fauxcroft

In an age of artificial intelligence, climate anxiety, identity politics, and algorithmic culture, it’s tempting to ask whether the heavyweights of 19th and 20th-century thought still have anything to say to us. When Nietzsche declared that God is dead, Sartre insisted we are condemned to be free, Jung mapped the shadows of the collective unconscious, and Bakunin called for the destruction of all authority, they were diagnosing a world on the brink of modernity. But more than a century later, are their radical ideas still vital tools for understanding our present, or are we simply clinging to them out of intellectual nostalgia? This post dives into the enduring power and the potential limits of these four thinkers to find out whether they still illuminate the path forward, or if it’s time to leave them in the past.

1. Why We Keep Returning to Nietzsche, Sartre, Jung and Bakunin

There is a reason certain thinkers refuse to fade into the background, even when their books gather dust and their names become little more than cultural shorthand. We keep returning to Nietzsche, Sartre, Jung and Bakunin not out of nostalgia, but because the problems they wrestled with never actually went away.

Nietzsche asked what happens when old values collapse and we are left to create our own meaning. Sartre pushed that question further, insisting that we are condemned to be free, with no excuses for who we become. Jung turned inward, mapping the unconscious forces, archetypes and shadows that shape our behavior whether we acknowledge them or not. And Bakunin looked outward at power itself, warning that authority, even when it claims to liberate us, tends to recreate itself in a new form.

Together they form a kind of toolkit for modern life. In an age of political disillusionment, identity crises, mental health struggles and a constant search for authenticity, their ideas feel less like history and more like a diagnosis. We return to them because they still articulate the tension we live every day: the desire to be free, the fear of that freedom, the weight of our inner world, and the structures that try to contain it all.

2. Nietzsche and the Death of God in a Secular Age

When Nietzsche declared that God is dead in The Gay Science, he was not celebrating atheism so much as diagnosing a cultural crisis. For centuries, the Christian framework had provided Europe with its moral compass, its sense of purpose, and its understanding of truth. Nietzsche saw that the rise of science, rationalism, and secular thought had quietly eroded that foundation, leaving people without the very structure that had given their lives meaning, even if they still went through the motions of faith.

That diagnosis feels even more relevant now. We live in the secular age Nietzsche predicted, where traditional religious observance has declined sharply in much of the West, yet nothing has fully taken its place. We have not become the rational, liberated individuals the Enlightenment promised. Instead, we see what Nietzsche warned about: a pervasive sense of nihilism. This shows up in the endless search for meaning through consumerism, political tribalism, wellness culture, and the curated identities of social media, all attempts to fill a void that was once occupied by a shared transcendent narrative.

Nietzsche’s challenge was not simply to mourn the loss of God but to ask what comes next. His concept of the Übermensch, or the person who creates their own values rather than inheriting them, was his provocative answer. It was a call for radical personal responsibility: if no higher power will give your life meaning, you must become the author of it yourself. In an era of anxiety, burnout, and what many call a meaning crisis, that idea is both daunting and liberating. It asks whether we have actually learned to create values, or whether we are simply drifting, clinging to old moral assumptions while pretending the ground beneath us has not shifted.

Reading Nietzsche today is not about agreeing with his often contradictory and abrasive philosophy. It is about recognizing that he saw our current condition more than a century before we arrived here, and that his central question remains unanswered: if God is dead, what will we put in his place?

3. The Will to Power and Modern Hustle Culture

Nietzsche never meant the Will to Power as a motivational poster. For him, it wasn’t about waking up at 5 a.m., taking a cold shower, and grinding for 16 hours to build a passive income empire. It was an internal, almost artistic drive to overcome oneself, to create values, to become who you are rather than who the market tells you to be.

And yet, modern hustle culture has hijacked the language perfectly. Every influencer preaching relentless self-optimization, every LinkedIn post about crushing your limits and dominating your field, is essentially selling a cheap, commercialized version of the Will to Power. It keeps the striving but strips out the philosophy. Nietzsche’s concept was about self-mastery and the courage to define your own meaning in a world without given meaning. Hustle culture flips it into external mastery – more money, more followers, more productivity – measured entirely by other people’s approval.

