In the philosophical essay The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus formulates his ideas on the absurd, and our place inside of it. The discrepancy between the human need for meaning and the universe’s lack thereof forges what Camus describes as ‘the absurd’. In the face of the absurdity of life, humans are forced to either give up or exist in constant contradiction to the futility of all of our actions. Giving into the absurd, known as committing physical or philosophical suicide, is not a suitable option for Camus because of his belief that we are capable of becoming superior to our fate. In order to do this, one must refuse to be broken by the circumstances of life, and in a revolt take responsibility for one’s own life. Thus true human freedom is formed only after one is conscious of the absurdity of life, and is manifested in the rejection of it. On the other hand, Jean-Paul Sartre sees freedom as something humans are born into, and is the effect of one’s ability to choose. With this description of freedom, we are entirely responsible for our situation and the meaning that we give it. For Sartre, existence is freedom, and one is able to determine one’s own essence through the power of choice. Consequently, Camus fails to provide an accurate idea of what human freedom is by claiming that it is a response to our rejection of the absurd instead of an inherent characteristic to human nature.

Sisyphus, condemned by the gods to roll a boulder up a hill for eternity, is the ideal hero who confronts the absurd. Camus’ conception of freedom is found in Sisyphus’ confrontation of his absurd punishment. “His scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life”(Kaufmann 313) fuels his revolt against what many would consider a futile and tragic conclusion. The setting in which Sisyphus is placed corresponds to the human condition, where the individual is in a continual perpetuation of completing tasks leading “toward accomplishing nothing”(Kaufmann 313). With the knowledge of an inescapable death, every achievement, passion, and goal that humans have will eventually turn to nothing. Subsequently, life is devoid of purpose, and any external purpose that Sisyphus may think his eternal punishment had would make him a slave to it - he could not be happy. This is what is meant when Camus said “there is no higher destiny, or at least there is one which he concludes is inevitable and despicable”(Kaufmann 315). The absurdist freedom that Sisyphus demonstrates is not one that occurs in the bounds of the condemnation by the gods - he accepts the absurdity of his existence and refuses to give into the despair that permeates his reality. Therefore the freedom he experiences is a state-of-mind, an option that one has when conscious of the actuality of life. In essence, Sisyphus only suffers (or otherwise rises above) because he is conscious of his situation; “The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory”(Kaufmann 314). But, if an individual can undergo a transformation from complacency to revolt, then there must have been a capacity for freedom in the first state in order to transcend it. The untenability of Camus’ conception of freedom is apparent in his necessity that one must choose it. Sisyphus chooses revolt, and afterward experiences the absurdist freedom. Freedom is not something that one finds out about, but is something inseparable from the experience of life. A more compelling description of human freedom is found in the work of philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre.

In comparison to the absurdist freedom found in The Myth of Sisyphus, Sartre argues that freedom is an a priori condition to human existence. We are born into a world of choices such that we have sole control over what we choose. One of the most notable differences between the philosophies of Camus and Sartre is found in their views on the purpose of human life. While both have had similar remarks concerning the objective purpose of the universe - Camus says “there is no higher destiny”(Kaufmann 315) and Sartre notes “But neither can the situation be objective in the sense that it would be a pure given”(Sartre 549) - Sartre allows the individual to create purpose and meaning out of the freedom that one experiences. In the example of a slave, he suggests the slave is “free to break [his chains]” and because of this “the very meaning of his chains will appear to him in the light of the end which he will have chosen”(Sartre 550). The meaning of the chains can change based on the choices of the slave, they can represent an obstacle in the way of his overcoming of slavery or a reminder of his captivity as a slave. In the case of Sisyphus, the boulder has no meaning to him - he must denounce meaning altogether in order to “be the master of his days”(Kaufmann 315). The freedom to give meaning to one’s own actions provides the individual with an intention that is not found in absurdist freedom. This intention establishes drive and focus towards a goal, in addition to providing a responsibility endowed in the individual and the others around him.

One may argue that Sartre’s definition of freedom prohibits the existence of communal virtues since the individual defines their own values based on their subjective experience. Since everyone experiences the world differently, there would be no guarantee that a community of people following a Sartrean philosophy could live in harmony. The essence of Sartre’s philosophy, however, roots one’s own freedom in the midst of others and in doing so forces “that man choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men”(Sartre 291). This newfound responsibility necessitates that man live for one another rather than simply amidst one another.

It is clear that Sartre wants to create a world in which the individual realizes and embodies the infinitude of one’s own freedom. Through the power of choice, people are able to follow their own subjective path of life in relation to their projects, situation, and facticity. In comparison to Sartre’s views on freedom, Camus’ conception of freedom is rooted in his notion of the absurd - the human’s fruitless search to find meaning in an apparently indifferent universe. The individual, through the rejection of systemic values, can live freely according to their own desires. However, with absurdist freedom one does not find the same motivation found in Sartre’s conception of freedom. If the world were to adopt one particular notion of freedom, the individual would experience a more substantial life in a Sartrean system rather than one envisioned by Camus.

Reference

Kaufmann, Walter. Existentialism: From Dostoevsky to Sartre. Meridian Books, 1956.

Sartre, J.-P. (2003). Being and nothingness (H. E. Barnes, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Routledge.