[Throughout the first half of 2026, I hope to provide you with a robust picture of how existential wellness coaches work with their clients on fundamental existential issues. If you’d like to learn more about the Noble-Manhattan Existential Wellness Coaching Certificate Program that I’ve developed, please visit here. There are scholarships available and all of the resources of the Noble Manhattan family. Come take a look. Today’s offering is Part 1 of a mini-series on the weight of individuality. Enjoy!]
Clients do not come in to see an existential wellness coach and say, “I want to be an individual.” And yet, that is why they are there. They want the opportunity to be themselves, to be allowed to act according to their nature, to be as unfettered by society’s conventions and their personal circumstances as is humanly possible.
As an existential wellness coach, you understand that this is why they have come to see you. They arrive fully in the existential tradition—whether or not they are employing existential language—a tradition where “individuality” stands at the center of the human project.
Existentialism has always placed individuality at the center of its concerns. From Kierkegaard’s early formulations of the individual before God, to Nietzsche’s proclamation that one must “become who you are,” to Sartre’s and Camus’ mid-twentieth-century explorations of freedom, responsibility, and authenticity, the existential tradition has consistently affirmed the primacy of the individual over systems, abstractions, and collectives.
To speak of the existential theme of individuality is to examine what it means to live as a singular being in a clumsy, unforgiving, and often absurd world—as a being who must make meaning rather than receive it, who must decide rather than defer, and who must bear the consequences of those decisions.
The existential theme of individuality begins with Søren Kierkegaard, who resisted the abstract systems of Hegel and insisted instead that truth is “subjectivity.” For Kierkegaard, the individual is always situated, finite, and confronted with choices that cannot be dissolved into rational systems.
The Hegelian dialectic might claim to grasp the movement of history or the unfolding of Spirit, but for Kierkegaard, that grand vision neglected the living, breathing human being who must face despair, dread, and faith (or a lack of faith). Individuality, for Kierkegaard, is the confrontation with one’s own existence and the decision to relate oneself rightly to it.
Nietzsche advanced the theme of individuality by rejecting inherited religious and moral frameworks. He warned against “herd morality,” the tendency of individuals to conform to values imposed by the majority. For Nietzsche, individuality demanded self-overcoming, the creation of values rather than the passive reception of them. His famous exhortation—“Become who you are”—is both a challenge and a paradox, for it suggests that individuality is not given but must be wrestled into being through acts of will and courage.
The twentieth-century existentialists, especially Sartre and Camus, radicalized individuality further. Sartre declared that “existence precedes essence,” meaning that human beings are not born with a predetermined nature but must define themselves through choices. Camus, in turn, highlighted the absurd—the tension between our longing for meaning and the silence of the universe. For Camus, individuality emerges in the confrontation with the absurd, when one refuses resignation or false consolations and instead affirms life on its own terms.
The existentialists agreed that individuality entails freedom. To be an individual is to recognize oneself as free to choose, free to create, free to act. But this freedom is never a simple blessing. It is also a burden. Sartre famously described human beings as “condemned to be free,” meaning that we cannot avoid the responsibility that comes with freedom. Even refusing to choose is itself a choice, and therefore we are always accountable for our existence.
For Kierkegaard, responsibility was understood in religious terms: the individual before God, accountable in faith. For Nietzsche, responsibility meant the ability to bear the weight of creating values in a godless world. For Sartre, responsibility was the inescapable fact of human freedom. In each case, individuality is inseparable from this double-edged reality: the exhilaration of freedom and the anxiety of responsibility.
If freedom and responsibility are the conditions of individuality, authenticity is its aim. To live authentically is to live in accordance with one’s chosen values, rather than in conformity with external pressures or internal evasions. Existentialists insist that individuality can only be genuine if it is lived authentically, without self-deception or bad faith.
Individuality is not only a source of freedom and authenticity; it also courts alienation. To affirm oneself as an individual is to separate oneself from the crowd, from traditions, and from easy comforts. Kierkegaard described the individual as “the single one,” set apart from the group and called to stand in solitude before God. Nietzsche warned that the path of self-overcoming would isolate the creator from the herd. Sartre and Camus likewise highlighted the loneliness that comes with individuality. To live as an individual is to confront the indifference of the universe, the skepticism of society, and the fragility of one’s projects.
The existentialists consistently warned of the forces that threaten individuality. Chief among them are conformity and bad faith. Conformity is the tendency to adopt the values, beliefs, and behaviors of the group without reflection. It is easier to go along with the crowd than to assert one’s freedom, easier to accept ready-made answers than to create one’s own. Conformity allows one to escape the anxiety of individuality, but only at the cost of authenticity. Heidegger’s “they,” Nietzsche’s “herd,” and Kierkegaard’s “crowd” all point to this danger.
Bad faith, as Sartre articulated it, is subtler. It is the internal evasion of freedom, the self-deception that allows one to believe that one is not responsible. The individual convinces himself that he is determined by his role, his past, or his circumstances, thereby avoiding the anguish of freedom. Yet in doing so, he forfeits authenticity and betrays his individuality.
Modern society presents additional dangers: mass media, consumer culture, bureaucratic systems, and digital networks can all erode individuality by promoting passive consumption and uniformity. The existential call to individuality is therefore not only a philosophical position but also a call to resist the pressures of modern life.
If individuality is threatened by conformity and bad faith, how can it be affirmed? The existentialists propose creativity as one possibility. To affirm individuality is to create values, projects, works of art, and ways of life that express one’s freedom. Creativity is not limited to artists; it is the fundamental act of shaping one’s existence.
Nietzsche emphasized the aesthetic dimension of individuality: one must “give style to one’s character” and live as an artist of existence. Sartre likewise saw artistic creation as a paradigm of freedom, but he also emphasized that every choice is a kind of creation: to choose is to project oneself into the future, to constitute oneself as an individual.
That’s our beginning. More next week!
[I hope that you’re enjoying this series. Please check out the Noble Manhattan Existential Wellness Coach Certificate Program and my latest books, Brave New Mind and Night Brilliance.]
Check out Eric Maisel’s transformative courses in collaboration with Noble Manhattan—designed to elevate your coaching journey.
|
|
