choice still belongs to the second coworker, and the situation narrows which choices are really open without cancelling freedom.
4. Three answers to the question of meaning
Picture a river trail after a storm. A volunteer walks it with a bag and a grabber, picking up bottles and wrappers. By the next storm, the trash is back. The work never finishes. Is that work part of a meaningful life?
Philosophers give 3 broad answers about where meaning, the quality a life has when it is worth living and connected to something that matters, comes from.
The first is meaning given from outside: a life is meaningful because it plays a part in a purpose set beyond the person, by God or by a cosmic purpose. Its strongest appeal is that such meaning doesn't depend on your mood, your success, or whether anyone notices. The objection: if no such purpose exists, this answer leaves a life with none. Its defenders reply with arguments that such a purpose exists, the kind you met in Week 9, and the question stays open.
The second is meaning created by the individual: a life is meaningful because the person chooses and commits to what gives it meaning, so meaning is made rather than found. Its appeal is that no one can take it away. The objection: if choosing were all it took, any pointless task you happened to choose would count. The reply: that objection assumes a standard from outside, which is the very thing in question.
The third is meaning found in valuable activities and relationships: a life is meaningful when the person cares about activities and relationships that are worth caring about. The volunteer cares about a living river and the people who walk beside it. The objection: who decides what's valuable? The reply: claims about value can be argued for with reasons, the way this course argued about ethics.
Here's the trap. People think they must pick exactly one answer. They can be combined. Someone can hold that meaning is given and also lived, or chosen and also found. The course keys no answer.
Pause and try this. The volunteer says, "This matters because I chose it and I keep choosing it." Which of the 3 answers is that?
Listen for where the meaning comes from.
Here's the answer. It's meaning created by the individual, because the meaning comes from the volunteer's own choice and commitment.
5. The roster, read again
The course opened in an Athenian courtroom and closes on a hillside. In between, every instructional week put its question in one vivid case before any argument. There are 15 of them, 1 per instructional week.
Let me walk them by unit. Method had 2: the trial of Socrates and the barber. Reality and knowledge had 3: the cave, the evil deceiver, and the Gettier cases. Mind and self had 2: the Chinese room and the ship of Theseus. The midterm week had Pascal's wager. God had the watch on the heath. Ethics had 3: the ring of Gyges, the drowning child, and the runaway trolley. Politics had the veil of ignorance. Beyond Europe had the chariot. And meaning has Sisyphus. Add them up and you get 15.
Now look at the two ends. The trial of Socrates asks whether a life spent questioning is worth the risk. Sisyphus asks whether a life can be meaningful in a world without given meaning. Both are about a whole life. In Plato's Apology, in Benjamin Jowett's translation, Socrates says that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Those English words are Jowett's, not Socrates' own.
What did all 15 cases do? Each one put a question in a single scene so you could check your intuition against a theory. A thought experiment is a test, not a verdict. None of them has a keyed answer, and each stays credited to its source. Foot devised the runaway trolley in 1967, and Thomson named the trolley problem in 1976. Searle gave us the Chinese room in 1980. Gettier's cases date from 1963. And Sisyphus comes to the roster from Camus, in 1942.
Pause and try this. Who devised the runaway trolley case, and who named it the trolley problem?
Two names, two different jobs.
Here's the answer. Foot devised the case in 1967, and Thomson named it the trolley problem in 1976, so the case and the name belong to different philosophers.
6. The tools, read again
Let's take out three tools you already own, one last time.
The first is the argument set, Dataset B. It's illustrative: written for teaching, not claims the course endorses. It has 10 arguments, 6 valid and 4 invalid. Argument 7 says: if Socrates is wise, he admits his ignorance; Socrates is wise; so he admits his ignorance. That's modus ponens, and it's valid. If the premises were true, the conclusion couldn't be false. Argument 10 moves from most people in a town favoring a law to the conclusion that the law is right in the moral sense. That's invalid, because it moves from what people believe to what is right. The premise could be true while the conclusion is false.
The second and third tools are a pair. Dataset D holds the 4 ethical theories: utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, virtue ethics, and social contract theory. Dataset J holds 8 statements, 2 for each theory. You keyed 2 of them in Week 11, 4 in Week 12, and 2 in Week 13, which makes all 8. A statement about counting everyone's happiness equally goes to utilitarianism. One about a lying-to-borrow rule that defeats itself goes to Kantian deontology. One about courage as a mean goes to virtue ethics. And one about choosing principles as if you didn't know whether you'd be rich or poor goes to social contract theory.
One warning carries over from Week 2. Valid is not the same as sound. Valid means the conclusion can't be false if the premises are true. Sound means valid with all premises true. The course keys validity, and it never keys soundness when the premises are open questions.
Pause and try this. Argument 7 is valid. Does that mean the course has shown that Socrates admits his ignorance?
Think about what valid promises.
Here's the answer. No; valid only means the conclusion follows if the premises are true, and whether Socrates is wise is a further question the course doesn't key.
7. Defending a reasoned position
Picture a debate club before a tournament. The coach gives one rule: before you answer the other side, state its best argument so well that its own defenders would nod. That rule is the heart of what you'll take from this course.
A reasoned position is a view on a question, stated in one sentence and defended by an argument in standard form whose strongest objection is stated fairly and answered. It takes 6 steps. First, state the question. Second, state your position in one sentence. Third, put your argument in standard form, marking any premise you added. Fourth, judge its validity, and say which premises are open. Fifth, state the strongest objection: the objection to a position that its best defender would press, stated in its best form rather than in a weakened version that is easy to answer. Sixth, answer it, and end in one plain sentence naming where you and the objector disagree.
Let's run it on Sisyphus, using the course's reconstruction of Camus' conclusion. It's illustrative, and it isn't the course's view. The question: can Sisyphus's life be meaningful? The position: yes. The argument: if a person finds something worth doing in their task, their life can be meaningful; Sisyphus, as Camus imagines him, finds something worth doing in his task; so his life can be meaningful. That's modus ponens, so it's valid, and both premises are open.
The strongest objection comes from the side of meaning found in valuable activities. Finding something worth doing requires a task that's worth doing, and a rock that always rolls back achieves nothing. The reply: the worth is in how the task is lived, with full awareness and no false hope. And here's where they disagree, in one plain sentence: over whether the worth of an activity can come from how it is lived or must come from what it achieves.
Pause and try this. Someone defends this position by answering the objection "Sisyphus is a myth, so who cares?" Is that the strongest objection?
Ask whether a defender of the other side would press it.
Here's the answer. No; no serious defender of the other side would rest on that, so the strongest objection is the one about whether a task that achieves nothing can be worth doing.
Closing
Let me pull it together. Sartre holds that existence precedes essence: you exist first and make yourself by choosing, so your choices matter all the more. Camus calls the clash between our demand for meaning and a silent world the absurd, and he ends by imagining Sisyphus happy. Beauvoir shows that freedom is always exercised in a situation that widens or narrows real choices. Meaning can be given from outside, created by the individual, or found in valuable activities and relationships, and those answers can be combined. The roster's 15 cases are tests, not verdicts, each credited to its source. Valid is still not sound, and Dataset J's 8 statements go 2 to each theory. And a reasoned position answers the strongest objection, not the easiest one.
Next in this module come the slide deck, the Readings and Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, the quiz, the discussion, and the assignment. After that comes the cumulative final exam, which asks you to use this same method on every unit of the course.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com