In times of war, death, and depressions, great writers are born and they shape the worldviews. Two such literary giants, Fyodor Dostoevsky and Albert Camus, emerged from entirely different worlds but were fighting to find answers to the same question: does life have meaning, or is it fundamentally absurd?
Both of them wrote during periods of personal and national crisis. Their writings reflect their inner selves as they wrote novels for the spiritual and philosophical questions that haunted them. But while Camus concluded that life is absurd and devoid of higher meaning, Dostoevsky held onto faith in a divine presence and remained firm on it. These two worldviews—absurdism and theism—clash in their works, and through their stories and characters, I've in the past, before writing this article, gone through the novels, "The Stranger" & "The Plague" of Albert Camus and "The Brothers Karamazov" & "Crime and Punishment" of Fyodor Dostoevsky. So when I did completed the last book of this series, to write an article on this issue was necessary. I hope this work and my efforts would be appreciated.
The Authors and Their Worlds
Albert Camus was born in 1913 in French-colonial Algeria into a poor family. His father died in World War I, and Camus' life was full of poverty which had led to tuberculosis. He also saw the Second World War in Nazi-occupied France, becoming part of the French Resistance and editing an underground newspaper. Thus, we can attribute the past for his belief in a world that is irrational, violent, and indifferent to human suffering. From this, Camus developed his philosophy of the Absurd: the idea that humans naturally seek meaning in a universe that offers none, which he shared with others through his works.
Fyodor Dostoevsky, born almost a century earlier in 1821 in Moscow, faced a harsher fate. A one-time young radical, Dostoevsky was arrested for his involvement in a socialist group and sentenced to death. At the last moment, he was spared and sent to a Siberian labor camp, where he suffered not only physical punishment but also a spiritual crisis. His experience in prison, his struggles with epilepsy, and the death of loved ones (including his son) shaped his turn toward conservative values and deep faith in God—not the institutional religion, but a self-belief in the divine, which can be attributed as a reason for his firmness during his struggles.
Both these men wrote during dark times, but where Camus saw a universe without order or God, Dostoevsky saw a world broken but as a place where people suffer, and where suffering itself can lead to transformation when solutions are seen through hope.
Plot Differences
In Camus’ The Stranger, Meursault (the main character) believes in absurdism. He kills an Arab man under a blinding sun for no clear reason, later stating, “It was the sun’s fault.” His trial, which starts as a murder case, ends with a debate on his refusal to conform to societal norms—like mourning his mother or believing in God. Meursault’s indifference to life’s “meaning” shocks the court, and he’s executed not only for murder but also for his visible moral vacuum. Yet, in his final moments, he finds peace in the absurd, which has made him morally ghost. Such a character is very unique as he is never concerned about his life, family, and love throughout the novel.
Camus’s other novel "The Plague" is focused on a town in Algeria that is quarantined due to a deadly outbreak. The plague, for the author, is not just a disease but a symbol of the Absurd—it appears for no reason, kills without mercy, and shows how powerless we humans are. The characters react in different ways: some give up, like the priest who couldn't answer how the plague—which is seen as God's punishment—affects children; some exploit the situation, like pharma companies; and some, like the doctor Rieux, fight against the plague even though they know their efforts may be useless. Camus uses this story to show that in an absurd world, the only meaningful action is to rebel against meaninglessness by continuing to live and help others.
Dostoevsky’s "Crime and Punishment" follows a poor student, Raskolnikov, who murders a pawnbroker, trying to prove he is an "extraordinary man" who is above moral law by comparing himself to Napoleon, whom he thinks committed many crimes but still was considered great by society. But the murder circles him into guilt, confusion, and madness. The rest of the novel is a psychological and spiritual journey as Raskolnikov is confronted with his crimes and with people like Sonya, a humble girl with deep faith, who urges him to confess and repent. Eventually, Raskolnikov is sent to Siberia, where he begins to experience true redemption. Dostoevsky uses the plot not to deny human suffering but to show that through suffering and love, one can find higher truth and moral clarity.
In his last work, "The Brothers Karamazov", Dostoevsky sharpens this debate. Ivan, the intellectual atheist, argues that without God, “everything is permitted,”—a notion also held by Raskolnikov in his previous novel—while his brother Alyosha adheres to faith in divine presence or God. Ivan’s nihilism shows his weakness as he struggles with his father’s murder and his own complicity in it, descending into madness. Alyosha, though tested, finds hope in small acts of love, which shows Dostoevsky’s belief in faith as humanity’s solution for avoiding nihilistic approaches and their evils.
Philosophies in Conflict: Absurdism vs. Faith
Camus and Dostoevsky ask similar questions—Why do people suffer? Is there meaning in life?—but their answers are very different.
