Freedom in Absolute and Relative Terms
When we ask ourselves what is the nature of freedom, we are effectively asking ourselves what is our relationship to the world. To ask what it means to be free is to ask to what extent we are bound to the world, to what extent we are limited by the world as we encounter it. The three philosophers (or philosophical writers) who are under consideration here - Sartre, Gide, Camus - all argue this point, although in different ways, or rather with different emphases. This paper, focusing on three works of fiction Of the three, examine their understanding of personal freedom and the way in which our own beliefs about the degree of freedom that we have affect the way in which we interpret the reality of the world. While all three of these writers are fundamentally concerned with the nature of freedom, they vary substantially in the reasons that they assign to the necessity to fight for freedom. For Sartre freedom is everything - the limits of our potential as humans and the greatest responsibility that we carry as a species. For Gide and Camus, freedom is not so much the essential, a priori condition of humanity. Rather, they saw the virtue of freedom, and the importance of fighting for freedom, as an essential way to free themselves of the falsity of the world, a way in which they could find their own natures.
Before looking at these three texts in greater depth, we will first examine more generally how each of these writers conceived the nature of freedom. Freedom for Sartre is the sine qua non of our species, our way of being in the world and our responsibility for the world. To contemplate the extent of what he believes freedom to be, and to require of us is to feel dizzy, to feel the physical sense of nausea that he argues is a mark of any honest interactions with the reality of the world. Sartre argues that, even when this appears not to be the case, that we are in fact each free, that we ca...