Existentialism and the Meaning of Life in Mexican Existentialist Philosophy

Jason Beauvais
Jose Abraham Huerta Cano
Luis Angel Ciseña Lopez
Kieran Quijano

Introduction: (written by Kieran)

In a radical shift from traditional Western philosophies, the rise of existentialism in the 19th and
20th centuries originally began as a response to the growing presence of nihilism in post-WWII
Europe. Confronted with this instability, along with the aftermath of the Enlightenment period,
many people who had previously relied on religious faith to come to terms with life’s challenges
felt that the notion of God was outside their grasp. Likewise, Mexico underwent great social
upheaval at the beginning of the 20th century, in the wake of the Mexican Revolution and the
economic struggles resulting from WWII. Existential philosophy also found itself rooted within
Mexican society, as Mexican thinkers brought new perspectives on topics such as death and
absurdity, as well as new and unique facets such as the feeling of cultural “in-betweenness” to
the table. While European and Mexican existential philosophy share similar foundations, many
European thinkers believed that their ideas and experiences applied universally across humanity,
regardless of culture or circumstance. This idea, however, was illusory; French existential
thought was equally influenced by French culture and historical circumstance as Mexican
existential thought. While overarching themes may be similar across cultures, the tone and flavor
of presented ideas are easily influenced by a myriad of personal and political factors. This essay
will explore the existential topics of death, freedom, absurdity, and angst, how each idea is
conceptualized in European and Mexican philosophy, and finally how culture and self-perception
play a significant role in creating new avenues of knowledge.
Death in european and mexican philosophy (Abraham Huerta)

Camus writes that the fundamental problem of philosophy is suicide. However, we can transform
this question and inquire about something similar: how do we deal with death? It is within
existentialism (in Heidegger and Camus) that we can find one of the answers.

In Being and Time, Heidegger says: "The end is imminent for Dasein. Death is not something
that is merely not yet 'present-at-hand,' not some 'missing' final event, reduced to a minimum, but
rather an imminence."1 Death is something that already structures our way of being as Dasein;
that is why we are beings-toward-death. It is an inevitable presence that remains possible for as
long as we exist. Death is a constitutive part of our being, and we are beings that move toward it
over time. At the same time, death represents the absolute end of the possibility of being. It
becomes the ultimate limit.

With this in mind, we can understand more deeply one of the questions Camus raises in The
Myth of Sisyphus. He says: "Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering
the fundamental question of philosophy. [...] I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the
most urgent of questions. How to answer it?"2 In the Western interpretation, where death appears
as the end of life, the question of the value of human acts during life takes on a significant
symbolic importance. The possibility of death confronts us directly with meaninglessness, or, as
Camus calls it, the 'absurd.' For this reason, the topic is simply hidden, almost denied; it is
covered with euphemisms and disappears from everyday life, where it truly belongs.

The Mexican conception, death, carries a different flavor. Emilio Uranga writes:

The Mexican knows with inexorable certainty that his life will eventually break apart
and that it does not hold the sense of a possible culmination. Life for the Mexican is
fragile but not consumable. Thus, life may come to an end at any moment. Life is
always on the verge of being cut short. We live on the edge of death.3

1
Heidegger. El ser y el tiempo. §50 [Trad. prop.]
2
Camus. “Myth of Sisyphus” in The Meaning of Life: A Reader p.66-67
3
Uranga. Análisis del ser del mexicano. P.193 [Trad. prop.]
It is not merely that death appears as an imminent end, but rather that in life, death is something
everyday and ever-present. Death is a natural part of existence itself. And the Mexican maintains
a constant awareness of its closeness. This conception is the result of pre-Hispanic influence and
its later absorption into Christianity. Death is no longer the absolute limit of being, but rather a
new dimension of life.