That is where Nietzsche becomes incredibly relevant as a critique. He warned about this exact trap. To endlessly strive without questioning what you are striving for is not power, it is ressentiment in disguise, a frantic need to prove your worth because you secretly fear you have none. The true test of the Will to Power is not whether you can outwork everyone else, but whether you can step away from the herd, reject the prescribed definition of success, and have the strength to want something different.

4. Sartre on Radical Freedom and Personal Responsibility

Sartre’s central idea is that we are radically free, whether we like it or not. He argued that there is no pre-written human nature, no divine plan, and no excuse that can fully absolve us of the choices we make. We are, in his famous phrase, condemned to be free. Even refusing to choose is itself a choice. This freedom can feel overwhelming, which is why Sartre believed most people slip into what he called bad faith, the act of lying to ourselves to avoid responsibility. We tell ourselves we had no choice, that we were forced by our job, our upbringing, our circumstances or the expectations of others.

In a contemporary context, this idea feels more relevant than ever. Modern life offers an endless stream of ways to deflect responsibility, from blaming algorithms for what we see and believe, to attributing our unhappiness to economic systems, social pressures, or psychological labels. Sartre would not deny that these forces are real and powerful, but he would insist they do not erase our agency. We still decide how to respond to the conditions we find ourselves in.

What makes Sartre challenging is that he offers no comfort. He does not tell us what to choose, only that we must choose and that we must own the consequences. In an age of anxiety, political polarization, and the search for authenticity, his philosophy is a stark reminder that freedom is not just a right to be celebrated but a burden to be carried. The question he leaves us with is not whether we are free, but whether we have the courage to act as if we are.

5. Existentialism in the Age of Anxiety and Choice Overload

Sartre argued that we are condemned to be free, and that freedom, far from being liberating, is a source of profound anxiety. That idea has never felt more relevant than it does today. We live in an era defined not by a lack of options, but by an overwhelming surplus of them. From careers and identities to lifestyles, aesthetics, and even moral frameworks, everything is presented as a customizable choice. We are told we can be anyone and do anything, which sounds empowering until you realize it also means that who you are and what you do is entirely your responsibility.

This is where Sartre’s concept of anguish and his idea of bad faith become essential tools for understanding modern life. The endless scrolling, the constant comparison on social media, the paralysis when trying to choose a career path while seeing a thousand alternatives online, these are not just modern inconveniences. They are textbook examples of existential overload. Faced with too much freedom, many of us retreat into bad faith, we let algorithms decide for us, we defer to trends, or we convince ourselves that we have no choice at all, just to escape the burden of choosing.

Nietzsche’s call to become who you are was never about picking from a menu of pre-made identities. It was about the difficult, authentic work of creating values for yourself. In an age of choice overload, that distinction is critical. Existentialism does not offer comfort, but it does offer clarity. It reminds us that anxiety is not a disorder to be cured, but a signal that we are actually confronting our freedom, and that meaning will not be found, it must be made, one deliberate choice at a time.

6. Jung’s Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious Today

Carl Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious, a kind of inherited reservoir of shared human experience populated by universal archetypes like the Hero, the Shadow, the Mother, and the Trickster, can sound mystical at first. Yet it remains one of his most enduring and applicable concepts. You do not have to believe in a literal psychic inheritance to see its relevance today. Jung was essentially describing the recurring patterns, stories, and symbols that humans return to again and again, regardless of culture or era.

Look at modern film, television, and advertising and the archetypes are everywhere. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is built almost entirely on archetypal storytelling, the reluctant Hero, the wise Mentor, the destructive Shadow. Social media has created new expressions of old archetypes as well, from the curated persona of the Influencer as a modern version of Jung’s Persona, the mask we present to the world, to the viral call-out culture that often functions as a collective projection of the Shadow, the disowned dark side we prefer to see in others rather than ourselves.

