A Modern Analysis of Camus and Sartre’s Diverging Perspectives on Freedom

1. Background Information

 

     Absurdism is a philosophy born out of the political and economic strife of 20th century Europe. While many are attracted to absurdism through its modern, realist appeal, Albert Camus, the main pioneer of absurdism, relied heavily on aspects of classical philosophy to derive his ideology, surrounding the belief that the universe and existence are absurd (Aronson, 2011). The word ‘absurd’ in this context represents the dissonance between an intrinsic search for meaning and reason in an ultimately meaningless universe (Camus, 1989). 

Existentialism is a broad branch of philosophy, spearheaded by foundational authors such as Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Jean-Paul Sartre. While each philosopher’s interpretation of existentialism heavily varies, they all stem from the central belief that existence is meaningless, but that through conscious choice and actions we can all create our own meaning and reason to live (Aho, 2023). 

     There are many fundamental differences between absurdism and existentialism. Perhaps the most important difference between these philosophies is represented by Sartre’s famous statement “existence precedes essence.” Sartre believes that humans come into existence prior to the creation of human nature or the formation of one’s self (Sartre, 1946). Camus, on the other hand, believes that essence precedes existence, a viewpoint held by classical philosophers, which argues that essence (i.e. self-meaning) is created prior to existence. Other differences arise from diverging perspectives on freedom. Camus views freedom as a reward, or a force of liberation that is not acquired by birth, but achieved through undergoing a realization surrounding existence and the absurd (Camus, 1989). On the other hand, Sartre believes that true freedom can, in excess, be a detriment to existence (Sartre, 2007). Camus and Sartre were also opposed in their political beliefs, as Camus was a moral socialist, whereas Sartre was a devoted Marxist. These differing beliefs fuel disagreements on the usage of freedom, and the methods in which freedom can be achieved (Aronson, 2005). Additionally, it is important to clarify that both absurdism and existentialism are extremely broad subjects, with an array of important figures and foundational authors. For our purposes, however, I will not be focusing on these philosophies as defined by anyone other than Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. The focus of this paper will be on how Camus and Sartre define their own philosophies, and I will be referring interchangeably to absurdism and existentialism as the authors which they are represented by, Camus and Sartre, respectively.

​

   2. Introduction

 

     Many people often draw similarities between the philosophies of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre - and this is not a baseless assumption to make. Both absurdism and existentialism are hallmarks of modern French philosophy. Importantly, they strongly deny the existence of god, they both believe that existence is meaningless, and that society is fundamentally flawed, among other agreements. However, the assumption that these two philosophies share much common ground is not true in most aspects, especially on the subject of freedom. To many, these differences may seem inconsequential, however, one of the questions that I intend to answer with this paper is the practical and applicable uses of modern philosophy; how absurdism and existentialism can be used to live a better and more fulfilling life. This leads me to question, ‘Would individual liberty in the 21st century benefit more from adherence to absurdist freedom or existentialist freedom, as defined by the works of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, respectively?’ Through significant study and research, I am led to the conclusion that, due to overlap in the ideologies of absurdism and the 21st century individual in regards to existential liberation, politics, and societal disillusionment, an adherence to absurdism as defined by the works of Albert Camus would ultimately provide the greatest benefit to the modern individual. The ‘modern’ or 21st century individual is a concept I will fully explain in Subsection I. 

Thorough research was conducted in order to write this paper. Many of the sources used to form the arguments of Camus and Sartre were their direct works. Additional sources were used to understand the full scope of complex essays such as Camus’ The Rebel and Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, which had numerous references to classical philosophy and the writings of Greek philosophers such as Epicurus. Thus, it is recommended to read and orient yourself with classical philosophy in order to understand the context of statements like “existence precedes essence,” or the metaphors that Camus uses or appropriates when describing the meaning and relevance of absurdism.

 

   3. Subsection I: The Individual of the 21st Century

 

     For the purpose of this paper, it is essential to define the average 21st-century individual, the factors that have influenced their upbringing, and the struggles they face today. The twenty-first century has been an era of advocacy and polarization. Some of the greatest political, economic, and environmental conflicts have arisen as a result of these distressing factors. New, developing technology has allowed for greater public surveillance and an unprecedentedly large collection of information on the public, gathered from an array of different entities and institutions ranging from private corporations to foreign governments. Division is sewn among the people through political disagreements, cultural differences, and religious affiliation. 

