A very interesting conference-debate, but only in French:

For me, Camus belongs to the Roman philosophy since he tried to be practical as possible by showing the philosophical example when Sartre was a teacher of philosophy, the way Eusebus from Cesaree was with Constantinus.

Camus was for sure less theoretical than Sartre. Nevertheless, Camus was also a real humanitarian when Sartre was cleary a communist who's not interested in reality. It's not a plea for Camus. I think Camus was a real plaintive; L'Etranger is the proof: Meursault agoraphobia shows in fact how he was himself "agoraic". He (Meursault) exteriorizes his sins. At least Sartre seems to have a great sense of guilt... For example what he called the "universality" (universalité du savant bourgeois, etc.), which demonstrates above all how the sartrian enterprise was a discomfort from a fall; a fall because of the social classes discovery. In other words, I think Camus was too much peaceful – a clear case against him, because he did not realized his own guiltiness. ... ... Yet it's an axiom of psychoanalysis!

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.

I've been looking at this recently but from a different perspective and what I saw still shocks me now.

Sartre could see the effect of the issue but I'm not sure he identified the problem. The problem is in the limitations logic, which have been plaguing humanity for over 2000 years. The Ancient Greeks, having invented the logic system, which is a "faithless" system, then attempted to mix this with reason "faith". Once they managed to mix reason and logic together, then they switched the order and put logic before reason. However, to the reasonable man, this cannot be so.

Reason and Logic are like Oil and Water. They do not mix. You cannot mix Faithlessness with Faith, well you can but then it will well and truly put you in the insane camp. Any arguement of such would be illogical and therefore not capable of being argued by a counter logical arguement.

Logic says, A=B, therefore B=A.
Reason knows this is not true. Fast=Slow is not the same as Slow=Fast. Logic does not operate within Order, instead its only concerned loosely with sequence.

Everyone uses reason, but only some people use logic. Logic being an effect produced by reason, has no place in a philosophy. Because philosophy is asking about the the world with the goal of finding a first cause. Logic cannot answer the question. It is a "rubber shovel" , the wrong tool from the job.

I would like to explore the gap between these 2 thinkers in the light of their vision on the existence and the way a philosopher shall or act as a philosopher or teach philosophy. — Beni Issembert

At the origin: Camus was a son of workers in gradual ascent towards the bourgeois who said he did not want to be, and Sartre continually debated himself in an attempt to (self)destroy the bourgeois he knew he was, in order to incarnate himself in an impossible revolutionary without a party.

Two projects with contradictions that were difficult to overcome.

Summarizing: The main cause of the gap between them were communism and colonialism.

From the philosophical point of view: Sartre was a true philosopher (maybe the last of the complete philosophers) and Camus was a literate. Camus' humanism was diffuse. Sartre's existentialism is solid as a rock. (Yes, rocks also have crevices).

I prefer Sartre's books. They're complex and sometimes insightful. Camus' evolution was predictable and shallow.

I can understand this sort of fervor and find it not displeasing. At the beginning of a pestilence and when it ends, there's always a propensity for rhetoric. In the first case, habits have not yet been lost; in the second, they're returning. It is in the thick of a calamity that one gets hardened to the truth — in other words, to silence.

There's no question of heroism in all this. It's a matter of common decency. That's an idea which may make some people smile, but the only means of fighting a plague is — common decency.

So all a man could win in the conflict between plague and life was knowledge and memories. — Albert Camus, The Plague (1947)

:death: :flower:

Happy Equinox.

Camus on Coronavirus
(Alain de Botton, 03.19.20)