European International Journal of Philological Sciences
01
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
1-6
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
03 March 2025
ACCEPTED
02 April 2025
PUBLISHED
01 May 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
A Comparative Analysis of
Human Nature in the
Existentialism of Sartre
and Camus
Sarah M. Johnson
Department of Literature and Critical Theory, Harvard University,
Cambridge, USA
Abstract:
This article examines and compares the
concepts of human nature in the existentialist
philosophies of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus.
While both philosophers address fundamental aspects
of human existence such as freedom, responsibility, and
the absurd, they diverge in their views on the inherent
nature or potential of humanity. Sartre emphasizes
radical freedom and self-creation, while Camus, though
acknowledging the absurd, posits a revolt against it and
the importance of human solidarity. This paper analyzes
these differences through their key works, highlighting
the implications of their perspectives on ethics, politics,
and the meaning of life.
Keywords:
Human Nature, freedom, responsibility, and
the absurd.
Introduction:
Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus are
central figures in existentialist philosophy, a school of
thought that grapples with the problems of human
existence. Existentialism arose in the 19th and 20th
centuries, addressing a growing sense of alienation,
meaninglessness, and the breakdown of traditional
values in an increasingly secular and industrialized
world. Thinkers like Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich
Nietzsche laid the groundwork for existentialism,
questioning the existence of God, the nature of truth,
and the foundations of morality. Sartre and Camus built
upon this foundation, applying existentialist insights to
a wide range of human concerns, including individual
freedom, responsibility, the search for meaning, and the
experience of the absurd.
Both philosophers explore themes like freedom,
responsibility, and the search for meaning in a world
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
2
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
often perceived as irrational or absurd (Makkarri,
1973). They reject the idea of a pre-ordained human
nature or a divine plan, emphasizing the importance of
individual experience and the subjective search for
truth. However, despite these shared concerns, they
offer contrasting perspectives on the fundamental
question of human nature. This article aims to
compare and contrast Sartre's emphasis on radical
freedom with Camus's focus on revolt and solidarity,
elucidating the implications of these differences for
their broader philosophical systems. Their differing
views on human nature lead to significantly different
conclusions about ethics, politics, and the possibility of
finding meaning in a meaningless world.
METHODS
This study employs a comparative philosophical
analysis. It examines the primary texts of Sartre and
Camus, focusing on their major works that address the
human condition. The analysis involves:
This comparative analysis employs a qualitative
research methodology, focusing on a close reading and
interpretation of two primary texts: Jean-
Paul Sartre’s
Being and Nothingness (1943) and Albert Camus’ The
Myth of Sisyphus (1942). Both works are foundational
to existential philosophy and provide the central
framework for exploring human nature in existentialist
thought. The analysis is structured around several key
philosophical concepts, including freedom, absurdity,
meaning, and the search for authenticity. The research
methods involve the following steps:
1.
Textual Analysis: The core of the research
involves a close reading of the primary texts by Sartre
and Camus. The texts are examined for their treatment
of key existentialist themes, particularly focusing on
how each philosopher conceptualizes human nature.
Key passages that discuss freedom, responsibility,
absurdity, and meaning are extracted and analyzed for
their implications on human existence. The analysis
also includes comparisons of how both philosophers
frame these themes within their respective
philosophical systems.
o
For Sartre, particular attention is paid to his
exploration of "radical freedom," the concept of "bad
faith," and the idea that "existence precedes essence."
These elements are central to his understanding of
human nature and the role of individual choice.
o
For Camus, the focus is on his articulation of
the "absurd," the idea of the human search for
meaning, and his existential rebellion. The key text
here is Camus' interpretation of Sisyphus as a symbol
of the absurd hero who defies the futility of existence.
2.
Philosophical Frameworks: In addition to the
primary texts, the research incorporates an exploration
of the broader existentialist philosophical frameworks
within which Sartre and Camus wrote. This includes
secondary literature on existentialism, including works
by scholars who have analyzed and critiqued the
existentialist philosophies of both thinkers. Secondary
sources are used to contextualize Sartre’s and Camus’
views on human nature within the existentialist
tradition and to examine how their ideas diverged from
and contributed to broader existentialist thought.
o
For Sartre, secondary literature includes
interpretations of his work that focus on his theories of
existential freedom, subjectivity, and individual
responsibility.
o
For Camus, secondary literature includes
discussions of the absurd and the notion of revolt, as
well as comparisons between Camus and other
existentialist thinkers like Sartre.
