Both Satre and Camus, important and famous French philosophers of the middle of the 20th century explored various facets of what may be called existentialist philosophy. Sartre grounded his work by focusing on the concept, and practice, of human freedom, While Camus approached existentialism from a tension between absurdity and the meaning of making choices and commitment. While both philosophers worked in very different areas of the wide branch of philosophy known as existentialism, both Camus and Sartre build their systems on the foundation of a life, or universe, without any divine force, and certainly without the idea of the Christian god. It would not be unfair to say that for both Camus and Sartre, atheism is the primary assumption which initiates the movement of their thought.
For Camus, it is fair to say, that if he were not an atheist, one of the most famous, and founding lines of his philosophy might not have been possible. In The Myth of Sisphus, Camus claims that there is only one problem which philosophy must resolve. He writes, “there is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy” (Solomon 188). This is the founding question of Camus philosophy, and his concepts of the absurd, of human freedom, and finding meaning in life and the universe, all grow out of this primary problem. However, it is only because Camus is an atheist, and that he did not remain a French Catholic, that he was able to frame his question in this manner.
In fact, as Camus develops the essay, it is religion itself which is the cause of suicide, and not that which prevents it. For Camus tells the reader that accepting the absurdity of existence and the horror of death is a true act of courage which gives him freedom to revolt against his condition and truly experience life for the first time (Solomon 192-194). However, metaphysics and religion, or “the doctrines that explain everything to me” Solomon 194) prevent finding this freedom and instead are the cause of the feelings which lead to suicide. For religion attempts to explain the universe, and give meaning to the world and a purpose to life. However, all of religion’s explanations, and its meaning, are false, and crumble in the face of the absurd world. If one cannot let go of these stories, man impoverishes himself, because he is left with nothing but empty and false religion, and thus suicide seems the most sensible outcome.
Jean-Paul Sartre, in his essay “Albert Camus, correctly identified that Camus’ philosophy, if correctly understood is an affirmation of life, not a rejection of it. Sartre saw in Camus a desire to live and own each “instant of his existence” because Sartre held a similar desire (Solomon 202). And, much like Camus, Sartre also grounds human freedom in the absence of any supreme being, however, he draws different conclusions from his foundational atheism than Camus did.
Sartre does not find the absence of god in his experience of the universe, like Camus did but rather establishes atheism as an outcome of logical, philosophic thinking. The selection From Existentialism is a Humanism is one example of how Sartre arrives as this logical position. For Sartre, the basic question which proves that god does not exist is the resolution of the question of existence and essence. While he does not come out and say it directly, Sartre implies that how one answers the question of which came first, existence or essence determines whether one is an atheist (and thus true existentialist) or a believer in god. Sartre tells us that in so called religious existentialists (which he later proves is a contradiction in terms), and in the philosophy of the previous centuries, one finds the idea everywhere that “essence is prior to experience” (Solomon 207). What this is really saying is that something existed before mankind (his essence, which is ‘human nature’), and that this primary essence is god. God has an idea of what man will be like (human nature, or in his image) which is man’s essence, which exists before existence does (Solomon 207).
However, Sartre calls himself an atheist existentialist, because he posits that man’s existence preceded man as essence (Solomon 207). Sartre will later go on to demonstrate how believing in something existing before existence is illogical, but here he limits himself to exploring the implications of his answer that existence comes before essence, because this answer, which is form of atheism, is crucial for a true philosophy of existentialism, and for defining and valorizing human freedom. What Sartre’s position means is that nothing exists before existence does; there is not a soul or a spirit, or human nature, or a divine plan, which came before existence did. Sartre declares that this means that god does not exists, and as a result “there is one being who existence comes before its essence”—the human (Sartre 207). If read closely, one can see that the absence of god equals the existence of freedom for humanity. Sartre establishes humanity’s freedom to create itself and make a life for itself in the following quote: “there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply ishe is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing—as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself” (Sartre 207). God does not define what humanity is, nor does god designate humanity’s place in the world or determine the course of human life. All of that is created by mankind and mankind alone, and this is the source of human freedom in the absence of a supreme being.
For both Camus and Sartre, this self-defining action and the ability to embrace the radical freedom of human existence, is what has the potential to make humanity great. I mean great here in the sense of virtue ethics, the ability to live the best life possible. For Camus, mankind must accept that there is no pre-made meaning to life or to the world; indeed, one must accept that the universe doesn’t care if one exists or not. Only by accepting life and the world for what it really is, can a person make something real out of it. To Sartre, the key was not the acceptance of existence, but rather the acknowledgment that by eliminating essence (and thus the gods) humanity must take full responsibility for its choices and actions in an individual life and in the world. Events do not unfold according to god’s will, or according to the alignment of the stars, or follow some predetermined plan; rather things happen (or do not happen) because of the choices people make and the actions that they perform (or what they do not choose or do). Freedom for Sartre means that mankind must accept responsibility for its actions and the state of the world.
While both Sartre and Camus are correct in grounding their philosophy, and human freedom in atheism, I find Sartre’s conception of freedom more useful. Sartre reminds humanity that freedom means responsibility, and that we are responsible for making the world, and our lives, into what we want it to be.
Works Cited
Saunders, William. "The Sin of Suicide." The Catholic Education Center. 2003. Web. 10 May
2016.
Solomon, Robert. Existentialism New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Solomon, Robert: Dark Feelings, Grim Thoughts: Experience and Reflection in Camus and
Sartre. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006
Wittmann, Heiner. Aesthtics in Sartre and Camus: The Question of Freedom. New York: Peter
Lang, 2009
Zaretsky, Robert. Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 2013
