Throughout history, philosophers have wrestled with one of the most fundamental questions of human existence: What is the meaning of life? Existentialism, a philosophical movement that emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries, confronts this question head-on by rejecting universal truths and insisting that meaning is not given but created by the individual. In the wake of two world wars, the rise of totalitarianism, and the decline of religious certainties, existentialism offered both a diagnosis of modern despair and a radical prescription for freedom and authenticity.
Two of the most influential figures of existential thought — Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus — explored this question from complementary yet divergent perspectives. Sartre saw human beings as condemned to freedom, burdened by the responsibility of self-definition in a godless world. Camus, on the other hand, viewed life as absurd — a tension between humanity’s longing for meaning and the universe’s indifference — but found dignity in embracing this absurdity without resorting to false hope.
This essay examines the central tenets of existentialism through the writings of Sartre and Camus, exploring how both thinkers confronted the human condition, freedom, and the question of meaning in an absurd world. It also discusses how their ideas remain relevant today, in an age where technological progress and social fragmentation have rekindled the existential questions of purpose, choice, and authenticity.
Freedom, Responsibility, and the Weight of Existence: Sartre’s View
Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, developed his existentialist vision during the chaotic years of World War II. His philosophy is best summarized by the phrase “existence precedes essence.” For Sartre, there is no predetermined human nature or divine plan. We exist first — and only afterward define ourselves through our actions and choices.
Sartre rejected the idea that moral or social norms could determine one’s purpose. Instead, he placed radical freedom at the center of human experience. This freedom, however, is not liberating in the conventional sense; it is an overwhelming responsibility. Sartre famously declared that humans are “condemned to be free.” We cannot escape our freedom — even choosing not to choose is itself a choice.
In his seminal work Being and Nothingness (1943), Sartre described consciousness as a “nothingness” that constantly defines itself against the world of “being.” Unlike objects, which simply are, humans possess the unique capacity to question, reflect, and imagine possibilities. This capacity gives us freedom but also anxiety — what Sartre called anguish — because we must continuously define our essence through decisions that have no guaranteed rightness.
Bad Faith and Authenticity
One of Sartre’s most influential concepts is bad faith (mauvaise foi), the act of self-deception through which individuals deny their freedom by adopting fixed roles or excuses. For example, a waiter who fully identifies with his profession, behaving as if he is merely a waiter and not a free individual capable of other possibilities, is living in bad faith. Similarly, someone who blames “circumstances” for their inaction is evading responsibility.
Authenticity, in contrast, involves acknowledging one’s freedom and acting in accordance with self-chosen values, even in uncertainty. For Sartre, living authentically means confronting the void — accepting that there are no absolute moral standards — and creating one’s meaning through commitment and action.
Freedom, then, is both the burden and the glory of human existence. Sartre’s philosophy offers no comforting illusions, but it empowers individuals to shape their lives without appeal to external authorities.
The Absurd and the Revolt: Camus’s Vision
While Sartre saw freedom as the foundation of meaning, Albert Camus began from the opposite observation: that life is fundamentally absurd. In his essay The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), Camus argued that the human desire for meaning clashes with an indifferent, silent universe. “The absurd,” he wrote, “is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world.”
Camus rejected both nihilism and existential “leaps of faith.” He criticized religious belief and philosophical idealism for imposing artificial meaning on a meaningless world. Yet unlike pessimists, Camus did not conclude that life was not worth living. Instead, he proposed a form of defiant acceptance — to live fully in spite of absurdity.
In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus retells the Greek legend of Sisyphus, condemned by the gods to roll a boulder up a hill for eternity, only for it to roll back down each time. For Camus, Sisyphus symbolizes the human condition: repetitive, futile, yet conscious. The key to Camus’s philosophy lies in the final line of the essay: “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”
Camus’s concept of revolt is the answer to absurdity. The absurd hero recognizes the lack of ultimate meaning but refuses resignation. By embracing the absurd and continuing to act, one achieves a form of freedom — not the creative freedom of Sartre, but a lucid awareness of life’s limits and an insistence on living authentically within them.