In therapy and self-help culture, Jung’s language has become mainstream. Concepts like introversion and extroversion, integrating your shadow, or finding your anima and animus are now common vocabulary for personal growth. While contemporary psychology has moved toward more empirical models and critiques Jung for a lack of scientific falsifiability, his framework still offers something that clinical data often does not, a symbolic vocabulary for making meaning out of inner experience. In an age of identity crisis, algorithmic echo chambers, and a search for authenticity, Jung’s invitation to explore the unconscious patterns that drive us remains surprisingly practical.

7. Jung vs. Modern Psychology and Therapy Culture

Jung feels both completely at home and totally out of place in modern therapy culture. On one hand, we live in the most Jungian era imaginable. Everyone talks about introverts and extroverts, archetypes, shadows, and doing shadow work, inner child healing, and collective trauma. Those terms have escaped the analyst’s couch and become the everyday language of TikTok therapists, self-help podcasts, and Instagram infographics. In that sense, Jung won. He gave us a vocabulary for talking about the parts of ourselves we can’t quite name.

On the other hand, the way we actually do therapy today has largely moved away from him. Modern psychology is increasingly evidence-based, short-term, and solution-focused. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, and neuroscience-driven approaches want measurable outcomes, randomized trials, and practical tools you can use in six to twelve sessions. Jung offers the opposite: a long, meandering, deeply symbolic journey into dreams, myths, and the unconscious that can take years and may never produce a clean, quantifiable result. For insurance companies and clinical guidelines, that is a problem.

So the tension is this: we love Jung the philosopher of the soul, but we are skeptical of Jung the clinician. We want to explore our shadow, but we want to do it with an app and a worksheet. We are drawn to his idea that neurosis is not just a disorder to be removed but a message from the unconscious trying to tell us who we could become, yet our current culture often prefers to pathologize and quickly medicate discomfort rather than sit with its symbolic meaning.

Jung remains relevant not as a strict clinical model, but as a necessary counterweight. While modern psychology excels at helping us function better day to day, Jung reminds us to ask the bigger, less comfortable questions: What myth am I living? What part of myself have I exiled to be acceptable? What if my anxiety is not just a malfunction, but a call to become more whole?

8. Bakunin and the Roots of Anarchist Thought

Mikhail Bakunin is often treated as the wild, chaotic counterpoint to Marx, the anarchist who wanted to burn everything down without a real plan for what came next. That caricature does him a disservice and it also misses why his ideas keep resurfacing. Where Marx saw the state as a tool that could be seized and used by the working class, Bakunin saw the state itself as the problem. For him, any centralized power, even one calling itself revolutionary or socialist, would inevitably create a new ruling class and reproduce oppression under a different name.

That skepticism toward authority is the core of his relevance today. Bakunin argued for a bottom-up federation of autonomous communes and worker associations, organized through voluntary cooperation and mutual aid rather than top-down control. He was deeply suspicious of intellectual elites and political vanguards claiming to act on behalf of the people, a critique that feels strikingly modern in an era of distrust toward institutions, political parties, and tech monopolies.

You can see his roots in almost every contemporary anarchist and anti-authoritarian movement, from Occupy Wall Street and the autonomous zones of Rojava to climate activism and decentralized online communities. The question is not whether we should adopt Bakunin wholesale — his faith in spontaneous revolt and his rejection of all formal organization left his own movements fractured and vulnerable — but whether his central warning still holds. In a world where power is increasingly concentrated in both governments and corporations, Bakunin forces us to ask whether true freedom can ever come from taking control of the system, or if it only comes from dismantling the need for that system altogether.

9. Bakunin’s Relevance to Modern Anti-Authoritarian Movements

Mikhail Bakunin may seem like a relic of 19th-century revolutionary romanticism, but his critique of power feels strikingly contemporary. Unlike Marx, who believed the state could be seized and used as a tool for liberation, Bakunin warned that any centralized authority, even one claiming to act in the name of the people, would inevitably recreate oppression in a new form. That fundamental distrust of hierarchy, of the state, of bureaucracy, and of the intellectual elite who claim to know what is best for the masses, is the very DNA of modern anti-authoritarian movements.

