You've probably heard the joke: a humanist and an existentialist walk into a bar. The humanist orders a drink because life is worth celebrating. The existentialist stares at the menu, paralyzed by the absurdity of choice, and eventually orders the same thing — but only after deciding that the act of ordering means something.
Okay, maybe that's not a real joke. People treat these two traditions like opposites. One's sunny, rational, progress-oriented. But it captures something true. The other's dark, anxious, obsessed with nothingness. And sure, on the surface, they look like they're fighting different wars The details matter here..
But spend time with the actual texts — not the summaries, not the Wikipedia intros — and a different picture emerges. Underneath the tone differences, the vocabulary gaps, the historical accidents that put them in separate philosophy departments, humanists and existentialists keep nodding at each other across the table Which is the point..
They agree on more than you'd think. And the agreements? They're the ones that actually matter And that's really what it comes down to..
What Is This Overlap, Anyway?
Before we get into the agreements, let's be clear about who we're talking about The details matter here..
Humanism — at least the secular, philosophical kind — is the view that human beings are the primary source of value, meaning, and moral authority. No gods handing down commandments. No cosmic purpose written in the stars. We build the good life through reason, empathy, science, and shared effort. Think Erasmus, Montaigne, John Dewey, Martha Nussbaum. Think the Amsterdam Declaration. Think "human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives."
Existentialism is messier. It's not a single system. It's a mood, a method, a cluster of thinkers who all started from the same place: existence precedes essence. You exist first. You show up in the world without a pre-assigned nature, a divine blueprint, or a factory setting. Then you become — through choices, commitments, failures, leaps. Think Kierkegaard (the Christian one), Nietzsche (the anti-Christian one), Heidegger (the complicated one), Sartre (the famous one), de Beauvoir (the one who actually applied it to women's lives), Camus (the one who rejected the label but wrote the playbook anyway) Small thing, real impact..
Different centuries. Different temperaments. Different politics, sometimes violently so Easy to understand, harder to ignore..
But watch what happens when you put their core claims side by side.
Why It Matters: The Stakes Are Identical
Here's the thing most introductions miss. Both traditions emerged as responses to the same crisis: the collapse of external authority.
For centuries, meaning came from outside. That said, god, king, tradition, nature, the Great Chain of Being. You knew what was right. Day to day, you knew your place. The universe had a plan, and your job was to align with it Small thing, real impact..
Then the ground shifted. Science displaced theology. Because of that, democracy displaced monarchy. Markets displaced feudalism. Individuals displaced communities. And suddenly — suddenly in historical terms — the old answers stopped working.
Humanists looked at the vacuum and said: *Good. Now we can build something better. Reason, freedom, cooperation — these are our tools Worth keeping that in mind..
Existentialists looked at the same vacuum and said: *Terrifying. Every commitment. Every value. Now we have to choose everything. With no guarantee we're right.
Different emotional registers. ** The universe doesn't care. **Same diagnosis.Plus, there's no script. We're on our own The details matter here..
And that shared diagnosis? And it's why both traditions care so desperately about agency, responsibility, and authenticity. On top of that, not as abstract virtues. As survival mechanisms.
The Death of the "Given"
If nothing is given — no divine law, no natural hierarchy, no cosmic justice — then everything is up for grabs.
Humanists realized this means we must construct ethics, politics, education, art — deliberately, collectively, revisably. Existentialists realized this means each person must invent their own path — knowing it could be wrong, knowing it will end, knowing no one else can live it for them.
Both traditions agree: pretending the old authorities still exist is bad faith. Whether you call it "superstition" (humanist) or "inauthenticity" (existentialist), the sin is the same — hiding from freedom behind a borrowed script Worth keeping that in mind..
How It Works: The Core Agreements
Let's get specific. Here's where the overlap gets thick.
1. Meaning Is Made, Not Found
This is the big one. The headline agreement.
Humanists: Meaning emerges from human projects — science, art, love, justice, curiosity, care. We create it together, over generations. It's real because we make it real Not complicated — just consistent. And it works..
Existentialists: Meaning is an individual creation. You choose a project — writing, fighting, parenting, climbing a mountain — and through that choice, the project becomes meaningful. Not because the universe validates it. Because you did It's one of those things that adds up..
The overlap: Both reject the idea that meaning is discovered — like a buried treasure or a radio signal from God. Meaning is authored. The humanist says "we author it together." The existentialist says "you author it alone." But neither says "it's already written."
Camus puts it perfectly in The Myth of Sisyphus: "The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.On the flip side, " The boulder rolls back down. In real terms, the task is absurd. *But the engagement with the task — that's where meaning lives The details matter here. But it adds up..
Dewey, the pragmatist humanist, says nearly the same thing in A Common Faith: "The things in civilization we most prize are not of ourselves. Same structure. They exist by grace of the doings and sufferings of the continuous human community in which we are a link." Different metaphor. **Engagement creates value Most people skip this — try not to..
2. Freedom Is the Burden and the Glory
Ask a humanist what distinguishes humans. They'll say: reason, autonomy, the capacity to shape our conditions.
Ask an existentialist. They'll say: radical freedom. Now, condemned to be free, in Sartre's phrase. No excuses. No determinism that lets you off the hook.
The overlap: Freedom isn't a gift you unwrap and enjoy. It's a condition you live. And it demands something of you.
