Existentialism - not for weak hearted.

There seem to be two defining feelings which shackle the millions walking this planet, completely negating the phenomenal ability to *think* developed over millions of years of evolution:

• Anxiety :The insecurity we feel in the face of realisation of our own radical freedom..the freedom to decide ,freedom to choose,freedom to live basically any way we want ..the anxiety of basically being in world where you can make any *choice* -such thoughts are so scary that almost immediately mind rationalises away any such notions of freedom..you are not free it reasons..society has rules,ethics,values which need be adhered and roles which need be fulfilled..sure, just what the doctor ordered..no more anxiety.
• Dread : The dread of making above choices/decisions/whatever in the short life span before the inevitable death..living your life without clearly drawn rules and social reinforcement..this dread can only be mitigated by looking all around at other rational folks and following their good examples.

These two feelings stem from the fact that if you take away the hocus-pocus of all kind of bovine, unsupportedbyevidence *purposes* of life as propagated by different religious and non-religious groups, you are left with the cold fact about human existence,that there is no purpose, indeed nothing, at its core (exactly as in the existence of fish,maggots and cattle ,but then isn't the creator one and same for all) .This realisation of nothingness leads to very strong existential anxiety,the fear of being in the world where one is free to chart any course one desires...this can lead to severe anxiety and a pathological feeling of dread.
Now give me a nine-to-five with similar smart,rational buddies and I am back with a bounce and a purpose.

The problem is that doing so we are giving up the only plausible reward of our existence,the freedom,as Sartre says

To try to suppress our feelings of anxiety and dread, we confine ourselves within everyday experience, thereby relinquishing our freedom and acquiescing to being possessed in one form or another by the worldview of others and how they look at us.

Sartre believed that people who cannot embrace their freedom seek to be "looked at," that is, to be made an object of another's subjectivity. This creates a clash of freedoms whereby person A's being (or sense of identity) is controlled by what person B's thoughts about him are.

Sartre saw rationality as a form of "bad faith," an attempt by the self to impose structure on a world of phenomena that is fundamentally irrational and random. According to Sartre, rationality and other forms of "bad faith" hinder us from finding meaning in freedom.

There are several terms Sartre uses in his works. Being in-itself is an object that is not free and cannot change its essence. Being for-itself is free,it does not need to be what it is and can change into what it is not. Consciousness is usually considered being for-itself.

So the point to ponder is whether we can embrace this freedom and live as a Being for-itself or we give up this freedom and live life as an unperturbed Being in-itself,an object of another's subjectivity.

Finally,though the above all would generate some thought, purely detached or observational modes of thought can never truly comprehend human experience. Great individuals invent their own values and create the very terms under which they excel by following up the understanding with living the values.
How many of us will honestly line up amongst the in-itselfs, as Sartre again observed:

People lie to themselves and, underneath these lies, people negate their own being through such patterns.

Certainly, it is nice,cosy,less traumatic to believe that a God is watching from above and there is a higher purpose in life( as is common knowledge worldwide even though most interpretations are ludicrous).
..and sure it rests easy with conventional wisdom.