This article develops a comparative and interdisciplinary analysis between classical and contemporary existentialism (Heidegger, Sartre, Lévinas, Taylor, Nussbaum, Foucault, Butler, Han, Ricoeur, Merleau-Ponty, Damasio, Braidotti, among others) and the Philosophy of Belonging formulated by Carlos Federico Obregón Díaz. The study proposes a theoretical shift from being-toward-death and radical freedom toward a relational, emotional, institutional, and scientific ontology of belonging, grounded in the thesis “to be is to belong.” Integrating philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, economics, evolutionary biology, and institutional theory, the article argues that subjectivity, freedom, identity, ethics, and justice are not merely individual or abstract phenomena but capacities constructed through affective bonds, shared narratives, and stable institutional structures. In contrast to traditional existentialist pessimism centered on alienation, anguish, and finitude, the Philosophy of Belonging introduces a constructive post-existential framework oriented toward emotional stability, structural inclusion, and institutional architectures of belonging. The paper positions belonging as the ontological infrastructure of human existence, the ethical foundation of recognition, and the socio-economic condition for agency, development, and dignity. It also advances a scientific relational humanism that synthesizes existentialism, neurophilosophy, social theory, and political economy into a unified framework applicable to contemporary challenges such as inequality, exclusion, institutional fragility, and the crisis of meaning in modern societies. Ultimately, the work contributes to 21st-century philosophy by proposing a post-existential paradigm in which freedom is understood as co-belonging, justice as structural inclusion, and identity as emotional-institutional belonging within interdependent human and social systems.
Carlos Federico Obregon Diaz (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: