Existentialism

**Existentialism** is a philosophical
strain associated mainly with certain 19th and 20th-century European
philosophers (Sartre being the most notable of these) who, despite profound doctrinal differences, shared the
belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human individual.
In the view of the existentialist, the individual's starting point is
characterized by what has been called "the existential
attitude", or a sense of disorientation, confusion, or dread in
the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world. And involves
the process of seeking out a way to create a sense of meaning. Many
existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic
philosophies, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote
from concrete human experience.

On the existential view, to understand
what a human being is it is not enough to know all the truths that are learned from the social or hard sciences. Even having an absolute picture of the physical rules of the world would not be seen as enough by them. Because while this might describe them from the outside, it does not give a proper description internally of what it means to be. This being something inherently subjective and first person in nature, that an objective external description can not properly capture. Emphasizing the importance of the internal subjective goals and truths of being as necessary qualifiers for understanding what it means to be human.

While from a modern perspective this might be seen in more of a light of how to find out what to do with life or your place in it, at earlier times the question of meaning was seen as an important one for avoiding falling into nihilistic attitudes. Because the question of meaning or how to support it, as well as questions of value were seen as something that if they were unsupported you would be at risk for all actions to have no fundamental reason to be done. By modern standards that aspect is considered less of a concern because it is considered something that there is more than enough reason to consider having been properly supported, but the concerns that stemmed from it have had a large influence on how we approach questions of value. This is why classical existentialism focused heavily on anguish, and questions of whether actions can have meaning in an overall sense. Whereas modern existentialist works tend to lean more towards assuming that meaning in the overall sense can exist, but the question being closer to whether human action, or your life in particular can meaningfully grasp it.

More information, as well as information about existentialist ethics, and Nietzsche in general is on the ethics page. Although note that nietzsche is not always considered an existentialist proper, but more of a proto-existentialist. Information about religious existentialism is on the theism and heterodox christianity pages. Information about agency and free will is on the philosophy of agency page.

## General

While existentialism as a philosophical
tradition is something that belongs more to the realm of history, due
to it being based specifically in problems and ideas that have since
been seen as things that have been moved on from, it is still a
popular category in terms of literature. This is because while
treating the idea of meaning and how to find things that matter is no
longer seen as a philosophical crisis that we might be unable to
resolve, the narrative flow of people undergoing a crisis of meaning is eternally relatable. So existential themes are still a big
thing in literature and media even though as a philosophical
tradition it is now relegated to more obscurity. Many modern philosophical strains are still likewise inspired by existentialism. Such as the narrative criterion of identity in philosophy of mind being inspired by existentialist thought.

Although many proto-existentialist
writers came from before the time, such as kiergedard or nietzsche,
the problem of being was first identified as a distinct problem by
Heidegger, who formulated the question of what does it mean to be.
This brought up the concept of authenticity, and how one could make
sense of what was truly their own, and stemmed from their own being.
Despite this, Heidegger did not identify as existentialist proper,
nor act enthused about the tradition that drew on his work.
Kierkegard introduced the idea that “subjectivity is the truth,”
an idea that prefigures the existential concept of authenticity, and
later perspectivist angles.

Existentialism is often confused with nihilism, despite being a distinct idea. Most specifically the idea of existential nihilism, which says that there is no reason to do anything, or meaning to any action. But which is a distinct position from existentialism which says that meaning is entrenched in human actions and narratives themselves, but still very much exist. Absurdism is a kind of in between point between existentialism and nihilism. While existentialism says you can definitely create and find meaning, absurdism says that you cannot truly find it and that this is in conflict with the human need to seek it out. And so while your actions cannot have grasped meaning per say, you should rebel against this ambiguity by embracing life as if it did all the same.

Megaten games are of course steeped in
existential themes. This is because a big aspect of your unavoidable
freedom in existentialism is the fact that no authority or set of values is inherent.
Your choice to follow any authority comes prior to that authority
itself. And so the ultimate responsibility for choosing what
authority you follow rests in you. This is reflected in the themes of
mainline which are all about the fact that no path is inherent, and
it is something you ultimately have to choose. And the crisis of
faith that can come with it when you realize that this is the case
and that there is no set answer.