3.
Comparative Approach: The analysis uses a
comparative approach to contrast Sartre’s and Camus’
views on key existentialist concepts. This involves
identifying points of convergence and divergence in
their philosophical positions on topics such as freedom,
meaning, responsibility, and the human condition.
o
Freedom: Sartre emphasizes the concept of
"radical freedom," where individuals are entirely
responsible for their actions and must create meaning
through their choices. Camus, on the other hand, sees
freedom as limited by the absurd, acknowledging that
while humans can rebel against the absurd, they are
ultimately powerless in the face of a meaningless
universe.
o
Absurdity: Sartre does not frame absurdity as a
central concern in his work, as his focus is on human
freedom and the creation of meaning. Camus, however,
defines the absurd as the central condition of human
existence, where the search for meaning collides with
an indifferent and meaningless universe. Camus argues
that humans must confront this absurdity without
resorting to false hopes or illusions.
o
Meaning and Existence: Sartre advocates for
the idea that individuals create their own meaning
through their choices and actions. For Sartre, meaning
is not inherent in the world; rather, humans must forge
their own purpose. Camus, conversely, contends that
meaning does not exist in the world, and while humans
can search for it, they must accept that it may never be
found. His concept of "rebellion" involves accepting the
absurd and continuing to live authentically, even in the
absence of meaning.
4.
Secondary Sources and Literature Review: In
addition to the primary texts, secondary sources play an
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
3
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
important role in the methodology. Scholarly articles,
critical essays, and books that examine Sartre’s and
Cam
us’ existentialism provide insights into the
historical, cultural, and intellectual contexts of their
work. The literature review will focus on comparing
various interpretations of Sartre’s and Camus’
philosophies, including debates on their views on
existential freedom, the absurd, and human nature.
o
Literature about Sartre’s existentialism will be
used to analyze his views on human subjectivity,
personal responsibility, and how he links freedom to
human nature.
o
Literature about Camus will be used to explore
how his ideas on the absurd challenge traditional
existentialism, especially in relation to the possibility
(or impossibility) of finding meaning in a meaningless
world.
5.
Interpretive Framework: The interpretive
framework involves analyzing the texts from an
existential perspective that recognizes the centrality of
human experience, individual choice, and personal
responsibility. This analysis will also be influenced by
the
historical
and
philosophical
context
of
existentialism in the mid-20th century, particularly the
post-World War II period in which both Sartre and
Camus were writing. The context of existentialism as a
response to the disillusionment of modernity, the
collapse of traditional metaphysical and religious
structures, and the trauma of war will be considered in
understanding the motivations and themes of both
thinkers.
6.
Synthesis and Conclusions: The final stage of
the methodology involves synthesizing the findings
from the comparative analysis and drawing
conclusions about the philosophical treatment of
human nature in Sartre’s and Camus’ existentialism.
The synthesis will focus on how both philosophers
present the individual’s struggle with freedom,
meaning, and responsibility, and the implications of
these views for understanding the human condition.
This synthesis will also explore the broader
existentialist challenge to traditional ideas about
human nature, morality, and existence.
RESULTS
Sartre's existentialism is grounded in the assertion that
"existence precedes essence." This means that humans
are born without a predetermined nature or purpose;
they are "condemned to be free" (Sartre, 1943). For
Sartre, this radical freedom implies total responsibility.
Individuals are entirely responsible for their choices,
values, and actions. There is no external authority, no
God, and no fixed human nature to provide guidance
or excuse (Djurayev, 2024). Sartre explores the
psychological consequences of this freedom, including
anguish, abandonment, and despair. He also introduces
the concept of "bad faith," which describes the ways in
which individuals attempt to evade their freedom and
responsibility by deceiving themselves (Santoni, 2005).
Camus, while acknowledging the absurdity of
existence
—
the conflict between humanity's search for
meaning and the universe's indifference
—
does not
deduce from this a radical freedom in the same way as
Sartre. (Madison, 1964) Instead, Camus focuses on the
human response to the absurd. He rejects suicide as a
solution, advocating for a "revolt" against the absurd.
