Existentialism & Fight Club

From an existentialism point of view, there is no right or wrong choice, since one gives an action value by the virtue of choosing it. Choices can only be judged on how involved the decision maker is when making it. Judging by this standard, the narrator is justified in killing Tyler, since he fully became involved in choosing to both accept and reject Tyler’s values by that action. “Existentialism’s first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him.” In my essay, I shall first discuss how shooting Tyler is crucial in allowing the narrator to achieve the first move in embracing existentialism. He acts as the catalyst for the narrator to make the first move in existentialism: being aware of what he is by acknowledging all his primal instincts and assuming responsibility for his existence. Tyler does so through his acts of escalating violence and atrocity to provoke the narrator to confront both who he is and his responsibilities, culminating finally in his own death. I shall also discuss the theme of consumerism as portrayed in the movie, and how the decision of shooting Tyler relates to the narrator’s interpretation of this theme.
The narrator had been hesitant to assume full responsibility for his existence at the start of the movie. He dislikes his present circumstances- he is jaded with his current job and lacks a clear purpose, as illustrated by the quote ”A single serving package, a single serving…” Once he consumes the single serving, he is done. He makes a fleeting impression in someone else’s life before he fades from their memory. He feels his existence is meaningless because he has no connections with anyone. He is not content with the present state he is in, but makes no active effort to consciously define his own existence. He shows bad faith in this respect, because he deceives himself into believing that he lacks complete freedom of involvement in making this decision. He is a coward