Nocturne in particular depicts existentialism in a very direct way via the rules of the vortex world. In nocturne, the god you summon cannot give you your reason, but you have to decide it on your own. As a depiction of the existentialist conception of how ultimate responsibility for your values and decisions has to be internal. Even if you trust someone else's decisionmaking the choice to do so is personal. This is mixed with a dynamic where it shows how your decisions are reflected into a worldview that affects the external world.

## Existence precedes essence

Sartre's slogan - “existence precedes essence” - is one of the core ideas of existentialism. Namely, the
idea that no general, non-formal account of what it means to be human
can be given, since that meaning is decided in and through existing
itself. What this means is that the physical facts of something's
existence in and of themselves don't define the distinctive meaning
of what it means to be human, since what matters are the choices and
paths taken, which can only be understood in terms of the unfolding
of human action. This is in contrast to other things like objects, or even animals, whose
essential properties are fixed by the kind of entities they
are. What is essential to a human being, namely, what makes them *who*
they are, is not fixed by their mere category of being humans, but by
what they make of themselves in particular, or who they become.

Sartre's phrase comes as an inversion of a long standing western idea on how the essence of things was previously seen by many. Traditionally, western philosophers have connected the
concept of existence with that of essence in such a way that the
former signifies merely the *instantiation* of the latter. Traditionally, essence was thought to define what a thing was, and existence merely to define that it exists. Which means that it has nothing to add to the concept of its essence. Ancient western philosophy tended to tie ethics to essence in this sense, and the idea of a teleological end that your essence was ordered to and ideally should move towards. Existentialism being one of the trends of moving away from this assumption. Though other ideas such as bundle theory were doing so in different types of way.

This likewise applies to meaning. There is no pre-existing meaning in the world that humans have inherently applied to them, but rather meaning is something that is created by human actions. Meaning here is presented as something inherently subjectively related to individuals, and entrenched in the narratives they create. Meaning here is an ambiguous term, and one which some say is hard to meaningfully define. With some saying that the concept of meaning in general as an inherent philosophical problem in terms for action is overblown, and it is closer to a mere synonym to description or connotations. In part since the difficulty of finding reasons for action or how to approach the idea of objective value are seen as more of historical philosophical problems that are not considered as relevant in modern day.

In what looks like a proto-existential move, Descartes rejected
the traditional essential definitions of man in favor of a radical,
first-person reflection on his own existence, the “I am.”
Nevertheless, he quickly reinstated the old model by characterizing
his existence as that of a substance determined by an essential
property, “thinking.” In contrast, Heidegger proposes that “I”
am “an entity whose what [essence] is precisely to be and nothing
but to be”. Such an entity's existing cannot, therefore, be thought
as the instantiation of an essence, and consequently what it means to
be such an entity cannot be determined by appeal to pre-given
frameworks.

Megaten of course likewise builds from this framework, denying the idea that humans come with any pre set thing they are ordered to. Although interestingly, not to an absolute sense. Since megaten's jungian elements place this in contrast with the fact that various beings, even humans are in fact instantiations of a past essence of some kind. But this itself is presented as an aspect of facticity, in which their radical freedom allows them to choose to respond to in different ways. For instance, akira is seen as an embodiment of kingship, and nanashi as the reincarnation of akira. But despite this reincarnation, whether he chooses to identify with akira or to carve a separate destiny as a distinct being is left open, with different endings taking this in different ways.

## Facticity

Of course, there is a sense in which human beings do instantiate essences, as Heidegger's phrase already admits. Since obviously by one's nature there is a set of physical fact that represent the objective nature they stem from. But what matters for existential thought is the manner of such instantiation, the way of existing. The facts of the matter, the physical objective facts relating to one's being are known as facility in existentialist thought. These are seen as giving rise to your subjective existence, but your subjective existence is of course the primary core of your being, rather than the underlying facticity.

