Evolutionary Existentialism, Sociobiology, and the Meaning of Life

For several decades, I have been fascinated by two intellectual challenges that seem, at first, to be poles apart. One is evolutionary biology, especially sociobiology. The other is existentialism. I hope to show here that, although existential philosophy and evolutionary biology may seem to be strange bedfellows, they are, in fact, a remarkably compatible pair. Collectors of oxymorons are probably licking their chops at the prospect of “evolution ary existentialism.” The thrust of this article is that existential philosophy and evolutionary biology enjoy substantial and hitherto unappreciated similarities—in particular an understanding of life's fundamental absurdity, a relentless and productive focus on the individual, and an optimistic presumption of freedom. I turn first, however, to some of the prominent incompatibilities between existentialism and sociobiology, so that the casual reader can understand why evolution and existentialism appear to constitute such an odd couple. One of the organizing principles of existentialism is the basic notion that human beings have no “essence,” as Simone de Beauvoir proclaimed when she wrote that a person is l'être donc l'être est de n'être pas, the being whose essence is having no essence. Or, as Jean-Paul Sartre (1956) famously put it, “existence precedes essence.” For the existentialists, human beings define themselves, give themselves meaning, and establish their essence only via their existence: by what we do and how we choose to live our individual lives. This is because people have no essence (no human nature) independent of the specifics of how they choose to live, say the existentialists.