The formula of estimating which life choice will benefit us most and hinder us least is not true freedom, that is living a restrained life, for the Underground Man. Our negative choices are part of freedom, what makes it real. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov proves the existence precedes essence argument through this story of how he realizes his true self, the good-natured, interesting person behind the ruthless, cold-blooded facade he had erected over himself like a mask. Raskolnikov, a serious, thoughtful, good-looking man, who did worse than we have and still can be compassionately understood as we can and must all be. This is his Christianity at work; no one is outside God’s love and understanding. The idiot recounts the three minutes before his expected death at the hands of a firing squad. He philosophizes over the single glint of sunlight on the spire of a gilded church, and longs to switch places with the beggar on the streets, scrounging around dark alleyways in a city, just to feel the wind brush against his face or to see one more sunrise. Merely to exist seems infinitely precious. What would that be like, throughout our entire life? You would love everyone equally, enchanted by the smallest things. You’d seem to be a kind of “idiot”. It’s the philosophy of hidden beauty taken to an extreme that Dostoyevsky wishes to point out for us, desperate to communicate the value of existence before he died. We can never truly live up to Christ’s perfect message, and this is something we should reconcile with ourselves as ineradicable parts of the human condition and combat this with We shouldn’t torment ourselves with a perfect, idealistic dream. Dostoyevsky lived a very hard life. https://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/the_climacus_conference_2011/the_world_of_dostoevsky_and_the_freedom_of_the_personhttp://modernpsychologist.ca/dostoevsky-the-burden-of-freedom/SartreIt’s bad faith when we tell ourselves things have to be a certain way. We have to make our home in a certain place. Sartre notices a waiter overly devoted to his role, as if he is primarily a waiter and not a free human being. More bad faith(Mauvase foi): Spiritually destructive conformity We lie to ourselves in order to get over short-term pain because it’s easier. We constantly lie to ourselves especially about: we don’t have other options. We, curiously, find solace in lying to ourselves that we don’t have any other option. We forget that being precedes essence. Our being encompasses everything we are at present not, but could possibly become. This is a natural outcome of how our minds work, so Sartre really just wants to remind us to strive to be free of this bad faith. We’re free to dismantle capitalism. Sartre was intrigued by the idea of Marxism because it took our interests away from the materialistic intrigues that Capitalism solicits and rather explore their freedom. He took part in many 1960s protests in Paris. Life is not inherently meaningful, we must by our actions and our words make it so. Things don’t have to be the way they are. We have huge unfulfilled potential and we need to accept the fluidity of existence. It’s only on the basis of experiencing our existence in a certain way that we begin construing reality in terms of scientific principles in the first place. The same could equally be said about believing in God. It’s only from believing our existence and our situation in the world that believing in God becomes compelling to us, in the first place. We exist, then we make sense of our existence. Atheistic because otherwise our answer to the question “What is existence” is preordained by our belief in a God. Our question is basically not a question at all, just a justification to something we already believe. “We exist because God-” “God created the-” We are condemned to freedom because our existence precedes our essence. We are what we do and say and, thus, we are condemned to make our own individual choices in an absurd reality to define ourselves in it, which can be quite frightening. https://yourstory.com/2017/06/jean-paul-sartre-philosophy-existentialism-freedom/Nietzsche Although there are similarities between Camus’s treatment of the myth of Sisyphus and Nietzsche’s account of eternal return, there are crucial differences. Camus says, “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… But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged.” However, Nietzsche’s Übermensch, the master of eternal recurrence, isn’t concerned with accepting his fate but with actively willing it. He longs for his self-created life to be repeated endlessly in every detail. The idea of his condition being in any way ‘wretched’ would be instantly scorned. No greater affirmation of life is possible than to wish every part of it to return forever. The moment of affirmation is the sublime moment when a person can look at his life, no matter what it consists of – good, bad, or indifferent – and find within himself the desire never to be freed from any aspect of it. When this happens a human being has been transformed into an Übermensch, the supreme life-affirmer.Camus on the Myth of Sisyphus “It’s the same thing every day, Clean up your room, stand up straight, pick up your feet, take it like a man, be nice to your sister, don’t mix beer and wine ever, Oh yeah, don’t drive on the railroad tracks.” The repetition only continues after February 2nd, though. Like the above quote from Camus, our daily lives are composed of thousands and thousands of near-identical days following the same patterns, seeing the same people, doing many of the same things. Not even when he was repeating February 2nd did Phil do the exact same thing every day, there was always some variation. The rest of the people in the world were stuck in limbo, akin to Fredrich Nietzsche’s theory of Eternal Recurrence, which states that everyone has lived the same life over and over again an infinite number of times and will continue to live that same life another infinite number of times. So it is with Phil after this day. He was taken out of the loop for a good 10-40 years replaying the same day over and over again, able to figure out the best possible day he could’ve lived in that situation, and finally, like Camus’ view that Sisyphus simply chose to accept his fate and enjoy the task before himself, he finally figures out how to accept his situation, to become happy with it. Eternal Recurrence is logically problematic, in that case we have no free will. (could this be because his sister and her husband edited all his works to appear anti-semitic in order to bolster the Nazi cause?) Nietzsche championed that we should accept our fate of eternally living the same life over and over and over and become what he called an Overman, or Übermensch, someone who accepts this fate and lives the best life they can while they have it, accepting the good with the bad for the betterment of the human race. Complete acceptance of his situation, which Phil did not portray whatsoever in Groundhog Day. Rather, he spent most of his time trying to get away from the absurd reality of being stuck in this simulacrum of Eternal Recurrence, slightly altered in the sense that he alone realized the enormity of his fate. In his acceptance of the way things were, the simulacrum, following a large body of postmodern thought that eventually it becomes something so varied from its original form that it transmutes into an entirely different concept, truly does become something else. Something with an entirely different set of rules.