I infer everything from subjective experience. What other experience does a person have of the world?

You could say that it is the case that there is an abstract universal "truth" that all knowledge stems from subjective experience and that, in so far that there is "objective truth", there is only one objective truth which is that, but, to speak of "objective truth" within such a worldview would effectively be meaningless.

tl;idrtwd

All knowledge that a person has of the world stems from subjective experience. There is no such thing as "objective truth".

Camus' black satire somehow borderlines whimsicality whereas Sartre's woebegone lamentations never quite provide for the relief from angst. By taking too much of a leaf from Heidegger and concentrating on the concept of authenticity, Sartre is never quite able to reconcile his philosophy with Humanist ideals. Sartre, however, more directly addresses the plight of the human condition, being that it is resultant in angst. Camus' charm is a better coping mechanism, but, he only gleans some of what concerns humanity whereas Sartre sought to directly address that which did. Both philosophers thought that the human condition was absurd. Sartre discovered how this effected humanity whereas the blissfully ignorant Camus developed an effective coping mechanism. Camus paradoxically overcomes Nihilism better than Sartre in spite of that Sartre had explicitly dilineated the Nihilist problematic.