You can see his influence not in direct citations, but in the structure of the movements themselves. From Occupy Wall Street and its insistence on leaderless, horizontal organization to the climate justice and mutual aid networks that emerged during the pandemic, the core Bakuninist principle is at work: that true freedom cannot be granted from above, it must be built from below through voluntary association and direct action. His idea of federalism, a society organized as a free federation of autonomous communities and workplaces rather than a top-down nation-state, echoes clearly in experiments like the autonomous administration in Rojava, or in the decentralized, affinity-group tactics of contemporary anarchist and anti-globalization activists.

Bakunin is also relevant for his prescient warning about the authoritarian personality. He argued that power corrupts not just institutions, but individuals, and that the desire to dominate is a social disease that must be actively resisted. In an era of growing distrust toward political parties, corporations, and even large NGOs, his call to question all authority and to build solidarity without conformity resonates deeply. We may not be reading Bakunin in the streets, but we are living out his central question: how do we organize ourselves without creating new masters in the process?

10. Where These Four Thinkers Overlap and Where They Collide

Put Nietzsche, Sartre, Jung, and Bakunin in the same room and at first they seem to agree on one fundamental thing: the individual should not blindly submit to the systems that claim authority over them, whether that system is God, the state, morality, or even reason itself. All four were obsessed with freedom, but they meant very different things by it, and that is where the conversation gets interesting.

Nietzsche and Sartre overlap most clearly. Both argue that there is no pre-written essence or divine blueprint for who you are supposed to be. Nietzsche tells you to become who you are by creating your own values beyond good and evil, to live as the Ubermensch who affirms life without needing external justification. Sartre picks up that thread almost a century later and systematizes it: existence precedes essence, we are condemned to be free, and we must take radical responsibility for every choice. Where they collide is on the question of what to do with that freedom. Nietzsche is deeply suspicious of egalitarianism and sees Sartre’s later turn toward Marxism and collective political commitment as just another herd morality in disguise.

Jung breaks from both of them because he does believe there is something pre-written inside us, just not from God. For Jung, the collective unconscious and its archetypes shape us before we ever make a conscious choice. Nietzsche would have called that a retreat into mysticism, and Sartre would have called it bad faith, an excuse to avoid the anxiety of total freedom by blaming the Shadow or the Self. Yet Jung and Nietzsche share a fascination with myth, symbols, and the Dionysian depths of the psyche that rational modernity tries to repress. They both want the individual to undergo a profound inner transformation, individuation for Jung, self-overcoming for Nietzsche.

Bakunin is the outlier who drags the whole debate out of the head and into the street. While Nietzsche, Sartre, and Jung are wrestling with internal liberation, Bakunin insists that inner freedom is meaningless without the destruction of external domination. He overlaps with Sartre in his belief that freedom is only real when it is exercised through action, and with Nietzsche in his total rejection of Christian morality and state authority. But he collides violently with them on individualism. Bakunin’s anarchism is collectivist; true freedom, for him, can only exist in a free society of equals, not in the solitary triumph of a great individual. Nietzsche would have despised Bakunin’s anarchist egalitarianism as ressentiment dressed up as revolution, while Jung would have warned that Bakunin ignored the psychological need for order and archetypal structures like the father and the leader.

Together, they form a kind of compass. Nietzsche points inward to power and creation, Sartre to choice and responsibility, Jung to depth and wholeness, and Bakunin to solidarity and revolt. They agree that you should not kneel. They completely disagree on what you should do once you stand up.

11. The Case That We Are Stuck in the Past

There is a strong argument to be made that our continued obsession with Nietzsche, Sartre, Jung and Bakunin is less about their enduring relevance and more about our own intellectual nostalgia. We return to them not because they offer the best tools for understanding the present, but because they are familiar, canonical, and culturally prestigious. In university syllabi and online philosophy communities, they function as a kind of intellectual comfort food, a shared language that signals depth without necessarily requiring us to engage with anything new.

