Existentialism: Jean-Paul Sartre And Albert Camusian Freedom

Existentialism is not as comprehensive and easily defined as other fields of philosophy, and this is due in large part to how each existentialist has his or her own theories. In this paper I will be looking at two existentialist in particular: Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. Camus sees the existential position as an acceptance of the “absurd” human condition whereas Sartre sees it as a freedom to define oneself – a radical freedom. These are two distinct models of existentialism, and the schism can be exemplified in comparing their views of freedom. In this paper I will argue that Camusian freedom is far less restrictive than the radical freedom found in Sartre. Initially, I will lay out Sartre’s position and explain what freedom looks
It begins with this notion of “here I am,” followed by the idea that to be alive is absurd, and yet we should do it anyways. The absurdity stems from the meaninglessness of life, how irrational life is, and how unaccountable it all seems to be. The most disturbing notion associated with the absurd is how we are condemned to death from the start: we are born, we suffer, and then we die. To overcome the absurd, one must come to a state of comprehension of this absurdity surrounding the human condition. The only certainty we have is about the absurdity of the human condition. Yet, we cannot simply resist this absurdity, for that holds out some promise that one can fulfill themselves in some way. Also, acceptance is not the same as understanding; rather, one’s understanding should cause one to want to revolt against the meaninglessness that might reasonably lead us to want to kill ourselves because of how devoid existence may feel. To commit suicide would be consider a sort of denial of the absurd through looking at death as a means to escape. Our revolt is our freedom. Camus’s existentialism, then, would state that to have the freedom to think and act through our comprehension of the absurd, and once we rid ourselves of judgements, prejudices, and preconceptions about life, the meaning thereof, or our role to fulfill, we can remain attentive to the suffering of our fellow humans, and choose not to join forces with the pestilences, the plagues, which condemn us all to death.Camus urges us to persist because revolting against the absurd entails that we revolt by living our lives to the fullest while all the while remaining aware of the suffering of humanity and how we are all condemned to death. This position is best pictured in a scene from The Plague where two friends go swimming for the sake of friendship, despite the fact that they are not