The 21st-century individual is resultingly wary, skeptical, and tired of the circumstances and systems of modern society, with ultimately no real power to change them. Therefore, political disillusionment is the first factor that makes up my definition of the 21st-century individual (who will hereafter be referred to as simply, “the individual”). 

     Somewhat paradoxically, the second factor is strong advocacy for personal beliefs. This may sound contradictory; advocacy seems naturally incompatible with political disillusionment. However, societal factors such as the media and religion have driven extreme division and polarization within the general population, which fuels strong belief and advocacy for one’s own ideology. 

The last factor which makes up the individual in the 21st century is an illusion of choice. To thoroughly explain this component, it is first necessary to make the distinction between “casual choice”, and “actual choice” as they relate to this paper. Casual choice refers to one’s ability to make choices that do not have a significant effect on the path or outcome of one’s life. For example, Person A could choose between buying two items at the store. Although the outcome of the choice changes depending on which action Person A chooses, on a larger scale this choice is meaningless and does not affect the outcome of the person’s life. Actual choice refers to the ability to make choices that have significant effect on the outcome of one’s life. For example, Person A’s choice to pursue higher education after high school in order to enter into a successful career. In the 21st century, the abundance of casual choice creates an allusion of actual choice. While individuals may have the power to choose between a large array of goods at the grocery store, they have little power to make significant decisions that have an impact on their life. Due to societal, economic, and political factors, it is becoming increasingly difficult to stray from the path that society has chosen for one’s life. A person of a certain economic status will generally end up pursuing a certain kind of life and career, while a person of a different class will pursue another. The 21st century individual is one who is characterized by the societal polarization of their time. They are disillusioned with the political system, however they strongly advocate for their own points of view. As consumers, they might have an array of different options, yet in terms of actual choice they have little. These factors lead the individual to be tired, fed up with the flow of society, and wary of their own ability to affect actual change.

     This definition of the individual is in itself a subjective claim. While it is based on trends and recent historical events, the stated definition of the individual is a generalization, focused on the average philosophical views of the young, western adult. Like any approximation, this definition can not be applied to every person within the demographic, but for all purposes of this paper, we will continue to define the individual under the previously stated factors.

 

   4. Subsection II: Transcending a Confined Existence

 

     If both paths ultimately converge upon the same destination, is there any value in choosing between them? As free, living beings, we are able to exert an extreme amount of control and choice over our daily lives. We can choose our place of residence, what we do in our free time, the direction in which we lead our lives, yet all of us are equalized by death. This inevitability of fate, as well as the unknown nature of what happens after death, sparks an intrinsic fear within us all. Camus and Sartre assert that death is a void of nothingness, where we simply do not exist and are not conscious (Camus, 2018); (Sartre, 1946). However, within all of us, the fear and uncertainty persist. This uncertainty is characteristic of the individual regarding, not just death, but the major political and economic turmoil of the 21st century. The individual has accepted that they exert no control over certain aspects of their life, and that in a larger sense they are more at the will of societal change than they are at the will of their own decisions. 

     While Camus believed that each person is metaphysically in control of their own life, he also believed that many people are at the whim of societal systems which are often unfair and often existentially confining (Camus, 1989). While people would be unable to individually implement actual societal change, absurdism believes in disregarding society altogether, and instead rebelling against existence, as Camus controversially believed that societal rebellion often enforced the power of the ruling class (which Sartre, as a Marxist, obviously took offense to); (Dresser, 2017). Camus believes that to make peace through rebellion with a meaningless universe is the first step to finding purpose on earth; moreover absurdist freedom is realizing that some aspects of life are inherently unfair and unjust (Camus, 1956). Accepting these absurdities and letting go is ultimately important to being free. Many people would find sympathy with this ideology. For a generation of individuals wary of society and its systems, absurdist freedom serves as a method of transcending the physical, social, or economic confines that they face in order to achieve a higher freedom.

     Sartrean existentialism diverges on the importance of casual choice relative to freedom and societal change. Existentialism believes that we can achieve freedom primarily by making conscious choices that adhere to our subjective morals (Sartre, 1944). These two ideologies are not directly opposed, however they differ as casual choice is viewed by Camus as arbitrary and less important to the achievement of freedom. Additionally, while Camus aligns with the classical viewpoint that essence precedes existence, Sartre believes the opposite, that existence precedes essence. While the individual might have little faith in political processes and societal systems, they have a strong adherence to morals and their personal beliefs surrounding human nature. The Sartrean belief that nature is necessarily determined by existence, and not predetermined like Camus believes, might be a source of contention among the individual and Sartrean existentialism, as intrinsic morals play a large role in how many people view society, even if they are not religious or deterministic. Related to this, is the concept of moral relativism. Sartre believed that morals were relative to the individual, their upbringing, and the environment of their society. This further contradicts the ideology of the individual.

