Man, according to Sartre’s formula, “is doomed to be free.”

In addition, we are not talking about a person “in general” but always about a unique individuality, about human loneliness.

The core of Sartre’s existentialism is the “philosophy of freedom.” Freedom puts a person outside the law and causality, it expresses a break with necessity. Freedom does not tolerate any cause or basis, it is not determined by the ability of man to act in accordance with what he is, because his freedom is the choice of his being: man is the one he freely chooses. Freedom implies independence from the past, denial of it, a break with it.

Man is free regardless of the real possibility of realizing his aspirations. The very statement of the task, the very desire, the very choice of goal are sufficient for the formation of freedom. Freedom is contained in the very direction. “Project” is not a way to it, but its expression, it is a freedom that projects itself.

According to Sartre, no objective circumstances can deprive a person of his inalienable freedom. It persists in any situation and is an opportunity to choose – to choose not real opportunities, but your attitude to this situation. Subjectivization of freedom means the individual’s perception of his dependence: he can “freely” reconcile with it; with him he is as free as when he rebels against her. A slave or a slave is “free” by self-determining his attitude to his position. Obstacle, restriction is determined by what we want. That is, the task is not to change the world, but to change their attitude to it.

Freedom is provided only by the choice of goal and does not require its achievement. The absoluteness of freedom makes a person dependent on his freedom. Freedom itself establishes a single limit of human freedom. Man, according to Sartre’s formula, “is doomed to be free.”

Sartre’s understanding of freedom as fate opens the way to reconciliation with all reality, as well as to protest against all reality, to fight against it. It serves as a theoretical justification for any attitude to reality, and therefore does not justify any unambiguous attitude to it.

The doctrine of human freedom determines the nature of existentialist ethics. Man is the only source, criterion and goal of morality. Not society, not man in general, but each individual is a separate “I”. It is not just about personal moral responsibility, but about the individual as a measure of morality. The main criterion of morality is “authenticity”, ie the conformity of human consciousness to its own, “real” consciousness. This found expression in Sartre’s “categorical imperative”: enjoy your freedom, be yourself. Sartre’s moral consciousness does not know the law, because if a person is “doomed to freedom” he himself is the law of his activity.

Given the above, the problem of human responsibility for their choices, for their lives, arises differently. By choosing himself, Man assumes enormous responsibility both for himself and for all mankind. She is responsible “for all” and the more reasonably a person makes his choice, the more “others” he “consults”. Feelings of responsibility for one’s choices are associated with feelings of insecurity, fear, anxiety, and sadness.

A person can get rid of these feelings by making a choice in favor of “invalid being” being “like everyone else”, ie denying the personal, unique, hiding “behind everyone”. Common being removes anxiety, insecurity, longing, and with them responsibility. You want to live an “invalid being” – live “like everyone else”. You want to live a “real life” – rebel against society, choose “not like everyone else” but take responsibility.

Philosophy of “ABSURD” by A. Camus. Sartre’s line of atheistic existentialism is continued by the French philosopher Albert Camus (1913-1960). He was born in French Algeria. His father in 1914. died in the battle of the Marne. The family lives in great poverty, but Camus graduates from high school for free due to his abilities. In 1935, Camus began his literary and theatrical activities. In the 1930s he became a member of the Communist Party of France and took an active part in supporting the Spanish Republic.

During the Second World War he was active in the Resistance movement, met Sartre. After the war, he distinguished himself from the left, and his political speeches on the unrest in Berlin in 1953, during the Hungarian events of 1956, and the conciliatory position during the colonial war in Algeria were actively used by the right-wing media. In 1957 Camus was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. On January 4, 1960, A. Camus died in a car accident.

Major philosophical and literary works: “Caligula” (1938), “Plague” (1947), “The Myth of Sisyphus” (1942), “Rebellious Man” (1951).

Despite the fact that Camus denied that he belonged to existentialism, calling it “philosophical suicide” in the essence of his worldview, he greatly contributed if not to the theoretical substantiation and deepening of this philosophy, then its influence and popularization among the European intelligentsia. He was not a professional philosopher, did not write philosophical treatises and did not teach. He was a brilliant playwright, novelist, novelist, essayist, presented his worldview in a bright artistic form. The boundaries between art and philosophy in Camus are blurred, and he sees in art a means of self-expression of existentialist consciousness.

