Differences and disagreements between Sartre and Camus

[ataraxia]

In trying to understand French existentialism, I have been trying to understand Sartre and Camus.

From what I understand, Sartre wrote his seminal book "Being and Nothingness" based on Heidegger's "Being and Time"- even though he may have misunderstood a lot of concepts in Heidegger's book (Heidegger himself said that he had after reading it). But the word "Being" here was used in what Sartre took to be Heidegger's meaning: what it is to be a being in the world. His argument was that as human beings, our being preceded our essence: meaning that we found ourselves existing, but with no essence. Any essence we may have is something we must either ourselves create for ourselves, or which we take from our culture. This is the meaning we give to our lives and being; our purpose for existence.

While Sartre and Camus knew each other and were friendly, Camus began to break away from Sartre's understanding of what it is "to be". He thought it "absurd" that we humans were trying to find meaning in a universe that was not even equipped or designed for that purpose in any way (hence the term "absurdism" for his philosophy). Any meaning we tried to give to our being, he thought, was doomed to fail, in the same way Sisyphus in the famous Greek myth was condemned by the gods to keep rolling a stone up a hill and watch it roll back down, for all eternity. It is a futile task. He just thought that as futile as the task may be, it was better than suicide, and we might as well enjoy it while we are at it.

But why was the task doomed to fail? (This part is now me trying to understand): because any project we try to center our lives around is bound to interfere with other demands and contingencies in our lives: for example, an ambitious career person may find that they have to make a lot of compromises- like they get married and have children which demand their attention; there is war or economic catastrophe that takes away their opportunities, they get very sick with some chronic illness, etc... Or even they grow and lose interest in that project and go on to other unrelated things, etc... But this whole idea that one could even talk about oneself as having a "being", an essence, in the Sartrian/Heideggerian sense, in this broken world, seemed to him absurd- a fool's errand, but one we should just try to enjoy as much as we can while we can.

I think that's the reason for the disagreements between the two philosophers. But I am just a philosophy enthusiast. Any serious philosophers out there to tell me whether I have this right?

 

[Loulit01]

The struggle to the top alone will make the human heart swell. Sisyphus must be regarded as happy.
—Albert Camus

 

[ataraxia]

The struggle to the top alone will make the human heart swell. Sisyphus must be regarded as happy.
—Albert Camus

So am I understanding his difference with Sartre well, or am I misunderstanding them somehow?

 

[Evilroddy]

@ataraxia

Both men understood the notion of absurdism in philosophy but each dealt with it and managed it differently. I read this stuff about forty years ago so my memory may not be accurate but with that caveat established, I will offer the following. Camus was a beach-wise philosophical-surfer who acknowledged the absurd and tired to build a philosophical approach that worked around the absurd to be useful in a more sensual and concrete world. Sarte lived in the 'immaterial idealism' of an abstract world of the mind and tried to tame or imprison the absurd within his philosophical schema. Camus let the absurd stand beside his philosophy while Sarte tried to wedge and hammer it into his more abstract philosophy. Ultimately the contrast between the concrete vs. the abstract and the role of the absurd in their two similar but diverging philosophies gradually alienated the two men. Camus was a "pied-noir" who grew up walking by and watching the waves of the Mediterranean wash up onto the beaches of Algeria but steered clear of jumping into it. Sarte on the other-hand was a kind of metaphorical King Canute (Cnut) who tried to tame the waves and the false-tide of chaotic absurdity. Camus walked by the sea and he was quite wary of it. Sarte who could not see the sea in his mind's eye walked right into it like an amphibian philosopher might. Camus and Sarte were on opposite sides of sea-level in the vertical plane but were both moving in the same direction horizontally (a Cartesian reference seemed appropriate here).

Cheers and be well in a meaningless and absurd universe.
Evilroddy

 

[ataraxia]

@ataraxia

Both men understood the notion of absurdism in philosophy but each dealt with it and managed it differently. I read this stuff about forty years ago so my memory may not be accurate but with that caveat established, I will offer the following. Camus was a beach-wise philosophical-surfer who acknowledged the absurd and tired to build a philosophical approach that worked around the absurd to be useful in a more sensual and concrete world. Sarte lived in the 'immaterial idealism' of an abstract world of the mind and tried to tame or imprison the absurd within his philosophical schema. Camus let the absurd stand beside his philosophy while Sarte tried to wedge and hammer it into his more abstract philosophy. Ultimately the contrast between the concrete vs. the abstract and the role of the absurd in their two similar but diverging philosophies gradually alienated the two men. Camus was a "pied-noir" who grew up walking by and watching the waves of the Mediterranean wash up onto the beaches of Algeria but steered clear of jumping into it. Sarte on the other-hand was a kind of metaphorical King Canute (Cnut) who tried to tame the waves and the false-tide of chaotic absurdity. Camus walked by the sea and he was quite wary of it. Sarte who could not see the sea in his mind's eye walked right into it like an amphibian philosopher might. Camus and Sarte were on opposite sides of sea-level in the vertical plane but were both moving in the same direction horizontally (a Cartesian reference seemed appropriate here).