Freedom (written by Kieran)

Though Mexican and European existential philosophy both concern themselves with the
notion of freedom, differences in cultural and historical landscapes in the two regions have
caused unique approaches and attitudes on the matter. European existentialism, born as a result
of the growing presence of nihilism in Europe after World War II, stressed that all humans are
fundamentally free regardless of political or personal circumstance. Jean-Paul Sartre focused on
freedom specifically, claiming that because humanity’s “existence precedes essence” (370), all
matters of choice and responsibility for our actions solely fall upon us. Though we experience
inclinations towards or against specific choices, we ultimately have the power to act against what
we may consider our better judgment. In a stark contrast to the positive connotation the word
“freedom” often has, Sartre instead claims that humans are “condemned to be free” (370), and
that we are barren of excuses or justifications. For many European existentialists, the knowledge
that humans are completely alone in this respect naturally led to a feeling of intense anxiety (or
what Sartre calls “forlornness” (370)).
Because of the large-scale social, political, and economic turbulence occurring in Europe
at the time existentialism became well-known, it is understandable that many felt a lack of
security and existential anxiety that was ultimately reflected in the philosophy’s understanding of
humanity and choice. According to Sartre, human beings do not have freedom, but rather “man is
freedom”. While sweeping statements such as this define the reality of the European thinker in
the 19th and 20th centuries, the arguments are reliant on experience, circumstance, and culture.
Freedom is also a core tenet of Mexican existentialist philosophy, but differences from
Europe in culture and history create different lenses under which to view it. The Spanish
colonization of Mexico is responsible for the formation of systems of oppression that have
historically hindered the autonomy and freedom of those subjugated by them. While European
existentialists viewed human freedom as unrelated to historical or political circumstances, many
Mexican existentialists such as Emilio Uranga analyze what it means for one’s culture to exist
within a framework of induced dependence. According to Uranga, such a feeling of dependency
has led to a widespread feeling of “insufficiency” when people compare themselves to an
imposed European ideal:

The Mexican suffers and unravels; outsiders recommend that he reverse his
marasmus, that he escape the asphyxiating ivy of his internal jungle, and do so
with the sense of urgency that his surrounding world jealously awaits his
awakening and his work… as soon as this is done and he throws himself
courageously into the adventure, he is violently attacked, reviled, and
reproached, maltreated, and humiliated. (171)

When a person is subjected to a cycle of oppression, even the simplest forms of power and
autonomy are stripped from them by the oppressor. This dehumanizing process leads to a
realization made by Uranga and other Mexican existentialists: one is hindered in realizing the
radical form of freedom discussed by European existentialists unless they first recognize their
own oppression. From this recognition, one can reclaim their power and “dislodge [themselves]
from systems of inferior motivations” (Uranga). While European existentialists felt plagued by
the knowledge of their innate freedom and responsibility, Mexican existentialists wielded it as a
leveraging force against oppressive systems designed to invisibilize their struggles and
personhood.

The Absurd in Albert Camus Thought: Freedom, Rebellion, and the Creation of Meaning
(Luis Ángel)

The absurd, in Albert Camus, encompasses existential, ontological, and religious notions, as his
entire philosophy of the absurd presents existence as something purely individual that emerges
from a confrontation. Faced with the meaninglessness of life and the absence of transcendent
answers, Camus proposes an ethic grounded in rebellion. His philosophy of the absurd, primarily
articulated in The Myth of Sisyphus and further developed politically in The Rebel, offers a way
to understand individual freedom, collective responsibility, and cultural creation as valid and
necessary responses to the lack of existential meaning.
Camus begins with an existential intuition: the human desire for meaning and the lack of any
absolute order to guarantee it. He writes: “The absurd is not in man nor in the world, but in their
presence together4”. This phrase encapsulates the core of his thought: the absurd is a relationship,
not an essential property given by God. Thus, radical pessimism does not lead to nihilism, but
transforms into meaning precisely because of the absence of meaning—a consciousness that
changes one's way of living. The symbol of this attitude is Sisyphus, condemned eternally to
push a boulder to the top of a hill, only to see it fall again and again. For Camus, this image, far
from inspiring resignation, symbolizes the full affirmation of life: “The struggle itself toward the
heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy”5. In this ongoing
struggle despite meaninglessness lies the purest form of freedom. The absurd seeks neither
consolation nor lies; its strength comes from loyalty to reality and the decision to live without
appeal.

