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.
Sasakii OP t1_itoxa95 wrote
Reply to comment by the_grungydan in Absurdist Freedom Versus Ontological Freedom by Sasakii
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.