the converging and diverging aspects of sartre and camus works have been reached through the detailed cross examination of the study of the philosophical and conceptual framework of sartre and camus work

the converging and diverging aspects of sartre and camus works have been reached through the detailed cross examination of the study of the philosophical and conceptual framework of sartre and camus work. camus as discussed in the previous chapters does not spare a single occasion to deny himself being called as an existentialist. the major reason behind his denial of the title as an existentialist could be sartre because the fact remains that sartre is the famous, renowned name of the existential philosophy and camus does not wish to be related or linked with the sartrean ideologies because sartre is more focused towards the philosophy whereas camus is more focused on the practice of the ideas. for sartre, absurd is unchangeable, i.e., it is the permanent and consistent nature of the world and it closes the doors of hope, desire, and expectation for  individual. whereas on the other hand for camus absurd is the initial stage of paradox where the mind only hopes and the nature only gives. for camus the state of absurd is not the blocking point or the last stage in an individuals existence; instead it is the starting point in an individuals life and his ideology. camus idea of absurdity has a very positive approach towards the ethics of human revolt and harmony. camus has not been seen opposing the ethics of existentialism. in fact he has put the philosophy or idea of existentialism in practical situations. sartre is seen as a black and white existentialist who throughout his life has talked and discussed about the condition of individual’s existence in an absurd world in the face of fixed pattern of life values and morals then the freedom to make choices by an individual and later take the responsibility of his actions. whereas on the other hand camus denies being titled as an existentialist and is not recognised as an existentialist straight away but does have the similarities with the ideas of the existentialists. through the cross examination in the previous chapters we reach to the converging point of the selected writers and their works where the indictment of bad faith is implicit at various instances and the protagonists try to avoid the acknowledgement. the characters try to justify and demonstrate that there is no other choice rather than to rely on bad faith but both the writers lay the example that there is always a choice it might be difficult and inconvenient at times but the choice is always there. according to sartre an individual should avoid being in bad faith and instead acknowledge the action or decision made rather than being tempted towards the easy way out from the situation. this concept explains that an individual has to taking the responsibility of his actions and decisions made. though all the three protagonists of the selected novels have fallen in bad faith at different times but gathered up themselves popped the bubble of imagination and faced the reality with confidence. even f. a. olafson in freedom and responsibility states that the freedom and responsibility is based on the avoidance of bad faith and the open acknowledgment.responsibility is not a solipsistic is being answerable to someone for something 269 according to sartre along with freedom comes responsibility but when an individual ignores the responsibility of his actions and choices he made, then he has to face alienation. during the state of alienation the individual tends to set a goal for his life when he does not have any. there is a certain way the individual treats people around him when the individual does not share any kind of relationship with them but have an ontological relation. sartre believes that even if an individual does not share any particular relationship with others still relation to others is defined by the purely formal recognition of his universal personhood. but this universal personhood is itself defined by his freedom sartre 1992: 103 sartre in being and time raises three major issues. firstly he argues that freedom is the primary characteristic of an individuals life or existence and essence secondly he argues that if there is no god then there is no a priori value and thirdly that the freedom of an individual is necessarily linked with the freedom of others. these are the issue which sartre deals with in his works and portrays that the need of an individual to be free and take his decisions can lead him to make better and ethical decisions with his own values. the same issues could also be seen in camus work projected in a little different light as camus also like sartre and nietzsche wants an individual to make his own values. the freedom of an individual is impossible to distinguish from the individuals reality. sartre does not believe that an individual exist in order to attain freedom subsequently. indeed he believes that the humans are free and there is no difference between the being of man and his being-free sartre 1992: 2 according to the two philosophers, the freedom of an individual and his responsibility towards his actions and decisions constitute the spirit or essence of the individual. olafson puts it