Freedom, therefore, acquires an existential condition. It is not about the freedom to choose
within a predefined system of values, but the radical freedom to construct meaning from the
void. Camus states: “The absurd enlightens me on this point: there is no future. Henceforth this is
the reason for my deepest freedom”6. Recognizing finitude does not paralyze; rather, it creates
the deepest and most heightened form of meaning.

Instead of a boundless freedom, Camus proposes a lucid freedom: one that is aware of its
limitations yet determined to affirm itself through action, art, and commitment to the present.
This idea is deepened in The Rebel, where the philosopher of the absurd introduces rebellion as
an ethical response to the absurd. While the absurd hero acts in solitude, the rebel rises in the
name of shared dignity. This rebellion is not destructive but creative. Unlike nihilism, which
denies all value, the Camusian rebel draws boundaries. Thus, Camus’ thought positions itself in a
middle ground between absolute skepticism and blind faith. It is not about suppressing the
absurd, but about living with it—facing it without turning it into an excuse for violence or
resignation.

4
El Mito de Sísifo, Alianza, 2005, p.46 [trad.prop]
5
El Mito de Sísifo, Alianza, 2005, p.156 [trad.prop]
6
El Mito de Sísifo, Alianza, 2005, p.78 [trad.prop]
In short, Camus’ philosophy of the absurd does not propose an escape into nihilism nor a
surrender to meaninglessness. On the contrary, it is an invitation to live intensely, to rebel against
injustice, to create meaning through freedom. “I rebel—therefore we exist,”7 he declares. This
affirmation summarizes the Camusian ethic, which turns the awareness of the absurd into a
higher form of human commitment. In this sense, culture plays a central role. Art and artistic
creation are forms of resistance against the absurd. The work of art does not aim to explain life,
but to intensify it. As Camus wrote:

But art and society, creation and revolution must, for this purpose, rediscover the
source of rebellion in which refusal and consent, singularity and universality,
individual and history are balanced in the harshest tension.8

Through aesthetic expression, the human being transforms the absurd experience into a space of
shared meaning. Creation, art, and society—all of these are attempts to give form to what lacks
meaning.

Existential Angst and Dread (Jason Beauvais)

French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre regards the idea of angst and dread in existential philosophy
as a byproduct awareness of the situation one is put in. Sartre explains that humans are placed
into this world without any idea of what their function is or what purpose they serve. He explains
in his Atheistic approach to existentialism that man defines himself. More specifically, humans
are created with no purpose and create a purpose for himself. Using god as a placeholder, Sartre
analyzes this quote, “If God didn’t exist, everything would be possible”.Sartre explains that
without God, man would be free and alone. Man is free in the sense that he is not shackled by the
weight of being honest, truthful, and just. The idea that God exists and is this higher governing
power allows man to find purpose in doing good.

Sartre uses an interesting word to describe what man becomes without god. He referred to man
as forlorn which, according to Merriam Webster, means “abandoned or lonely”. To refer to man
as lonely yet free conceptualizes existentialism as a double-edged sword. On one side man has
7
El hombre rebelde, Alianza, 2005, p.40 [trad.prop]
8
El hombre rebelde, Alianza, 2005, p.378 [trad. prop]
no consequence therefore man can do anything. On the other hand, man has no basis to fall back
to if God doesn’t exist; man has no guide which makes him responsible for what he becomes.
Existentialism forces man to make decisions without a moral compass or philosophical basis to
look back to. This can lead to elevated levels of anxiety and stress due to the internal conflict of
making an extremely difficult decision on their own. Satre uses a boy and his choice to either
leave his mother to fight with the Free French Forces or stay and help his mother carry on living.
In this example there was no real backing the boy could rely on to make his decision and to make
matters worse, the boy was essentially deciding what his purpose was going to be. The boy refers
to the Christian Doctrine and the Kantian Ethics and the philosophies of both groups just led to
more questions without answer. This causes the boy to become more anxious as he can’t make a
decision based on the knowledge of scholars. Since the boy is free, he must decide for himself
what he will become and who he will aid. In these kinds of situations, one is bound to become
overwhelmed by the weight of decision and the stress that comes with it. To summarize, Sartre
believed that through existentialism we as humans are free in choosing what we do with our
lives. But with this freedom comes the stress we create for ourselves when trying to rely on
others in a situation where the answer can only be found on our own.

