Navigating the Abyss: The Existential Weight of "Everyday Existentialism" and the Liberating Power of Curiosity

A devoted YouTube subscriber’s profound query to philosopher Geoffrey Klempner has sparked a thoughtful exploration into the nature of existential angst and the potential for intellectual liberation. Edie, a viewer under twenty, expressed feeling "crushed under the weight" of fundamental questions about existence, prompting Klempner to delve into the logic of feelings and the transformative power of embracing curiosity in the face of the unknown.

The Spark of Inquiry: A Subscriber’s Plea

The exchange began with a humble yet deeply resonant email from "a loyal subscriber" named Edie. Writing to the popular YouTube channel hosted by philosopher Geoffrey Klempner, Edie confessed to being a frequent viewer, captivated by Klempner’s "great way of explaining things." She specifically highlighted his discussions on "questioning the big questions everyday like why am I here, who am I etc." as profoundly relatable. Edie’s central concern, however, stemmed from the overwhelming burden these existential ponderings placed upon her, especially at such a young age. "I almost feel crushed under the weight of these questions and I’m not even 20," she admitted, posing the crucial question: "Does dealing with that kind of everyday existentialism get easier with time?"

Klempner’s Philosophical Reframe: Beyond the Weight of Feeling

Geoffrey Klempner, acknowledging the term "everyday existentialism" with appreciation, immediately sought to reframe Edie’s experience not as an inevitable consequence of deep thought, but as a potentially misdirected emotional response. He suggested that the historical baggage associated with the term "existentialism" could hinder genuine understanding, urging a fresh perspective.

"You feel crushed. I know what that’s like," Klempner began, empathizing with the visceral sensation. However, he swiftly pivoted to a more analytical approach: "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 line of questioning is central to Klempner’s philosophical framework. He draws a parallel to the discomfort some individuals might feel in the presence of people from different racial backgrounds. While acknowledging the existence of such feelings, Klempner argues that they are not inherently justified or immutable. He asserts that humans possess the capacity to learn and overcome such ingrained emotional responses, a distinction that sets them apart from non-human animals.

The Logic of Feeling: Challenging Emotional Appropriateness

Klempner then introduced a key concept from contemporary analytic philosophy: the "formal object" of feelings. He explained that, as a matter of logic, certain feelings are simply inappropriate or nonsensical in specific contexts. He illustrated this with a hypothetical scenario: a person claiming to feel "proud of a trash can." While the individual might believe they feel pride, the logical coherence of that emotion in relation to a random, unexceptional trash can is questionable. "It simply makes no sense to say that I feel proud of the trash can. As a matter of sheer logic," he concluded.

This logical dissection, Klempner argued, has profound implications for the domain of existentialism. He noted that over centuries, specific emotions have been deemed "appropriate" responses to existential quandaries: "Fear and trembling," "Anxiety," "Anguish," "Vertigo," "Nausea," and even "Hilarity." However, he pointed out that "feeling crushed" is not typically listed among these.

Deconstructing "Crushed": A Wittgensteinian Approach

To further illustrate his point, Klempner invited a conceptual exercise, reminiscent of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s methods, to examine the actual usage of terms and the contexts in which they arise. He asked readers to consider genuine instances of feeling "crushed": a devastating romantic rejection, a sudden job loss despite perceived good performance, or a financial blow from unexpected tax liabilities. He then posed the crucial question: "What do they all have in common?"

While the specifics of these situations are undeniably painful, Klempner’s underlying argument is that the feeling of being "crushed" might not be the logically inevitable or even the most fitting response to the existential void or the ultimate questions. He suggested that a similar rigorous examination of terms like "anguish" would reveal that we lack a definitive understanding of what constitutes an "appropriate" feeling when confronting the profound mysteries of existence.

"We don’t know what is the appropriate thing to feel when confronting the ultimate questions," Klempner stated plainly. "We don’t know this, even if a particular feeling overwhelms us. Think again of the racist, or the person who felt proud of a random trash can."

A Liberating Revelation: The Power of Curiosity

This realization, while potentially "puzzling, baffling even," leads Klempner to a liberating conclusion. If the appropriateness of our existential feelings is logically indeterminate, then we are not bound by them. "You are free to let go of your seemingly ‘crushed’ feelings, and feel something else, something more positive," he urged.

Klempner champions "healthy curiosity" as a potent alternative. Curiosity, he argues, is inherently energizing and expansive. Unlike the paralyzing weight of existential dread, curiosity opens doors to further exploration and learning. He recalled a previous sentiment from his channel: "Philosophers should know lots of things besides philosophy," underscoring the value of a broad intellectual engagement.

The Evolving Aim of Philosophy: Orientation, Not Just Knowledge

Klempner then turned to the fundamental purpose of philosophy itself. Is its aim solely the acquisition of knowledge about ultimate questions? Or, as he increasingly suspects, is it more about "orienting ourselves towards reality"? This involves finding a course of action that is "most appropriate to our recognition of the ultimate questions."

He admitted that this area remains a frontier, with no philosopher having, in his view, made significant progress. He even mused whether this endeavor might transcend the traditional definition of "philosophy," perhaps venturing into a "novel kind of theology." However, he quickly dismissed the semantic quibbling: "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!"

Implications for the Modern Seeker

Edie’s question, seemingly simple, has opened a vast intellectual landscape. Klempner’s response offers a profound shift in perspective for anyone grappling with existential unease. Instead of seeking a definitive answer to the unanswerable, or lamenting an overwhelming feeling, the focus shifts to the logic of our emotional responses and the freedom to cultivate more constructive ones.

For young individuals like Edie, navigating the complexities of identity and purpose, the message is particularly empowering. The pressure to feel a certain way about existential questions – be it dread, despair, or a profound sense of meaninglessness – is not an immutable law. By understanding the "formal object" of feelings and the arbitrary nature of emotional appropriateness in the face of ultimate unknowns, individuals can begin to shed the debilitating weight of existential angst.

The embrace of curiosity, as advocated by Klempner, offers a path forward. It transforms the daunting abyss of existential questions into a landscape of intellectual adventure. This journey of exploration, characterized by a willingness to learn, to question, and to re-evaluate, is not about finding a singular, definitive answer, but about developing a more resilient and engaged way of being in the world.

Klempner’s thoughtful engagement with Edie’s query highlights the enduring relevance of philosophical inquiry in helping individuals navigate the profound, often disorienting, terrain of human existence. It suggests that the most profound philosophical progress may lie not in discovering absolute truths, but in fostering the intellectual and emotional tools necessary to live authentically and purposefully in their absence. The "everyday existentialism" that can feel crushing may, with a shift in perspective and a cultivated sense of curiosity, become a catalyst for growth and self-discovery.