This revolt involves a conscious recognition of the
absurd, coupled with a refusal to submit to it. Camus
emphasizes the importance of human solidarity in this
struggle, finding meaning in the shared experience of
rebellion and the pursuit of values such as freedom and
justice (Alves, 2020). His concept of the rebel is central
to his understanding of human nature (Camus, 1944).
Human Freedom and Responsibility in Sartre’s
Existentialism
Sartre’s existentialism is grounded in the concept of
radical freedom. According to Sartre, human beings are
"condemned to be free" because they are thrown into
existence without a predetermined essence. For Sartre,
existence precedes essence, meaning that individuals
must define themselves through their choices and
actions. Human nature, therefore, is not fixed or
inherent; it is shaped by the decisions one makes. Sartre
emphasizes that this freedom is both a blessing and a
curse. While it allows individuals to define their own
identity and values, it also places an immense burden of
responsibility on them, as they must live with the
consequences of their choices. Sartre rejects the idea of
a universal moral order or essence, asserting that each
individual is responsible for creating their own meaning
and purpose in life.
Absurdity and the Rejection of Meaning in Camus’
Existentialism
Camus’ existentialism, as articulated in The Myth of
Sisyphus, revolves around the concept of the absurd
—
the inherent contradiction between the human desire
for meaning and the universe’s in
difference. For Camus,
human beings instinctively search for meaning and
order in a world that offers neither. This leads to the
confrontation with the absurd, a realization that life
lacks inherent purpose. Camus, unlike Sartre, does not
propose that humans can create their own meaning
through choice. Instead, he argues that the absurd
arises from the tension between the human desire for
meaning and the silence of the universe. However,
Camus does not advocate for despair or nihilism.
Instead, he promotes a philosophy of rebellion,
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
4
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
encouraging individuals to live authentically and fully
in spite of the absurdity of life, much like the mythical
figure Sisyphus, who continues his struggle against an
absurd fate without hope for ultimate success.
Comparison of Sartre and Camus on Human Nature
While both Sartre and Camus reject traditional
religious and metaphysical explanations for human
existence, they differ significantly in their approach to
the problem of meaning. Sartre’s view is rooted in the
belief that individuals are responsible for creating their
own essence, whereas Camus acknowledges the
absurdity of existence and suggests that individuals
must confront this absurdity without expecting
rational
answers.
Sartre’s
existentialism
is
characterized by a focus on human agency and the
power of individual choice, while Camus focuses on the
human struggle against an indifferent universe.
Sartre’s notion of freedom is optimistic, as it presents
an opportunity for individuals to construct their own
meaning, while Camus’ philosophy, though hopefu
l in
its emphasis on rebellion, remains grounded in the
recognition that the search for meaning may ultimately
be futile.
DISCUSSION
The key difference between Sartre and Camus lies in
their understanding of the implications of the absurd.
Sartre sees it as the foundation for radical freedom and
individual responsibility, leading to a more
individualistic and potentially anguished view of
human existence (Djurayev, 2024). Camus, while
recognizing the absurd, seeks to find meaning within
its limits, emphasizing the importance of human
solidarity and revolt against injustice. (Berthold, 2021)
Another way to frame it is that Sartre is focused on the
ontology of the human being, while Camus is more
concerned with the ethics of human action. Sartre
asks, "What is the nature of human existence?" and
answers, "To be free." Camus asks, "How should
humans live in a world without inherent meaning?"
and answers, "In revolt and solidarity." (Cooper, 1990)
Sartre's emphasis on radical freedom can be seen as
empowering, highlighting the potential for self-
creation and the rejection of determinism. However, it
can also lead to a sense of overwhelming responsibility
and the potential for nihilism. Camus's focus on revolt
and solidarity offers a more hopeful vision, suggesting
that meaning can be found in the struggle against
injustice and in the connection with other human
beings (Abdurasulovich, 2023).
Interpretation of Sartre’s Concept of Human Nature
Jean-
Paul Sartre’s existentialism, particularly as
outlined in Being and Nothingness (1943), places
radical freedom and personal responsibility at the core
of human existence. Sartre famously asserts that
"existence precedes essence," meaning that humans
are not born with a predetermined nature but must
create their own essence through actions and decisions.
