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

21–30 of 69 posts

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

#21

Post by entropyneur »

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…

What qualifies one to count as a philosopher in your opinion? I don't know about Camus, but I'm pretty sure Sartre has produced at least as much purely philosophical works as works of literature and is universally considered one of the most important philosophers of 20th century.

The nonexistence of absolute free will does not make it a useless concept just like the nonexistence of "absolute" solid bodies doesn't make "solid body" a useless concept.

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

#23

Post by enqk »

pmoriarty wrote: post #15
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…

It is quite illuminating to see the exchange for instance between Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky to get a sense of the difference of tone and focus between european and american intellectuals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8

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

#24

Post by narrator »

I think Camus knew that there were things that he didn't know about political economy while Sartre was more certain that the vast oversimplification of reality that is marxist economics could somehow be hammered somehow into the mold of reality. The problem of economic calculation is deceptively easy to hand-wave away.

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

#25

Post by mlmlmasd »

enqk wrote: post #23
pmoriarty wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is quite illuminating to see the exchange for instance between Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky to get a sense of the difference of tone and focus between european and american intellectuals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8

What difference in tone and focus are you referring to? Noam Chomsky seems like a much more 'European-style' (academic?) intellectual then the pop/celeb 'intellectuals' popular in America such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc.

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

#26

Post by coldtea »

>Sartre remained unpredictable, however, and was engaged in a long, bizarre dalliance with hardline Maoism when he died in 1980.

Bizarre in what way exactly? At the time (late-60s to late-70s) in France maoism was as popular between students and scholars as Marvel movies are in the US today...

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

#27

Post by coldtea »

narrator wrote: post #24

I think Camus knew that there were things that he didn't know about political economy while Sartre was more certain that the vast oversimplification of reality that is marxist economics could somehow be hammered somehow into the mold of reality. The problem of economic calculation is deceptively easy to hand-wave away.

The problem with the communists wasn't the "oversimplification of marxist economics", after all capitalist policies are based on similar oversimplifications. It was the power struggles, and the controlling party elites.

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

#28

Post by coldtea »

lngnmn wrote: post #13
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

>This is contradiction.

No, it's really not. Philosophy is just inquiry, if the inquiry leads you away from rationalism, you can still follow it, and several philosophers have done so.

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

#29

Post by wahern »

pmoriarty wrote: post #15
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…

I agree with everything you said. But I'd suggest that not only are the debates in academia alive, they're actually too vigorous and too radical.

I think one of the contributors to the current political situation is the increasing influence of academia on politics and the law. Instead of having a few big ideas that we wrestle with, every politician and lawyer is a little Leninist bent on burning everything down in favor of their ever-changing pet political philosophies. And the notion of moderation has somehow become radicalized, I think; a dirty word for some people and a rallying cry for others.

The vigorous creativity of scholarship provides an endless supply of fodder in terms of new ideas, new reasoning, new justifications, and most recently new "facts". If we were a nation of philosophers it'd be some kind of paradise. But we're not, and it's ripping apart our core social institutions.

I'm not dissing the scholarship, or trying to suggest it's all bunk. I mean, even bunk can be valuable by challenging assumptions or by making conspicuous assumptions itself. But too much of that debate is bleeding out into the culture. A whole new layer of public policy institutions and media outlets feeds off and disseminates the half-baked ideas. There's never any time or energy to winnow the chaff. And so it's effectively poisoning the social and political culture.

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

#30

Post by dgfgfdagasdfgfa »

samirillian wrote: post #18

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 personal…

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

I agree completely.

It is completely rankling when considering how he is compared to Simone de Beauvoir. Her "Second Sex" is considered a feminist work—and for good reason—but it surpasses any of what Sarte wrote as a philosophical work. While he did build on the backs of others, his ideas remain small compared to his contemporaries.

Post reply on HN