They don't contradict each other. Existentialists like Sartre argue that humans cannot suppress consciousness and are 'condemned to be free.' We are born without a predetermined purpose—existence precedes essence. You exist first and must then discover your essence. In the spirit of 'Neti Neti' (neither this nor that), no external force can define your essence; it is your freedom to consciously determine what life is for.
This summary is AI-generated. Please read the full article for complete understanding.
Questioner: You mentioned that if you exist, you have to fret about the future, and you often also mention Sartre, who talks about existential philosophy, which puts radical emphasis on personal freedom. I'm just assuming that is in the context of the present moment, and his words are, ‘Man is condemned to be free.’ I think that brings an existential angst.
On the other hand, Shrimad Bhagavad Gita talks about liberation of the ego and unity with nature. I don't have a clear sense of how these are exactly complementing each other and how they contradict each other.
Acharya Prashant: They don't contradict each other. You see, what the existentialists including Sartre were saying was that the nature of the human being is such that even if you want to suppress or disown consciousness, you will not succeed. So, man is condemned to be free.
And in that sense, Sartre would often quote a chair. He would take the example of a chair. He would say, ‘The chair's existence, its purpose, are all determined by somebody else.’ Form, purpose, everything is determined by somebody else. The chair exists for the sake of others. The chair has no volition over its present condition.