Humanists build institutions to protect and expand freedom — schools, courts, free press, scientific peer review. Existentialists interrogate freedom's interior experience — anxiety, vertigo, the nausea of realizing I could do anything.
But both agree: a life without freedom isn't fully human. And both agree that freedom entails responsibility. You can't have the one without the other That's the part that actually makes a difference..
De Beauvoir's The Ethics of Ambiguity is basically a bridge text here. Day to day, she takes Sartre's radical freedom and asks: *Okay, but what do we do with it? * Her answer: we will freedom for others too. We fight oppression. We build a world where more people can choose. That's existentialism becoming humanism in real time Most people skip this — try not to..
3. This Life Is the Only One That Counts
No afterlife. No reincarnation. No cosmic ledger where the books balance in the end.
Humanists have always been clear on this.
Humanists have always been clear on this. Plus, they argue that the finite span we are given is the only canvas we can paint upon, and that any moral calculus must be anchored in the tangible consequences of our actions here and now. The absence of a cosmic ledger does not render life meaningless; rather, it places the entire weight of significance on the choices we make while we are alive. In this view, the urgency to improve our world, to alleviate suffering, and to grow flourishing is not a secondary concern but the very core of ethical life Less friction, more output..
Existentialists echo this conviction, though they frame it in terms of authenticity and radical responsibility. In practice, for them, the knowledge that there is no afterlife or pre‑ordained purpose forces us to confront the fact that we are the authors of our own narratives. This confrontation is not a source of despair but a summons to live deliberately, to own the freedom that defines us, and to create values that resonate with our own truth. The finitude of existence becomes a catalyst for intensity, not a reason for nihilism.
The overlap in practice
Both traditions converge on a few practical insights when they assert that this life is the only one that counts:
-
Immediacy of impact – Actions taken now have real, measurable effects on people, ecosystems, and societies. Whether it is voting for policies that curb climate change, supporting a community garden, or mentoring a young person, the consequences are felt in the present and shape the future Less friction, more output..
-
Ethical responsibility without divine sanction – Moral obligations arise from our shared humanity and the interdependence of our lives, not from a higher authority. This self‑generated ethics demands that we ask, “What kind of world do I want to help create?” and then act accordingly.
-
Value in the process, not just the outcome – Because meaning is authored, the journey itself—whether climbing a mountain, writing a novel, or fighting for justice—becomes a source of fulfillment. The struggle, the engagement, and the personal growth are not merely steps toward an external reward; they are the reward.
-
Community as a co‑author – While existentialism stresses individual authorship, humanism reminds us that we are linked to a continuous human community. The stories we tell, the values we uphold, and the institutions we build are collaborative projects, each person adding a line to a shared narrative.
Living the convergence
When these perspectives intersect, they suggest a way of life that is both deeply personal and profoundly social:
- Choose projects that matter to you – Identify activities that spark authentic engagement, whether artistic, scientific, political, or relational. Let the intrinsic pull of these projects guide your daily efforts.
- Act with awareness of your freedom – Recognize that you are not bound by deterministic excuses. Embrace the anxiety that comes with choice as a signal that you are truly alive.
- Assume responsibility for others – Use your freedom to expand possibilities for those around you. Support structures—education, healthcare, civil rights—that enable more people to author their own lives.
- Ground your ethics in the here and now – Evaluate policies, relationships, and personal habits by asking how they affect well‑being in the present world. Prioritize tangible improvements over abstract promises of an afterlife.
- Cherish the finite – The awareness that time is limited can sharpen focus, encouraging you to invest deeply in the moments that count and to let go of trivial distractions.
Conclusion
The dialogue between humanist and existentialist thought reveals a surprising harmony
The dialogue between humanist and existentialist thought reveals a surprising harmony: the very freedom that existentialism celebrates is the engine of humanist progress, while the collective concern for human flourishing gives existential choice its ethical weight. When individuals claim authorship of their lives, they simultaneously recognize that their choices ripple through the shared fabric of community, creating a feedback loop where personal authenticity fuels social responsibility and vice versa Simple, but easy to overlook..
In practice, this means that a person who decides to mentor a youngster is not merely exercising personal liberty; they are actively expanding the pool of agents capable of shaping the world, thereby enriching the humanist project of broadened opportunity. Likewise, a community that cultivates a public garden embodies existentialist engagement with the present moment—tending soil, confronting uncertainty, and finding meaning in the labor—while also delivering measurable benefits to the neighborhood, from cleaner air to stronger social ties Practical, not theoretical..
The convergence also invites a re‑examination of success. Rather than measuring life by distant, metaphysical rewards, the merged perspective encourages us to gauge fulfillment by the tangible impact of our actions and the depth of our involvement. When the process itself is valued, setbacks become sources of learning, and achievements are celebrated not as final destinations but as milestones along an ongoing journey of self‑creation and communal betterment Easy to understand, harder to ignore. Turns out it matters..
At the end of the day, the synthesis of humanist optimism and existentialist immediacy offers a roadmap for a life lived deliberately and compassionately. Because of that, by embracing our freedom, acting with mindful awareness of present consequences, and weaving our stories into the larger human narrative, we craft a world where individual purpose and collective well‑being reinforce each other. In this way, the dialogue does more than articulate a philosophical harmony; it models a lived reality where each person, fully aware of their agency, contributes to a future that is both personally meaningful and socially resonant.
