Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 69 posts

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#11

Post by AnimalMuppet »

lngnmn wrote: post #8
dylanfw wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those guys were writers, not philosophers in the first place. It's interesting that you begin with a comment like this to seemingly dismiss Satre and Camus as not being real philosophers, and then you proceed to put forward your own terribly unfounded philosophy with no supporting argument.

Show me a flaw in my logic before judging my style. Speculations is not a substitute for philosophy. Philosophy, originally, was the quest for "reality as it is", which eventually destroyed religious dogmas and was a precursor for specialized sciences. Arguably, with Hegel, at least in the West, the term philosophy lost any meaning and became mere abstract fancy speculations, similar to theology and mysticism. Fortun…

dylanfw showed you a flaw in your facts. Sartre and Camus were in fact philosophers by any reasonable definition of the word.

Or rather, dylanfw claimed a flaw in your "facts". But your claim - that they were not philosophers - was just a claim, with no supporting reason given. It can be dismissed just as easily (and with more justice).

And, dylanfw said "... with no supporting argument". He/she can'd dismiss your logic because there is no logic - just some dogmatic claims, with no support whatsoever.

> Arguably, with Hegel, at least in the west, the term philosophy lost any meaning and became mere abstract speculations, similar to theology.

With Hegel, philosophy became irrational. For a good explanation, see "Escape From Reason" by Francis Schaeffer.

> Fortunately, there is Eastern philosophy too.

You think that Eastern philosophy isn't abstract speculation, similar to theology? Why?

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#12

Post by lbotos »

foreverarock wrote: post #6
Cozumel wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Camus said the only freedom is suicide. (The Myth of Sisyphus)

I think you are mistaken. At least from my reading of The Stranger I remember Camus stating suicide is a cowardly act. Wikipedia[1] states Camus viewed suicide as a rejection of freedom. Also the myth of sisyphus doesn't have much to do with suicide does it? I may be mistaken. I thought it was more of an analogy to the condition of man, not so much a suggestion to commit suicide to avoid it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.…

Having just read Myth of Sisyphus, the first 3rd is essentially dedicated to the idea of suicide and how to process that choice in the face of "meaning".

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#13

Post by lngnmn »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #11
lngnmn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me a flaw in my logic before judging my style. Speculations is not a substitute for philosophy. Philosophy, originally, was the quest for "reality as it is", which eventually destroyed religious dogmas and was a precursor for specialized sciences. Arguably, with Hegel, at least in the West, the term philosophy lost any meaning and became mere abstract fancy speculations, similar to theology and mysticism. Fortun…

dylanfw showed you a flaw in your facts . Sartre and Camus were in fact philosophers by any reasonable definition of the word. Or rather, dylanfw claimed a flaw in your "facts". But your claim - that they were not philosophers - was just a claim, with no supporting reason given. It can be dismissed just as easily (and with more justice). And, dylanfw said "... with no supporting argument". He/she can'd dismiss your l…

> philosophy became irrational

This is contradiction.

> Eastern philosophy isn't abstract speculation, similar to theology? Why?

Due to its goal and its method. The goal was to find the ultimate reality, as they call it. The method was of removing nonsense, not pilling up more abstract concepts. A recursive process of reaching the ultimate base case, if you wish.

The culmination is, arguably, the Upanishads and to some extent Advaita Vedanta and the Buddhist philosophy of mind. For its time it was remarkable achievements and for the most parts in its fundamental principles it still does not have a contradiction with the principles confirmed by the findings of the classic sciences.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#14

Post by UhUhUhUh »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #11
lngnmn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me a flaw in my logic before judging my style. Speculations is not a substitute for philosophy. Philosophy, originally, was the quest for "reality as it is", which eventually destroyed religious dogmas and was a precursor for specialized sciences. Arguably, with Hegel, at least in the West, the term philosophy lost any meaning and became mere abstract fancy speculations, similar to theology and mysticism. Fortun…

dylanfw showed you a flaw in your facts . Sartre and Camus were in fact philosophers by any reasonable definition of the word. Or rather, dylanfw claimed a flaw in your "facts". But your claim - that they were not philosophers - was just a claim, with no supporting reason given. It can be dismissed just as easily (and with more justice). And, dylanfw said "... with no supporting argument". He/she can'd dismiss your l…

