The Differences between Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus on the Meaning of Life - Essay Example

Also, he believes that morality, just like any other things, is viewed to have inherent meanings, which do not really make sense. He argues that morality should not be noted as a collection of responsibilities entrusted by God to humanity but is a random system that changes as the human changes. In The Gay Science, Nietzsche points out that the Christian view of God has been killed by how the times evolved as scientific and regard God in a nihilistic way; that the growing modifications of human knowledge discard God’s existence through atheism; this implies that God is already dead for most of the humanity.

In times of crisis, such as when humans lost satisfaction over other-worldliness being God as provider of values, ubermensch recreates these values that is drawn from the context of nihilistic views; and which is a new and creative way of appreciating existence and life. In Being and Nothingness, Sartre tries to affirm human existence to have existed before it has ever obtained its meaning or fundamental nature. The ultimate goal of Sartre in writing the essay was to validate that indeed “free will” is real and is existent (Levy 111).

Sartre argues that “Being-in-itself is full of itself” (Sartre 74).. His radical view of freedom developed after shifting from ontological consciousness to realizing that humans are not absolutely free after all. Camus contends that life is meaningless. He believes that humans are trying so hard to make sense of this absurd world when humans are dictating their own selves all along. There is no longer significance in the objective and extrinsic view of life as considering that God is dead, which means that God is likewise a human invention, makes everything ethical only of human terms.

Camus, in his recounting of the Myth of Sisyphus, desires to convey that the world that is lacking of God is absurd but realizing it requires not a suicide but a revolt. He goes on by affirming that life is a series of absurdity that somehow, through revolt, makes a person happy. He further contends that the absurdity of life relies upon human existence as without humans, there is no life, and hence, there is no absurdity. Revolting from what is absurd would aid us in making sense of our existence in relation to the absurd world by gaining little, sensible results out of doing something.

On the whole, it is rather tricky to consolidate and relate the different concepts of the absence of God by the three philosophers; nevertheless, the notion of absence, in that “God is dead” should provide us with the linking element. Nietzsche focuses on the absence of God as a result of the changing humanistic views of life. The concept of God in the context of Christianity is killed by how humanity decides to modify their understanding of the world; and after manifold realization, agrees to fashion new philosophies of life, which killed the “traditional” and “ascribed” view of God’s existence.

Sartre believes that God is only a