Navigating the Labyrinth of Existence: A Philosopher’s Guide to "Everyday Existentialism"

A profound inquiry from a young subscriber prompts a deep dive into the nature of existential dread and the surprising liberation found in embracing the unknown.

A thoughtful question from a dedicated YouTube subscriber, "Edie," has ignited a philosophical discussion on the nature of grappling with life’s most profound questions. Edie, a young individual not yet twenty, confessed to feeling "crushed under the weight" of existential inquiries such as "why am I here?" and "who am I?" The query, delivered with earnest admiration for the clarity of the YouTube channel’s presenter, Geoffrey Klempner, has prompted a nuanced response that challenges conventional notions of emotional response to existentialism and ultimately offers a path towards intellectual liberation.

The Genesis of a Philosophical Exchange

The exchange began with Edie’s heartfelt email, a testament to the resonant power of philosophical exploration in the digital age. "I hope you do not mind me contacting you on this email," Edie wrote, "I watch your videos on YouTube frequently, they really fascinate me and I think you have great way of explaining things. When you talk about questioning the big questions everyday like why am I here, who am I etc. relate a lot as many do. My question is, does dealing with that kind of everyday existentialism get easier with time. I almost feel crushed under the weight of these questions and I’m not even 20." This earnest plea from a "loyal subscriber" highlights a universal human experience: the disquieting encounter with the fundamental uncertainties of existence, particularly potent during the formative years of young adulthood.

Geoffrey Klempner, the recipient of this query and a known figure in philosophical discourse, acknowledged the aptness of Edie’s chosen term, "everyday existentialism." However, he cautioned against the "historical baggage" often associated with philosophical labels. His initial response, rather than offering a direct reassurance of comfort with time, pivots to a critical examination of the feeling of being crushed. This sets the stage for a discourse that transcends simple advice, delving into the very nature of human emotions and their logical underpinnings when confronted with the immeasurable.

Deconstructing the "Crushed" Feeling: A Logical Inquiry

Klempner’s immediate reaction to Edie’s feeling of being "crushed" is not to dismiss it, but to question its inherent validity. "But my question is, Why is feeling crushed the most appropriate feeling? Are feelings self-justifying? What right have I, or anyone, got to say that you ought not to feel crushed, or that you ought to feel something else?!" This rhetorical interrogation forms the cornerstone of his response, suggesting that our emotional responses, while deeply personal, may not always be the most logical or appropriate reactions to complex situations, especially those concerning existential quandaries.

To illustrate this point, Klempner draws a provocative parallel: the discomfort some individuals may feel in the presence of people of color. While acknowledging that various explanations might exist for such feelings, he emphasizes that the crucial aspect is the recognition that these feelings are not immutable. "The point is that the feeling in question is one that they must learn to get over. And there is ample evidence that this is something well within the power of a human being, indeed one of the essential ways in which we differ from non-human animals." This analogy, while potentially sensitive, underscores a core philosophical tenet: human beings possess the capacity for rational thought and the ability to transcend immediate emotional reactions through conscious effort and reasoned understanding.

The Formal Object of Feelings: A Philosophical Framework

Klempner then introduces a sophisticated concept from contemporary analytic philosophy: the "formal object" of feelings. This concept posits that emotions, logically speaking, are directed towards specific kinds of objects or situations. He elaborates with a vivid, albeit humorous, example: the notion of feeling "proud of a trash can." If one were to claim pride in a mere trash can, the response, "How can you be proud of that trash can?" highlights the logical incongruity. The speaker’s assertion, "You can’t tell me what I feel. I feel what I feel. And when I look at that particular trash can, I feel pride!" is met with the philosophical counterpoint that, as a matter of sheer logic, it simply makes no sense to feel pride in such an object.

This exploration of logical absurdity in emotional expression serves as a prelude to Klempner’s engagement with the traditional emotional palette associated with existentialism. He lists commonly cited existential feelings such as "Fear and trembling," "Anxiety," "Anguish," "Vertigo," "Nausea," and even "Hilarity." He notes that "feeling crushed" is not explicitly on this list but argues that a similar logical scrutiny can be applied to each.

Existentialism and the Elusive "Appropriate" Feeling

Klempner posits that the historical discourse surrounding existentialism has often prescribed a set of feelings deemed "appropriate" when confronting the "ultimate questions." However, he challenges the very foundation of this prescription. "We don’t know what is the appropriate thing to feel when confronting the ultimate questions. We don’t know this, even if a particular feeling overwhelms us." This statement is a radical departure from the often-accepted narrative of existential angst. It suggests that the overwhelming feeling of being "crushed" is not necessarily an accurate or logical response to the profound questions of existence, but rather a habituated or culturally influenced emotional reaction.

He revisits the analogy of the racist, or the person proud of the trash can, to reinforce the idea that our feelings, while subjectively experienced, may not always align with logical coherence. This leads him to a crucial realization: the search for an "appropriate" feeling in the face of existential uncertainty is a flawed endeavor.

A New Paradigm: The Logic of Feeling and Intellectual Liberation

Klempner proposes a new avenue of philosophical investigation, one that bypasses the futile quest for knowing the answers to ultimate questions and instead focuses on the "logic of feeling." This approach, he suggests, could lead to a surprising conclusion: that there might be no feeling that a human being has ever felt that is truly appropriate when confronting the fundamental mysteries of existence. The truth, he argues, is not simply our lack of knowledge, but our fundamental ignorance of "how to feel about the fact that we don’t know."

This conclusion, while potentially "puzzling, baffling even," is ultimately presented as liberating. The freedom, Klempner explains, lies in the ability to "let go of your seemingly ‘crushed’ feelings, and feel something else, something more positive." He advocates for "healthy curiosity" as a more energizing and productive response. Curiosity, in this context, is not merely an intellectual pursuit but a disposition that fuels further exploration and learning, echoing his earlier sentiment that "Philosophers should know lots of things besides philosophy."

The Aim of Philosophy: Orientation, Not Just Knowledge

The article culminates in a profound reflection on the purpose of philosophy itself. Klempner questions whether the ultimate aim is merely the acquisition of knowledge. Instead, he posits that philosophy’s true value might lie in its ability to "orient ourselves towards reality, to find a course of action that is most appropriate to our recognition of the ultimate questions." This perspective shifts the focus from finding definitive answers to developing a more effective and meaningful way of navigating the human condition.

He admits that this path is not easily defined and that even prominent philosophers have not made significant strides in this area. He even entertains the idea that this pursuit might transcend traditional definitions of "philosophy," potentially bordering on a novel form of "theology," boldly asserting, "Why not? Why should the term we use matter? It is not as if you needed to believe in God in order to be a theologian!" This provocative statement underscores his commitment to intellectual honesty and the exploration of ideas regardless of their established categorization.

In essence, Geoffrey Klempner’s response to Edie’s existential query offers not a comforting balm of reassurance that difficulties will lessen with age, but a radical reorientation of how we approach existential questions. By dissecting the logic of our feelings and challenging the notion of pre-ordained emotional responses, he opens a door to a more empowering and intellectually honest engagement with the profound uncertainties of life, suggesting that true liberation lies not in finding answers, but in embracing the journey of curious exploration.