Compare Cartesian Skepticism To Existentialism

Cartesian Skepticism to Existentialism

The nature of our reality and existence has been a topic of debate since at least the ancient Greeks. Do we exist? Why do we exist? Does it even matter? These are questions I will attempt to address thoroughly. Answers may not be comfortable or satisfactory, but it’s better to rip that band-aid off now than continue blindly in the dark. Rationalism and Empiricism have both attempted to prove existence, but at their most extremes they fall apart. Using these two opposite systems of investigation, existence cannot truly be known without a shadow of a doubt. Does it matter? Existentialist philosophers say simultaneously yes and no: what passes for existence is intrinsically meaningless, but any meaning
How can we as human beings, who need structure and meaning in our lives, cope with non-meaning? Sartre’s work can get abstract, so please bear with me; reread sections if you have to. (Flynn, 2004) A large part of the Sartrean philosophy is the idea of freedom (free will). Since there is nothing that has any true preordained purpose or meaning, that means anything is truly possible. With no meaning comes no rules or order, with no rules or order comes no consequences for any action. Sartre calls this the “angoisse” or the “anguish of freedom.” Sartre even goes as far as saying “man is condemned to be free.” This type of “terrifying” freedom, as Sartre puts it, can explain for the deepest depths of depravity human beings can sink to. How can things like the Holocaust happen? There is literally nothing stopping humans from doing them; there is no cosmic force or justice preventing it. Any authority that could possibly oppose it is simply made up of human beings; to which Sartre argues is fake. These authorities are human constructs, made up of people just like you and I, figuring things out as we go. Concepts of what good and evil are simply arbitrary human creations. Humanity was not given a guide book on how to live. There is no one correct way to approach life. This is what Sartre means when he says we have a “terrifying” amount of
While Sartre cultivated existentialism, Camus more or less founded Absurdism, even though he disliked being identified as a philosopher (Aronson, 2017). In 1942 Camus published his essay The Myth of Sisyphus, which analyzed the myth and attempted to solve what he considered to be the fundamental question of philosophy: is life worth living or not? Because life is intrinsically meaningless, it seems almost logical to not even bother with it and just end things to spare ourselves of the pain, suffering, and boredom that comes with living. Instead however, Camus argues, we must accept the meaninglessness head on. However, we must continue knowing nothing we do will ever matter in the grand scheme. Simply put, we must enjoy what life has to offer, and make the best of things. We must live our lives like Sisyphus; forever pushing the boulder up the mountain knowing nothing will truly come of it after seeing it tumble down to the base for the nth time, but, Camus says, “we must imagine Sisyphus happy.” We must acknowledge the absurd, and continue on in spite of it with a smile on our