Feb 07, 2026

Distinguishing psychological meaningfulness or meaninglessness from the philosophical. We all experience both the psychological and the philosophical kinds, some people a lot, some a little.

Yet Existentialists don’t limit themselves to the psychological emptiness of soul or mind (“vastation”) that concerns and disturbs so many people. Their rebellion is against a long history of defining human beings from the outside; Existentialists either define themselves or, if that fails over many years, accept a state of being that is undefined, without specific purposes, and not built on any traditional religious or secular foundation.

Philosophical Meaningfulness:

That refers not to how positive or negative we feel about life or ourselves; philosophical Existentialists clearly contrast with such “Essentialism.” If the latter falls short in life, it often ensures a psychological event…even the assumption of personal identity can be lost.

Instead of being born or trained early with a definition of ourselves — that’s what Essentialists believe — Existentialists see themselves factually as blank slates. Only they can define or redefine who they themselves are, and they do it by the countless choices they make. Choice after choice.

Gradually (and hopefully) they will define themselves and not allow any other source, natural or supernatural, to do that for them. That would be “bad faith” (Sartre).

For example, Christians assume there’s a God; God pours meaning into each of us by giving us confidence about the religion, ethics, jobs and life goals that are the “essence” or definition that God (or Nature or our Parents) gave us.

If God’s being or intentions are questioned, however, then each of us must define ourselves by ourselves, and we never know how that will end up. There are no guarantees. Honesty requires we admit we don’t know who or what we’ll be in a day or a year from now.

Essentialists:

They don’t have to worry about the above…until or unless a great tragedy or success intervenes. If their old assumptions are lost, even Essentialists must start all over again.

The meaning or definition they give themselves will likely not be the meaning they held onto previously. They will be meaningless (definition-less) for a short or a long time. And the definitions we used to accept about ourselves can be temporary or arbitrary…the opponents of Essentialism say that the only genuine identities, if any, are either discovered or created by ourselves and ourselves alone.

So, in a way, we’re all Existentialists because in fact we do begin life with our own existence, not our own essence or definition. Existence comes first, no matter who we are, and self-definitions will hopefully follow.

If not, we’re like Camus’ "Myth of Sisyphus," rolling a boulder uphill, just to see it roll back downhill where it started. But what’s the reason it should go uphill at all? — the eternal struggle for self-identity. Yet the latter fluctuates, so there may be no answer.

That may sound psychologically meaningless but it’s philosophically meaningful. It’s a stage along life’s way — the way to finding out who we are rather than being labelled by others.

Is pushing a boulder uphill less purposeful than watching an Elmer Fudd cartoon? The difference isn’t philosophical; it’s psychological — the cartoon is more fun, more relaxing and distracting than working so hard on that big boulder: Who am I?

To summarize what’s confused and confusing every day, online and in conversations — people blame philosophers and psychologists for that confusion, and they might be right:

Essentialists accept whatever dominant definition they’re given by others or God…they are who others say they are. So when “meaninglessness” threatens them, it’s a psychological issue; lack of motivation, ambition, and above all, any purpose in their life. Maybe anxiety or depression will follow. The future looks empty because it is, for now. The old edifice of assumptions wears away Essentialists' confidence in themselves and the world around them.

Existentialists:

They don’t accept any definition of who they are from any other person, group or religion:

Existentialists might (perhaps) re-examine the definitions that others previously tried to apply to them but that’s not likely to be fruitful.

Sadly, the last part of my story is also the last story ever told about French-Algerian Existential philosopher Albert Camus. It concerns his tragic death in a car accident.

This “Philosopher of the Absurd” (an extreme form of Existentialism) fought off all of Sartre’s and others’ individuating description of Camus (according to Camus, not those philosophers)--Camus rejected being defined by others, period.

To Camus Sartre acted like a committed Communist (which Sartre correctly viewed as among the most effective resisters against the Nazi occupation), thus Sartre seemed describable in part by the definitions of Communist ideology, not solely by Sartre himself, supposedly free as possible of prejudgment.

Camus himself even contemplated suicide…but why do that? Unfortunately lots of people consider the same “solution.” What exactly is its purpose?

Psychologically, probably to end pain or humiliation — though there’s nothing like a person’s suicide to ensure other folks feel those horrible emotions. Suicide simply transfers the horror from the self-victim to those who are (or were) closest to him; especially his loved ones.

When they found Camus’ body on the ground after the crash, next to it was a thick manuscript he was scribbling…about…What is Absurdity? That’s somewhat easier to answer now, though decades late: absurdity is being killed in a random freak car accident while working in the back seat on an absurdity manuscript.

The time it takes to resolve your definition(s) of yourself is a time of absurdity, as you are stuck between existence and essence. Camus’ phenomenology friends had a different approach to that life-state. They “bracketed” or temporarily set aside extraneous distractions in order to focus on the immediately observable phenomena around them, themselves included. For example, by "bracketing" the issue of defining what a definition of a person is.

Maybe, in this way, Camus in his manuscript found a means to make the two modern concepts, existence and essence, unhappily compatible, while Sisyphus and his heavy boulder never could.

Camus’ absurd death didn’t end his search for the nature of absurdity: that manuscript was published posthumously as The First Man.

Unfortunately his death explains his absurd existence better than any written, static account could, including books on existence and the absurd, which require words that have definitions.