the_grungydan t1_itoblwm wrote on October 25, 2022 at 2:43 AM

My most immediate issue is with

> ... 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. >

Satre proposes, according to this writing, that we are born into a vacuum lacking any external influences. Part of where Camus is so prescient on this issue IMO is that he accounts for externalities very directly, speaking on the very real situations that humans have created for ourselves with regard to drudgery and pointlessness, whereas (at least from this article) Sartre pretends that they don't exist. On the other hand, Camus directly speaks to the absurdity of the modern life.

> We are born into a world of choices such that we have sole control over what we choose.

In a word: poppycock.

Sasakii OP t1_itoxa95 wrote on October 25, 2022 at 6:19 AM

Thanks for the thoughtful response. However, your interpretation of this article is misleading and unfocused on the point I am trying to convey. My study does not mention the lack of external influences proposed by Sartre's philosophy, in fact, it actually argues the opposite.

>The essence of Sartre’s philosophy, however, roots one’s own freedom in the midst of others...

Sartre claims that we cannot control what facticities we are born into - our family, prevailing cultures, or the moment of our conception. Nonetheless, the limitless freedom Sartre describes is our ability to control what we choose no matter the situation we find ourselves in - he states "freedom is what you do with what's been done to you." In what way does Sartre fail to speak on the absurdity of life? One of the tenants of his philosophy is the realization that life is in fact absurd. Still, this was not the focus nor point of this post.

Furthermore, you argue that Camus has a more direct response to the absurd in relation to situations regarding "drudgery and pointlessness". This response (I'm assuming) is through revolt, creating values and solidarity between individuals. This is where the focus of the article lies. Yet Camus' system of revolt doesn't give the individual the same drive and vigor toward a goal as existentialism. The values manifested by negating social norms is deconstructive, and as a result fails to provide a basis by which a society can function. While Camus may not be concerned with an ontological description of the universe, his philosophy is still less applicable on a broad scale when compared to Sartre's.

iiioiia t1_itqs6vx wrote on October 25, 2022 at 4:54 PM

I think its possible that when Sartre is discussing freedom, he is referring to object level freedom as it is (the degree to which it is possible, in fact, which is unknown), whereas Camus is coming at it from a more abstract, analytical perspective, acknowledging that while we have some freedom, it is not completely unconstrained (which Sartre may simply take for granted, without acknowledging it explicitly).

Someone smarter than me would have to weigh in on the plausibility of this based on their comprehensive writings though.

> We are born into a world of choices such that we have sole control over what we choose.

I think this could be considered similarly: what does the word being used to point to the underlying phenomenon (freedom/choice) actually mean?

the_grungydan t1_iu1js91 wrote on October 27, 2022 at 9:28 PM

Fair, but as you note, if that's the case, the original writing doesn't contain enough to indicate or support it.