Sartre’s concept of bad faith, the idea that individuals
deceive themselves to avoid the burden of absolute
freedom, is pivotal in understanding human nature in
his philosophy. According to Sartre, humans are
condemned to be free, meaning that they have the
responsibility to shape their lives despite the discomfort
and anxiety that this freedom entails.
From a Sartrean perspective, human nature is
fundamentally characterized by the struggle for
authenticity in the face of societal constraints and
internal self-deception. Sartre views freedom as an
essential and defining feature of humanity, but it is a
freedom fraught with existential anxiety. This is an
individualistic freedom, where the self is constantly in
the process of b
ecoming. Sartre’s human subject is
therefore always in flux, always projecting into the
future, attempting to define itself through the choices it
makes, and yet never able to fully escape the
responsibility that freedom entails.
Sartre’s emphasis on indiv
idual responsibility presents a
human nature that is inherently linked to self-creation.
His philosophical project raises important ethical
concerns, particularly about the ways in which
individuals navigate their relationships with others. For
Sartre, humans are being-for-others, and in their
interaction with others, they face the challenge of
reconciling their freedom with the recognition of others’
subjectivity. Sartre’s human nature is thus not isolated
but socially situated, defined through both self-
definition and the recognition of others.
Camus and the Absurd Condition of Human Nature
Albert Camus, on the other hand, provides a more
pessimistic but equally profound analysis of human
nature in The Myth of Sisyphus (1942). Camus famously
introduces the concept of the absurd
—
the conflict
between humans’ desire for meaning and the universe’s
indifference to that search. According to Camus,
humans instinctively seek meaning in a world that offers
none, and this fundamental contradiction is what he
describes as the absurd. In his philosophy, human
nature is defined by this clash between the quest for
meaning and the meaningless nature of existence.
Unlike Sartre, who frames freedom as the central tenet
of human existence, Camus highlights the tension
between human aspiration and cosmic indifference. He
sees this tension not as something to be transcended or
resolved, but as a permanent feature of the human
condition. The absurd hero, exemplified by Sisyphus, is
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
5
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
one who embraces this contradiction without resorting
to false hope or nihilism. Camus argues that despite
the absurd, individuals must continue to live
authentically, acknowledging the lack of inherent
meaning while still engaging in life’s projects.
For Camus, human nature is not defined by an ability
to create meaning but by a recognition of
meaninglessness, followed by a decision to continue
living in defiance of it. This is the essence of revolt,
which for Camus, is the proper response to the absurd.
The absurd hero does not succumb to despair but
instead finds value in the struggle itself, in the pursuit
of personal integrity and authenticity in an indifferent
universe.
Comparative Analysis of Freedom and Responsibility
The comparison between Sartre and Camus highlights
their differing views on freedom and responsibility.
Sartre’s radical freedom is a cornerstone of his
philosophy, where individuals have the liberty to
define themselves and their lives. This freedom,
however, comes with a heavy burden of responsibility.
Sartre believes that human beings must live
authentically, a task that requires a continual process
of self-examination and rejection of societal
conventions that impose false values.
In contrast, Camus sees human freedom as limited by
the absurd. While Sartre emphasizes the individu
al’s
capacity to create meaning through freedom, Camus
focuses on the futility of such attempts. For Camus,
freedom does not provide a way out of absurdity but
rather requires humans to confront it head-on. The
tension here is significant: Sartre offers a vision of
human nature marked by an almost boundless
freedom to shape one’s life, whereas Camus presents
a human nature that is constrained by the limitations
of the universe and the futility of human aspirations.
Despite these differences, both philosophers agree on
the central role of personal responsibility. Sartre’s view
stresses the freedom to act in a way that aligns with
one’s authentic self, while Camus places importance
on the responsibility to live authentically even in the
face of an indifferent universe. Both existentialists
reject traditional notions of morality and objective
meaning, emphasizing instead the subjective
experience of human beings.
Implications for Understanding Human Nature
Both Sartre and Camus provide profound insights into
human nature, but their views diverge on how
individuals navigate the challenges of existence.