     Absurdism would be a better choice than existentialism for the individual regarding existence. Absurdism provides a method of liberation and freedom for the individual that would allow them to rise out of their socially and economically confining circumstances. Ideologically, the beliefs of Camus are more representative of the beliefs of the individual than the views of Sartre. Camus’ moralism and commitment to ethical politics would be an important characteristic that many individuals would align themselves with. On the other hand, existentialism believes in moral relativity, which the individual would be fundamentally opposed to, on the grounds that all humans share a standardized, intrinsic morality. This argument can be represented by Camus’ statement of the classical belief that essence precedes existence. Absurdism, in general, is a more representative philosophy in this area, compared to existentialism and the beliefs of Sartre.

 

   5. Subsection III: Self-Advocacy and Politics

 

     One of the most important characteristics of the 21st century individual is a strong sense of advocating for one’s beliefs. Firstly, the political beliefs of Camus and Sartre are important contexts for determining the role of advocacy in both philosophies. Camus was a committed socialist who opposed the authoritarianism of Stalin and the Soviet Union (Aronson, 2011). Most importantly, he was a staunch moralist, whose views of righteousness were infused in his writing, politics, and personal ideology. Sartre was similarly a member of the European Left, however his approach to politics was more radical. He was a communist, and believed Marxist ideology was an attainable method of achieving true freedom (Dresser, 2017). As both Camus and Sartre both affiliate with the general European leftist movement of the mid 20th century, the differences in ideology become more minute.

     To provide context, absurdism emphasizes personal morality. Camus also endorses political advocacy as a method of expressing ethics and morals. He has, however, a certain distrust of politics as a means of providing attainable solutions to the problems of freedom and existence. Camus also regards the absurd as the most important form of intellectual development one can attain, and therefore knowledge such as politics is less important (Dresser, 2017). On the other hand, Sartre has faith in humanity’s ability to create systems of justice, equality, and freedom for all through rebellion and the subsequent systems of communism and Marxism. Additionally, in existentialism, politics plays a larger role in personal morality and creating meaning through actions and choice (Sartre, 1946). Camus fundamentally disagrees with this on the grounds that the order humanity imposes over natural existence, as well as the societal damage caused through political rebellion, would stop true freedom from being achieved. 

     Many people would align with Camus’ values of morality and ethics. However, absurdism’s ultimate disregard for politics and emphasis on the absurd over all other forms of knowledge would be a significant point of contention (Camus, 1956). Sartrean existentialism acknowledges the tension between the individual responsibility to advocate and institute change, and the ultimate lack of control humans have to the forces of society (Aho, 2023). This stance raises the question, however, of how important the role of advocacy and politics is in existentialism for attaining genuine freedom, if Sartre argues that humans are powerless to institute meaningful change? Additionally, Sartrean existentialism aligns with relative morality, stating that the imposition of morals onto others is a harmful and baseless assertion (Aho, 2023), a concept that the individual would disagree with. As mentioned previously, Camus values achieving higher universal or existential knowledge rather than political knowledge or advocacy, claiming that politics and advocacy are less important relative to the realization of the absurd. Therefore, advocacy, politics, and self-expression are not wholly necessary to the achievement of freedom. 

     Despite conflict and ideological differences, the individual would be more in accordance with absurdism. Although existentialism does place a higher value on politics and political rebellion while simultaneously acknowledging the idea that the individual is powerless to the whims of societal and historical change, absurdism’s focus on morality and ethical politics (Lane, 2015) would more effectively align with the ideology of the modern individual. There are some areas of overlap between absurdism and existentialism, as Camus comments frequently on the inability of the individual to affect significant societal change, a sentiment echoed by Sartre. Camus’ promotion of ethical politics in the face of absurdity and a lack of grounded morals as a means of liberation and personal rebellion (Lane, 2015) would be extremely appealing to the individual, who believes strongly that personal morality should be highly valued in society, politics, and the process of freedom.