Camus’ Absurdism states: life has no actual purpose. There is no God, no afterlife, no cosmic justice. Our search for meaning is like shouting in a cave which returns only echo. But Camus doesn’t encourage despair. Instead, he suggests that we accept the absurd and create our own meaning. In The Stranger, his character Meursault refuses to lie about believing in God or pretend that life has meaning. Camus sees this acceptance of absurdity as heroic. In The Plague, characters like Dr. Rieux fight a losing battle against the disease, not because victory is possible, but because resistance itself is a meaning for him. Camus’ heroes find purpose in struggle, not in hope of reward.
Dostoevsky, in contrast, argues that without belief in God or the soul’s immortality, morality collapses. In The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan Karamazov claims that if God does not exist, “everything is permitted.” Ivan is a brilliant intellectual who cannot believe in a God who allows children to suffer. Yet, his rejection of divine order leads him into madness, similar to the fate of Meursault in The Stranger. His brother Alyosha, who believes in God's grace and the power of love, finds faith not through miracles but through simple human kindness and compassion—even from the most unlikely people. For Dostoevsky, true strength lies in humility, in loving others, and in trusting that divine truth exists even in a broken world.
A key contrast is that Camus’ characters are isolated (Meursault dies alone), while Dostoevsky’s find salvation in human connection (Raskolnikov’s bond with Sonya, Alyosha’s empathy). Camus’ world is silent, showing that although his belief in an absurd world is firm, he couldn't appreciate the beauty of life, which Dostoevsky’s characters echo when they find solutions through hope and God.
A Shared Concern: Human Suffering
Though they disagree on the answer, both Camus and Dostoevsky are deeply concerned with human suffering. For Camus, suffering is part of the absurd condition. In The Plague, he doesn’t offer solutions—only resistance through human solidarity. For Dostoevsky, suffering is not meaningless. It is the very path through which one can achieve salvation, accept human flaws, and make new moves with hope. Raskolnikov’s journey shows that guilt, pain, and hardship can lead to spiritual awakening and renewal.
In fact, Dostoevsky believed so strongly in the value of suffering that he saw it as necessary for understanding others, so instead of regretting, he rejoiced in what he learned from it. Camus would see this as delusional. Why seek meaning in pain if the universe itself is indifferent?
For me, this is essentially important: to appreciate that both Raskolnikov’s and Meursault's crimes were similar, but the difference is that although Raskolnikov knows that the world has suffering, he doesn’t attribute it to God or question Him; instead, he tries to solve it himself. When he understands his error, he does feel guilty. But Meursault’s coldness and attributing sunlight as the cause of murder shows that those who think worldly life is absurd also have chances of not taking responsibilities, as for them, nothing actually makes sense.
To answer this, Dostoevsky responds in his works: even if the world is indifferent, we are not. We can choose love, forgiveness, and grace—and that is what makes us human.
Why Would I Choose a Meaningful Life?
Camus’ absurdism is intellectually compelling—it does not sugarcoat things. Yet, his characters often feel emotionally hollow. Meursault’s indifference to his mother’s death or Marie’s love lacks the depth of human complexity. By rejecting all meaning, Camus risks dismissing the very things that make life worth living: love, morality, and the hope for justice.
Dostoevsky, on the other hand, through his characters wrestle with doubt, sin, and redemption in ways that mirror real life. Ivan’s crisis (“If God does not exist, everything is permitted”) exposes the logical endpoint of nihilism: a world where murder is justified by ambition, as seen in Raskolnikov. Thus, without a moral basis, society collapses into cruelty—which we have seen in ongoing atrocities like genocide. Dostoevsky’s answer is clearer: love and faith give suffering purpose, although it is only resolved through right actions.
In The Plague, Dr. Rieux’s heroism seems noble, but Camus admits it changes nothing in the end. What we question in such absurdism is: if life is meaningless, why fight for others?
Final Thoughts: Why Dostoevsky Feels Right
Camus’ philosophy of Absurdism is honest. It tells us to stop pretending and face the harshness of existence. But for many, including me, this answer is not enough. It feels cold, lonely, and ultimately unlivable. To say life is absurd is to admit defeat. Camus’ philosophy, while brave, offers no support for the broken-hearted or oppressed. It asks us to smile in the face of a universe that doesn’t care.
Dostoevsky, on the other hand, acknowledges the same suffering and injustice—but doesn’t stop there. He gives us a way to live through his characters. We see that people can change, heal each other, and find moral truth—not by escaping the world, but by walking through its darkest valleys with faith and love.
In the end, Dostoevsky’s vision feels truer to the human condition. We are social creatures; we live by love, guilt, and the search for truth. Absurdity may explain chaos, but it shows no solution; instead, it is a dead end. And while the world may sometimes seem irrational, to believe that it is entirely without purpose is, perhaps, the most irrational conclusion of all.
What's on your mind?
Ping me on telegram @zimaamzayn
Stay safe, be curious. Allah Hafiz!