Will to Wonder

Written by Samantha Bowlen

Throughout human history, humans have struggled with the central question of what to do with their lives. Historically, individuals have looked towards religion or childbirth as a way to provide a clear sense of purpose and identity. Even in more modern times, people rely on religion, family, careers, or cultural values to feel fulfilled. Many philosophies and belief systems, such as Christianity, assume that humans are born with a certain fixed destiny that they either will or will not live up to. Under these views, meaning exists before the individual does, and the person’s entire life purpose is to discover that meaning and live up to the full potential of that predetermined purpose. However, this assumption severely limits personal freedom, growth, and individuality, especially in a modern world where traditional structures such as religion are not valued by everyone. 

One philosopher who directly challenged these traditional ideas was Jean-Paul Sartre, a major figure of existentialism in the 20th century. Sartre rejected the belief that humans possess an inherent essence or predetermined purpose. Instead, he argues that “existence precedes essence,” meaning that people first exist and only later determine the meaning of their life. According to Sartre, there is no universal meaning to life, and individuals have the burden of living authentically and creating that meaning for themselves. While this freedom can produce anxiety and uncertainty, Sartre believed it also gives human beings the power to live authentically rather than conforming to roles imposed by society or religion. 

This paper defends Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialist claim that human beings are not born with a predetermined essence, but instead create meaning through choice and responsibility, and argues that this framework provides a more authentic way of understanding human life than essentialist theories. It will explore the consequences of this freedom, particularly the realization that individuals are fully responsible for the choices and the meaning they create. The paper will also analyze Sartre’s idea of “bad faith,” in which people deny their freedom by hiding behind social roles or external validations. Finally, it will argue that although Sartre’s philosophy can appear unsettling, his existentialist framework is ultimately liberating because it allows individuals to create authentic meaning and purpose through conscious choice rather than passive acceptance. 

At the center of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy is the existentialist claim that “existence precedes essence.” In his essay Existentialism Is a Humanism, Sartre argues that human beings are fundamentally different from objects because they are not created with a fixed purpose already determined. An object such as a pen or a knife is designed with a specific function in mind before it is ever produced. Its “essence,” or defining purpose, exists prior to its actual existence. Human beings, however, do not work this way. According to Sartre, people first appear in the world, exist, and only afterward they define themselves through their choices and actions. Rather than possessing an inherent identity or destiny, individuals shape who they are over time. Sartre explains, “man first exists: he materializes in the world, encounters himself, and only afterward defines himself” (Sartre). This idea rejects the belief that humans are born with a predetermined essential nature. 

Sartre’s argument is connected to his rejection of God and traditional religious frameworks. He claims that since God does not exist, there can be no divine blueprint for humanity. Without a creator designing human beings for a specific purpose, there is no universal human essence that determines how people should live. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains that Sartre believed humans are “condemned to be free” because there is no external authority that can dictate their values or choices (Reynolds and Renaudie). In other words, individuals cannot rely on religion, biology, or society to completely define who they are. Instead, every person must create meaning independently through their own decisions. This position sharply contrasts with essentialist philosophies, which argue that human beings possess an inherent nature that exists prior to individual experience. 

One of the most important consequences of Sartre’s philosophy is the concept of radical freedom. Because there is no fixed human essence, every action one takes contributes to the creation of the self. Even refusing to make a decision becomes a form of choice. Sartre argues that people are always responsible for what they become because identity is constructed through lived actions rather than inherited purpose, so no one can truly blame their “human nature.” This freedom can feel overwhelming because it removes excuses and external guidance, but it is also what makes authentic human life possible. Individuals are not helpless; they are not trapped by predetermined roles or destinies, instead they possess the ability to continually redefine themselves. 

One of the most significant emotional consequences of Sartre’s philosophy is what he calls “anguish.” In Being and Nothingness, Sartre explains that human freedom naturally creates anxiety because there are no predetermined moral values or divine authorities that can fully guide human decisions. Individuals must constantly choose their actions and accept the responsibility for the outcomes, knowing that nothing outside themselves can guarantee that their choices are correct. This realization can feel unsettling because it forces people to confront the uncertainty of existence and the weight of personal responsibility. However, Sartre does not view anguish as purely negative. Instead, he sees it as an honest recognition of reality and of the human condition itself. It’s simply the consequence of freedom. Sartre claims, 

“it is in anguish that man gets the consciousness of his freedom, or if you prefer, anguish is the mode of being of freedom as consciousness of being; it is in anguish that freedom is, in its being, in question for itself” (Sartre 29). 

Rather than escaping this feeling, Sartre argues that people should embrace it because it reflects authentic self-awareness and the recognition of true freedom. In this sense, anguish is not a sign of weakness, but evidence that a person understands the seriousness and significance of human choice. 

Another major aspect of Sartre’s existentialism is his concept of “bad faith,” which refers to a form of self-deception in which individuals deny or avoid their own freedom (Sartre 48). In Being and Nothingness, Sartre argues that human beings often try to escape the anxiety that comes with radical freedom by pretending that their actions are determined by outside forces or social roles. Instead of acknowledging that they are always choosing, people convince themselves that they “have no option” or that their circumstances entirely define them. It’s certainly the easier route, believing that one has no control over their decisions and accepting that state of false helplessness. Sartre believes this mindset is dishonest because, even under pressure or limitations, individuals still possess the ability to make choices in any situation. It’s always possible to make light of the circumstances. 

