Abstract

The purpose of this dissertation was to compare and contrast critically Jean-Paul Sartre and Nicolas Berdyaev concerning their respective views of the human and freedom. ;Chapter 2 presented the thought of Sartre on the human and freedom. It was seen that he argues for a radical freedom and the deconstruction of the human who simply "begins to be" without having been created. To uphold the primacy of freedom, he simply denies God. The human is pure consciousness seeking definition in a world of fixed stabilities. But this is unattainable for a consciousness that has no nature or real self. Because humans are radically free they are also totally responsible. The difficulty of life is compounded with the realization that in the absence of universal norms, one must create one's own values. The stark awareness of personal freedom leads to anguish---freedom's defining characteristic---over the ultimate meaninglessness and absurdity of life. ;Chapter 3 showed Berdyaev sharing some of Sartre's fundamental assertions about human freedom. He too claims freedom has primacy over being, and that nothing whatsoever can be permitted to restrict individual freedom. He takes moral autonomy as far as Sartre, advancing an anarchic eschatological, and essentially Christian ethic. Berdyaev includes God who creates the human in his own image from uncreated freedom, giving the human two natures: God's image, and primordial freedom. The primacy of freedom is confirmed by placing it outside of God. Berdyaev is a radical "free religious thinker" who argues for a deviant form of theism that is, for the most part, beyond normative Christian thought. ;Chapter 4 critically analyzed the arguments of Sartre and Berdyaev. The outcomes indicated a hapless and pointless existence for the anguished Sartrean person. For Berdyaev, persons, though also radically free in the turmoil of life, have access to hope and purpose through divine freedom and the grace of Christ. The early Sartre shows little regard for the Other, indeed, he has no constructive ethic to offer, later, however, he came to accept the value of the community for the individual, which Berdyaev affirms. ;Chapter 5 concluded that there are anarchistic drives in Sartre and Berdyaev who both feel a need to defend radical human freedom at all costs. As an atheist, Sartre can do little more than elucidate the absurdity of human life. Alternatively, Berdyaev's theism establishes the human freely in God, from whom persons derive ultimate purpose and meaning in the struggle of human freedom.