Existentialism and Gardner's Grendel
That John Gardner's Grendel is "about" or an exploration of existentialism -- most specifically the Existential philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre -- is beyond debate. What is highly debatable, however, is what either/both Gardner and Grendel think/argue/conclude about existentialism, the existential condition, the appropriate response to existential despair etc. AND the relationship of all this to monstrosity and heroism.
In short, Grendel clearly realizes his existential condition and voices many Sartre-ian existential beliefs; he is an existentialist. But does that make him a monster or a hero? Both? Neither?
Existentialism: Freedom and Despair, Freedom and Choice
existentialism : A (mostly) twentieth-century approach that emphasizes the primacy of individual existence over any presumed natural essence for human beings. Although they differ on many details, existentialists generally suppose that the fact of my existence as a human being entails both my unqualified freedom to make of myself whatever I will and the awesome responsibility of employing that freedom appropriately, without being driven by anxiety toward escaping into the inauthenticity or self-deception of any conventional set of rules for behavior, even though the entire project may turn out to be absurd. Prominent existentialists include Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Jaspers, Beauvoir, Sartre, and Camus. (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e9.htm#exism)
Summary: human consciousness is the entirety of human meaning; man makes meaning; absolute meaninglessness of all actions (in the big picture); complete/total freedom; total responsibility (no hand of god); importance of choice.
Main Ideas:
“Existence precedes essence.” The logical outgrowth of the Cartesian Cogito, Locke's "tabula rasa", and the Newtonian, Darwinian scientific/material view of existence:
Descartes: “Cogito Ergo Sum: I think, therefore I am.” vs. “I am, therefore I think.” Radical skepticism/complete, unflinching honesty, authenticity vs. dogma/tradition/ritual.
Locke's "tabula rasa": man is born with a "blank slate"; there is no inherent knowledge. Man gains knowledge (meaning, essence) thru sensation/experience and reflection/thought.
Newtonian, Darwinian scientific/material view of existence: the universe/existence is a series of material events vs. something controlled by a higher power (ie the gods on Mount Olympus, God, Fate) human evolution and the essence of existence is governed by random chance and the physical laws of nature; there is no grand design; no inherent meaning to existence. Life ends at death. Life is strictly, entirely, and completely a physical, bio-chemical and social event.
“Utter self-reliance, however, is a frightening prospect. Although we are strongly inclined to seek human freedom, Kierkegaard noted, contemplation of such a transcendence of all mental and bodily determinations tends only to produce grave anxiety in the individual person. Genuine innocence entails an inability to forsee all outcomes, which thereby renders one incapable of gaining control over one's own life.
Thus, in Begrebet Angest (The Concept of Dread) (1844), Kierkegaard examined the only appropriate emotional response to the condition of human freedom. Anxiety (Ger. Angst) is the dizziness produced in any reasonable being who stands at the brink of genuine freedom. Knowing that we can think and do as we will naturally inspires deep fear about what we shall think and do.
Even religious verities, Kierkegaard supposed, offer no lasting relief from the predicament. Christianity (as Paul had pointed out) makes no sense; its genius lies not in any appeal to the dictates of reason but rather in its total reliance on faith. But from our point of view, the content of an authoritative command is entirely irrelevant; all that matters is the claim that the command places upon our lives. There can be no proof of the authority behind the command, since any such demonstration of its value would make it impossible for us to accept it as a matter of faith.” http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5t.htm#dread
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/kier.htm
Jaspers: Freedom,
Faith and Choice:
one must choose faith; faith is a leap beyond reason.
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/j.htm#jasp
Existential fact leads to the following conclusions, predicaments etc.:
1) The Absurd: the ultimate meaninglessness of all human action; in the grand scheme all human endeavor is rendered insignificant by the brutal facts of existence: time and death. (analogy: cancer, the plague) This leads to two responses, Despair and Freedom:
2)Existential Angst/despair: confronting the terrible pointlessness of our existence.
3) Complete freedom: devoid of meaning, man is utterly and entirely free to create himself and his world (Kurtz, in Heart of Dakness). This leads to two responses, Responsibility and Anxiety:
4) Responsibility: devoid of controlling meaning (universal moral laws; a greater meaning; evolving human ‘progress’) man is utterly, entirely, completely responsible for his own fate, for history etc.
5) Anxiety: the natural response to this dizzying responsibility
6) Choice (note relationship to freedom, responsibility)
a) we create our lives thru our choices
b) we are faced with choosing between competing equally good (morally good, valid) choices and no dogma can help us (see "Existentialism is a Humanism" Sartre)
c) we are faced with choosing between competing equally bad choices (both lead to doom; The Plague, surviving the Holocaust) and no dogma can help us
7) Confronting Suicide: why not, in the face of meaninglessness etc.?
Existentialism as a philosophy confronting and describing this reality and attempting to locate a governing morality outside of or within religious dogma perceived as inadequate to modern philosophy and knowledge.
Camus' Myth of Sysyphus