The western world faces tremendous uncertainties and challenges that can be daunting for many young people: increasing political polarization, conflicts around the world, inflation, and the expected radical societal shift due to new technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing. The uncertainty that exists can be considered normal in human life, used to be captured within a hierarchy of cross-generational institutions such as family, community, and church. Modernity, with its secularization and individual emancipation, has eroded the institutions that gave rise to a flourishing Western society. Conservatives have been aware of the need to preserve the institutions that allow for the continuous prosperity of Western society. Yet, for far too long, conservatives in Hungary and the West as a whole have withdrawn from and been pushed out of the intellectual arena.

Nihilism at the Core of Mental Health Problems: Age of Insanity

One of the areas where we see the impact of a decreasing influence of conservative values on culture is in the state of mental well-being. Especially anxiety and depression have risen drastically in Hungary and the West in general over the last few decades, particularly among the youth. What depression and anxiety have in common is that those who suffer from them have an underlying problem with structure and meaning. Recent studies show that a perceived focus on structure and meaning is associated with improved social relations, resilience in dealing with challenging situation, and the ability to recover after tough life events. These factors provide people with the necessary tools to deal with the complexity and hardships of life, which are needed to bite off the anxiety and sorrow that life throws at people. Thus, the lack of structure and meaning makes people more vulnerable to mental erosion.

Additionally, as the Judeo–Christian foundation has become less of an authority, modern ideologies that have tried to take its place, such as Marxism, socialism, and the currently dominant liberalism, are starting to lose their grip on society. Increasingly, it becomes evidently clear that society is too complex to be captured by means of these ideologies. The void that the displacement of the conservative foundation and the crumbling ideologies left has been resulted in a staggering increase in nihilism. Nihilism can be defined as the view that morality, meaning, and knowledge do not exist, and therefore do not hold any authority or provide life orientation. Psychologically, nihilism can be understood as a defense mechanism to the ultimate problem of modernity: there is no worldview that captures meaning and purpose anymore. Consequentially, one of the answers has been the rise of existentialism to rationalize this lack of meaning and make sense of the world. As we will see in this essay,

existentialism is not only a bad solution, but it is derived from a misunderstanding of meaning to begin with.

This presents contemporary conservatives with the challenge to provide a worldview that can challenge existential nihilism.

The Absurdity of Life: An Existential Perspective

Existentialism primarily revolves around the ‘absurdity of the meaning of life‘. Existentialists in general believe that the human condition cannot be rationally explained or controlled, nor can it be captured in a framework of meaning or purpose. Although there are many differences between existentialist thinkers, one can differentiate early and late existentialist theorists. Early existentialist thinkers and writers, such as Bonaventura, Blaise Pascal, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Søren Kierkegaard, acknowledged the subjective absurdity of existence but could place and direct this in a transcendental (predominantly Christian) framework. Throughout the centuries that they lived, they admitted the feelings of despair, dread, tragedy, and existential crisis, and therefore were able to discern the darkness that accompanies human experience. Yet, the hopeful orientation of their Christian background enabled them to put this subjective and egocentric sorrow in a broader perspective.

This changed in the late 19th century, when more diverse perspectives entered the existentialist landscape. With the rise of thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, later Martin Heidegger, and Jean-Paul Sartre, late existentialism broke with its predominantly Christian predecessors. As for Nietzsche, his philosophy can be understood as a precursor for the broader wave of late existentialism in which Heidegger and Sarte became prominent philosophers. Although both Sartre and Heidegger have a lot in common and can be broadly understood as existential philosophers, Heidegger distinguished himself from Sartre’s existentialism and called his own work existential philosophy. Sartre and Heidegger’s philosophy both emphasizes individualism and the criticism (and even denial of) group identity. Yet, Sartre and Heidegger approach these ideas from different viewpoints. Whereas Heidegger emphasized that human conscious being (Dasein) is situated in a world with preexisting meanings that shapes the understanding of the individual, Sartre believed that ‘existence precedes essence‘. This means that people first exist and thereafter can define themselves by their choices and actions.

Sartre’s existentialism is psychologically problematic as it no longer provides a worldview embedded in external reality or meaning. According to Sartre, life is meaning- and purposeless. Only the individual freedom to do as one pleases remains. This gave the followers of Sartre only one option: one has to courageously accept the absurdity of existence and the nihilism that follows. Yet, in reality, a significant part of those who tried to accept the nihilistic newfound ‘reality of the university‘ became remorseful of ‘becoming aware‘ of the purposeless nature of life and longed for a belief in a meaningful existence instead. Whereas some stayed in this state of mind, others withdrew to the romanticism of the pre-existentialist past.