Conclusion: (written by Luis Ángel)

Existentialist philosophy, whether born in the intellectual cafés of Paris or emerging from the
lived contradictions of postcolonial Mexico, ultimately concerns itself with how individuals face
the raw realities of life; death, freedom, absurdity, and meaning of life. While the philosophical
language of thinkers like Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus has shaped much of the Western
existential tradition, their ideas are inseparable from the cultural and historical contexts in which
they emerged. In contrast, Mexican existentialism confronts similar dilemmas, but through
colonial legacy, national identity, and a unique proximity to death that is not just philosophical
but cultural.

Where the European grapples with death as the ultimate limit and the absurd as a personal
confrontation with meaninglessness, the Mexican accepts death as a neighbor and a reminder of
fragile life. Sartre’s freedom, described as an unbearable burden and an existential
condemnation, contrasts sharply with Uranga’s account of a freedom stifled by systemic
historical oppression. The Mexican subject must first recognize themselves as a product of
dependency before they can reclaim their identity. That is why, while the European existentialists
focused on understanding the anguish of freedom and responsibility, the Mexican existentialists
were focused on achieving to cause a force of pressure against the oppression that history and its
philosophical repercussions made to invisibilize their struggle, their freedom, their personality
and their culture.

Camus absurdism bridges this gap with the rejection of nihilism in favor of rebellion sisyphus; of
constructing meaning despite its absence, resonates strongly in both traditions. His idea to live
fully, creatively, and ethically in the face of the absurd finds a powerful thought in Mexican
existentialism, where the act of cultural creation itself becomes a form of rebellion and
affirmation.

In the end, it is essential to recognize that the history we have inherited has been shaped,often
distorted, by European influences that have defined not only how we understand culture but also
how we approach philosophy. These influences have left a strong mark on Mexican thought,
where European existential ideas have often been applied without fully considering the specific
realities of Mexican life. This creates tension, as the lived experiences of a people shaped by
colonization, inequality, and cultural blending cannot be fully understood through ideas created
elsewhere. This is where Mexican existential philosophy becomes significant. It does not simply
follow the ideas passed down from European thinkers; it questions them, reframes them, and
places them in a different historical and cultural context. The result is not a rejection, but a
transformation, an effort to speak from a place that has long been defined by others. In doing so,
Mexican philosophy reveals how ideas like death, freedom, and absurdity take on new meanings
when filtered through different histories. It reminds us that philosophy, like culture, always
carries the mark of those who tell the story.
Bibliography

Camus, A. (2005) El hombre rebelde, Alianza Editorial.

Klemke, Elmer Daniel, and Cahn, Steven M. (Ed.) (2017): The Meaning of Life: A Reader, OUP,
4th edition.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. (2017) “Existentialism.” Exploring Philosophy. An Introductory Anthology,

Uranga, Emilio (2013) Análisis del ser del mexicano y otros escritos sobre la filosofía de lo
mexicano (1949-1952), México, Bonilla Artigas Editores.

“FORLORN Definition & Meaning.” Merriam-Webster,

Sánchez, Carlos. “Mexican Existentialism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford

Sartre, Jean-Paul. (2001) Existentialism and Human Emotions. Translated by Bernard