Philosophy didn't become irrational on its own. It took Karl Marx's work to thoroughly debunked it as such (e.g. Manuscripts of 1844). At least the action and moral parts. The knowledge aspect remained open to speculation and reflection (i.e. epistemology). What they have in common is the successful negation of Marx's work by placing philosophy on life-support, which it still is today, and by acting as if either the marxist critique never happened, or, it is equivalent to leninist/stalinist ideology.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#15

Post by pmoriarty »

RamshackleJ wrote: post #2

what are the public academic debates that we are having today? creationism vs evolution? populism vs neo-liberalism? I hate to reminisce but having two existentialist philosophers debating about socialism vs communism makes me jelly.

You have to remember that these were two French intellectuals, debating in a country, culture, and time period where Socialism vs Communism was very much a live issue.

That's not really true in the United States today, where even Socialism is generally held in contempt, and Communism is considered to be a demonstratably failed ideology which doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously.

On top of this, intellectualism itself is viewed with great suspicion by many Americans, who much prefer to hear celebrity gossip, or watch sports and reality shows. As a result, the "public" intellectual debates of the era are dumbed down and infotainmentized by a media mostly concerned with ratings and pandering to the lowest common denominator.

There still are plenty of debates in academia in the United States today, but they're not very public, and mostly take place in academic journals which most of the public would rather die before reading.

I've heard that France is still a culture that greatly respects their intellectuals, so I would expect they still have many public intellectual debates these days. Maybe someone who keeps current with them could comment.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#16

Post by jplasmeier »

Freedom is an awful word (to use in rigorous discourse) because it simultaneously means two very different, if not in some way opposite things. Freedom can be used in the sense of having many options to execute your will, or it can be used in the sense of having nothing to lose by executing your will[0].

[0] - http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/kriskristofferson/meandbobbym...

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#17

Post by jplasmeier »

RamshackleJ wrote: post #2

what are the public academic debates that we are having today? creationism vs evolution? populism vs neo-liberalism? I hate to reminisce but having two existentialist philosophers debating about socialism vs communism makes me jelly.

I believe it's vim vs. emacs :P

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#18

Post by samirillian »

I always thought the real intellectual differences related to Marxism were between Merleau-Ponty and Sartre, the former having introduced Sartre to Marxism and later publicly breaking with him for his "ultra-bolshevism." Camus and Sartre seemed to have more personal differences, viz., Sartre generally being an asshole. Among other things, he considered Camus a notch beneath him intellectually, and Ive always personally believed that a big reason Sartre turned down the Nobel prize was because Camus already had one.

Ive always struggled to understand Sartre's popularity even among other philosophers I respect.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#19

Post by vga805 »

Cozumel wrote: post #5
lngnmn wrote: post #3

Those guys were writers, not philosophers in the first place. Unlimited, pure freedom does not exist and hence the absolute Free Will. It is an empty concept. Freedom is bound by the mind, the mind is bound by biology. Biology is bound by physics and other constraints of the environment. The Universe of Ideas is mere a hallucination. Suicide as an ultimate act of freedom, which is the canonical illustration - the onl…

Camus said the only freedom is suicide. (The Myth of Sisyphus)

He said suicide is the most interesting and pressing philosophical question. The ultimate act of rebellion he seems to advise is to live free in the face of and with the full consciousness of the absurdity of this existence, like pushing a rock up a hill over and over again.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#20

Post by Veen »

jplasmeier wrote: post #16

Freedom is an awful word (to use in rigorous discourse) because it simultaneously means two very different, if not in some way opposite things. Freedom can be used in the sense of having many options to execute your will, or it can be used in the sense of having nothing to lose by executing your will[0]. [0] - http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/kriskristofferson/meandbobbym...

That's easily remedied by defining what's meant by freedom, which was a major part of the existentialist project.
Post reply on HN