The A=Score rating for existentialism

 Here’s the scope used.

• Subject: Existentialism (core themes across major theistic and atheistic strands: Kierkegaard, Marcel, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir)
• Timeframe: Canonical era 1840–1970 with durable interpretations to the present
• Context: Global philosophy/ethics only
• In-scope: Metaphysics, freedom/responsibility, authenticity, truth/absurd, intersubjective ethics
• Out-of-scope: Contingent political alliances or party programs
• Weights: Updated A-Score standard weights

A-Score for Existentialism (SPOTM formula)

• Overall A-Score: 65/100 — Mixed to moderately aligned with SPOTM.

Sub-scores with one‑line rationales

• Alignment with God vs Misalignment with God — 35
  • Atheistic strands deny a creator and objective moral order; theistic strands affirm God but via paradox and subjective faith rather than objective theistic monism (e.g., Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith”).
• Reality vs Evasion of Reality — 72
  • Confronts finitude, death, and absurdity head-on; authenticity requires facing facts (Camus’s revolt; Heidegger’s being‑toward‑death); little tolerance for self‑deception.
• Reason/Rationality vs Emotionalism — 58
  • Uses rigorous phenomenology and argument (Sartre, de Beauvoir) yet critiques systematizing reason and sometimes elevates non-rational commitment (Kierkegaard’s Abraham).
• Volition/Voluntary vs Force — 88
  • Radical personal freedom and responsibility are core; bad faith is condemned; duties arise from free choice and recognition of others, not compulsion.
• Freedom vs Statism — 70
  • Strong anti‑authoritarian ethos (Camus; de Beauvoir on oppression) but no explicit limited‑state framework; remains a moral‑existential, not institutional, doctrine.
• Individualism vs Collectivism — 82
  • Self-authorship and authenticity center the individual; intersubjective ethics moderates but does not displace individual primacy.
• Rational Egoism vs Compelled Altruism — 66
  • Affirms self-authorship and freely chosen projects; solidarity and care for others are argued, not coerced (de Beauvoir’s reciprocity).
• SPOTM Meta‑alignment — 56
  • High coherence on consent, authenticity, and anti-domination; tensions with SPOTM’s objective theism and techno‑libertarian production ethos.

Key drivers (raised the score)

• Deep commitment to personal freedom/responsibility and authenticity.
• Candid confrontation with reality (death, absurdity) over wishful narratives.
• Ethics of non-coercive recognition of others’ freedom.

Key drivers (lowered the score)

• Atheistic/anti‑essentialist strains oppose SPOTM’s objective theistic monism.
• Ambivalence toward systematizing reason; emphasis on subjective commitment.
• No explicit institutional model for limited government or market value‑creation.

Confidence

• Overall: Medium. Doctrinal diversity (theistic vs atheistic, phenomenological vs literary) introduces variance; nevertheless, the core themes are stable.

Computation

• Weighted sum = 0.18×35 + 0.16×72 + 0.16×58 + 0.14×88 + 0.12×70 + 0.10×82 + 0.08×66 + 0.06×56 = 64.66 → 65.