Part of the problem is that the world these thinkers were responding to no longer exists. Nietzsche was writing against the backdrop of 19th-century Christian morality and the emergence of modern science. Sartre was trying to make sense of individual freedom in the shadow of World War II and the cold certainties of Marxism. Jung was building his archetypes before neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and modern understandings of cultural conditioning could offer more testable models of the mind. And Bakunin was envisioning anarchism in an era of empires and early industrial capitalism, long before globalized supply chains, digital surveillance, and the modern state apparatus. To apply their frameworks wholesale to today is to force contemporary problems through an outdated filter.

When we cling too tightly to these figures, we also risk crowding out the thinkers who are actually speaking directly to our current condition. Contemporary philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, and political theorists from more diverse backgrounds are addressing climate crisis, algorithmic identity, intersectionality, post-colonialism, and the mental health epidemic in ways that Nietzsche and Jung simply never could. Yet they often receive a fraction of the attention, because the canon remains stubbornly fixed. In this sense, constantly circling back to the same four European men may not be a sign of their timelessness, but a sign of our own inertia, an unwillingness to update the conversation and admit that we might need new prophets for a new age.

12. How to Read Them Critically Without Idolizing Them

Reading these thinkers critically means separating what is useful from what is outdated, and that starts with remembering they were human beings writing in specific historical contexts, not prophets handing down timeless truths. Nietzsche’s critiques of morality and power can be sharp and liberating, but they also come with elitism and contradictions that deserve to be questioned. Sartre’s ideas on freedom and responsibility are powerful tools for self-examination, yet his politics and personal behavior were often flawed. Jung offers a rich vocabulary for inner life, but his theories lack empirical grounding and are steeped in mysticism and cultural biases of his time. Bakunin’s passion for liberty and his warnings about authoritarianism remain striking, but his vision of anarchism can be vague and impractical.

To read them well without turning them into idols, treat them as conversation partners rather than authorities. Ask what holds up when you test their ideas against modern knowledge, lived experience, and other perspectives, especially those they ignored or dismissed, including women, colonized peoples, and contemporary science. Take what clarifies your thinking and helps you act more consciously, and leave behind what does not survive scrutiny. The point is not to defend them or to cancel them, but to use their work to think more clearly for yourself.

13. Who Is Carrying Their Ideas Forward Today

You don’t have to look far to see their fingerprints on modern thought. Nietzsche’s idea of creating your own values and becoming who you are lives on in thinkers like Michel Foucault and more controversial popular figures like Jordan Peterson, who both wrestle with what it means to find meaning after the death of traditional authority. Sartre’s radical freedom and his insistence that we are condemned to choose for ourselves has been carried forward by existential therapists like Irvin Yalom and by modern activists who argue that personal responsibility is inseparable from political engagement. Jung, once dismissed as too mystical for serious psychology, is more relevant than ever through analysts like James Hollis and through the sheer cultural saturation of his concepts — introvert and extrovert, archetype, shadow — which now shape everything from therapy apps to storytelling in film and marketing. And Bakunin, long overshadowed by Marx, has found new life in the horizontal, leaderless movements of the 21st century, from Occupy Wall Street to Rojava, with intellectual heirs like Noam Chomsky and David Graeber arguing that his critique of authoritarian power was more prophetic than Marx’s. None of them are being copied word for word. Instead, their ideas are being remixed, challenged, and applied to problems they never could have imagined, which may be the strongest proof that they are not just relics of the past.

Ultimately, Nietzsche, Sartre, Jung, and Bakunin remain relevant not because they have all the answers for our modern world, but because they asked the right questions about power, freedom, identity, and meaning that we are still wrestling with today. While the context has changed, their ideas continue to offer a vital lens for understanding our anxieties, our politics, and ourselves. We may not need to live entirely in their worlds, but revisiting their thought helps us avoid being stuck in the past by giving us the tools to think more critically about the present and imagine a more authentic future.

——————————