Unlike other late existentialist thinkers such as Nietzsche, Sartre’s solution was not to increase virtue. He argued for the acceptance of the nihilistic fate as the totality of freedom. As we will see, this is an attitude that inspired the primary nihilistic attitude of the day. Hence, to understand the problems of Sartre’s existentialism further, we must dive deeper into his philosophy.

Sartre was one of the most impactful French philosophers, novelists, and political activists of the 20th century. Primarily what sets Sartre apart from other existentialists is his explicit reductionistic materialism and atheism. According to Sartre himself, he lost faith at the age of eleven. Sartre argues for a purposeless material universe that humanity tries to escape with its transcendental projections.

To him, it is obvious that God is merely a projection of the human psyche

as he follows in the footsteps of Ludwig Feuerbach. The 19th-century German philosopher was one of the most prominent thinkers to argue that God was nothing more than a projection of the goodness of humanity. Humanity, according to Feuerbach, humiliated itself by attributing its good properties to God and its bad ones to humanity itself. Feuerbach thought that humanity needs to internalize and acknowledge the attributes it gave to God and therefore become God itself. Sartre agrees with Feuerbach about the illusion of God, but he argues that humanity is destined to fail in becoming God. Sartre does not focus on proving these philosophical statements which were so obvious to him, as he considered God’s existence irrelevant, which does not change the human condition. God merely represents the established power and its norms and values in society. Therefore, in the name of freedom, God needs to be disowned. Thus, Sartre focusses on explaining the psychological underpinnings that gave rise to the ‘God-projection‘.

Furthermore, Sartre’s thinking comes together in the way he represents the relationship between the universe and humanity. The universe, according to Sartre, is defined as être-en-soi (being-in-itself). It is eternal, purposeless, meaningless, and reasonless. It is neither passive nor active and neither created nor self-imposed. It cannot be understood and if it only existed, nobody would be there to question its purpose anyway. Humanity on the other hand is part of être-pour-soi (being-for-oneself). It is pure freedom and lucidity and thus the opposite of being-in-itself. Only being-in-itself can be part of the ‘being‘. Therefore, humanity as part of the being-for-oneself is part of the ‘nothing‘ and is thus pure existential.

Whereas liberalism embraces the freedom and emancipative force of this realization, Sartre argues that pure freedom is a curse of which man cannot escape. A man is free like a rock is a rock. Humanity is a victim of its consciousness and the freedom that it allows as it deprives us of happiness and bliss.  Sartre concludes that humanity throughout its history tries to become part of the eternal being-in-itself while simultaneously trying to keep its freedom. This is doomed to fail as humanity cannot escape being part of being-for-oneself.

When one looks closely at the work of Sartre, one can find a resemblance to some Christian mystics of the Middle Ages, such as Jonhannes Tauler. Tauler, like Sartre, argues that humanity is part of the ‘nothing‘. Yet, Tauler, with his Christian perspective, argues that this nothingness is not the end as the relationship with God is able to connect and bridge what Sartre would call the being-in-itself and being-for-oneself. Because Sartre does not leave himself this option, he has to take a radically different route. In his book Les Mouches, Sartre shows the ‘existentialist ideal‘ embodied in the character Orestes. Orestes is free of any transcendental or immanent meaning or belief. Orestes has freed himself from this ‘slavery‘ and is free to do whatever he wants, without any conceptualization of morality. Orestes therefore decides to go against all morals of his society and his own feelings and kills his mother Clytemnestra and her loved one Aegisthus. This brutal act allows Orestes to overcome his sadness and fear of his own actions and therefore he becomes truly free in his acceptance of his existentialism. Moreover, Sartre argues in his book l’ Etre et la Néant (Nausea) through his character Antoine Roquentin that

even suicide cannot help one escape the absurdity of life.

Even if one commits suicide, the surplus of your own life can never be erased. Neither in the memories of others or in the remains of your body that feed the bacteria in the ground can one escape the purposeless surplus of existence.

As the psychotherapist Ignace Lepp points out, the existentialists that followed in Sartre’s footsteps tried to break with all sense of purpose, meaning or morality. In his clinical practice, Lepp met people living by Sartre’s existentialism. One of the exemplar case studies is a client called Alfred. Alfred is known not to live by any morality. He does as he pleases and what gives him the feeling of freedom. He steals money from his mother and friends, lies and manipulates constantly, goes to prostitutes since the age of fourteen and tries to rape nieces and female friends. He shamelessly talks about his acts in his conversations with Lepp as in his view, life has no meaning, purpose or morality. In clinical psychology, one would nowadays be quick to view Alfred’s symptoms through the lens of an antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy. This undoubtedly might be true. Yet, it does not tell the whole story. As Alfred, and others like him, were facing a society in which progressivism pushed out meaning and purpose, existential nihilism was in their mind the only psychological option remaining. Thus, antisocial behavior can, in line with scientific literature and additional to the primary clinical psychological outlook, be understood as a result of a deprived culture. Thereby, existentialism can in some cases be a posteriori rationalization of mental derangement or moral weakness whereas in other cases it can be the cause of said behavior. Consequentially, one cannot reduce the behavior of Alfred and others like him, even in less extreme cases, to merely antisocial behavior disorders.

