Existentialism vs Absurdism

Camus rejected the existentialist label throughout his life. He insisted that his philosophy, which he called absurdism, was fundamentally different from what Sartre and others were teaching. The differences matter. They lead to different ways of living, different responses to meaninglessness, and different ideas about what makes a life worthwhile.

Understanding the distinction between existentialism and absurdism helps clarify what each philosophy actually claims. It also helps you figure out which one, if either, speaks to your own experience.

The Shared Starting Point

Both existentialism and absurdism begin with the same observation. The universe does not provide meaning.

There is no God handing down purpose from above. There is no cosmic plan unfolding toward some destination. There is no human nature that determines what you must become. You are thrown into existence without a manual, without instructions, without guarantees.

This was a radical claim when these philosophies emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries. Traditional religion and philosophy had always assumed that meaning existed somewhere, waiting to be discovered. The existentialists and absurdists said no. Meaning is not out there. The universe is silent.

Both philosophies take this silence seriously. They do not try to argue it away or pretend that meaning will reveal itself if you just look hard enough. They accept that we live in a world without inherent purpose.

The question is what to do next.

What Is Existentialism?

Existentialism is a broad movement with many voices. Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Simone de Beauvoir all contributed to it, and they disagreed with each other on important points.

But the core idea can be stated simply. Existence precedes essence.

You are not born with a fixed nature. There is no blueprint for what a human being should be. You exist first, as a raw fact, and then you create yourself through your choices and actions. Your essence, who you are, emerges from what you do.

This sounds liberating, and existentialists meant it to be. You are not trapped by your past, your upbringing, or your circumstances. You can always choose differently. You can always become someone new.

But this freedom comes with a burden. If you create yourself through your choices, you are entirely responsible for who you become. You cannot blame your parents, your society, or your genes. You chose. You are responsible.

Sartre called this condition "radical freedom." He said we are "condemned to be free." Every moment presents choices, and every choice defines us. There is no escape from this responsibility.

Existentialism responds to meaninglessness by emphasizing creation. Since the universe provides no purpose, you must create your own. You must commit to projects, values, and ways of living that give your existence shape. You must act authentically, in accordance with your own freely chosen commitments rather than conforming to what society expects.

The existentialist hero is someone who faces the void and builds something anyway. They create meaning through engagement, commitment, and action.

What Is Absurdism?

Absurdism, as Camus developed it, starts from the same recognition that the universe is silent. But it focuses on a specific experience that arises from this silence.

Camus called it the Absurd.

The Absurd is not a property of the world. It is not a property of human beings. It is the collision between the two. We have a deep, persistent need for meaning, clarity, and purpose. The universe offers none. The Absurd is what happens when these two facts meet.

You can feel the Absurd in certain moments. When the routine of daily life suddenly seems strange. When you ask "why?" and realize there is no answer. When you notice that you will die and that nothing you do will change this fact.

Camus argued that the Absurd is inescapable. You cannot eliminate it by finding meaning, because the universe will not provide meaning. You cannot eliminate it by abandoning your need for meaning, because that need is part of being human.

So what do you do?

Camus identified three possible responses.

The first is physical suicide. If life is absurd, why continue? Camus took this question seriously but rejected suicide as a solution. Killing yourself does not resolve the Absurd. It simply removes one of its terms by removing yourself from existence.

The second is what Camus called "philosophical suicide." This means escaping the Absurd through a leap of faith. You embrace religion, ideology, or some other system that provides the meaning the universe withholds. Camus respected the human need behind this leap but rejected it as intellectually dishonest. You are pretending the problem is solved when it is not.

The third response is revolt. You accept the Absurd. You do not try to escape it or resolve it. You live in full awareness of it, embracing life anyway. You find joy, passion, and engagement not because the universe has meaning but in defiance of its meaninglessness.

The absurdist hero is Sisyphus, condemned to push a boulder up a mountain forever. He cannot escape his fate. He cannot find meaning in his labor. But he can own his struggle, embrace his existence, and be happy anyway.

The Key Differences

Now we can see where existentialism and absurdism diverge.

On creating meaning

Existentialism says you must create your own meaning through commitment and action. The universe provides none, so you build it yourself. Your projects, your values, your choices give life purpose.

Absurdism is skeptical of this move. Camus argued that meaning you create yourself is not the kind of meaning you actually want. What we long for is cosmic significance, objective purpose, answers that do not depend on our own decisions. Creating your own meaning is a kind of consolation prize. It does not resolve the Absurd.

