DE Weekly: Freedom, Responsibility, & Political Existentialism
Below is an archived email originally sent on October 12, 2026.
Freedom, Responsibility, & Political Existentialism
Much like other philosophies, Existentialism carries with it a political dimension, insofar as it can be applied to the larger realm of groups of people and societies in general. For example, in the same ways that the arguments laid out in Plato’s The Republic have provided discourse for human politics, so have the writings of Existentialism been applied.
One does not need to look too far in the literature to see this: Albert Camus’s The Rebel and many of Jean-Paul Sartre’s short stories (“The Wall,” “The Childhood of a Leader,” and “Dirty Hands,” to name just a few) all have something to do with our political nature.
The word “politics” as I employ it here refers simply to the nature through which human beings engage with each other interpersonally and on a societal scale.
The absolute, unfettered freedom of the human being that Existentialism lays out for us must naturally appear in conversations about how we as humans set up societies, and the resolution that we enact within ourselves to act authentically is intrinsically tied to this.
Simone de Beauvoir explored the relationship between the sexes; Friedrich Nietzsche explored the transformation of oneself into a moral arbiter; Martin Heidegger explored what an authentic mode of being-with-others would look like.
In all of these ways, existential thought was used to inform the political––emphasizing freedom, as I said before, but also our responsibility to the Other as other, to the Absurd (re: why any of this should matter), and genuine authenticity.
If we take at face value the existential epithet of Sartre’s that “existence precedes essence,” we must accept that not only are we born without a fixed nature, we are also born without a fixed political nature and, thus, we forge our societies and our roles in them through choice rather than anything else.
If you look at enough people and examine the way they engage with human politics, it is clear to see choice at the heart of their actions: some people are totally disengaged on a societal level, some participate only insofar as their personal lives depend on it, and some think the only way to enact any kind of change is via huge political influence.
Some of the philosophers I’ve mentioned above are a good example of the difference of personality that contributes to what different types of people view as necessary to their political lives.
Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party in the early 1930s, while Sartre was a self-proclaimed Communist who viewed much of politics through a Marxist lens. Each of these men, whose philosophical ideas had so much overlap, went two different ways. Both men, incidentally, also had later disillusions about their politics and disavowed themselves from them publicly.
What is useful to remember is that in using Existentialism to approach the large-scale relationships that politics encourages us to is that its core tenets must always remain at the forefront, namely, freedom, authenticity, and responsibility.
It is also useful to remember that of those three, responsibility might be the most poignant at all times. Because we are free to choose, we cannot blame others for the current state of affairs in politics or in our societies. Since we are always free to act otherwise, we should act otherwise.
I think the “politics” of Existentialism are best understood through the examples shown to us in the stories written by its proponents.
In The Rebel, Camus distinguishes between rebellion and revolution. He sees rebellion as an ethical response to any kind of oppression, and which affirms our dignity as humans. This is in contrast with revolution, which he sees as a mode of control which simply leads to a different kind of tyranny than that it sought to replace.
Another example, perhaps the best, from literature comes from Fyodor Dostoevsky, who preceded Existentialism but from whose writing many parallels can be drawn.
In Notes from the Underground, we see an “underground man” who rebels against the laws of his time to avoid becoming “a piano key,” another mechanical cog in a system he sees as oppressive.
This underground man is reaffirming the dignity we have to choose freely and create our own lives. Such themes are always prescient, as you have probably understood by now.
More than trying to nudge us in any particular direction, I think the important takeaway Existentialism encourages us to have is one that upholds its ideals: freedom, choice, responsibility, and authenticity.
“What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead. And the choice, of course, the devil only knows what choice.” –– Fyodor Dostoevsky
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Brandon J. Seltenrich
P.S.––
A bit of an announcement here. I’ll be moving the DE Weekly newsletter to biweekly. So, the next one will come on the 26th of this month. I know “DE Bi-Weekly” doesn’t sound as nice, so I’ll keep the name for now. See you back here in two weeks.
For more content, follow @TheDailyExist on X. For other social links, click here.
I write this newsletter for free–I love sharing my thoughts with you all, and I’ll continue to do so for free. But if you like what I write and want to show your support, you can always click here to share a tip. Thanks for keeping me going–it’s much appreciated.