Sartre’s human nature is one of self
-creation, where
individuals are tasked with shaping their essence
through their choices. For Sartre, human beings must
exercise their freedom to create meaning in a
meaningless world. Camus, however, contends that
meaning can never be fully realized, and human beings
must come to terms with this absence. The existential
rebellion that Camus advocates is a response to the
absurd, w
hile Sartre’s philosophy suggests that the
individual’s struggle for authenticity is the primary way
to confront life’s meaninglessness.
These existential insights offer valuable perspectives on
the human condition, especially in the modern world,
where ma
ny individuals face existential crises. Sartre’s
emphasis on radical freedom has influenced
contemporary existential psychology and humanistic
approaches to therapy, where the focus is on personal
choice and responsibility. On the other hand, Camus’
exploration of the absurd has found resonance in
discussions of existential nihilism and the search for
meaning in a world perceived as indifferent to human
existence.
Limitations and Further Research
While this analysis provides a comparative look at Sartre
and Camus, there are several limitations. First, the focus
on only Being and Nothingness and The Myth of
Sisyphus may overlook other relevant works by Sartre
and Camus that could provide a more comprehensive
view of their philosophies. Additionally, the scope of the
analysis could be expanded to include other
existentialist thinkers, such as Heidegger or
Kierkegaard, to offer a broader context for
understanding Sartre and Camus.
Further research could explore how Sartre’s and Camus’
ideas have influenced modern existential psychology,
literature, and political thought. A study of how these
philosophers’ views on human nature intersect with
contemporary concerns, such as environmental crises or
global political struggles, could offer new insights into
the releva
nce of existentialism in today’s world.
The comparative analysis of Sartre’s and Camus’ views
on human nature highlights both similarities and
differences in their existentialist philosophies. Sartre
emphasizes freedom and responsibility as central to the
human condition, while Camus focuses on the absurd
and the necessity of revolt in the face of
meaninglessness. Both thinkers, however, share a
commitment to understanding human existence
outside
traditional
metaphysical
or
religious
frameworks, and their work continues to provide
valuable insights into the nature of human life and the
struggles that define it.
CONCLUSION
Both Sartre and Camus offer profound insights into the
human condition, grappling with the challenges of
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
6
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
freedom, responsibility, and the search for meaning in
a world without inherent purpose. While Sartre's
existentialism emphasizes radical freedom and
individual self-creation, Camus's perspective highlights
the importance of revolt, solidarity, and the search for
meaning within the limits of the absurd. Their works
remain relevant for understanding the complexities of
human existence and continue to provoke debate and
reflection on the nature of what it means to be human
(Breisach, 1962; Fulton, 1999).
REFERENCES
Santoni, R. E. (2005). The bad faith of violence
—
and is
Sartre in bad faith regarding it? Sartre Studies
International, 11(1/2), 62-77.
Berthold, D. (2021). Violence in Camus and Sartre:
Ambiguities. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 59(1), 47-
65. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12396
Alves, A. M. (2020). Le concept de révolte comme une
réponse de la nature humaine d'après Camus.
Intercâmbio,
13,
111-121.
Camus, A. (1944). Caligula. Librairie Gallimard.
Madison, M. M. (1964). Albert Camus: Philosopher of
limits. Modern Fiction Studies, 10(3), 223-231.
Breisach, E. (1962). Introduction to modern
existentialism. New York.
Cooper, D. E. (1990). Existentialism: A reconstruction.
Basil Blackwell.
Fulton, A. (1999). Apostles of Sartre: Existentialism in
America, 1945
–
1963. Northwestern University Press.
Makkarri, J. (1973). Ekzistensializm. Pelikan.
Abdurasulovich, D. G. O. (2023). The question of moral
selection in French ecclesialism. European Journal of
Pedagogical Initiatives and Educational Practices, 1(8),
42-44.
Djurayev, G. (2024). Jan Pol Sartr ekzistensial falsafasi
gumanizm sifatida. International Scientific Journal of
Biruni, 3(2), 81-94.
Djurayev, G. (2024). Inson muammosi: Ekzistensial
absurd. Oriental Renaissance: Innovative, Educational,
Natural and Social Sciences, 4(26), 397-402.
