A Philosophical Assessment-Comparison and Contrast between Blaise Pascal and Albert Camus - Essay Example

Section/# A Philosophical Assessment-Comparison and Contrast Between Blaise Pascal and Albert Camus Since the dawn of philosophy, individuals have attempted to define human nature and seek to apply appropriate worldviews that can help to describe, improve, or otherwise understand the way in which it is represented. Whereas few comparisons can be made with regards to philosophers of the past as compared to philosophers of the present, the desire to understand and define danger is a thread of commonality that does in fact connect these two otherwise disparate groups of individuals. Moreover, whereas it might not seem logical or reasonable to compare and contrast similarities of Blaise Pascal and overcame this, the fact of the matter is that these two can be compared; at least with regard to their mutual and shared interests of the rest of human nature. Naturally, the underlying rationale for why human nature is in fact wretched differentiates between these two men. As such, the following discussion will be concentric upon analyzing why these respective philosophers saw human nature as wretched and seeking to compare and contrast their underlying assertions. It is the hope of this author that such a level of discussion will be beneficial in defining these differentials in philosophy and the correlation between old and new that certain aspects of their worldview entailed. Although Albert Camus has oftentimes been referred to as an ex-essentialist, it would ultimately prefer to be known as an anti-nihilist. Essentially, the understanding that Albert came as was anti-nihilism encouraged many onlookers to essentially understand his philosophical point of view from that which represented the absolute opposite of nihilism; existentialism. However, as opposed to Jean Paul Sartre, they were many tenets of existentialism that Albert Camus did not ascribe to. Perhaps his most famous contribution to the realm of philosophy was his development of what can be known as the Absurdist approach; oftentimes referred to as “absurdism”. This doctrine of absurdism essentially split the difference between nihilism and existentialism; in that it understood that humanity continually strove to find inherent value – yet human inability to find any is a fundamental reality of human existence. Within this doctrine of absurdism is a parallel understanding that human “wretchedness” is born from the inability to find meaning and the continual search that is forever and perennially unfulfilled. In such a way, Albert Camus was able to reject some of the prevalent philosophical and sociological theories of his era that proposed that a certain belief system or a certain scope of mental faculty could rescue the individual from this hopeless fate. With reference to this perennially self perpetuating condition, Camus states, “The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and this fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious. Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn” (Camus 28). The inescapable nature of humankind’s wretched existence is thereby tied to the fact that even though it is impossible to find inherent value and meaning in life, each human being, regardless of societal stature, wealth, or age, seeks to do so. Perhaps the most obvious conclusion that can be drawn from this is that humanity is in a way wretched due to the fact that it is foolish in its goals and intentions; wasting valuable life energy and resources chasing after something that will never be accomplished. Camus further agues with respect to the nature of human inquiry and the means by which wretchedness is denoted and achieved within the life of the individual: “Your success and happiness are forgiven you only if you generously consent to share them. But to be happy it is essential not to be too concerned with others. Consequently, there is no escape. Happy and judged, or absolved and wretched” (Camus 18). The understanding that is clearly represented is the clear allegory that regardless of the behavior, belief system, economic power, or approach that an individual takes to life, their efforts to do the right thing will unravel and either result in their own misery or the misery of others; thereby equating to a direct causation for human misery. The essential unit of comparison between Pascal and Camus is not in their agreement of the nature of this wretchedness; but in the fact that they agree that humanity is wretched based upon an inability to know and understand his place or the full knowledge of the universe surrounding him. Is quite obviously, the greatest differential between these two philosophers is the separation of time. Whereas Blaise Pascal was a prominent philosopher of the 18th century, Albert Camus is a more recent 20th century philosopher that died in 1960. The importance of relating the historical context to this particular comparison and contrast between these two individuals is predicated upon the fact that the understanding of thought and the relationship of religion to the way in which these individuals defined the world around them was essentially and entirely different. Whereas Blaise Pascal understood the world based on religious terms and from a faith based belief system, Albert Camus approached issues of philosophy from a perspective of an agnostic; or even an atheist. Per Pascual’s understanding, humanity was wretched for the fact that it truth was unattainable. Says Pascal, “Truth (is) neither within our grasp nor is it our target” (Pascal 42). Essentially, the broader thesis of his work was that the human condition is one that is contradictory by its very nature. In seeking to define knowledge and human understanding, Pascal reiterates that it is nothing more than a “wretched cesspool of uncertainty…and a storehouse of ‘truth’” (Pascal 42). Man cannot realize that he is sentient; neither can he grasp or comprehend his transient nature. For this understanding, Pascal even goes out on a limb and states that “Man is beyond man” (Pascal 42). In such a manner, neither the foolish distraction of worldly cares nor the philosophical discussion of truth and reality are sufficient towards understanding the mysteries of the world around us. Naturally, Pascal’s interpretation of the wretchedness of humanity was performed prior the age of science and the developments in understanding. Nevertheless, he drew a very painstakingly horrific view of humanity’s wretchedness based upon his lack of understanding and insight into the complex mechanisms that defined the universe. Had Pascal lived in another time, he would likely have taken a fairly different and distinctive view from the one that has herein been defined; however, as a result of the strong religious faith that was so distinctive within his era and a perennial fear that God was merely confounding the feeble attempts of mankind to develop a further understanding of philosophy, life, and the world, he revereted to the interpretation that mankind was nothing more than a wretched entity. In seeming desperation, Pascal indicates, “Greatness or wretchedness…the more enlightened we are the more greatness and vileness we discover in man” (Pascal 85). From the information that has been presented thus far, it is clear and apparent that both Pascal and Camus could at least agree on the fact that humanity was wretched. However, the fundamental disagreement that would have arisen between these two philosophers is based upon the underlying reason for why wretchedness was represented within humanity. Pascual would necessarily revert back to a more religious interpretation of the fact that humanity was ultimately under the control of the divine entity; one that actively hid himself from being understood and one that found it philosophical musings and interests of individuals such as himself. Similarly, Pascal would also have indicated that humanity was wretched in that it could never achieve a level of understanding based upon the determinants of science and existing knowledge. As a means of comparison, Albert Camus could have agreed; at least in part. Essentially, Camus would point to the fact that the frustration and wretchedness of humanity was contingent upon the fact that he perennially sought knowledge and understanding with respect to deriving and innate value from life; however, this innate value was something that perennially escaped the individual. In terms of similarity, both philosophers would agree with the assertion that their respective positions were predicated upon the search for knowledge and wisdom in understanding the raison d’être of life. Interestingly enough, even though these two philosophers were separated by well over 100 years, the same key philosophical shortcomings and difficulties in defining life and its meaning were represented nearly identically with regard to the way in which their respective philosophies developed and core and fundamental questions were exhibited. Either way, neither philosophy has caught on with the mainstream; as most individuals would at least prefer to state that the ability to define meaning and to experience a fruitful and rewarding life is always something that is potentially within grasp. Works Cited Camus, Albert. The myth of Sisyphus. London: Penguin, 2005. Print. Pascal, Blaise, and A. J. Krailsheimer. Pensées. London New York: Penguin Books Penguin Books USA, 1995. Print. Read More