Thank you for your feedback, I’m so glad you liked my piece!

Let me clarify what I meant by making a parallel between existentialism and the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant, which is to “Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.”

As I understand it, both existentialism and the Kantian categorical imperative:

• Are philosophical tools for one to know how to act .
• Put human reason as the driving force of one’s action (rather than a god or a superior force).
• Consider individuals as responsible beings whose actions have consequences.
• Tell one to act by taking into consideration other human beings’ existence and actions.

There are thus many common points between these two concepts. I however need to mention that this parallel has some limits.

Kant, writing during the Enlightenment, had a strong focus on ethics and moral. His goal was to find the best way for society and within it, individuals, to live and act.

Existentialism tells us that there is no meaning to anything, thus no morals. It leaves individuals completely free to act. Rather than telling us to “act this way” (Kant), existentialism is more about “act intelligently” — at least as I understand it!

Even though there are some limits to my comparison, I still think that the two philosophies share relevant characteristics that were worth mentioning in my piece.

Kant’s categorical imperative is indeed pretty self-explanatory and I thought it would bring some clarity in my explanation of existentialism (reading your question, maybe that is actually not the case ;)…).

Hope this clarified my point and thanks again for your comment!