Existentialism and Death: Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus

Existentialism is a family of ideas from the 20th century about freedom, choice, and meaning. For its thinkers, death is not just the end of life. It is a fact that shapes how every moment is lived. This article explains how three of them, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus, saw it. It is a short introduction to a difficult subject.

If you are thinking about harming yourself, you are not alone, and help is available. In the United States you can call or text 988 at any time.

What did Heidegger mean by “being-toward-death”?

That we are always moving toward our own death, whether we notice or not. In his 1927 book Being and Time, Heidegger argued that a serious confrontation with one’s own death can reveal the possibility of understanding one’s existence in an authentic way. A philosophy summary explains that death, for him, is not an event that happens only at the end of life. It is a basic part of what it means to exist. Heidegger thought that people tend to cover this up in everyday life. He describes a constant “tranquilization about death,” even directed at those who console the dying. Facing death honestly, which he called “anticipation,” lets a person take responsibility for their own life.

Why did Sartre disagree?

Because he thought death cannot give life meaning. In Being and Nothingness (1943), Sartre argued against Heidegger. A dissertation on the two thinkers says Sartre held that death can never provide meaning for a person’s life, because it reveals the absurdity of existence. Another summary says that for Sartre death does not belong to life but comes from outside it, and is a contingent fact with no meaning of its own. Some scholars argue that Sartre misread Heidegger’s careful distinctions, so the disagreement is itself debated. For Sartre, what gives a life meaning is the choices a person makes, not death.

What was Camus’s answer?

Revolt. In his 1942 essay The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus described the absurd as the clash between people’s need for meaning and the silence of the universe. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that the essay opens with a famous question about whether life is worth living. Camus rejected suicide as an answer. Wikipedia’s summary explains that he argued the absurd must be faced again and again, and that this leads to three consequences: revolt, freedom, and passion. The essay ends with the image of Sisyphus, condemned to push a boulder up a hill forever, and says we must imagine him happy.

Was Camus an existentialist?

He said no. The Stanford Encyclopedia notes that Camus forcefully separated himself from existentialism, even though his work belongs squarely in that tradition. Sartre accepted the label that Camus rejected, and the two men’s thought differed.

How do the three views differ?

A philosophy-learning site sums them up. Sartre saw death as a contingent limit that throws us back on our freedom. Camus saw an absurd reality that invites revolt and passion. Heidegger saw a possibility that calls us toward authenticity.

What can ordinary people take from this?

That how we think about death changes how we live. For other views, see Stoicism and Death and What Do Philosophers Say About Death?. For the psychology of facing mortality, see Death Anxiety.