A viewer on this channel asked an interesting question: What’s the difference between
the philosophy of Absurdism and the philosophy of Existentialism? So, I’ll answer that
question in this video, as there are certainly some differences. Just to clarify, this person
was referring to the philosophy of Existentialism associated with 20th-century European philosophers—particularly
John Paul Sartre, who popularized the term. Some scholars extend the term back to Sorin
Kierkegaard, and others extend it as far back as Socrates. In this video, I’ll explain
the difference between the Absurdism of Albert Camus and the Existentialism of John Paul
Sartre. Let’s dive in.
First, let’s go over what Existentialism is. Existentialists believe that the world
intrinsically has no objective meaning, but through a combination of free will, awareness,
and personality responsibility, we can create our own subjective meaning.
The basis of Sartre’s Existentialism is the phrase ‘existence precedes essence,’
meaning no general account of what it means to be human can be given, and that meaning
can only be decided and constructed through existence itself.
For example, the phone you may be watching this video on already has a meaning or essence.
It was built for communication and entertainment. Human beings, however, create our own meaning
and essence through the choices we make while we live our lives.
At the end of the day, no one else is responsible for this meaning but us. In fact, Sartre wrote
that we’re ‘condemned to be free’ because of the overwhelming, near-infinite choices
we can make to give our lives meaning.
If we choose to live without pursuing freedom and our own meaning, then we’re what he
called ‘living in bad faith.’ Bad faith is the phenomenon of accepting that we are
a certain way, and subsequently refusing to pursue alternate options.
He explains this concept through the example of a waiter who’s so immersed in his job
that he believes a waiter is what he truly is and all he’s ever meant to be. He lives
in bad faith because he rejects his freedom and his responsibility to explore the possibilities
life presents him. He believes the choice to do something or not to do it is ultimately
not his, even though according to Sartre it is. Thus, he does not allow himself to be
a truly free human being.
Through embracing freedom and creating authentic meaning, we better our lives and humanity
in general.
Now, there’s a lot more to Sartre’s philosophy and Existentialism, but I think that gives
you the core idea of what he was about.
So, what about Absurdism? First, we’ll go over what Absurdists believe, and then we’ll
contrast the major differences.
According to Absurdism, it’s only natural for humans to seek out meaning in life. However,
conflict occurs when we go to do so and find the universe is really cold, chaotic, and
utterly devoid of any meaning at all. It’s this contradiction between our mind’s search
for meaning and the reality of nature that Absurdism’s founder Albert Camus calls ‘The
Absurd.’
Unfortunately, we have no choice but to confront reality and solve this dilemma.
How do we solve it? Camus says we have three options, and we have to choose one.
The first is suicide, which isn’t a good idea according to Camus. Suicide only makes
the Absurd more absurd, and it ends your life, which was sort of a miracle to begin with.
Then there’s option two, ‘The Leap of Faith.’ Basically, we can do what Camus
refers to as “commit philosophical suicide” and pretend there’s a higher power that
gives our life meaning—in other words, God. We’d have to pretend that make-believe was
the actual truth and accept a limited role of freedom in our lives. By accepting the
imposed moral codes of faith, we may be suppressing what we truly believe and want deep down.
Finally, we have option three, wherein we can embrace the Absurd and realize that we’re
truly free. From there, we’re free to pursue anything we want and try to embrace what life
has to offer.
So, both of these philosophies have to do with confronting what seems like meaninglessness
and being responsible for creating our own meaning in life. Some scholars consider Camus
an existential philosopher.
But Absurdism isn’t as set on the value of meaning in one’s life as Existentialism
is. For Sartre, constructing meaning was ontological; it was your essence and being. Plus, the pursuit
of meaning can have meaning in itself.
For Absurdists, meaning is more transient, and that meaning is always nullified by death.
In the end, for Absurdists, any meaning we construct is ultimately meaningless since
the universe is an Absurd place we can’t even begin to fully comprehend. The pursuit
of created meaning is possible with Existentialism, and that is its goal. For Aburdists, meaning
might be possible, but it probably is irrelevant to the entire human experience anyway.
While Existentialism’s goal is the creation of one’s essence, Absurdism is just about
embracing the Absurd or meaningless in life and simultaneously rebelling against it and
embracing what life can offer us. Yes, we can find some joy amidst the struggle and
chaos of the Absurd, but it will all end in annihilation anyway.
Also, Existentialists believed in free will and that we have a duty to pursue freedom,
while Absurdists aren’t so set on the concept of free will. They believe that people should
just try their best to live in defiance to and in spite of the psychological tension
of the Absurd.
So although both constructs are similar, you can see how Camus departed from the Existentialist
crowd and went his own way, with some unique ideas about how to live life and what reality
is.