Cheers and be well in a meaningless and absurd universe.
Evilroddy

Wow, I have no idea what any of this means, but sure sounds cool!

What were some ways Sartre was trying to “

lived in the 'immaterial idealism' of an abstract world of the mind and tried to tame or imprison the absurd within his philosophical schema.

Are you referring to his Heideggerian attempts to talk about “Being” as some sort of coherent and non-self-contradictory concept?

 

[ataraxia]

@ataraxia

Both men understood the notion of absurdism in philosophy but each dealt with it and managed it differently. I read this stuff about forty years ago so my memory may not be accurate but with that caveat established, I will offer the following. Camus was a beach-wise philosophical-surfer who acknowledged the absurd and tired to build a philosophical approach that worked around the absurd to be useful in a more sensual and concrete world. Sarte lived in the 'immaterial idealism' of an abstract world of the mind and tried to tame or imprison the absurd within his philosophical schema. Camus let the absurd stand beside his philosophy while Sarte tried to wedge and hammer it into his more abstract philosophy. Ultimately the contrast between the concrete vs. the abstract and the role of the absurd in their two similar but diverging philosophies gradually alienated the two men. Camus was a "pied-noir" who grew up walking by and watching the waves of the Mediterranean wash up onto the beaches of Algeria but steered clear of jumping into it. Sarte on the other-hand was a kind of metaphorical King Canute (Cnut) who tried to tame the waves and the false-tide of chaotic absurdity. Camus walked by the sea and he was quite wary of it. Sarte who could not see the sea in his mind's eye walked right into it like an amphibian philosopher might. Camus and Sarte were on opposite sides of sea-level in the vertical plane but were both moving in the same direction horizontally (a Cartesian reference seemed appropriate here).

Cheers and be well in a meaningless and absurd universe.
Evilroddy

Many people credit Soren Kirkegaard as the first existentialist. I am thinking Cervantes was the first true existentialist, writing back in the 17th century on don Quixote.

We are all tilting at windmills. Nietzsche, Heidegger, and maybe Sartre (although I am still trying to understand him), were trying to come up with a way where we could tilt at something more than a windmill. Camus just pointed that at all there are are windmills- and we might as well enjoy the process of tilting at them, but not to get our hopes up that we’re ever going to be doing anything more than that.

 

[ataraxia]

@ataraxia

Both men understood the notion of absurdism in philosophy but each dealt with it and managed it differently. I read this stuff about forty years ago so my memory may not be accurate but with that caveat established, I will offer the following. Camus was a beach-wise philosophical-surfer who acknowledged the absurd and tired to build a philosophical approach that worked around the absurd to be useful in a more sensual and concrete world. Sarte lived in the 'immaterial idealism' of an abstract world of the mind and tried to tame or imprison the absurd within his philosophical schema. Camus let the absurd stand beside his philosophy while Sarte tried to wedge and hammer it into his more abstract philosophy. Ultimately the contrast between the concrete vs. the abstract and the role of the absurd in their two similar but diverging philosophies gradually alienated the two men. Camus was a "pied-noir" who grew up walking by and watching the waves of the Mediterranean wash up onto the beaches of Algeria but steered clear of jumping into it. Sarte on the other-hand was a kind of metaphorical King Canute (Cnut) who tried to tame the waves and the false-tide of chaotic absurdity. Camus walked by the sea and he was quite wary of it. Sarte who could not see the sea in his mind's eye walked right into it like an amphibian philosopher might. Camus and Sarte were on opposite sides of sea-level in the vertical plane but were both moving in the same direction horizontally (a Cartesian reference seemed appropriate here).

Cheers and be well in a meaningless and absurd universe.
Evilroddy

Talking about the history of existentialism, there is one fascinating non-western philosopher I stumbled upon which I found fascinating: Mulla Sadra (c. 1571/2 – c. 1635). He was writing in late 16th/early 17th century Persia under Safavid rule (an almost contemporary of Cervantes). The Islamic clergy didn't like him very much for his wild ideas- but fortunately for him, the king did- and sent him away from the theological hot spots to where he could be safe to think and write.

Doesn't this sound like something Sartre would write almost 400 years later?

"Although Existentialism as defined nowadays is not identical to Mulla Sadra's definition, he was the first to introduce the concept. According to Mulla Sadra, "existence precedes the essence and is thus principal since something has to exist first and then have an essence." "

Mulla Sadra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Evilroddy]

Wow, I have no idea what any of this means, but sure sounds cool!

What were some ways Sartre was trying to “


Are you referring to his Heideggerian attempts to talk about “Being” as some sort of coherent and non-self-contradictory concept?

atraxia:

I am not a philosopher and nor am I much inclined to the picayune rigour of discussing the minutiae of philosophy and its very intricate vocabulary. So if I confused you, that's on me as I am not equipped with the specialized nomenclature of philosophers. You have my apologies. I never read anything by Martin Heidegger so I cannot answer you question I'm afraid.

Cheers, be well and be safe.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Many people credit Soren Kirkegaard as the first existentialist. I am thinking Cervantes was the first true existentialist, writing back in the 17th century on don Quixote.

atraxia:

Interesting and something which never occurred to me. Very cool!

