This is the text of an email I sent someone explaining my views in simple form. There is a great deal more thought backing all this, but this expresses my process of thought and the broad conclusions well.
I detest Sartre, but I am fond of Camus--not because I agree with either his politics or philosophy, but because he did his best to be a decent human being.
It has never seemed to me that the flow from freedom to angst was necessary or even an intelligent reaction to the facts as they were perceived then.
This was written to a Christian Spiritualist, but it applies, as I point out, generally.
My intent, in effect, is to do Existentialism right. What principles can we adduce that are universally useful, regardless of our understandings of the nature of the universe?
Existentially--which is to say prior to any formed beliefs about the "nature" of our own identities, of our society and of the universe--we have two primary tasks: dealing with pain, and figuring out what to do.
All cultural systems can be deconstructed as contingent. What is right and proper in Islamic society is not the same as what was right and proper for, say, Plains Indians. If everyone is "right", then no one is right. In a strictly material sense there is no such thing as "Natural Law", which can be seen as a cultural construct, a facade created with words, behind which no reality stands.
What do we make of this? This problem informs most of the de facto nihilism we see in the modern academy. Obviously, the deconstruction of religion is a part of this. There are both cultural and epistemological components to this, of which the former is by far the more important.
The problem of pain is existentially first. It is not possible to live without some pain. Camus was quite right to consider the first existential question to be: why live at all?
Our answer to this is what I call our Meaning system. As a Christian, you have been granted the blessing of life, and are to do what you can to alleviate the sufferings of others. In love, you can transcend your own troubles, and find life quite enjoyable in spite of the many things that you would prefer not to have to deal with. In actuality, you can find in pain a means of personal transmutation. In my view, this is what Christ taught us.
This transformation cannot happen in a condition of resentment and self pity. Logically, therefore, once we have made the decision to live, the rejection of self pity is essential. It is the sine qua non of happiness, and can be accomplished in the absence of religious sentiment.
Then we encounter confusion. What is true? We have to answer this so as to be able to make decisions as to what to do. Science works well enough in the physical domain, but it has nothing to say about what sort of life is worth living. Practically, in the doctrine of Scientism--well represented in Behaviorism and its descendants--we are animals without souls. We are an accident, that came from nowhere and is going nowhere. The formation of an effective Meaning system within that understanding of the universe is quite difficult. My grave concern is that it often leads to autocratic political tendencies, since it makes of human nature an object which can be sculpted "scientifically".
To be clear, though, Scientism is the logical extension of Materialism, not vice versa. Our best data indicates that Materialism is an unscientific, counterfactual account of how the universe is put together. This means that the pervasive attachment to Scientism must be understood culturally.
Most people have an instinctive fear of the unknown. Most people prefer a known evil to an unknown good. They are unable to tolerate the anxiety of uncertainty, since uncertainty is a de facto reduction in perceived power. How can one speak clearly in the dark?
The solution to this is to make all truth contingent, and to accept this. What is true is what works, and what works must be understood systemically. For example, I can say without hesitation that rejecting self pity and resentment will make you happier. This is not your duty in any absolute sense. I cannot and will not try to compel it on anyone, or accept such an effort by anyone else. Yet, it works. Love works. This makes it true.
A world in which we cannot finally rest in a certain social or individual gestalt frightens people. Yet, it is the best way. Fear cannot be banished through an effort of the will, but it can be banished through persistent effort at doing the things that frighten you. It can also be banished through understanding. For example, many people are initially frightened of public speaking, but if they force themselves to do it, that pain of fear gradually fades. They realize, through experience, that it is not actually that arduous, and that fear is unnecessary.
Persistence, therefore, is an absolute value for me.
The question remains, though: persistence in pursuit of what? What do we all want? To feel wanted and cherished, to belong, to feel free to connect with others with open love and joy. This is the goal: universal peace and contented happiness. How, then, do we achieve it? That is a question for perception. Without perception, nothing good will come of persistence.
My third absolute value, therefore, is perception, which is to say an understanding of ones own emotions, those of others, and the consequences of one's actions, such that one can calibrate them to move towards universal Goodness, and not away from it.
As should be obvious, all of this is perfectly consistent with Spiritualism. It is also consistent with atheism, Christianity, and Islam. As I understand the issue, what happens when we die depends in large measure on the sort of people we were. This means that any system of thought which encourages actual Goodness is beneficial in an absolute sense.
That is what I have proposed.