Sartre’s idea of bad faith can be seen in many everyday situations. For example, a person may remain in a career they dislike because society, family, or culture expects them to, convincing themselves that they are trapped even when alternative possibilities exist. Another common example is blaming political systems or social circumstances as a way of avoiding personal responsibility altogether. For example, those who claim that corporations are to blame for climate change, so there is “no point” in being environmentally conscious. Sartre does not deny that external pressures are real, but he insists that people still retain freedom in how they respond to those pressures. By refusing to recognize this freedom, individuals live inauthentically and surrender their ability to shape their own lives. 

In contrast, Sartre argues that living authentically requires fully accepting both freedom and responsibility. An authentic individual understands that there is no fixed human essence, and therefore disregards social norms to seek out their own essence. In Being and Nothingness, Sartre argues that authenticity requires honesty with oneself about the reality of freedom, even when that freedom produces uncertainty. Authentic living does not mean achieving perfection or complete independence from society, but instead accepting the burden of freedom and consciously making choices and accepting those consequences. By embracing responsibility and creating meaning intentionally (rather than passively accepting what society deems as meaningful), individuals live more truthfully and purposefully according to Sartre’s existentialist theory. 

Sartre’s defense of individual self-creation is strongly supported by Friedrich Nietzsche, whose philosophy similarly criticized conformity and socially imposed morality. In works such as Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche argues that many people adopt moral values simply because society conditions them to do so, not because they have critically examined those beliefs themselves (Philosopheasy). He describes this passive conformity where individuals surrender independent thought in exchange for social acceptance. Nietzsche instead encourages people to become self-creating individuals capable of developing their own values and purposes. For example, in his work The Gay Science, Nietzsche claims, “We, however, want to become who we are—human beings who are new, unique, incomparable, who give themselves laws, who create themselves!” (Nietzsche, 335). This connects directly to Sartre’s idea of authenticity and finding individual meaning in life, rather than being assigned a “purpose.” In the article, Nietzsche On What ‘Finding Yourself’ Actually Means, Maden explains that Nietzsche is essentially saying that we do not find ourselves, but rather we create ourselves (Maden). Although Nietzsche and Sartre differ in certain philosophical details, such as the fact that Nietzsche actually rejects the idea of free will, his work can be interpreted to support Sartre’s idea of authenticity, depending on how you look at it. Both philosophers also reject the idea that meaning should be inherited unquestionably from external authorities. Nietzsche’s ideas reinforce Sartre’s claim that authentic human life requires actively creating oneself rather than accepting socially assigned identities. Together, both philosophers argue that human fulfillment depends on independence and the courage to resist conformity. 

Soren Kierkegaard also strengthens Sartre’s argument through his exploration of anxiety and freedom, as well as authentic existence. In The Concept of Anxiety Kierkegaard argues that anxiety is not simply a negative emotion, but evidence of human freedom and possibility (Lippitt and Evans). He believes that individuals should experience anxiety because they recognize the ability to choose different paths in life. Like Sartre, Kierkegaard criticizes people who avoid authenticity by losing themselves to societal norms. He argues that authentic existence requires personal commitment and reflection rather than passive conformity to a crowd. Although Kierkegaard holds the highest meaning in a relationship with God while Sartre is an atheist, both philosophers agree that authentic living requires individual responsibility and conscious choice. 

These philosophers together strengthen Sartre’s broader critique of systems that pressure individuals to conform to externally-validated definitions of success and identity. Modern society often encourages people to hold meaning in wealth, status, career, or socially approved lifestyles without questioning whether those goals reflect their true desire and values. Sartre’s existentialism challenges these pressures by insisting that meaning is only authentic when consciously chosen. Critics may argue that such radical freedom is emotionally overwhelming because it places the entire responsibility on the individual. However, Sartre would argue that this is not a flaw of existentialism, but a recognition of the human condition. Freedom naturally produces anxiety because of the human nature to desire answers, yet this same freedom is what makes authentic living possible. Since there is not inherent meaning to life, individuals can seek out their own answers for what holds meaning to them. By accepting the responsibility for their choices rather than escaping into bad faith or conformity, individuals are able to live more honestly and meaningfully. 

In conclusion, Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism presents a powerful understanding of human life by arguing that people are not born with a predetermined essence, but instead define themselves through the choices they make. Rather than discovering a fixed purpose assigned by God or society, individuals must actively create meaning through their actions. Throughout his philosophy, Sartre explains that freedom is inseparable from responsibility. Since individuals are free to choose, they are also responsible for who they become. Ultimately, Sartre’s philosophy is more liberating than limiting because it gives individuals the ability to shape their own identities and values instead of passively inheriting them from external systems. Meaning becomes more genuine when it is actively chosen than automatically assumed. Although existential freedom can feel overwhelming, it also allows people to live more intentionally. Sartre’s philosophy redefines human life not as a search for assigned purpose, but as an ongoing creation of purpose.