Camus vs. Sartre (pt. 1)

Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre were close friends for a significant portion of their lives. Albert Camus, a pied-noir (Algerian-born Frenchman raised in Algeria), came from a very humble working-class upbringing. Sartre, on the other hand, was given the best of Parisian academic life and was never considered close to being in the lower economic class.

Both Camus and Sartre recognized the absurdity of the condition of man. Sartre phrased it as the realization that "existence proceeds essence", that is - we're born into the world without any knowledge about a grand meaning to it. Sartre follows this line of thinking to relate to how humans must face this hurdle by committing to living and taking full responsibility for our lives - and thus absurdity is overcome.

Camus focuses on absurdity as a reality that cannot be hurdled. The central position that Camus reaches is that absurdity can only be faced in the positive action of directly living in revolt of this condition. It cannot be overcome, absurdity is the only constant of our existence. Regardless, Camus realized many things - suicide is not an answer because it does not change the condition of absurdity, and needless human suffering should be avoided and pressed to be changed.

Both men had strong beliefs about commitment and living for something. Early in their careers, this manifest in interesting ways. Camus was an underground journalist in France during the NAZI occupation. At any moment Camus could have been captured and killed. Some of his journalist friends were killed. Sartre took a distant approach to the war. In a hands-off sort of way, Sartre engaged some ideas about the war but basically stayed out of the picture while other people took action to try to end the occupation.

Camus was in his element, and Sartre seemed lost. Soon after the war, however, Sartre gained more clout as the preeminent philosopher of France and was much more influential with the French elite. Camus was uncompromising and somewhat standoffish with his views, which did little to sway people to his side. Potentially, Camus's best supporters abandoned him because of nuances of opinion that he virulently disagreed with. Several years after the war ended, these men who were best of friends saw their friendship begin to fracture more and more. The key issue: Communism. Camus despised it and Sartre eventually embraced it completely and ended up despising anti-Communists.

Camus despised Communism because he saw the major structural problems with it at the time. There were concentration camps and potentially mass killings (looking primarily at the Stalinist U.S.S.R.). How could a system that allows this to take place be worth supporting? Despite this critique, Camus was considered a moderate and not a revolutionary because he felt that murder is never justifiable in any circumstance. Additionally, Camus referred to Communists as people who came to deify history in the absence of there being an accessible God. Finally in his series of complaints, he referred to Communists as people claiming to be for the emancipation of the individual leading toward personal freedom as being intellectually lazy and of bad faith because Communism's shortcomings leads people to sheepishly become followers (or, more aptly in his mind - slaves).

Sartre appreciated the core fundamentals of Communism and took a pragmatic approach. We are only given a few options as to what social-economic-political system is available. Communism is the best because it understands the plight of the lower class working man. Ironically, the man never truly was at need at any point in his life (even really the War) came to profess that he hated the bourgeois. Given Communism's unique ability to help the proletariat, and the cruel nature of the brutality that the proletariat suffers on a day-to-day basis Sartre came to justify violence as a means to the end (improving life for the poor). Sartre claimed that the intense brutality of poverty in the face of a dominating bourgeois was tantamount to a form of slavery that could not be justified and even violence was justified.

Sartre was the revolutionary compromising to engage in history by taking sides and working with the revolution's shortcomings. Camus attempted to take his own side, criticized others for being too short-sighted to find a third approach (which Sartre lambasted him for because Camus did not offer a clear third alternative himself), and flatly rejected history as a construct - an end - which he felt should not be worshiped.

Interestingly enough, this disagreement was enough to ruin their friendship forever. Personally, this raises some interesting issues with me that I've been wrestling with. Without claiming an answer, here are some questions on my mind of late.

Given the media's complicity and assistance in supporting war, what can we do to fight against the media's bias for war?

At what point are conditions so terrible that violence is justifiable as a response?

How does one effectively fight against brutality in the world, particularly brutality used to enforce social hierarchies?

When, if ever, do the ends justify the means? How do you determine that?

Is it moral to support a system that can provide some help for some people, but also is complicit or engaged intentionally acts that brutalize or kill others?

Can reforms truly radically change a system?

Can a system truly be radically changed in a revolution in a way that guarantees a better reality for individuals than the reality which was overthrown?

Is property destruction violence?

Can property destruction help a cause?

Is it moral to be willing to sacrifice an indeterminate amount of people to a battle or war if you think the outcome will improve or save the lives countless more people? How do you quantify an argument such as that?

If you are unwilling to put yourself in a position that could get you killed or that would involve killing others, but your philosophical and political beliefs dictate that course of action, are you living in bad faith?

What duties does man have to himself, his immediate community, humanity as a whole?

The list can go on and on. This is a good stopping point for now. More to come later.