Facticity is seen in existentialist thought as both a limitation and a condition of freedom. It is a
limitation in the sense that a large part of one's facticity consists of things
one has forced on them, and which are not a choice of theirs (birthplace, etc.), but a condition of freedom
in the sense that one's values most likely depend on it, and one could have no existence at all if it did not emerge from a nature. However, even
though one's facticity is "set in stone" (as being past, for instance),
it cannot determine a person: The value ascribed to one's facticity is
still presented as something that is ascribed to it freely by that person through the process of their own choices. Note that even the state of your objective choices as it moves to the past becomes facticity for you.

The denial of one's facticity in the process of making choices is seen as a form of being inauthentic. For instance, if one continually fantasizes about situations they will never be in rather than acknowledging the life they live is a form of inauthenticity since your choices can only stem from the reality of your situation, and to try to relate them to one you are not entrenched in is a denial of your reality. A more authentic mode then would be to consider realistic means to get to any fantasies one might have.

Another aspect of facticity is that it entails angst,
 both in the sense that freedom "produces" angst when limited by
facticity, and the realization of there being boundaries on your actions, and in the sense that the lack of the possibility of having
facticity to "step in" for one to take responsibility for something one
has done, also produces angst. Namely that you are ultimately always behind your choices, and so cannot try to blame them entirely on situation.

Note that some parts of existential thought that are considered to have been superceded by later structuralist philosophy is the fact that existentialists tended to emphasize you as having radical freedom even in light of this facticity. But that later accounts tend to call into question whether that is really a meaningful description of human action. In part due to how much responsibility it ascribes to people, who despite ostensible freedom do not actually have a meaningfully easy time choosing certain things, in part since mental content and cultural situations can heavily bind even what you are capable of thinking.

Megaten of course takes this into account as well. But at the same time it also takes into account structuralist accounts that supersede certain classical existentialist leanings. While it emphasizes existentialist freedom, and the slant of characters being a self chosen path, it also shows that their subjectivity does emerge from facts of a nature, and that this nature is necessary for contextualizing them. For instance, all the human members who are on your team in the end of iva tend to have ideologies similar to where they came from. Because no one is really radically free from their situation, and even their choices will be influenced from the structures they emerge from. This is a long standing critique of existentialism as a whole, and one reason why it is more of a historical doctrine in that despite having a concept of facticity it did not properly contextualize the bounds on freedom. Note that despite megaten admitting these limitations at times, its presentation is still heavily existentialist in character. Showing this freedom, despite the degrees of binding as a true quality that is an important one to uphold.

## Authenticity

Authenticity is a term used in
existentialist philosophy. In existentialism, authenticity is the
degree to which one is true to one's own personality, spirit, or
character, despite external pressures; the conscious self is seen as
coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering
external forces, pressures, and influences which are very different
from, and other than, itself. A lack of authenticity is considered in
existentialism to be bad faith.

Many noted existentialist writers consider the theme of authentic
existence important. Authentic existence involves the idea that one has
to "create oneself" and then live in accordance with this self. What is
meant by authenticity
 is that in acting, one should act as oneself, not as one's job or as one's genes or any other essence might seem to require. How "one should" act is often determined by an image one has, of how
one such as oneself acts. In Being and Nothingness, Sartre relates an example of a "waiter" in *bad faith*: he merely takes part in the "act" of being a typical waiter, albeit very convincingly.
 This image usually corresponds to some sort of social norm, but this
does not mean that all acting in accordance with social norms is
inauthentic: The main point is the attitude one takes to one's own
freedom and responsibility, and the extent to which one acts in
accordance with this freedom. The waiter in this context acting not as is true to themself, but as they think the role of a waiter requires.

There are some criticisms of authenticity in being treated as an absolute virtue on the ethics page.
Authenticity is of course presented as a goal in megaten, to embody the choices one makes. But in more specific of a case, neutral emphasizes this heavily, often
talking about the importance of choosing your own path, sometimes
even to the point of refusing to criticize people who they are
fighting against if those people were being true to themselves. This has
 been a staple across the series ranging from En No ozuno saying it in I
 to isabeau in IV to nozomi hinting at it in iva. In persona 5 the word
authenticity is used directly, described as being true to yourself. To a different extent, chaos also emphasizes it though without the moral restraints being placed on it.

