All of us born to exist. Sometimes, in the wider contour of existentialism, we arrive at the realization to debate whether we existed or not; are we existing or not. Most of the time, we know we exist. After all, existing is purely post-modern in its overtures. Yes, overtures they are. Overtures as they suggest us, to abide by, and not to abide by ‘what’s going on’, - to break the mould, the reshape the mould, or to break the self, - to assume a modified identity, to signify the change, first for self, then for others, or to remain the same.
It is debatable whether existentialism is absolutely individualistic, largely individualistic, or fairly individualistic inculcating the sense of a self with some supporting selves.
The answer can never be in absolute terms. The social structure evolves locally interpreting the underpinnings of all vital possibilities of its outreach. Localization has an inherent trait of maintaining lines of differentiation. So this evolution has limitations; limitations of accepting and assimilating. The larger units that are nothing but an amorphous whole of these smaller social entities have the similar problems of outreach. Only, at this level, the differentiators start adopting a monolithic structure.
The only common thread in this confusing conundrum is the concept of existentialism, something that propels the evolution to change or to adopt to scale the next level of adjustability’; ‘aptness’ is still a word not to be used here.
We all exist because we all believe in the small world around us. We believe we exist as that small world exists. We develop mutualism to draw meanings, to give meanings. This small world may be an individual or a group of individuals. The development of this small world is the only factor that has sustained evolutions; that has created civilizations; that has made us born to exist.
