When someÂone preÂsumes to explain the meanÂing of life, they usuÂalÂly draw, howÂevÂer vagueÂly, on reliÂgion. Many a philosoÂpher has venÂtured a secÂuÂlar answer, but it’s hard to comÂpete with the ancient stoÂries of the world’s major faiths. The richÂness of their metaphors surÂpassÂes hisÂtorÂiÂcal truth; humans, it seems, realÂly “canÂnot bear very much realÂiÂty,” as T.S. Eliot wrote in the Four QuarÂtets. Maybe we need stoÂries to keep us going, which is why we love PlaÂto, whose myth of the oriÂgins of love in his novelÂla, the SymÂpoÂsium, remains one of the most movÂing in the WestÂern philoÂsophÂiÂcal canon.
PlaÂto’s philoÂsophÂiÂcal project was a stoÂry that exisÂtenÂtialÂists like Simone de BeauÂvoir were eager to be rid of, along with the hoary old myths of reliÂgion. The AtheÂniÂan’s pious ideÂalÂism “disÂmissed the physÂiÂcal world as a flawed reflecÂtion of highÂer truth and unchangÂing ideals,” says Iseult GilleÂspie in the TED-Ed video above. “But for de BeauÂvoir, earÂly life was enthralling, senÂsuÂal, and anyÂthing but staÂtÂic.” MateÂrÂiÂal realÂiÂty is not an imperÂfect copy, but the mediÂum into which we are thrown, to exerÂcise freeÂdom and responÂsiÂbilÂiÂty and deterÂmine our own purÂposÂes, as de BeauÂvoir argued in The Ethics of AmbiÂguÂiÂty.
For de BeauÂvoir, as for her partÂner Jean-Paul Sartre, the “ethÂiÂcal imperÂaÂtive to creÂate our own life’s meanÂing,” preÂcedes any pre-existÂing meanÂing to which we might attach ourÂselves, and which might lead us to deny freeÂdom to othÂers. “A freeÂdom which is interÂestÂed only in denyÂing freeÂdom,” she wrote, “must be denied.” We might think of such a stateÂment in terms of Karl Popper’s paraÂdox of intolÂerÂance, but the idea led de BeauÂvoir in a difÂferÂent direction—away from the libÂerÂalÂism PopÂper defendÂed and in a more radÂiÂcal philoÂsophÂiÂcal direcÂtion.
De Beauvoir’s exisÂtenÂtialÂist femÂiÂnism asked funÂdaÂmenÂtal quesÂtions about the givÂen catÂeÂgories of social idenÂtiÂty that lock us into preÂfigÂured roles and shape our lives withÂout our conÂsent or conÂtrol. She realÂized that social conÂstrucÂtions of womanhood—not a PlaÂtonÂic ideÂal but a hisÂtorÂiÂcal production—restricted her from fulÂly realÂizÂing her choÂsen life’s meanÂing. “Despite her proÂlifÂic writÂing, teachÂing, and activism, de BeauÂvoir strugÂgled to be takÂen seriÂousÂly by her male peers.” This was not only a politÂiÂcal probÂlem, it was also an exisÂtenÂtial one.
As de BeauÂvoir would argue in The SecÂond Sex, catÂeÂgories of genÂder turned women into “others”—imperfect copies of men, who are conÂstrued as the ideÂal. LatÂer theÂoÂrists took up the criÂtique to show how race, sexÂuÂalÂiÂty, class, and othÂer stoÂries about human idenÂtiÂty restrict the abilÂiÂty of indiÂvidÂuÂals to deterÂmine their lives’ meanÂing. Instead, we find ourÂselves preÂsentÂed with social narÂraÂtives that explain our exisÂtence to us and tell us what we can hope to accomÂplish and what we canÂnot.
De BeauÂvoir was also a stoÂryÂteller. Her perÂsonÂal expeÂriÂences figÂured cenÂtralÂly in her phiÂlosÂoÂphy; she pubÂlished sevÂerÂal acclaimed novÂels, and along with Nobel-winÂning novÂelÂists and playÂwrights Sartre and Albert Camus, made ExisÂtenÂtialÂism the most litÂerÂary of philoÂsophÂiÂcal moveÂments. But when it came to grand abstracÂtions like the “meanÂing of life,” the answer all of them gave in their philoÂsophÂiÂcal work was that such things aren’t hovÂerÂing above us like PlaÂto’s ideÂal forms. Each of us must figÂure it out ourÂselves withÂin our flawed, imperÂfect, indiÂvidÂual lives.
RelatÂed ConÂtent:
An AniÂmatÂed IntroÂducÂtion to the FemÂiÂnist PhiÂlosÂoÂphy of Simone de BeauÂvoir
Josh Jones is a writer and musiÂcian based in Durham, NC. FolÂlow him at @jdmagness