Table: Key Differences Between Sartre and Camus
| Concept | Sartre | Camus |
|---|---|---|
| Core Idea | Freedom defines existence; humans create meaning through choice | Life is absurd; meaning arises from revolt against meaninglessness |
| Response to a Godless World | Radical freedom and responsibility | Acceptance of absurdity without false hope |
| Goal | Authenticity through conscious choice | Dignity through defiant acceptance |
| Ethical Focus | Commitment and self-definition | Awareness and perseverance |
| Metaphor | The artist as creator of meaning | Sisyphus as the absurd hero |
This comparison shows that while Sartre and Camus shared an existential foundation, their solutions diverged: Sartre’s humanism celebrates freedom as self-creation, while Camus’s humanism emphasizes lucidity and endurance in an indifferent world.
Existentialism and the Modern Condition
Though existentialism emerged in the mid-20th century, its questions are far from outdated. In today’s digital and fragmented world, existential concerns have resurfaced in new forms: identity crises in online spaces, the anxiety of choice in hyper-individualistic societies, and the search for purpose in a post-religious, post-industrial age.
The existential insight that meaning must be created resonates powerfully in a culture that often commodifies identity. Social media, for instance, invites individuals to construct multiple “selves,” each shaped by external validation rather than authentic choice. Sartre’s warning against “bad faith” is more relevant than ever: many people define themselves by digital personas, careers, or social roles, losing sight of genuine freedom.
Camus’s notion of the absurd also speaks to the modern experience of disconnection and information overload. The constant stream of news, algorithms, and consumerism can make life feel cyclical and meaningless, echoing the eternal labor of Sisyphus. Yet, as Camus reminds us, awareness of this absurdity need not lead to despair. Instead, recognizing the limits of reason and embracing life’s unpredictability can open a space for joy, creativity, and solidarity.
Existentialism and Creativity
Both Sartre and Camus viewed artistic creation as a response to existential questions. Art, for them, is not an escape from reality but a form of revolt against meaninglessness. By shaping chaos into form, the artist asserts human freedom.
Sartre’s literary works, such as Nausea and No Exit, dramatize the tension between freedom and self-deception, forcing readers to confront their own responsibilities. Camus’s novels, including The Stranger and The Plague, explore moral ambiguity and the human capacity for endurance. In The Plague, the collective struggle against suffering becomes a metaphor for solidarity in the face of the absurd.
Modern creators—from filmmakers like Charlie Kaufman to writers like Haruki Murakami—continue this existential legacy, using art to probe alienation, absurdity, and the search for meaning in modern life.
Existential Ethics: Living Without Guarantees
Existentialism offers a paradoxical kind of ethics — one without universal rules. Sartre argued that, because humans are free, they must invent values through their actions. This means every decision implicitly declares what one believes to be good, not only for oneself but for all humanity. “When we choose,” he wrote, “we choose for all men.”
This radical moral responsibility demands courage. Without divine or objective guidance, each person must act as though they are the author of universal law. For Camus, ethics arises not from freedom but from solidarity — the shared recognition of absurdity and the human need for compassion. In The Plague, characters act morally not because they believe in ultimate justice but because empathy and action are the only dignified responses to suffering.
Thus, existential ethics rejects rigid doctrines yet insists on commitment, honesty, and awareness. It asks individuals to live deliberately, to choose meaning over apathy, and to engage with others authentically.
Conclusion: The Courage to Create Meaning
The philosophies of Sartre and Camus remain vital because they confront the inescapable tension of human existence: our need for meaning in a world that offers none. Where religion and ideology once promised answers, existentialism compels us to take responsibility for our own lives.
Sartre teaches that we are free — and therefore responsible — for defining who we are. Camus reminds us that even in an absurd world, we can live with dignity, joy, and rebellion. Together, they offer a philosophy not of despair, but of empowerment.
Existentialism is, above all, a call to courage: the courage to face the void without illusion, to act without certainty, and to find meaning not in abstract truths but in human experience itself. As Camus wrote, “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart.” And as Sartre insisted, “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.”
In an era still haunted by anxiety, alienation, and the search for authenticity, these words remain a profound guide. The meaning of life, existentialists remind us, is not something to be found — it is something to be made.