Into the Structure of Existence

 

From the outset of existential philosophy, a fundamental question has been posed: What does existence mean? Philosophers such as Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger have provided substantial answers to this query. However, another question arises: how can these profound ideas and extensive writings about existence be organized into a coherent format?

---

In the realm of existential psychology, two interrelated yet distinct categories have been identified. May (1958), drawing on earlier philosophical texts, outlined the first category in a relatively comprehensive manner. This category, known as being-in-the-world, encompasses three primary dimensions—being-with-self, being-with-others, and being-with-environment - though it has four aspects, which will be detailed later - According to this framework, our existence is shaped by our relationships with these three fundamental aspects. Neglecting any one of these aspects leads to a feeling known as "existential guilt," which differs from the concept of existential anxiety.

Existential guilt arises when a person feels disconnected from themselves, struggles to form healthy relationships with others, or fails to interact appropriately with their natural environment, which humans often overlook or disregard. Furthermore, when multiple aspects of this disconnection occur simultaneously, the intensity of existential guilt can increase. In addition to the three categories identified by Rollo May, there is a fourth concept known as being-with-superior-being or divine connection, proposed by van Deurzen-Smith (1984). Although this concept is not commonly included in existential philosophical texts or most psychological questionnaires and scales, it is a topic explored in existential therapy and has its proponents in existential philosophy. The concept of being-with-superior-being pertains to the sense of comfort derived from a connection with a higher existence, and neglecting this connection can also lead to existential guilt.

Alternatively, another approach to understanding the meaning of existence has been proposed by philosophers and effectively articulated by Yalom (1980). According to this perspective, the meaning of existence is intrinsically linked to our personal experiences. We grapple with four fundamental concerns that shape our true existence: death, meaninglessness, existential isolation, and freedom. These concerns are a constant part of our lives. We yearn for eternal life despite knowing our mortality; we seek and create meaning in our lives even though life itself may lack inherent meaning; we form various relationships, yet we experience solitude at the beginning, end, and throughout our lives; and we crave freedom while simultaneously bearing the responsibility for our actions.

These four issues are referred to as "existential concerns," and ignoring them can result in what is known as "existential anxiety." In essence, existential anxiety encompasses these four fundamental concerns, and assessments designed to measure existential anxiety typically include them. Although existential anxiety is a distinct concept from "existential guilt," it provides a different perspective while still being related to existential guilt.

In examining the relationship between being-in-the-world and existential concerns, it's evident that existential concerns are closely linked to the concept of being-with-self. Conversely, existential isolation is strongly associated with the concept of being-with-others. Notably, since 2004 (refer to Pinel, Long, Landau, and Pyszczynski), existential isolation has gained significant attention in existential psychology research. This concept addresses both being-with-self—acknowledging that we enter, experience, and leave the world alone—and being-with-others—recognizing the importance of engaging with others and sharing ideas to better understand our existence.

Conversely, the importance of being-with-environment in discussing existential concerns appears to have been overlooked, with existential concerns typically being framed in terms of our relationships with ourselves and others. However, it is undeniable that humans, like other animals, are inherently connected to nature. As May (1958) pointed out, ignoring the environment and becoming overly absorbed in social and civilized processes can lead us to confront the “existential guilt," which can be a source of numerous psychological and behavioral issues.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the structure of existence comprises two distinct yet interconnected categories: being-in-the-world and existential concerns. Being-in-the-world primarily deals with our relational dynamics involving the self, others, and the environment. In contrast, existential concerns focus on both the foundational aspects of the human psyche and our interactions with ourselves and others.

These two categories encompass both distinct and interconnected concepts aimed at clarifying human existence. When these categories are combined, it becomes apparent that the concept of being-with-self encompasses all four existential concerns—death, meaninglessness, existential isolation, and freedom. The concept of being-with-others incorporates existential isolation along with the idea of "feeling responsible when exercising freedom of action." Meanwhile, being-with-the-environment introduces a unique and complementary perspective that is distinct in its own right.

The exploration of any single aspect of existence can indeed be vast and may involve various interconnected concepts. Nevertheless, this article has sought to provide a foundational overview of the structure of existence, establishing a framework for more in-depth investigations in future works. By presenting these key concepts and their interrelations, we create a solid base for understanding how they interweave and influence one another. This foundational approach not only clarifies the connections between fundamental ideas but also sets the stage for a more nuanced exploration of each concept in subsequent studies. As we delve deeper into these themes, this groundwork will facilitate a richer and more detailed analysis, enhancing our overall comprehension of existential structures.