Since authenticity as an idea relates to acting in tune with the facticity of your own nature and position, it also relates to the jungian concept of facing your shadow, as seen in the persona series, and most commonly in persona 4. The prospect of coming to understand your own nature, and so to live in tune with it is related to the idea of authentic living, though distinct and generally created as ideas for different reasons. Atlus relates these together in terms of being able to form a more comprehensive picture of yourself so as to understand your own drives and desires better, so as to be able to live in tune with them.

## Existentialist ethics

Existentialism in and of itself did not develop much in the way of a normative
ethics; and what it has is something that is often considered underdeveloped. In terms of normative ethics, sartre seems to place freedom as the fundamental value, but ambiguously leads from there to the idea that to respect your own freedom one must also respect and uphold the freedom of others. In addition, authenticity is placed as a high virtue, despite being a different kind of approach from a value-based on. There are many criticisms of the justifications used for existentialist ethics, although as the approach was considered inspirational many did take the ideas from it, and incorporate it into more rigorously developed systems. For information about normative approaches to ethics that derive from existentialism look on the ethics page.

Sartre referred to the "ideality" of values. Which in this case was meant to mean not that they are transcendent, but rather that they have no real authority in terms of justification for behavior. No values are self evidently objectively true to him, and so cannot be used as a justification for action, which would be seen as denying one's own freedom and choice in the process. The meta ethics he seems to imply seem to imply that value judgments can be justified, but only relative to some
concrete and specific project. Namely that value is grounded in decision, and stems from one's choice to act in keeping with what would make one a specific type of person (I.E. virtuous). One's commitment to a project then implies value within the decision. This has been criticized by various means as in a sense a circular justification, or otherwise left vague. So while existentialism and even existentialist ethics are still considered inspirational, the justifications used in sartre's own work are rarely taken as is without further expansion. To his credit however, the goal of the existentialist works was never to provide a systematic ethics. And in many ways it was more ordered to the idea of moral psychology

For existentialists like Sartre, then, I am
“the one who finally makes values exist in order to determine
[my] actions by their
demands.” Commitment—or “engagement”—is thus ultimately
the basis for an authentically meaningful life, that is, one that
answers to the existential condition of being human and does not flee
that condition by appeal to an abstract system of reason. A potential issue this can run into however is that it seems to be a form of individual relativism, yet would come in conflict with the seemingly universal declaration that to respect freedom one must respect the freedom of others. And so those trying to build on these ideas into a cohesive normative ethics tend to expand on and need to resolve these tensions.

As already stated, neutral tends to use existentialism as a heavy basis and inspiration for its ethical approach. In iva neutral is even referred to as "freedom" likely meant to call to mind existentialism's idea of an ethics of freedom. Taking one's chosen path, and the emphasis on it being your own path are a major theme of neutral, as well as the emphasis on respecting the freedom of others. Notably as well, neutral is presented in a way as if it was slanted to rejecting treatments of values as absolute in the way law and to a lesser extent chaos seem to. Which ties in with the existentialist idea of values stemming from action rather than having any authority over them. Normatively of course, this in and of itself would be defined as a value system regardless. Note also that the book title existentialism is a humanism ironically relates to how in smt those are two of the biggest themes for neutral.

Interestingly, the game seems to imply that neutral is most suited to existentialist ethics, since law and chaos inherently have slants whereas neutral supports multiple slants provided you do not use them to deviate from a neutral paradigm. Whether that makes sense is dubious, since it depends on what form of freedom you prioritize. But it has to do with how law and chaos are both based on a dominant ideology worked into the structure of society, and the alleged assumption that neutral isn't since it is neutral between them. Whether it makes sense to say that that in and of itself is not an ideological decision, or that this freedom wouldn't need a dominant slant in order to support its upholding also being in question.

## Mainline

In terms of the narratives of megaten games, many aspects of the plots themselves series-wide tend to veer into existentialist themes, with those themes being a core aspect of the series as a whole. Series-wide, one of the main themes is how you exist in a world of infinite choices, and it is up to you to decide how to resolve this. That there is no inherent value system that comes before you having to align yourself to it in a way where you can abdicate responsibility for your choice.