 

   6. Subsection IV: Disillusionment With Society

 

     Wariness or disillusionment from society and its systems is an important characteristic of the 21st century individual. Camus and Sartre both describe an inherent uselessness within the bureaucracy of society, a view that the individual would hold. There are some differences in these interpretations, however. Camus, a member of the French ruling class in colonial Algeria, was raised in a country of beautiful natural environments and vibrant culture. On the other hand, Sartre, a working class, poverty-stricken Frenchman with hereditary syphilis growing up in the bleak environment of Paris (Landau, 2012), was almost predisposed to adopt a cynical or negative view of society. Therefore, while both Camus and Sartre see elements of society as “flawed,” they hold differing views regarding human order and the function of society. Camus sees a beautiful world of nature and life (take the colorful hills of Marengo in The Stranger, for example), while Sartre sees a world that is on the whole, useless and vile, (as per the environment of Bouville in Nausea).

     Where would the individual fall on their views regarding society and the world? According to the stated definition of the individual, there is more alignment with the absurdist definition rather than the existentialist one. Although the individual might disregard the efficacy and purpose of societal systems, they still view life and existence as purposeful and beautiful. Sartre’s view of existence as partially useless and freedom as potentially destructive would be a major point of contention among the individual and this philosophy, and they would much more align with Camus’ views here. It is important to note that younger generations are becoming increasingly nihilistic due to the bleak circumstances of their future, and the younger individual’s view that their ability to affect change is becoming increasingly small. This would motivate them to agree more with Sartre (although he is fundamentally not a nihilist, his beliefs on morality align somewhat with the general nihilist view of existence); (Aho, 2023). This fact does not sway, however, the previously defined views of the individual. So, although the views of the individual align with both absurdism and existentialism regarding disillusionment or disregard for society and systems within it, the major source of contention is that, while some would agree with Sartre’s bleak outlook on life, the majority of individuals would align more with Camus’ belief in the beauty of existence and nature.

     This is an extremely complex topic, as the views of both philosophies can be deceptively similar. However, under closer examination, it is clear that the individual would align with a more positive outlook on existence, despite the hopelessness they feel surrounding society itself and the order it imposes onto them. Thus, absurdism is more beneficial here, as it represents a source of salvation and hope for the individual: an opportunity to transcend the flawed mechanics of society and embrace life and the universe in its purest form. On the contrary, existentialism would be generally harmful. Sartre’s outlook on the meaning of society, casual choice, and values would only serve to inspire hopelessness or disorientation in the mind of the individual.

 

   7. Conclusion

 

     Although many people categorize absurdism and existentialism as fundamentally the same, the many ideological differences of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre ultimately produced two very different philosophies. Thus, the concept of freedom according to absurdism and existentialism can be applied very differently to the individual. Considering all of the previous arguments surrounding existence, societal disillusionment, and self-advocacy, I would make the final judgment that individual liberty would benefit more from an individual adherence to absurdism, rather than existentialism. 

     On the concept of the fundamental nature of existence, absurdism would benefit the individual more than existentialism as Camus argues that essential nature is predetermined, and exists within all individuals even before existence. The individual, according to their defined characteristics, is a moralist, who believes heavily in their own morals and advocacy. Sartre’s fundamental belief that existence precedes essence would be a source of major contention, as the individual would disagree with the view that morals are defined by existence and not intrinsically instilled within an individual prior to existence. Additionally, absurdism could serve as a useful tool to transcend past the barriers of society, just as Meursault in The Stranger had used his own personal realization to philosophically escape his physical confinement in prison. The individual, who is wary and skeptical of society, would see absurdism as a tool to rise past the chaos, inefficiency, and flaws of humanity. Regarding views on fundamental existence, absurdism is the better choice to promote individual liberty.

     Secondly, we have to consider the subject of self-advocacy and politics. According to the pre-stated definition of the individual, they place a high value on self-advocacy, and participating in politics despite their perceived uselessness and inefficiency of modern society. Considering the political beliefs of both Camus and Sartre, absurdism is again a clear solution to this aspect of the belief system of the individual. Camus was a moralist - pursuing morality over violence was one of the most important aspects of his ideology. Advocating for oneself and valuing morals and non-violence is an extremely important aspect of absurdism. Sartre has different beliefs. Strong morals align heavily with the beliefs of the individual. Existentialism, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of casual choice. Sartre’s belief that existence precedes essence almost directly opposes Camus’ beliefs of non-violence and morality on the grounds that morals are developed individually as a result of existence; they are not imposed onto the individual prior to existence as Camus believes. While this viewpoint is uniquely modern, and contrasts the views of classical philosophers, it is not a view that the individual would align with.

