Two of the most important existential philosophers have been Albert Camus, well known for both his novels and his philosophy, and Jean Paul Sartre, who, is aligned with the ideas of existentialism more than any other philosopher. In addition to sharing some ideas about existentialism (although both men also developed very different systems of this philosophy), both thinkers were atheists, and developed their systems of philosophy, from their belief in a world, or a universe without god. For Camus, the absence of god was one of the reasons why man could find the nature of existence meaningless, and his concept of the absurd develops out of confidence in the absence of any divine being in the universe. Sartre, too, could find no logical proof nor evidence which proved the existence of god, and he used the fact of a universe without a god or a creator as the founding positon of existentialism. While Sartre developed more time to thinking about the meaning of, and conditions of human freedom, Camus also was concerned with the possibility of humanity with the freedom to act. For both thinkers, the absence of a god was one of the key causes of humanity experiencing true freedom. I agree with both philosophers, that the absence of god is the starting point of true human freedom.
An examination of the The Myth of Sisyphus, can give a beginning definition of Camus sense of the absurd, and why it is the result of a universe without god. The text, as an examination will show, points out that life is inherently without meaning. The reason life is ultimately absurd is because life, and the world, are meaningless, yet like the character the essay is named after, man keeps trying to find meaning in life, just like Sisyphus had to keep pushing the same rock up the same hill every day. However, any meaning man thinks he finds in life or the world, is an illusion. People often claim that religion is a source of meaning in life, yet religion is simply one more myth or illusion among all the others. Indeed, the illusion of god existing might be the most dangerous myth of them all. Because if god does exits, how does one explain the condition of the world? The world is filled with evil, death, pain and suffering. Thus, logically, if god existed, then god is either an evil being, or an imbecile, and the idea of psychopathic or idiotic supreme being only increases the absurdity of existence. This is an idea which I agree with.
Caumus begins by asking if life is worth living, and stating that “there is but one truly serious philosophic problem, and that is suicide” (Camus 187). Camus tells the reader that he is examining suicide as a “relationship between individual thought and suicide” (Camus 188). Camus says the act of suicide is a sort of confession by man, that life does not make sense. Suicide means you have realized “the absence of any profound reason for livingthe uselessness of suffering” (Camus 189). This is the first place that Camus places absurdity; the realization that life is meaningless leaves one with the feeling of absurdity. At first, only one small habit or action will seem absurd, but slowly, the entire act of a life will be revealed as absurd. Camus calls this an awakening, and at the end of this awakening comes either suicide or recovery (Camus 191). Recovery is to take the act of revolt. Revolt returns value and majesty to life (Camus 194). This revolt is an acceptance and belief in the absurd instead of in the illusions of life. This means to live life, and not worry about value judgments about living, and to base one’s life on living in the real world and not on illusions. Thus, as long as man lives, and does not worry about illusions and metaphysics, in other words as long as man lives in an universe without god, he is in revolt and actually living life. If man takes a “leap” back to a belief in meaning, like a belief in god, he returns to the trap of the absurd and the feelings which led to thinking of suicide in the first place. I believe that Camus’s solution was correct; that accepting and living with the absurd allows man to live life to the fullest, and to experience freedom. In the absence of preconceived metaphysics, man can think act and live as he or she wishes.
In “Existentialism is a Humanism,” Sartre brings up questions of freedom, responsibility, and the existence or non-existence of a god, which makes it a good text to examine for this paper. Sartre begins this essay by examining some religious thinkers who also claim to be existentialists. He says that even though these religious existentialists say they believe that existence comes before essence, in reality they believe that “we must begin from the subjective” (Sartre 206). As an example of what this means, Sartre gives the example of a craftsman making a pen knife. He says that the crafts person has some idea or image of the knife in his head before he makes it (Sartre 206). Although he doesn’t say so yet, Sartre is building a logical example of how this subjective idea existing before the object does is really an example of putting essence before existence, for “when we think of God as the creator, we are thinking of himas a supernal artisan” (Sartre 206). Thus Sartre connects this false subjective definition of existence with a belief in the reality of god, and as he develops his logical argument, he will show that what the religious existentialists call existence is really essence.
When philosophers think of god as a supernal craftsman, they think of him as creating mankind. And before he created mankind, he had an image, or idea, of what man would be life before creating him. Sartre calls this model of mankind in god’s head ‘human nature’. Even so called atheists in the 18th century retained the idea of god because the retained this idea of human beings having a pre-determined human nature (Sartre 207). Finally, Sartre proves that the idea of human nature is an “essence of man which preceded that historic existence which we confront in existence” (Sartre 207). Thus, any belief in any kind of essence, be it human nature, a human soul, the human spirit etc, is a belief in an essence which comes before the existence of the actual object; a human being. I believe that Sartre deduces through logic that the belief in any kind of essence is similar to a belief in god.
He then jumps to “atheistic existentialism of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that of god does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence” (Sartre 207). What Sartre means by this is that if god does not exist, then mankind’s existence always comes before its essence, which at its most basic means that man is completely free because there is no preconceived notion, no idea of what mankind should be like, which comes first and defines mankind. In the absence of god, man is free to define himself, and he is free “to be what he makes of himself” (Sartre 207). Sartre is correct; the absence of god allows for man to create himself.
For Sartre, the absence of a god who creates human essence means that man is truly and completely free. As Sartre writes, “thus, there is no human nature, because there is not God to have a conception of it. Man simply is” (Sartre 207). To me, this is the true existentialism, a philosophy which finds freedom in man’s existence in a world free from any God which gives it meaning (as in Camus), and free from any God which limits mankind’s freedom by defining humanity’s essence or its nature (Sartre).
Sartre finds this state of existentialism extremely liberating, for man “propels itself towards a future, and is aware that it is doing so” (Sartre 207-208). It is from this freedom that mankind can forge a true subjectivity, because man is put “into possession of himself” (Sartre 208). This freedom and this possession give human beings a true subjectivity, for man is responsible for himself. However, it also means that since humanity creates its own subjectivity; instead of getting it from a god, mankind is responsible for the subjectivity of all people. In other words, every choice that a man makes to define himself, effects both himself and all other men in the world as well. Since there is no god to give humanity a predefined essence, this existentialism carries a strong responsibility, for humans must define their nature for themselves. Sartre was correct to assign mankind this responsibility. Since there is no god to say what is right or wrong, man must ensure that every decision and definition he makes takes on this responsibility of defining man and ensuring the quality of human life (Sartre 210-2110.
Works Cited
Camus, Albert. “The Myth of Sysiphus” in Existentialism edited by Robert Solomon. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Sartre, Jean Paul. “Existentialism is a Humanism.” In Existentialism edited by Robert Solomon.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