This is shown with the religious themes in game. In some games people are raised in a culture with a dominant religion and associated ideology. But then they undergo a crisis of faith when faced with the reality that you can't just assume that the religion is correct, and ultimately are faced with a choice. The crisis of faith is a big part of existentialist thought as well, facing the reality that you have responsibility for your own decisions, and can't abdicate this to a religious group, since even the choice to do so is inescapably a decision of your own. This is shown in games like IV especially, where in the beginning in mikado there is a presumed paradigm to their society, and it is even upheld by the church, but which is depicted as a corrupt system. Interestingly, even for johnathan who sides with the angels it is shown that the church as it existed was corrupt and they believed it needed to be cleansed.

In SMTI this is told to you by en no ozuno, who tells you how there is no single path, and ultimately you will be called on to make your own decision. The emphasis on your decisions is a main staple of the game. More than many rpgs, megaten games are told from your first person perspectives. You rarely see things that are not seen by your character itself, because it is meant to show your first person perspective. You are thrust in this world, and have to react to it. Having information that the character does not have access to would influence your decision-making, and so ultimately this is something you are kept away from.

Various people try to convince you to their side, but ultimately the decision is your own. The concept of authenticity can come up as well, since your decisions along the game often dictate what the result is, and some of them after this point asses whether you are doing it from a choice of your own, knowingly and willingly, versus feel pulled along, and are not owning up to the path you have taken. For instance, in IVA you can still choose a path other than the one you are oriented to, but the game highlights the inconsistency of you doing so. In most games the option is barred from you entirely.

The games drive home the identification of you with your self insert to simulate choices you make for yourself. It makes you make ideological choices, and shows you the ramifications of them to emphasize the reality of choosing under this ambiguity, and having to take responsibility for the choices you made. Driven home on law in SMTII where lucifer tells you to never forget that what happens will be your fault. And many of the choices are presented in a morally grey way so as that the narrative itself doesn't provide you with a correct answer to them. Its structured to force you to think over it for yourself, and to ask yourself whether you are happy with the angle you took. With some of the endings being very dark as well, to show what a potential ramification of an idea taken too far can be.

The white come into play as a depiction of a kind of existential despair. They aren't quite nihilists, but they lost faith in the world as something that could have sufficient meaning under the circumstances. They aren't merely a flat depiction of those who question the meaning of actions though, since part of their presentation is also thinking that the world is so broken that it would be better for it to not exist. These thing overlap though, since existential crisis-es are not merely questions of whether meaning itself can exist, but also revolve around whether specific things, such as your own life have sufficient meaning. In their case, the question veering wider into the question of all life, whether it has a meaningful reason to continue existing in light of the dark truths of what binds you they think humans can never escape.

Your party when mentioning the white mentions that they felt no malevolence from them. Since their goal to destroy reality was not out of spite or hatred, but a true overpowering despair. The dlcs indicate how even if they die they will still be around. And while this applies to demons in general to various degrees, here it emphasizes the underlying existential anxiety that can always turn you to darker paths, and always exists under the surface. Something that will always need to be overcome.

The more general existentialist themes overlap with some religious existentialist ideas, that are detailed more on the theism and heterodox christianity pages. The religious existentialism of paul tillich shows how what one's god is is in a sense thier chosen telos. The interesting thing about demons and gods in-game is that unlike humans, they are depicted as having more of a fundamental essence, being embodiments of human ideas. With the more self defining path being something humans have an easier time with. This does not mean that gods are unable to change themselves though, though when they do so to too large a degree it tends to be a change of form. Since the forms, when manifested to humans take on human shapes, and an individual soul manifest as one trying to undergo change would then be more likely trying to change to a different archetype. But not all entities of the same archetype are the same anyways, and they have a range of different personalities same as any race. Despite being born from an idea.

This slant of viewing religion through an existentialist lens of course ties back to the idea that there is no inherent path. Even if something is correct, it is something you have to find and uphold, rather than being something you are inherently given. Humans exist in the world, and the paths they find are in a heavy way shaped by them. And so they are making a point that the religious dynamic in many ways is going to take this into account. The in-game religions are different than the ones that exist now even though those ones existed in the past of the games, to show the development of these values and ideas. This is in keeping with modern views on religion, like tillich mentioned above that take into account that humans are in this area of ambiguity, needing to seek out the truth.