We are all tilting at windmills. Nietzsche, Heidegger, and maybe Sartre (although I am still trying to understand him), were trying to come up with a way where we could tilt at something more than a windmill. Camus just pointed that at all there are are windmills- and we might as well enjoy the process of tilting at them, but not to get our hopes up that we’re ever going to be doing anything more than that.

I think you got the essence (bad phrase perhaps ) of what I was getting at with respect to Camus. Sarte on the other hand is far more confusing to me, but living in his mind as he did was where he seemed to be the most comfortable. That no doubt eventually clashed with Camus' more practical and concrete perceptions of the world around him. I have often wondered what Sarte would have made of modern Quantum Theory if he had had the tools and inclination to study and understand it (a bit). Nobody really understands the Quantum world fully and if they say they do, then they are self-deluded or simply lying. It's like the abyss of infinities in abstract mathematics which has driven its students mad with depressing frequency. Stare too long into the abyss of numbers between zero and one and you will grow cold with panic; then look to the left and to the right to the infinite numbers of infinities greater than one or less than zero and madness will eventually consume you. Then look up to the cosmos and lose all hope of sanity or just laugh and marvel at what we must accept is the unknowable.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[devildavid]

Sartre was too intellectual about everything and Camus liked to play and watch soccer. That is my simplified view of the root of the differences the two men had.

https://www.mmowen.me/camus-absurd-love-of-football

 

[NolanVoyd]

If you all haven't read Sartre's works of fiction, you should.

"The age of reason."

"No exit"

 

[Evilroddy]

Talking about the history of existentialism, there is one fascinating non-western philosopher I stumbled upon which I found fascinating: Mulla Sadra (c. 1571/2 – c. 1635). He was writing in late 16th/early 17th century Persia under Safavid rule (an almost contemporary of Cervantes). The Islamic clergy didn't like him very much for his wild ideas- but fortunately for him, the king did- and sent him away from the theological hot spots to where he could be safe to think and write.

Doesn't this sound like something Sartre would write almost 400 years later?

"Although Existentialism as defined nowadays is not identical to Mulla Sadra's definition, he was the first to introduce the concept. According to Mulla Sadra, "existence precedes the essence and is thus principal since something has to exist first and then have an essence." "

Mulla Sadra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

atraxia:

I've got some serious homework to do if I am going to keep up with you! First stop on that journey will be to learn more about Mulla Sadra, the Safavid Empire's alleged Ur-existentialist! Very cool indeed! I am a big fan of the ancient Elamites, the Medes, the Manneans and the Persians. Thank you.

The Mulla's line sounds like it should have been in Sarte's "l'Etre et le Neant" (Being and Nothingness) which I half read four decades ago. I believed at the time I kept calling it 'Boring and Nothingness' in the arrogance of my youth.

Cheers, be well and be safe.
Evilroddy.

 

[BabyAugustine]

In trying to understand French existentialism, I have been trying to understand Sartre and Camus.

From what I understand, Sartre wrote his seminal book "Being and Nothingness" based on Heidegger's "Being and Time"- even though he may have misunderstood a lot of concepts in Heidegger's book (Heidegger himself said that he had after reading it). But the word "Being" here was used in what Sartre took to be Heidegger's meaning: what it is to be a being in the world. His argument was that as human beings, our being preceded our essence: meaning that we found ourselves existing, but with no essence. Any essence we may have is something we must either ourselves create for ourselves, or which we take from our culture. This is the meaning we give to our lives and being; our purpose for existence.

While Sartre and Camus knew each other and were friendly, Camus began to break away from Sartre's understanding of what it is "to be". He thought it "absurd" that we humans were trying to find meaning in a universe that was not even equipped or designed for that purpose in any way (hence the term "absurdism" for his philosophy). Any meaning we tried to give to our being, he thought, was doomed to fail, in the same way Sisyphus in the famous Greek myth was condemned by the gods to keep rolling a stone up a hill and watch it roll back down, for all eternity. It is a futile task. He just thought that as futile as the task may be, it was better than suicide, and we might as well enjoy it while we are at it.

But why was the task doomed to fail? (This part is now me trying to understand): because any project we try to center our lives around is bound to interfere with other demands and contingencies in our lives: for example, an ambitious career person may find that they have to make a lot of compromises- like they get married and have children which demand their attention; there is war or economic catastrophe that takes away their opportunities, they get very sick with some chronic illness, etc... Or even they grow and lose interest in that project and go on to other unrelated things, etc... But this whole idea that one could even talk about oneself as having a "being", an essence, in the Sartrian/Heideggerian sense, in this broken world, seemed to him absurd- a fool's errand, but one we should just try to enjoy as much as we can while we can.

I think that's the reason for the disagreements between the two philosophers. But I am just a philosophy enthusiast. Any serious philosophers out there to tell me whether I have this right?

NO, Camus hated the hypocrisy and cowardliness of Sartre in regard to S.'s fellow Jews and his attitude to Algiers. It proved S to be a hypocrite.
Camus was no saint so it isn't good man vs bad. It's real man vs SOPHIST.