     Lastly, we have the topic of societal disillusionment. Both philosophies propagate the idea that society is flawed and unrepresentative of the nature of those it is supposed to provide for. Both Camus and Sartre view imposed order as harmful and damaging to the natural world and its order. It is only Camus, however, that acknowledges the underlying beauty of the world while Sartre rejects almost the entirety of physical existence. The individual would align more with absurdism here. Although the individual would be disillusioned with society and its systems, they would not disregard physical existence as a whole, and could still find the beauty within pure existence just as Camus does. 

     My final judgment on this argument is that individual liberty would benefit more from an adherence to absurdism. In every category, the individual has aligned more with the beliefs of absurdism than existentialism. Although there have been some points of contention between the individual and absurdism, Camus’ ideology would ultimately align much better with the beliefs of the individual. Sartrean existentialism is, as a whole, too dismissive of physical existence and morality, and this conflicts, in many areas, with the ideology of the individual.

     The purpose of this paper was not solely to provide arguments and information on absurdist and existential freedom. Rather, to give a sense of how to use philosophy and critical thought can be used to achieve or sustain freedom. As our society makes the transition into the 21st century, topics such as freedom and existence are more relevant than ever. It appears as if our social, economic, and political freedoms are becoming increasingly restricted, thus the need for philosophy as a means of achieving a higher, metaphysical freedom, free from the confines of modern society, is extremely apparent. The relevance of this paper is that it can provide a genuine and realistic perspective on freedom in the modern era; how to achieve such freedom, and its usefulness and purpose in our lives. I hope that the reader themselves can determine how any philosophical adherence might assist their own lives, values, and freedom.

​
 

   8. References 

 

Aronson, R. (2011, October 27). Albert Camus. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved June 1, 2023, from

             https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/

Aronson, R. (2005). Camus and Sartre: The Story of a Friendship and the Quarrel That Ended It [Website database]. University of Chicago Press.

Aronson, R., Jumel, C., & Kingstone, B. (2002). The third man in the story: Ronald Aronson discusses the Sartre-Camus conflict with Francis Jeanson. Sartre Studies International, 8(2).

Camus, A. (1956). The Rebel. Vintage International.

Camus, A. (1989). The Stranger (M. Ward, Trans.). Vintage International.

Camus, A. (2018). The Myth of Sisyphus (Second Vintage International edition. ed.). Vintage International.

Dresser, S. (2017, January 27). How Camus and Sartre Split Up Over the Question of How to be Free (B. Hains, Ed.). Aeon. Retrieved February 22, 2023, from https://aeon.co/ideas/how-camus-and-sartre-split-up-over-the-question-of-how-to-be-free

DuFour, S. N. (2017). Does Essence Precede Existence? A Look at Camus's

            Metaphysical Rebellion. Inquiries Journal, 9(5). http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1639/does-essence-precede-existence-a-look-at-camuss-metaphysical-rebellion

Foley, J. (2014). Camus and Sartre; Sartre or nostalgia for the universal idyll.

             In J. Foley (Author), Albert Camus: From the Absurd to Revolt (pp. 108-140). Routledge.

Landau, I. (2012). Foundationless freedom and meaninglessness of life in Sartre's Being and Nothingness. Sartre Studies International, 18(1).

Lane, S. (2015). Albert Camus: An Ethical Politics in the Absurd World. Bowdoin Digital Commons.

Popova, M. (2016, June 17). Albert Camus on What It Means to Be a Rebel and to Be in Solidarity with Justice [Article]. The Marginalian. Retrieved December 15, 2023, from https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/06/17/albert-camus-the-rebel/

Reynolds, J., & Renaudie, P.-J. (2022, March 26). Jean-Paul Sartre [Article].

             Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 14, 2023, from

             https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/

Sartre, J.-P. (1956). Existentialism is a Humanism (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). In W. Kaufmann (Author), Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre.

Sartre, J.-P. (1944). No Exit and Three Other Plays: No Exit (S. Gilbert, Trans.). Vanderbilt University.

Sartre, J.-P. (1993). Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). Washington Square Press.

Sartre, J.-P. (2007). Nausea. New Directions.

Sartre and Camus in Contrast: Divergent Conceptions of Freedom in Existentialist and Absurdist Literature. (n.d.). The Stanford Freedom Project. https://stanfordfreedomproject.com/sartre-and-camus-in-contrast-divergent-conceptions-of-freedom-in-existentialist-and-absurdist-literature/

Solomon, R. C. (2006). Dark Feelings, Grim Thoughts Experience and Reflection in

            Camus and Sartre. Oxford University Press.