Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Camus was born into a poor family in a remote province of Algeria. His education was supposed to be limited to a 5-grade elementary school, but the class teacher managed to convince his parents that their son was a capable student and had a great future ahead of him. At the age of 17, he was diagnosed with tuberculosis. Sartre was born and raised in Paris. A spoiled child who didn't have a father, but had a mother, grandparents who were boundlessly protective of him. The family was rich, downright bourgeois. This is why Camus ' views are much more pessimistic than Sartre's. Camus considered the only means of combating the absurd to be recognition of its reality, that is, acceptance of the fact that life has no meaning, evil is inevitable, there is no justice, there is no God, etc. Camus himself did not consider himself a philosopher, much less an existentialist. Sartre was more optimistic, he did not even claim that there is no God, he should rather be called an apateist, in contrast to the ardent fighter against Camus's religion. For Sartre, the meaning of life is reduced to freedom, which is presented as something absolute, once and for all given (“man is condemned to be free”). It precedes the essence of a person: a person is not set, he has no purpose, he sculpts himself, like a piece of plasticine, all his life. Sartre understands freedom as freedom of choice, which no one can take away from a person: the prisoner is free to make a decision — to accept or fight for his release, and what happens next depends on the circumstances.
Do you like it very much?)
Well, look. Sartre: “Everything is bad and meaningless, life is empty and a stupid mistake, people are idiots. But you and I are smart! So let's live proud of our intelligence and for its sake, and spit from the Eiffel Tower of our intelligence on the heads of careless Parisians.”
Camus: “Everything is bad and meaningless, life is empty and a stupid mistake, people are idiots. Us, which is a shame, too. In general, the ass. But that's exactly why-let's live! Absurd Akbar!”
To put it quite simply, Camus sees salvation from the world of absurdity in revolt, and Sartre-in art. The most obvious reflection of these positions can be felt by reading Camus ' novel “The Plague “and Sartre's novel”Nausea”.
Camus “The Plague”: “If he believed in an omnipotent God, he would stop treating the sick and put them in the hands of God. But the fact is that not a single person in the whole world(…) He does not believe in such a God, since “no one fully relies on his will,” he, Rieux, believes “that in any case, here he is on the right path, fighting against “the established world order.”
Sartre “Nausea “” IT doesn't exist. Even anger takes over: if I try to jump up now, rip a record off the gramophone, break it, I won't get to IT. It is always beyond-Lee's voice, the violin note. Through the thicknesses and thicknesses of existence, it is revealed, thin and solid, but when you want to grasp it, you come across continuous existences devoid of meaning. She's somewhere on the other side. I can't even hear it – I can hear the sounds, the vibrations in the air that let it come out. It does not exist – there is nothing superfluous in it, the superfluous is everything else in relation to it. It IS THERE..The black woman sings. So you can justify your existence? Justify at least a little bit? ” the same song)
The difference is in the different answer to the question: “Does the end justify the means?” Sartre said YES, Camus said NO. Example: is it possible to destroy people in order to build communism? The goal is cosmism, the means is murder. According to Sartre it is possible, according to Camus it is impossible, because in this way communism discredits itself.
I agree with previous speakers.
Sartre's existentialism is more optimistic (there is no universal meaning to life, so you can create your own). This is very cool shown in the book “Existentialism is humanism”.
Camus is drowning for the fact that human existence is meaningless.
I don't think they had any serious disagreements in their work (if only Camus was a more “stubborn” absurdist), mainly because of their political beliefs and activities. Sartre in his socialism went to the end, supported the struggle of the leaders of various revolutionary movements, was a member of the Peace Council, met with Che Guevara. Camus becomes disillusioned with socialism and collaborates with anarchists… Receives the Nobel Prize, which Sart declined. Just an example of not confusing God's gift with scrambled eggs. Both of them are great people, they decided that politics can improve people's lives… God is their judge.