exhistentialism and hunger

Hunger and existentialism
What I think is most striking about hunger is the main characters both absurd and individualistic qualities. He is overly proud he constantly is concerned about what people around him think. When he speaks of his writing he speaks of it as a noble deed and he thinks his work is earth shattering. He is absurd but he also had some individualistic qualities. He is aware of the fact that he is mad he often knows when he does foolish things that he is foolish, and while his dedication to writing is foolish and absurd its also quite individualistic that he follows that path despite discouragement from his hunger. He also gives away money, which can be interpreted as absurd and individualistic. He is proud enough to maintain his morals and when he gives money to people he seems to think very highly of himself like he’s making a real difference, which is absurd. But also with the ridiculousness of giving away money when you are fighting to survive, how it is indifferent to common sense shows he’s individualistic because despite his hunger he is still giving. He has fought against his nature. Morals are complicated when it comes to existentialism. There is a great deal of pride tied in with doing good when you do good you feel as though you’ve made a difference which is absurd. Also if you’re moral because your religion tells you to that’s not individualistic. But also morals take a great deal of consciousness and effort, which are put into control and fulfill your morals so it could go both ways. Existentialists believe that we have control over who we are our choices define us. But how do we distinguish between survival choices and happiness choices. Say a poor day worker is unhappy at a job they hate with a horrible boss they are barely making rent, do you tell that person that they chose poverty and it was their choice to work at the lousy job. Well technically it was their choice for the job but what were their options if they wanted to survive? Surely the decision to not starve to death more instinct based, less of a choice based on individuality, than the choice of which high paying career you want to pursue. I also don’t quite understand how the existentialists say how we must be conscious of how our actions effect the people around us and what would happen if others followed us, whilst at the same time ask us to be individuals. What if some one wanted to be a musician and decided to pursue it as a career despite the discouragement of a society or the poverty that might accompany it? The existentialists would like this individualistic act. But if the rest of society were to follow suit the community would fall apart, should this aspiring musician not pursue his career? But the same could be applied to any career should we not pursue careers at all? The man who says, “everyone will not do it,” is not lying in self-excuse he speaks the truth. The existentialists say that humans have no purpose in life that purpose and importance is absurd. Then why should we be so concerned if people follow us? They want us to be independent but then why do they bring society into the decision? I highly appreciate the exhistentialists support for individualism, but I think they scold humanity so much that they discourage us from finding and trusting our individualism. If you really want to be an exhistenstialist and live by your own doing don’t listen to the existentialists philosophers.