This also comes into play in realizing the slants and choices of others. The heroes are called law hero and chaos hero to show that even if you are a "hero," you aren't a hero to everyone. In every instance choices will inevitably prioritize some things at the expenses of others, and you have to accept that there will always be people against it for whom the actions seem villainous. Because right or wrong, if people are at odds there will always be people for whom certain outcomes involve perceived harms. And so even if you think they are wrong you have reason to be sympathetic to understanding where their view comes from. People are the hero in their own story, but their story is not objective. The universe doesn't delineate who the good side is, so you are always acting within a realm of uncertainty.

## Persona

Persona also has cases that relate to existentialism, often focusing more on existential crisises. For instance, in p4 adachi's backstory involves him working his whole life to get ahead, pushed to do so, only for it to blow up in his face. So he questions whether his actions had meaning, ultimately veering towards the idea that he shouldn't take anything seriously anymore. This interesting shows that both aspects of how new personality were genuine, since the goofy side was him choosing to goof off since he now doubts the purpose of working hard, but the vicious side is filled with anger over the same events and willing to hurt people since he stopped caring about things. It shows an aspect of existential crisises in that they can radically shift your perspective to one of apathy.

To a lesser extent these same themes apply to your party in general. The overarching theme of persona 4 is truth, but the conflict comes into question of whether the truth matters, or even can be found. While truth in and of itself is not as major of an existentialist theme, this overlaps with the question of finding meaning and whether the search for the truth is in and of itself meaningful, and why. You are shown how in many cases people have no interest in the truth proper, just whatever information caters to them, and are tasked to reject this answer to seek it.

In persona 3 a similar situation happens with strega. In existentialism a big focus is on reaction to death. And their stance of in the face of death choosing to not take life seriously or attach themselves to it shows a darker attempt to resolve the tension of the reality of death. The plot of persona 3 in general revolves around the reality of the awareness of death, and various reactions to it. Given the option either to ignore it, or face it head on, in spite of it being an impossible task in the sense of it being something you can never truly overcome. Presented in-game with nyx being an allegedly un-defeatable villain. With the statement of it being held off even if not defeated representing the fact that how even if death is not erased it can be overcome. More information about the approaches to death on the death page.

As said above, facing your shadow, despite obviously being a jungian idea has aspects that relate to existential themes as well, including themes of authenticity, which requires a certain level of understanding of your own reasons and drives. In p4, naoto veers close to what sartre calls bad faith since she thinks she should be a boy heavily because she thinks it is what is expected in her role, rather than an actual true intention of hers. There are other examples too, such as with yukiko trying to be a good daughter and inn-owner, and kanji trying to be masculine. These arcs tend to resolve with them coming to terms with their own existence, and acting more authentically, even though many of them still choose to follow some of those same roles, but now doing so with more self awareness.

Persona 5 likewise veers into many existentialist themes. From the beginning, it goes into the point of how authority is not absolute. The realization that your choices exist apart from authority, and so the choice to support it is a choice, and one that you can also veer away from doing. The game calling authority into question makes the question of how to act, and the fact that you yourself ultimately have to decide forefront and center, since the inability to fully trust authority is reflected even in good authority, since your decision to have faith in it is still shown as an active choice, as well as a question of how much to have.

Persona 5 also deals with the conflation between the self and the masses, which is another existentialist theme. How society itself will fall into having a dominant paradigm, and that compliance with it can alienate you from living authentically. Mementos shows society in terms of a collective mass who merely comply with what is laid out before them. And shows the act of breaking free from that entrenchment due to the problems it can cause. Society in and of itself is something people treat like an authority, similar to specific authorities. Since all of this structurally shapes what one think the default path to comply with is. Persona 5 calling into question this idea of default paths in favor of showing the necessity of being aware of and taking responsibility for one's own actions. The demonic motif for the characters representing the idea of social demons, and deviation from a paradigm. Like in the earlier games, p5 also shows the conflict between what society or others expect you to act like versus authentic living.