Camus’s worldview is radically irrational in nature, because according to himthe whole world, all the essentials are deeply meaningless. All true knowledge is impossible, because Camus is convinced that all reality is unreasonable and illogical. In such a world, rational cognition cannot serve as “Ariadne’s thread.” The task, says Camus, is to derive all the consequences from the absurdity of the universe, from its absurdity. The absurd is Camus’s key to all philosophical issues, the core of being and thinking, the only possible guide to action, life.

Camus condemns scientifically oriented philosophy as contemplative. The whole history of scientific thought for him is a history of the confrontation of reason and feeling, the suppression of instinctive intuition by sophistry, and the powerlessness of rational cognition. He responds with contempt to great scientific discoveries. What is the value of “truth” discovered by Copernicus and Galileo: does the Earth revolve around the Sun or does the Sun revolve around the Earth? – All this is deeply indifferent, this is an “empty question” – says Camus. All our efforts and searches should be directed in a completely different direction, not to the knowledge of illusory regularity.

Both epistemological and ontological questions do not interest Camus, in the center of his reflections – ethical topics, and the irrationalism of his philosophy falls into deep pessimism. The “myth of Sisyphus” begins with the words: ” There is only one really serious philosophical problem – the problem of suicide. To decide whether or not life is worth living means to answer the basic question of philosophy. “These questions permeate all his works. The doom of man and his death, senseless and tragic existence, nostalgia and alienation from worldly bustle, from universal chaos – the leitmotif of all Camus’ work.

The shift of philosophy from traditional categories to emotional “existentials” or “modes” (worry, anxiety, fate, fear) is characteristic of other existentialists, but in Camus it acquires a total all-encompassing character. He writes that the seventeenth century was the century of mathematics, the eighteenth was the century of physical sciences, the nineteenth was the century of biology, and our twentieth is the century of fear. Denying in words the primacy of “existence” (in the existentialist sense of the elephant) in relation to the “essence”, Camus identifies the “essence” itself with the “absurdity of unhappy consciousness.”

The “absurd” in Camus’s philosophy is directed not only against rationalism but also against fideism. He strongly denies faith in God as a baseless, utopian self-deception incompatible with the absurdity of all that exists. For believers, the “absurd” itself has become God, but we should not intimidate the ghost of “terrible judgment” if everything is real for us is a constant terrible judgment.

Camus does not believe in anything, including the mind, both divine and human, which provides regularity, logic, awareness of historical progress and claims the possibility of social overcoming of universal absurdity. Everything real is alien to consciousness, accidental, and therefore absurd. The absurd is the reality.

Awareness of the futility of existence, which turns our consciousness into an “unhappy consciousness”, raises the “fundamental question of philosophy” before solving the dilemma: even if we are convinced of our hopelessness, we should act as if we were hoping for something , or commit suicide. Camus chooses the first alternative, denying suicide. He who understands that “this world does not matter, gets freedom.” And freedom can be obtained only when you rebel against the universal absurdity, rebelling against it. Rebellion and freedom, according to Camus, are inseparable.

Freedom as the highest moral value is conceived not in the socio-political sense, but as inherent in the “nature of man” the need for self-expression; rebellion is not a revolutionary transformation of society, but an uprising against fate, a moral rebellion against His Majesty the Absurd. Camus contrasts Descartes’ formula “I think, therefore I exist” with the irrationalist credo: “I rebel, therefore I exist.”

His revolt as the embodiment of freedom is contained in the individualistic understanding of the latter, in the Karamazov principle: “Everything is allowed.” Indeed, a free man, according to Camus, is one who, in accepting death, accepts with it the possible consequences.

However, Camus, distinguishing between “metaphysical” rebellion and “social” revolution, does not equate individualism, which requires complete freedom, with selfishness. He tries to combine individualism with humanistic “solidarity”.

From the very beginning, Camus realized that no more or less consistent scientific and philosophical system could be built on the fundamental notion of the absurd, on the “perceived absurdity,” that is, on the sense of the irrationality and irregularity of the world. He contrasted his humanistic “Myth of Sisyphus” with misanthropic totalitarian myths. After all, the absurdity of the fate prepared for him by Sisyphus wins by “senseless” action, which is not designed for success. But Sisyphus despises the judgment of the gods. “There is no destiny that cannot be overcome by contempt.”

Share this post