For Camus, the point is not to create meaning but to live fully without it. You do not need to solve the problem of meaninglessness. You need to learn to live with it.

On hope and the future

Existentialism is often future-oriented. You are always becoming, always projecting yourself toward possibilities, always creating the person you will be. Your current actions matter because they shape your future self.

Absurdism is more present-focused. Since the future offers no redemption and no final answers, what matters is how you live right now. The absurdist does not postpone happiness until some goal is achieved. They find it in the immediate texture of experience.

Camus wrote about sun, sea, swimming, and physical pleasure with an intensity that existentialist writers rarely matched. For him, these sensory experiences were not distractions from philosophical seriousness. They were the point.

On political commitment

Sartre believed that existentialism required political engagement. If you are responsible for creating yourself, you are also responsible for the world you live in. You must take sides, commit to causes, and fight for justice.

Camus was more cautious. He had seen how political ideologies could become as oppressive as the systems they replaced. In The Rebel, he argued that revolt must have limits. You cannot sacrifice individual lives for abstract ideals. The moment you do, you have betrayed the values you claimed to serve.

This difference led to the famous break between Camus and Sartre. Sartre accused Camus of political quietism. Camus accused Sartre of excusing murder in the name of revolution. They never reconciled.

On authenticity

Existentialism places enormous weight on authenticity. You must live according to your own freely chosen values, not according to what society expects. Inauthenticity, living in "bad faith," is the great existentialist sin.

Absurdism is less concerned with authenticity in this sense. The absurdist is not trying to become their true self or live according to some inner essence. They are simply trying to live fully, with awareness, in the face of a universe that does not care.

Camus was suspicious of the emphasis on authenticity. He thought it could become another form of self-importance, another way of demanding that the universe pay attention to your individual existence.

Why Camus Rejected the Existentialist Label

Camus was grouped with the existentialists because he knew them personally, because he wrote about similar themes, and because the public did not care about fine philosophical distinctions.

But he consistently rejected the label. "No, I am not an existentialist," he told an interviewer in 1945. He repeated this throughout his life.

His objections were partly philosophical. He thought Sartre's system was too abstract, too focused on consciousness and being, too removed from lived experience. Camus wanted philosophy to stay close to the body, to sensation, to the concrete texture of existence.

But his objections were also temperamental. Sartre lived in his head. Camus lived in the world. Sartre loved systems and theories. Camus distrusted them. Sartre was comfortable with abstraction. Camus wanted sun, sea, and the smell of jasmine.

"An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself," Camus wrote. He did not mean it as a compliment.

Which One Speaks to You?

Neither existentialism nor absurdism is right in any final sense. They are different responses to the same problem, different ways of living with meaninglessness.

You might find existentialism compelling if you believe that commitment and action can give life purpose. If you want a philosophy that emphasizes responsibility, freedom, and the power to shape your own existence, existentialism offers that. It is demanding but also empowering. You are not a victim of circumstances. You create yourself.

You might find absurdism compelling if you are skeptical of grand projects and suspicious of ideologies. If you have noticed that the meaning you create for yourself still feels fragile, still depends on your own will rather than anything solid, absurdism acknowledges that honestly. It does not ask you to solve the problem of meaninglessness. It asks you to live fully anyway, finding joy in experience rather than in answers.

Many people find elements of both philosophies useful. You can take existentialism's emphasis on responsibility without buying its more ambitious claims about creating meaning. You can take absurdism's acceptance of uncertainty without abandoning all commitment to projects and values.

The point is not to choose the correct team. The point is to engage with the questions. What do you do when the universe offers no meaning? How do you live without guarantees? What makes a life worthwhile when nothing lasts?

These questions do not have final answers. But how you respond to them shapes everything else.

Living With the Questions

Both existentialism and absurdism emerged from a world that had lost its certainties. The old religious and philosophical systems were collapsing. Two world wars had revealed the depths of human cruelty. The old answers no longer satisfied.

We still live in that world. The certainties have not returned. We still face a universe that does not explain itself. And we still must decide how to live.

Existentialism says to build. Create meaning through commitment. Take responsibility for your existence. Become who you choose to be.

Absurdism says to embrace. Accept the silence. Find joy in experience. Live fully without demanding answers the universe cannot provide.

Both are serious responses to a serious problem. Both require courage. Both offer something real.

The question is which one helps you live.