The Failure of Sartre’s Existentialism

As Sartre’s existentialism grew in its cultural influence, it became evidently clear that its pure nihilistic approach does not, as Sartre acknowledged, lead to a happy life. When one takes away meaning, embedded institutions and joy from life, it becomes increasingly difficult for individuals to lead a stable or productive life. Therefore, Sartre made the carnal mistake to dismiss the utility and necessity of meaning. Even if one would theorize, as Sartre did, that meaning and purpose are illusions, human beings as purpose-seeking creatures have a desire and need for meaning. Thereby,

Sartre’s emancipation of purpose and meaning does not free people.

It merely leaves people aimless without an answer to the complexity of life. Especially in the modern context in which man is stripped from all meaning and hope and left in a reductionistic and materialistic paradigm, man is only left with meaning defined as that which makes one happy. Yet, as Sartre did understand, meaning is not primarily meant to make people happy. Happiness is merely a temporary emotional experience whereas meaning is meant to fulfill human beings on the deepest level by connecting the communal, spiritual, and societal life in one embedded framework.

This is why, from a conservative point of view, meaning has always been understood to be transcendental and cross-generational. Yet, as the modern nihilist does not accept this as objectively true, one first has to learn how to speak the language of modern man. The conservative view is also subjectively true by the definition of modernity. Therefore, the conservative thinker needs to resist the reactionary temptation and realize that modern culture asks for a different approach to strengthen conservative values. Thus, conservatives must put forward that happiness can psychologically only be sustained in a meaningful and purposeful society. As a result, the conservative outlook on meaning provides social utility, as even the biggest sceptics of the transcendental, such as Voltaire, understood.

A Reaction to Sartre: Cheap Moralism

Yet, as conservatives have failed to make their case and provide an intellectual alternative, a significant portion of the Western youth has, in the aftermath of Sartre, looked for a psychological escape from its modern nihilism. Conservatives have been unable to fill this need as they have not refuted the underlying existential axioms. Consequentially, man has tried to distract itself from this existential crisis by looking for easy solutions. Primarily, a cheap superficial moralism has emerged to fill the void. This moralism deep down still carries the expression of Sartre’s existentialist nihilism as it is a desperate attempt to escape life’s absurdity and purposelessness.

This cheap moralism has manifested itself as a countermovement to the institutions that put people in the privileged position to even have time to live an existential life. This has not stopped them from attempting, and partly succeeding, to break down the authority of institutions that gave rise to the cultural, spiritual, and economic flourishing of Western society such as the family, community, and church. It is the bitter revenge of those who have been disappointed by these institutions to provide meaningful answers. Sadly, the erosion of these institution has not brought anybody closer to an escape of Sartre’s existentialism. On the contrary, it has only deepened the experienced existential nihilism in society.

The Conservative Antidote to Existentialist Nihilism

To conclude, conservative thinkers need to have a moment of self-reflection. For too long conservatives have either followed a neoliberal project of economic one-dimensionality, or created their own ‘safe space‘ of conservative echo chambers. This has created a cultural vacuum in which Sartre’s existentialism could wreak havoc. Thus, conservatives need to realize that even in the current secular and liberal Western paradigm one has to reach out and create a mutual value and meaning structure that embeds the classical Western hierarchy of values. This is, psychologically speaking, very powerful in today’s utilitarian age. If what is true is what works, then conservatives have a tried and tested treasure that provides the antidote to modern nihilism. The task at hand does not ask for intellectual laziness. Expecting people to read Burke, Kirk or Scruton is not enough. Conservatives hold a long tradition and experience of dealing with nihilism and providing hope and meaning that can sustain throughout the hardships of life. This asks for a collaboration of conservatives across the West.

Conservatives in Hungary and beyond need to realize the challenging yet promising task at hand.

In today’s culture, one has to explain how the modern existential paradigm does not hold the truth to sustain a prosperous life or society. With radical and individualistic generations being raised, nothing is more effective than to point out how existential nihilism does not bring happiness, meaning or prosperity. Cheap surface moralism should therefore be replaced by a transcendental framework of meaning and purpose. This requires an invitation of responsibility and adventure that asks for sacrifice, resilience, and humility. This brings the conservative renaissance in sight as long as we are able to translate it into meaningful encouragement equipped to deal with modern challenges.

Read more from Daniel de Liever: